Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
I understand that there was no writing system during the Buddha's time, and that the Canon has so many contradictions that it looks like ideas from the time that it was finally put in writing may have made their way into the Canon.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
In your opinion which are the top three contradictions?Kamran wrote:...the Canon has so many contradictions...
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
There was a good article published in Tricycle last year, Whose Buddhism is Truest? At the time I was enrolled in Buddhist Studies at an Australian university, and the article was distributed by the Pali scholar there, who is quite well-regarded, so I think it is a pretty good analysis of the current state of knowledge of this question.
Beware, however, that the search for 'the real Buddhism' or 'the authentic Buddhism' can also be a bit of a trap in its own right. I think the intention behind the teaching always was for those who hear it, to simply practice it and observe it to the best of their ability.
Beware, however, that the search for 'the real Buddhism' or 'the authentic Buddhism' can also be a bit of a trap in its own right. I think the intention behind the teaching always was for those who hear it, to simply practice it and observe it to the best of their ability.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
I'm not sure if the Buddha spoke pali but is it really relevant? Our own languages have changed and our ways of interpreting language have changed. Meanings evolve, develop and degrade as they move through time. The ability to interpret a passage of language from over 2000 years ago, as it was interpreted at that time is no longer possible. The tool has changed. But is an "authentic" rendering of the Buddha's teaching as an accurate historical document that important to practitioners? If the fruit tastes sweet.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Here is a discussion of that article that happened here and it goes for a couple of pages:sunyavadin wrote:There was a good article published in Tricycle last year, Whose Buddhism is Truest? At the time I was enrolled in Buddhist Studies at an Australian university, and the article was distributed by the Pali scholar there, who is quite well-regarded, so I think it is a pretty good analysis of the current state of knowledge of this question.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p160505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Hi Pulga,
The first extant inscription in a language very similar to Pali has been made by a Jain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathigumpha_inscription" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=QYx ... 9&lpg=PA19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Journal ... f/9-10.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://gujaratisbs.webs.com/Abstracts%2 ... 20More.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A known scholar of Pali, Wilhelm Geiger wrote in the introduction to his book
"Pali Literature and Language":
"A consensus of opinion regarding the home of the dialect on which Pali is based has therefore not been achieved. Windish therefore falls back on the old tradition - and I am also inclined to do the same - according to which Pali should be regarded as a form of Magadhi, the language in which Buddha himself had preached. This language of Buddha was however surely no purely popular dialect, but a language of the higher and cultured classes which had been brought into being already in pre-Buddhistic times through the needs of intercommunication in India. Such a lingua franca naturally contained elements of all dialects, but was surely free from the most obtrusive dialectical characteristics. It was surely not altogether homogeneous. A man from Magadha country must have spoken it in one way, and a man from the districts of Kosala and Avanti in another, just as in Germany the high German of a cultured person from Wurttemberg, Saxony or Hamburg shows in each case peculiar characteristic features. Now, as Buddha, although he was no Magadhan himself, displayed his activities mainly in Magadha and the neighbouring countries, the Magadhi dialect might have imprinted on his language its own characteristic stamp. This language could have therefore been called Magadhi even if it avoided the grossest dialectical peculiarities of this language. As Windish has rightly pointed out, after the death of the master, a new artificial language must have been evolved out of the language of the Buddha. Attempts were made to retain the teachings of the Buddha in authentic form, and to impose this form also upon those portions which, although derived from the monastic from the monastic organizations in various provinces, were gradually incorporated in the canon. In connection with the designation of the canonical language as Magadhi, Windish also refers to Aar.sa, the language of the Jaina-suttas. It is called Ardha-Magadhi, i.e. "half-Magadhi". Now it is surely significant that the Ardha-Magadhi differs from Magadhi proper on similar points as Pali. For Ardha-Magadhi too does not change the r into l, and in the noun inflexion it shows the ending -o instead of Magadhic -e at least in many metrical pieces. On the other hand, as I believe to have myself observed, there are many remarkable analogies precisely between Aar.sa and Pali in vocabulary and morphology. Pali therefore might be regarded as a kind of Ardha-Magadhi. I am unable to endorse the view, which has apparently gained much currency at present, that the Pali canon is translated from some other dialect (according to Luders, from old Ardha-Magadhi). The peculiarities of its language may be fully explained on the hypothesis of (a) a gradual development and integration of various elements from different parts of India, (b) a long oral tradition extending over several centuries, and (c) the fact that the texts were written down in a different country.
