Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by dylanj »

I've heard people say that the Buddha was asked by 2 monks if they could teach in Sanskrit, & that he said no because it was only used by the elite portions of society & said instead that the Dhamma should be taught in local vernaculars. I'd like a source for this if it exists (presumably in the Vinaya)
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

Nowhere is this said and the idea makes little sense in context. I have heard this too and I think it comes from ignorance of the history of Sanskrit and confusion with a murky view of the unrelated effort to translate the Bible into emerging local languages in Europe.

When the disciples grew numerous and there was enough interest in Buddhism, the Buddha apparently did send out monks to expound his talks in local languages. They would then report back what they said and he or somebody would approve it as "what the Buddha said." If you look at the structure of much of Pali (a language formed later) canon accounts it seem clear that they are designed for translation or are the product of repeated translation (many repetitions of the same idea in slightly different language, use of many simple metaphors to make the same point, what appear to work arounds to make up for a lack of specific vocabulary, etc.) .
Last edited by Caodemarte on Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5614
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by robertk »

maybe this :

I allow you, 0 Bhikkhus, to learn
the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect. Cullavagga,
33,i



Cullavagga - Fifth Khandhaka: Chapter 33
1. Now at that time there were two brothers, Bhikkhus, by name Yamelu and Tekula

by birth, excelling in speech, excelling in pronunciation. These went up to the
place where the Blessed One was, and when they had come there, they saluted the
Blessed One, and took their seats on one side. And so sitting those Bhikkhus
spake to the Blessed One thus:
'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in lineage,
differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth (from the world). These
corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating it in) their own dialect. Let us,
Lord, put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse 1.'
'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put the word of
the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish ones, either to the
conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase of the converted; but rather
to those who have not been converted being not converted, and to the turning
back of those who have been converted.'
And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered a
religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:

'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse.
Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata
. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to
learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect 1.'



.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by DNS »

Even at the time of the Buddha, Sanskrit was spoken only in the royal court and by priests and intellectuals, and for this reason the Buddha refused to have his sermons rendered into Sanskrit verse (Vin.II,139). He wanted his teachings to be accessible to all, not just to a small elite.

http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=358
Ven. Dhammika references use the PTS version of volume number, pg number (I prefer the modern reference system of the Tipitaka book and verse, so not sure the exact book reference in the Vinaya).

edit: I see RobertK found it. :thumbsup:
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

Well, once again I confidently make a fool of myself by speaking too emphatically. Apologies to all. However, in my defense let me quote K. R. Norman's A PHILOLOGICAL APPROACH TO BUDDHISM, The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures, 1994:

"This reference to the Buddha refusing to allow his sermons to be translated is based
upon a passage in the Vinaya, but to translate the passage in that way is to ignore the
very real difficulties which are presented by two words in the original Pāli, chandaso
and nirutti. The first has been translated “into Vedic”, or “into Sanskrit”, or “metrically”,
or “as desired”. I cannot believe that “into Vedic” is a possible translation, but if “into
Sanskrit” is a possibility, then this means, of course, that the Buddha’s words were not
already in that language. In support of this translation, it has been pointed out that the
bhikkhus who made the suggestion were brahmans by birth, who might be thought to
favour Sanskrit in preference to the local vernaculars.
On the other hand, we might have thought that such learned people would have the
sense to realise that the Buddha preached in Prakrit because that was what the local
people spoke and understood, and it would be an act of folly to turn his sermons into
something which would be unintelligible to them. There is the additional point that, if
chandaso does mean “into Sanskrit” this would appear to have been unknown to later
translators who did turn the Buddhavacana into that language. Buddhaghosa seems to
have understood the bhikkhus’ suggestions as meaning: “Let us translate, as we translate
the Veda into Sanskrit”, presumably referring to a situation where brahmans would be
able to explain difficult words in the Vedas, when they recited them, in the same way as
we know that Sanskrit commentaries were written upon the Vedas. This, then, might
perhaps mean that the ex-brahmans were asking permission to gloss, i.e. explain, the
Buddha’s words as they recited them." (p.60)

Is there a convincing counter-argument? If we do assume that the Buddha did forbid translation into Sanskrit we have a new mystery. Why was Sanskrit used very early on and translations made into Sanskrit without an explanation by Buddhists who were clearly steeped in the accounts of the Buddha? Why didn't earlier Buddhists apparently understand this line as a prohibition of translation into Sanskrit? Or there any surviving early commentaries to the opposite effect that K.R. Norman missed? Is he wrong about Buddhaghosa or was Buddhaghosa wrong? Why would you translate into Pali, hardly the language of the common people, if you believed Buddha had forbidden translation into Sanskrit because it was a courtly (and fairly artificial academic and aristocratic) language? These are real questions.

When you read early translations it is quite clear that many of the early English translators were trying to read Buddhism as some sort of Indian version of their somewhat biased understanding of Protestant historical myths so I can see how this sort of translation would appeal to them. They might have been right, but it would pose greater mysteries in Buddhist history if so.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by aflatun »

Didn't we see a recent argument on the forum that posited Sanskrit as a later language than Pali? I believe it was an exchange between Dmytro and Caodemarte, but I'm likely not remembering the details correctly :shrug:

EDIT: This was the thread I was thinking of
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

aflatun wrote:Didn't we see a recent argument on the forum that posited Sanskrit as a later language than Pali? I believe it was an exchange between Dmytro and Caodemarte, but I'm likely not remembering the details correctly :shrug:

EDIT: This was the thread I was thinking of
I am not quite sure of the relevance of the comment or the linked discussion above, interesting as that was.

Concerning the text we are looking at: With the context of the early history of Sanskrit use by Buddhists knowledgeable in the early texts or stories, the Buddha's desire to have his message spoken in all languages, and the apparent absence of any reading of this line as a prohibition against translation into Sanskrit by earlier Buddhists, a "prohibition" by the Buddha would seem very, very odd. It would make little sense in full context. However, K.R. Norman's views above (he was an expert in early Indic languages after all) matches both the language actually cited as well as what we know of the context. He may be wrong. If he is, then we have to ask why the earlier Buddhists apparently were as well or decided to ignore this "prohibition." Bear in mind that I am not an expert in this field and there may be other research which contradicts this. I would love to see it if so, but have not been able to find any. I will not be upset if, after all, the Buddha thought one ancient language should not be translated into another ancient language!
Last edited by Caodemarte on Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by aflatun »

Caodemarte wrote:
aflatun wrote:Didn't we see a recent argument on the forum that posited Sanskrit as a later language than Pali? I believe it was an exchange between Dmytro and Caodemarte, but I'm likely not remembering the details correctly :shrug:

EDIT: This was the thread I was thinking of
I am not quite sure of the relevance of the comment or the linked discussion above, interesting as that was.

Concerning the text we are looking at: With the context of the early history of Sanskrit use by Buddhists knowledgeable in the early texts or stories, the Buddha's desire to speak in all languages, and the apparent absence of any reading of this line as a prohibition against translation into Sanskrit by earlier Buddhists, a "prohibition" by the Buddha would seem very, very odd. It would make little sense in full context. However, K.R. Norman's views above (he was an expert in early Indic languages after all) matches both the language actually cited as well as what we know of the context. He may be wrong. If he is, then we have to ask why the earlier Buddhists apparently were as well or decided to ignore this "prohibition." Bear in mind that I am not an expert in this field and there may be other research which contradicts this. I would love to see it if so, but have not been able to find any. I will not be upset if, after all, the Buddha thought one ancient language should not be translated into another ancient language!
Sorry for being vague! What I meant was simply, if Sanskrit post dates the language of the suttas, it would be odd for the suttas to say the use of Sanskrit was forbidden (I thought this was the implication of the cited scripture, at least as interpreted in that post). That's all! Hopefully that makes sense? I'm out of my depth here and wasn't asserting an opinion so much as confusing myself based on a memory of Dmytro's post :)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

aflatun wrote:....Sorry for being vague! What I meant was simply, if Sanskrit post dates the language of the suttas, it would be odd for the suttas to say the use of Sanskrit was forbidden (I thought this was the implication of the cited scripture, at least as interpreted in that post). That's all! Hopefully that makes sense? I'm out of my depth here and wasn't asserting an opinion so much as confusing myself based on a memory of Dmytro's post :)
The potted history below is subject to revision, but I think it is pretty well the orthodox view. This does not mean it is right, just my understanding of what is currently the view of scholars and researchers. In any case, none of this affects the truth or usefulness of what is recorded in whatever language and spoken by a person of any social status. That is what I believe is the Buddhist viewpoint and why a flat prohibition on translation into any language makes little sense in a Buddhist context to me.

In short, Buddha's words could have been translated into some clearly recognizable form of Sanskrit when he lived, but could not have been translated into the Pali of the Pali canon as the Pali of the canon postdates the original suttas.

Pre-classical Sanskrit is also know known as Vedic Sanskrit with some of the oldest and most archaic (but recognizable) stages going back to the early second millennium BCE (Classical Sanskrit is the standard form as established by the grammarian Pāṇini, around the fourth century BCE). Buddha lived sometime during 6th and 4th centuries BCE (or BC if you prefer).

AFAIK: Pali as we now know it was greatly standardized, regularized, changed by grammarians to be a canonical language. The Pali Canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha, apparently from translations from various other languages and a variety of sects. Linguistics tell us that Pali seems to be a blend of several eastern and western dialects together with some Sanskrit. This "original" Pali may have been some form of an old trade language like Swahili. Whatever the Buddha spoke it was probably closely related either to the language of Kosala or something related to Magadhi (as the commentators on the Pali canon state). If you re-define Pali as not as what is used in the Pali canon but as Magadhi (one of its source languages) you can say the Buddha spoke Pali, but it seems like saying Arabs, Malays,and the Dutch speak Swahili.

