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