Hello Artur,
 
  I see your point, and it resonates with things I have thought. In the period in which I am most interested, the exact original etymon of MIA sutta is largely irrelevant—what is crucial is knowing how the term was understood in the period, namely as equivalent to Sanskrit sūtra—and therefore I have not intervened in the discussion. I believe in the philological method, and in the absolute need for its technical rigor and intricacy. At the same time, I personally envision philology as a tool, a wonderful tool but a tool after all, that can allow us to enrich and deepen our knowledge of a social, historical, or linguistic past. I understand, though, that other people do treat philology as a goal in itself, and I have no objection to that.
  However, I am not sure whether this is exactly the case here. In the specific case of the etymology of MIA sutta, I would argue that knowing what exactly the practitioners of the śramaṇic religions viewed as closest to their sacred discourses can indeed tell us about ancient social understandings, affinities, or tensions (did they envision their texts as more akin to the Vedic hymns or to the orthodox ritual manuals?) and about the chronology of those dynamics.

   I wish, though, that when engaging not only with the general public but with the field itself, we could be more explicit about the social, historical, or linguistic relevance of a given philological problem. What exactly is at stake behind a technical conundrum is not always crystal-clear even to the professional.
 
  namaskaromi,
 
  Diego

 

 

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:04 PM Artur Karp <karp@uw.edu.pl> wrote:

I have long asked myself about the point of doing Indology in its purely philological guise.

The Angulimala-sutta conveys the images of violence and offers suggestions for resolving conflicts - irrespective of whether the Pali suffix -sutta is derived from the OIA -su-ukta or -sutra.  

But, perhaps, this differentiation affects our understanding of the text?

Artur

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

wt., 11 maj 2021 o 19:12 Artur Karp <karp@uw.edu.pl> napisał(a):

Dear colleagues, 

the question of the etymology of the Pali term sutta is interesting in itself. 

But - can its resolution broaden our understanding of the institution of slavery in ancient India? 

Would it help us to better understand the ideological bases of genocidal practices directed against tribal communities? 

The phenomenon of untouchability?

Best,

Artur

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

wt., 11 maj 2021 o 18:47 Rupert Gethin via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> napisał(a):

Could someone confirm the wider Prakrit evidence?

Tim commented with reference to the Pali commentarial explanation of sutta as suvutta:

But this is not really much to support sutta < sūkta, since the regular Pāli form parallel to sūkta includes the glide -v-, as Skt ukta ~ Pāli vutta and similarly in other MIA languages, which all seem to preserve the initial v- of the verbal root *vac- (Pischel §337), despite the vowel change a > u before a labial (§104).

But unless I am misreading something here, Pischel (§337) notes that Jaina Śaurasenī, Śaurasenī and Māgadhī all have utta < ukta

And Turner’s A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages includes Prakrit sutta under sūkta:

13545 sūktá ʻ well recited ʼ RV., ʻ eloquent ʼ MatsyaP. [su -- 2, uktá -- ]
Pk. sutta -- ʻ handsomely said ʼ; OG. sūta ʻ speaking properly ʼ.

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?page=780

Rupert

--

Rupert Gethin
Professor of Buddhist Studies

University of Bristol
Department of Religion and Theology
3 Woodland Road
Bristol BS8 1TB, UK

Email: Rupert.Gethin@bristol.ac.uk

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology