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 < [email protected]>: > 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 > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