From "Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission" by Kogen Mizuno: "...However, recent studies show that although a little of the Magadhi influence is still evident in the Pali language, the basic characteristics of the two languages are different."
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by aflatun »

Caodemarte wrote:
aflatun wrote:....Sorry for being vague! What I meant was simply, if Sanskrit post dates the language of the suttas, it would be odd for the suttas to say the use of Sanskrit was forbidden (I thought this was the implication of the cited scripture, at least as interpreted in that post). That's all! Hopefully that makes sense? I'm out of my depth here and wasn't asserting an opinion so much as confusing myself based on a memory of Dmytro's post :)
The potted history below is subject to revision, but I think it is pretty well the orthodox view. This does not mean it is right, just my understanding of what is currently the view of scholars and researchers. In any case, none of this affects the truth or usefulness of what is recorded in whatever language and spoken by a person of any social status. That is what I believe is the Buddhist viewpoint and why a flat prohibition on translation into any language makes little sense in a Buddhist context to me.

In short, Buddha's words could have been translated into some clearly recognizable form of Sanskrit when he lived, but could not have been translated into the Pali of the Pali canon as the Pali of the canon postdates the original suttas.

Pre-classical Sanskrit is also know known as Vedic Sanskrit with some of the oldest and most archaic (but recognizable) stages going back to the early second millennium BCE (Classical Sanskrit is the standard form as established by the grammarian Pāṇini, around the fourth century BCE). Buddha lived sometime during 6th and 4th centuries BCE (or BC if you prefer).

AFAIK: Pali as we now know it was greatly standardized, regularized, changed by grammarians to be a canonical language. The Pali Canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha, apparently from translations from various other languages and a variety of sects. Linguistics tell us that Pali seems to be a blend of several eastern and western dialects together with some Sanskrit. This "original" Pali may have been some form of an old trade language like Swahili. Whatever the Buddha spoke it was probably closely related either to the language of Kosala or something related to Magadhi (as the commentators on the Pali canon state). If you re-define Pali as not as what is used in the Pali canon but as Magadhi (one of its source languages) you can say the Buddha spoke Pali, but it seems like saying Arabs, Malays,and the Dutch speak Swahili.

From "Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission" by Kogen Mizuno: "...However, recent studies show that although a little of the Magadhi influence is still evident in the Pali language, the basic characteristics of the two languages are different."
Thank you for that Caodemarte! As I said this is all somewhat out of my depth, I have some major reading to do in this department. I guess intuitively I agree with you that a flat prohibition wouldn't make much sense.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

Apologies for having spoken far too authoritatively and harshly in my initial comment. Thanks are due only to the actual experts whose views I hope I have not misrepresented.
ajhanalexander
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:02 am

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by ajhanalexander »

Caodemarte wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:50 pm "Nowhere is this said and the idea makes little sense in context. I have heard this too and I think it comes from ignorance of the history of Sanskrit and confusion with a murky view of the unrelated effort to translate the Bible into emerging local languages in Europe." :oops:
This is a false statement my friend. Please read Cullavagga - Fifth Khandhaka: Chapter 33.
WorldTraveller
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:07 am

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by WorldTraveller »

robertk wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:57 pm maybe this :

I allow you, 0 Bhikkhus, to learn
the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect. Cullavagga,
33,i



Cullavagga - Fifth Khandhaka: Chapter 33
1. Now at that time there were two brothers, Bhikkhus, by name Yamelu and Tekula

by birth, excelling in speech, excelling in pronunciation. These went up to the
place where the Blessed One was, and when they had come there, they saluted the
Blessed One, and took their seats on one side. And so sitting those Bhikkhus
spake to the Blessed One thus:
'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in lineage,
differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth (from the world). These
corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating it in) their own dialect. Let us,
Lord, put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse 1.'
'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put the word of
the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish ones, either to the
conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase of the converted; but rather
to those who have not been converted being not converted, and to the turning
back of those who have been converted.'
And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered a
religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:

'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse.
Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata
. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to
learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect 1.'



.
Difficult to say chandaso means Sanskrit. It could be, at that time, someone was unhappy about other Indian Buddhist schools were using Sanskrit. Here's from the page 2171 of The Book of the Discipline:
“Monks, the speech of the Awakened One should not be given in metrical form. Whoever should (so) give it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to learn the speech of the Awakened One according to his own dialect.”

‘‘Na, bhikkhave, buddhavacanaṃ chandaso āropetabbaṃ. Yo āropeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ pariyāpuṇitu.’’
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Where did the Buddha forbid use of Sanskrit?

Post by Caodemarte »

ajhanalexander wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:08 am
Caodemarte wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:50 pm "Nowhere is this said and the idea makes little sense in context. I have heard this too and I think it comes from ignorance of the history of Sanskrit and confusion with a murky view of the unrelated effort to translate the Bible into emerging local languages in Europe." :oops:
This is a false statement my friend. Please read Cullavagga - Fifth Khandhaka: Chapter 33.

Please read the posts above your post. In them, you will see that the this not a false statement, but simply stated too authoritatively as I have already stated. “Probably” or “Looks like” should have been used. The word “Sanskrit” in the Cullavagga translation appears be an inaccurate translation for the reasons already explained in the earlier posts.
Post Reply