Dear friends, 

 

Without wishing to prolong too much what has already been a very long (though highly informative!) thread (so to speak), I thought that this might be of some interest: 

In the early 9th century Tibetan work, the “Two-Volume Lexicon” (sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa), which was compiled by a team of Tibetan translators working under the guidance of a group of monastic scholars from Aparântaka (Kashmir/Gandhâra/Bactria) and provides nirukta-style explanations of several hundred key terms in Sanskrit with Tibetan commentary, sûtra is glossed arthasûcanâd sûtra [read, of course, arthasûcanât sûtram]. 

Once more, SÛC, and nothing to do with thread, was prominent in the Buddhist understanding of the term. 

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études, émérite
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Jim Ryan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:42 PM
To: INDOLOGY@list.indology.info <INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"
 
Dear all,

Thanks to all of you who contributed to this robust and quite informative “thread” (sûtra!) on the proper derivation of the Buddhist term sutta from the Sanskrit. I tossed a pebble in the pond, I thought, which made
ripples beyond expectations. A thorough treatment of the issue that leaves open, perhaps, a fillip of sorts (this said without having yet read Nathan McGovern’s article.) Of course, the philological question rather quickly
leads to deeper issues regarding the conceptualization of types of text among traditions. I hadn’t even considered Jain notions of sutta/sûtra, comments on which emerged along the way. 

Best wishes,

Jim Ryan
California Institute of Integral Studies