Dear Professor Schlingloff,Thanks for reminding us of this important textual research, which has significant implications for our lexical understanding of the term sutta.Your conclusion would be in harmony with the indications found in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī,AA 4.3.110 pārāśarya-śilālibhyāṁ bhikṣusūtrayoḥ and 110 karmanda-krśāśvād iniḥaccording to which two groups of ascetics (mendicants) receive a name according to the Brahminical ascetic school to which they belong.In the Sanskritic-Prakritic, widely understandable diglossic vocabulary of the time, still preceding the origination of classical Sanskrit with several centuries,the term sūtra/sutta was apparently used with regard to (sometimes currently lost) texts for teaching, which were within their school a Leitfaden, thread or guidein relation to some larger body of discussions or texts, such as, also, the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas in case of the Śrautasūtras.This can never exclude (the development of) other contemporaneous interpretations and understandings of the term sutta : yogād rūḍhir balīyasī...With best regards,Jan HoubenOn Thu, 13 May 2021 at 10:53, Dieter Schlingloff <dieter@schlingloff.de> wrote:Dear all,in an article in ZDMG 113, 1964, Zur Interpretation des Pratimoksasutra, p.536-51 , I have given proofs for the thesis, that the Buddhist Pratimoksasutra (in its oldest form) is the earliest Buddhist text at all. This text is a real thread, a guide to korrekt behaviour for Buddhist monks. From this guide book, the term was taken over to the following texts concerned with teaching, the Buddhist suttas.Best greetings, Dieter Schlingloff.
Am 12.05.2021 um 14:36 schrieb Andrew Ollett via INDOLOGY:
Hi everyone,
I am reminded by Professor Paul Dundas of a few other points that might be relevant to this discussion:
- Paul Dundas (“Somnolent Sūtras: Scriptural Commentary in Śvetāmbara Jainism," Journal of Indian Philosophy 24: 73–101, 1996) says the following (p. 78: see the notes for the sources):
- The Jain position with regard to scripture and commentary upon it, of whatever type or period, is strongly predicated upon the acceptance of meaning as being superior to word. This can be seen clearly from the standard Jain etymology for the term “sūtra” which would derive it from the root sūc, “indicate.” A sūtra “indicates” many meanings which the teacher explicates through commentary, obtaining the sense from the root text in the same manner as a potter creates shapes from a lump of clay.
- Mari Jvyärsjärvi (“Retrieving the Hidden Meaning: Jain Commentarial Techniques and the Art of Memory,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 38.2: 133–162, 2010), cites Saṅghadāsa’s commentary on the Br̥hatkalpa (p. 138):
- Sutra [becomes sutta] just like supta; or sūtra has a double meaning [ 'sūtra is a thread']. Or it becomes sutta because it indicates [sūcana] the meaning, or is well-spoken [sūkta]. These are its etymologies: it 'indicates' or it 'sews,' or also 'it is produced,' or 'it follows.' These are the divisions [of etymology], and these are its names. Sūtra is like a person who is slumbering: unless it is "awakened" by meaning,
it cannot be known. Or due to the similarity in [words that have] double meanings, many meanings are joined together. A needle, even when broken, can be traced by the thread as long as it is threaded. Likewise meaning [is pointed out] by the sūtra. It 'sews together' words and meanings like a thread [sews together] jackets and so on.13
- The name of one of the older texts in the Śvētāmbara canon, Sūyagaḍa-, is often rendered as Sūtrakr̥ta-, but the first part doesn't correspond to the usual development of the Old Indic word sūtra-. Willem Bollée suggested that it might come from *sūca-kr̥ta- or *sūca-gata- (in his glossary to Studien zum Sūyagaḍa, vol. 1, p. 197). Compare the Sanskrit word sūcā.
Andrew
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:45 PM Andrew Ollett <andrew.ollett@gmail.com> wrote:
Since Rupert asked about the "wider Prakrit evidence," I can just cite the following verse that is included in the "late canonical" Anuyōgadvāra of the Śvētāmbara Jains (p. 91 of vol. 1 of Jambūvijayajī's edition):
Sūtram (giving a list of synonyms for suya, i.e., śruta, learning):
suya-sutta-gantha-siddhanta-sāsaṇē āṇa-vayaṇa-uvadēsē
paṇṇavaṇa-āgamē yā ēgaṭṭhā pajjavā-suttē
Cūrṇiḥ of Jinadāsa: gurūhiṁ aṇakkhātaṁ jamhā ṇō bujjhati tamhā pāsuttasamaṁ suttaṁ (i.e. deriving sutta- from supta-)
Vivr̥tiḥ of Haribhadra: sūcanāt sūtram.
Vr̥tti of Hēmacandra: arthānāṁ sūcanāt sūtram.
The idea of taking suttam from the verbal root √sūc is clever (via something like sūk-tra-), but of course √sūc is secondary from √sū (via the noun sū-cī́-), so maybe it doesn't work.
Sanskrit of uktá- usually corresponds to vutta- in Middle Indic (including Ardhamagadhi), and although utta- is used too under the influence of Sanskrit at a later period.
Andrew
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:15 PM Dan Lusthaus <lusthaus@g.harvard.edu> wrote:
Dominik,
The Aṅguttara passage contrasting sutta with vinaya would appear to pose sutta and vinaya as referring to two of what became three piṭakas (abhidhamma had yet to appear).Bhikkhu Bodhi translates that passage (and the following one) this way.
“Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One I heard this; in his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is the discipline; this is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement should neither be approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it, you should thoroughly learn those words and phrases and then check for them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline.{893} If, when you check for them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline, [you find that] they are not included among the discourses and are not to be seen in the discipline, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Surely, this is not the word of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been badly learned by this bhikkhu.’ Thus you should discard it.
“But a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One I heard this; in his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is the discipline; this is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement should neither be approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it, you should thoroughly learn those words and phrases and then check for them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline. If, when you check for them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline, [you find that] they are included among the discourses and are to be seen in the discipline, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Surely, this is the word of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been learned well by this bhikkhu.’ You should remember this first great reference.
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s note {893} is interesting:Tāni padabyañjanāni . . . sutte otāretabbāni vinaye sandassetabbāni. Mp gives various meanings of sutte and vinaye here, some improbable. Clearly, this instruction presupposes that there already existed a body of discourses and a systematic Vinaya that could be used to evaluate other texts proposed for inclusion as authentic utterances of the Buddha. Otāretabbāni is gerundive plural of otārenti, “make descend, put down or put into,” and otaranti, just below, means “descend, come down, go into.” My renderings, respectively, as “check for them” and “are included among” are adapted to the context. Sandassetabbāni is gerundive plural of sandassenti, “show, make seen,” and sandissanti means “are seen.”
Like Woodward, Bodhi will on occasion indicate when he finds the commentaries unhelpful or misleading.
Dan
On May 11, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Interesting that in some of those citations, Dan, sutta is in the singular. That suggests, to me, a genre rather than "texts". (I'm not on secure ground here; my Pali grammar is a bit rusty.)
On another topic, my teacher Richard Gombrich also taught me that sutta could be *<sūkta . But I'd like to note that he wasn't dogmatic about it. It was represented as a possibility.
Best,Dominik
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
--Jan E.M. Houben
Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology
Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite
École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, Paris Sciences et Lettres)
Sciences historiques et philologiques
Groupe de recherches en études indiennes (EA 2120)
johannes.houben [at] ephe.psl.eu
https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
https://www.classicalindia.info
LabEx Hastec OS 2021 -- L'Inde Classique augmentée: construction, transmission
et transformations d'un savoir scientifique