Bryan,
I don't really see a problem with deriving
sūtra from the root syū, but
in any case sūtra in the meaning of 'thread'
is attested from the
Atharvaveda onwards. So its ultimate
derivation seems irrelevant. The
usage in Pali is from the brahmanical and
means a single thread in a
composition. In other words, just as many
threads make up a tapestry, so
many sūtras make up a composition.
The use as a collective noun for a set of
sūtras is certainly later; so
the idea of a thread that unites a
composition, however plausible, must
be a later development.
I too thought I remembered that a suttanta
tends to be a longer sutta,
but the usage is not very consistent.
CPD has for anta:
7. at the end of a compound in some
instances apparently pleonastic
(padapūraṇa, Abh 791), but prob. giving a
more concrete sense including
'completion, entirety or system' of
something,
Lance Cousins
> Dear All,
> I had always assumed that /suttanta
/was formed on analogy with
> /Vedānta /which means "end of the
Vedas" and usually refers to the
> /Upaniṣads /which encapsulates the
highest knowledge of the Vedas.
> /Suttanta /therefore means "the end of
the /suttas/", meaning that the
> Buddha's discourses are the highest
knowledge of the Indic
> /sutta/sūtra/ tradition.
>
> However, I have never seen it described
in this fashion in the canon.
>
> As for the meaning of /sūtra/, as Lance
has pointed out it is usually
> taken as derived from the root /siv,/
"to sew" and is defined this way
> in the /Atthāsalinī:/
> /
> /
> /Atthānaṃ sūcanato suvuttato savanato
’tha sūdanato
> suttāṇāsuttasabhāgato ca suttaṃ Suttan
ti akkhātaṃ /(As 19^15-16 )/./
>
> //
> “Because of pointing out the benefits,
because of being well spoken,
> well-heard, and because of flowing
forth, because of the orders in a
> /sutta/ and because of being like a
line of orders on a string, a
> /sutta/ is called a /Sutta/.”
> But if it were derived from the root
/siv/syū/ (“to sew”) one would
> have expected the form /s//yūtra,/ with
the /–tra /suffix of means or
> instrument ( as in /gātra/, means of
going = limb; or /pattra/, means
> of flying = wing, or /pātra/, means of
drinking = cup). In Vedic, the
> past participle of /syū /is /syūta
/(“having been sewn”) and the
> absolutive is /syūtvā /(“having sown”),
so why should the /–tra/ form
> be /sūtra/? with the /-y- /omitted?
> I think a more plausible etymology is
that the word is derived from
> the root /sū,/ “to impel, to urge,
vivify, consecrate, authorize.” In
> this derivation /sū-tra/ is the *means
of *urging, impelling,
> authorizing, etc., or “that by which
something is [verbed, i.e.
> impelled, authorized, etc.],” and by
extension, "that which should be
> followed." These latter definitions are
appropriate to both the
> Buddhist use of the word /sutta/
(which, as has long been remarked,
> significantly differs from the
Brahmanical use of the term, which
> refers to a short, pithy aphorism), and
the Brahmancial usage.
>
> Walleser made the suggestion that it
was derived from /su+ ukta
> /("well said") /= sūkta > /Pāli
/sutta /in 1914 and Norman also
> repeated this in his Philological
Approach lecture (1997). That is
> also a possibility.
> It could also be derived from the Vedic
/sūtta/(= /su-datta/, “well
> given”) or the verb root /sṛ/ past
participle /sūrta/ (“bright,
> illuminated”. /Sutta /is a homynym in
Pāli and Middle Indic and could
> refer to many different roots, as shown
above (it also of course means
> /supta /> Pālī /sutta/, "asleep")
which we have been discussing in
> other posts),
> Best wishes,
> Bryan