From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled comments[edit]

Is this true: "In Hinduism the 'sutra' are concise descriptions of the Brahmanas, the holy scriptures. " ???

kh7 19:00 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. The sutras are various scriptures, often from separate streams of thought. The are heavily condensed studies, analyses, summaries of Hindu religious streams. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:19, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Kama Sutra[edit]

What is the relationship between the Kama Sutra and the Hindu canon? It is listed in the "other sutras" section, not the Hindu section. Thanks. ntennis 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sutra and Sastra[edit]

Dr. Yutang Lin says that a text written by him and not given by Buddha, cannot be called a "Sutra"; it is called a "Sastra". In Buddhism, Buddhists are allowed to offer their theses as long as they are consistent with the Sutras, and those are called "Sastras."[1]

Is there some other proof for that? Or is this enough? I would like to insert the information.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suture is used in English for a surgical stitch[edit]

The French 'suture' is also related, and is the name (used even in English) of the stitches used to sew a wound together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Panini desctribes a Sutra as a group of words, which contains the essence and expresses the full meaning in few words. The nature of Sutra we hold on to decides the direction and quality of our life. Spiritual Leader, Ravi Shankara says that "In order to fly a kite and guide it from the ground, we need a thin thread. While this thread stays on t he ground, the kite soars in the air. This Thread is a Sutra. Likewise, for our life to soar higher and expand into the vastness of infinity, what is needed? We need a sutra that acts as a link between earth and sky, between humanity and divinity. " [1].

We can alter the definition of the word Sutras and make it more generic rather than theoretical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy.went.wandy (talkcontribs) 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ shiva sutra book ISBN 978-938059232-9

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

SūtraSutra – The normal spelling in English is "sutra", not "sūtra". Google gives 2.23 million matches for "sutra" and 150,000 matches for "sūtra". For those who argue that "sūtra" is more "correct", it is in actuality just one of several possible transliterations. As "ū" is not normally used in English orthography, it can be equally argued that "sutra" is "more correct". It would be pronounced the same in English, either way. (For example, notice the long u in "nutrition".) Regardless, the guidelines say to use the most common English language spelling, which is certainly "sutra". Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - Although "sutra" might be considered to have entered English and on that basis justify the move, presumably the editors who have actually worked on this article have it WP:AT CONSISTENT with the various sutra articles underneath it for a reason. 06:48, 26 January 2008‎ moved Sutra to Sūtra over redirect: IAST (undo | thank). Is IAST codified in the guideline? Where is the relevant guideline? It isn't WP:COMMONNAME which doesn't apply to typographical issues and doesn't apply to romanization of arabic/sanksrit technical terms; this is a MOS issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sutra entered the English language about 200 years ago. The Oxford Dictionary of English gives "sutra (also sutta) n. ... from Sanskrit sūtra 'thread, rule', from siv 'sew'." gives "sutra ... Origin 1795–1805; < Sanskrit sūtra". Merriam-Webster gives "sutra ... Sanskrit sūtra precept, literally, thread; akin to Latin suere to sew. First Known Use: 1801". Regarding consistency, it should be noted that Kama Sutra, which has also entered the English language, is not given with macrons. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there is no denying that "sutra" has entered the English language with such spelling, I think an exception should be made for consistency with other articles such as Amitābha, Brahmā, Māra, Nikāya, Āgama~, etc. It is more encyclopedic and didactic for the benefit of wikipedia's readers to have the correct transliteration. It is better not to engender confusion and helping people wanting/having an rudimentary grasp of Sanskrit than than sticking to by-the-book rules. walk victor falk talk 00:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. "sutra" is the common English spelling, and we use English on the English Wikipedia. If consistency with Hindi was a concern, we would title the article "सूत्र", not "sūtra". Also, consistency with some people's idea of "correct" transliteration is irrelevant, because "sutra" is not a transliteration, even if it originated as one. It is an English word. (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per many others. Transliterations really always should be without diacritical marks unless absolutely obligatory. Red Slash 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. One Look has 27 English-language dictionaries that spell this word as "sutra". See also here, here, here, and here. No one gives "sūtra", not even as a variant spelling. The purpose of a title is to give the common English-language name, not to teach the correct pronunciation of Sanskrit words, which no one knows anyway. Gum-chewing coolster (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia policies and @Nakashchit edits[edit]

@Nakashchit: Welcome to wikipedia. Please do not edit war, and read the content policies and guidelines. Please review WP:RS, and discuss your proposed changes on this talk page. Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources for other wikipedia articles, and you must not delete sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusion of technicalities and ordinary Sanskrit words[edit]

In every language with well developed intellectual enquiry, certain words are borrowed from the ordinary everyday language and given a specialised technical meaning or "jargon" meaning. This article starts by discussing sutras in the ordinary meaning of the word, going back to Vedic times. Then there is a paragraph that includes this passage: "...a Shloka is a verse that conveys the complete message and is designed to certain rules of musical metre". This involves an abrupt, jarring change from the ordinary, everyday language into technical terminology. The technical literature did not exist in the Vedic time, so to throw in technical terminology in the context of a discussion from Vedic times is anachronistic. In any case, a technical use of a word should always be identified as such. As far as I know, the word "shloka" first appears referring to a particular metre in classical Sanskrit (the Bhagavadgita is written in shlokas); and then later comes to be used more loosely for any verse (the meaning in modern Indian languages), and later, according to the dictionaries, any aphorism or pithy saying. This is Sanskrit. It is easy to see how the jargon meaning cited in the article - which is a very precise definition - grew out of this last meeting, but if it is to be cited it should be identified as a technical term of a particular branch of learning in ancient India. In general, if a meaning is not found in standard dictionaries it is is not normal Sanskrit, just as would be the case with English. If I were to tell you that "secular" means over a long period of time, you would be quite right to say that it certainly does not in ordinary English. So if I use it in this meaning in a Wikepedia article, I would have to point out that this is a specialised meaning used by historians and social scientists. I suggest that whoever originated the paragraph either put it into its technical context, or simply delete it. Nakashchit (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nakashchit: There is nothing abrupt about it, given the context that precedes it. Instead of sharing your "as far as I know", it would be more productive if you identify a reliable source and discuss its views on a certain page number. Please review WP:FORUM. I have added a link to Shloka. It stays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sutra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)