Dear Prof. Ryan,

Esteemed colleagues mostly are pointing out here that such derivation is not likely or necessary, but it does not change the fact that the early Buddhist suttas are wordy dialogues (or monologues) that narrate the matters in a rather lively manner, but the Brahmanic sūtras are terse and extremely succinct coded messages, which do resemble "threads" (Sanskrit "sūtra") as such. The contrast to me is very striking. How can we explain it? For instance, assuming that sūtra and sutta are different words (and "literary genres").

Kind regards,
Gleb Sharygin

PhD Candidate
Institute for Indology and Tibetology
LMU Munich

https://www.academia.edu/19790273/Misunderstood_origins_how_Buddhism_fooled_modern_scholarship_-_and_itself

пн, 10 мая 2021 г. в 21:22, Jim Ryan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:
Dear all,

Sheldon Pollock in The Language of the Gods in the World of Men (p. 52) suggests that the Buddhist term “sutta” does not derive from the Sanskrit sūtra, but rather from sūkta. Sanskrit double consonant clusters do show regular assimilation, regressively and progressively, in Prakrit, where two different consonants become a double of one of them. I’m interested in hearing learned opinion on Pollock’s suggestion. I had not noticed this interesting detail, when I first read this book some years ago.

James Ryan
Asian Philosophies and Cultures (Emeritus)
California Institute of Integral Studies

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