Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
The etymology of the word has long been a problem which is why Hurvitz suggests its origin amongst the indigenous peoples of India (Dravidian or Munda, most likely, but we don't know all the language groups that existed at the time of the Indo Aryan immigration).
Hurvitz is only echoing a suggestion made by Schayer in 1935 and Thomas in 1937.
There are indeed a lot of non Indo-Aryan words in theTipiṭaka, some of which I discuss in my article in Buddhist Studies Review (2013: "Cultural Remnants of the Indigenous Peoples in the Buddhist Scriptures", p. 145-80). These are mainly place names and names of fauna and flora unfamiliar to the immigrants which were incorporated into the Indo-Aryan language. But there are also a lot of technical terms. The Buddha's funeral, for example, does not follow a "normal" Indo-Aryan practice but is based on indigenous customs.
In my thesis, I briefly discuss the problem of tathāgāta, which I attach for your info (it also contains the references above). There is also a short summary of the problems with the word in Mayrhofer's Etymological Dictionary (1963) on page 472.
Best wishes,
Bryan
From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 5:23 PM
Subject: [palistudy] Tathāgata
Dear Friends,
I have just come across a curious passage in the introduction to a translation of the Lotus Sutra, by Leon Hurvitz:
"Without much doubt,
tathāgata is a non-Indic word refurbished to have an Indic appearance long after it had come into current use among India's Buddhists."
I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight on the origin of this word as described in this quote - is the implication that it came from Proto-Indo-European?
Thanks,
Yuttadhammo