I consider it wiser not to hastily reject the tradition altogether but rather to understand it to mean that Pali was indeed no pure Magadhi, but was yet a form of the popular speech which was based on Magadhi and which was used bu Buddha himself. it would appear therefore that the Pali canon represents an effort to reflect the Buddhavacanam in its original form. This theory would have been refuted if it could be proved that the Pali canon must have been translated from some other dialect. Sylvain Levi has tried to prove this. He points out a number of termini such as ekodi, sa.mghaadisesa, etc., in which a sonant appears in the place of a surd. From these data he infers the existence of a pre-canonical language in which the softening of intervocalic surds was the rule. I do not consider Levi's arguments to be convincing. Firstly, because all these etymologies given by Levi are uncertain. Secondly, because the softening of the surds takes place not only in the "termini" but also in a large number of other words. Moreover, in my opinion, no special case should be made out of this phonological phenomenon. For they merely represent one of the various dialectical peculiarities which are also met with in Pali. Thus, for instance, we find equally frequent cases of the opposite process (hardening of a sonant) as well as various other features which considered together prove the mixed character of tha Pali language.
If Pali is the form of Magadhi used by the Buddha, then the Pali canon would have to be regarded as the most authentic form of the Buddhavacanam, even though the teachings of the master might have been preached and learnt from the very beginning in the various provinces of India in the respective local dialects. The conclusion has been drawn -- wrongly, in my opinion, -- from Culavagga V.33.1 = Vin II.139. Here it is related, how two Bhikkhus complained to the master that the members of the order were of various origins, and that they distorted the words of Buddha by their own dialect (sakaaya niruttiyaa). They therefore proposed that the words of Buddha should be translated into Sanskrit verses (chandaso). Buddha however refused to grant the request and added: anujaanaami bhikkhave sakaaya niruttiyaa buddhavacanam pariyaapu.nitum. Rhys-Davids and Oldenberg translate this passage by 'I allow you, oh brethren, to learn the words of the Buddha each in his own dialect.' This interpretation however is not in harmony with that of Buddhaghosa, according to whom it has to be translated by "I ordain the words of Buddha to be learnt in _his_ own language (i.e.Magadhi, the language used by Buddha himself)." After repeated examination of this passage I have come to the conclusion that we have to stick to the explanation given by Buddhaghosa. Neither the two monks or the Buddha himself could have thought of preaching in different cases in different dialects. Here the question is merely whether the words of Buddha migth be translated into Sanskrit or not. This is however clearly forbidden by the Master, at first negatively and then positively by the injunction beginning with 'anujaanaami'. The real meaning of this injunction is, as is also best in consonance with Indian spirit, that there can be no other form of the words of Buddha than in which the Master himself had preached. Thus even in the life-time of Buddha people were concerned about the way in which the teaching might be handed down as accurately as possible, both in form and in content. How much more must have been the anxiety of the disciples after his death! The external form was however Magadhi, thought according to tradition it is Pali."
Professor Rhys Davids in the introduction to his Pali-English Dictionary says:
"the Pali of the canonical books is based on that standard Kosala vernacular as spoken in the 6th and 7th century BC..... That vernacular was the mother tongue of the Buddha".
Even K.R. Norman admits that:
"is is not impossible that there existed in India in the third century B.C. an unattested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that had all the features of Pali"
http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=XdC ... A5&lpg=PA5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Research by Dr Meena Talim shows that the language of Asokan edicts was very close to Pali:
http://www.exoticindia.ru.com/book/deta ... on-IHF006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aryanbooks.co.in/product.asp?pro_id=65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The prose parts of the Suttas are somewhat stylised for the ease of oral transmission, but the verses, for example, of Sutta-Nipata preserve the original live language, with its sometimes irregular forms.
Yes, they call it Arsha or Ardha-Magadhi.pulga wrote:Pali does seem to be quite close to the Jain Prakrit of the Acaranga Sutta. Do the Jains believe that Mahavira, the Buddha's contemporary, spoke Magadhi as well?
The first extant inscription in a language very similar to Pali has been made by a Jain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathigumpha_inscription" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=QYx ... 9&lpg=PA19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Journal ... f/9-10.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://gujaratisbs.webs.com/Abstracts%2 ... 20More.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A known scholar of Pali, Wilhelm Geiger wrote in the introduction to his book
"Pali Literature and Language":
"A consensus of opinion regarding the home of the dialect on which Pali is based has therefore not been achieved. Windish therefore falls back on the old tradition - and I am also inclined to do the same - according to which Pali should be regarded as a form of Magadhi, the language in which Buddha himself had preached. This language of Buddha was however surely no purely popular dialect, but a language of the higher and cultured classes which had been brought into being already in pre-Buddhistic times through the needs of intercommunication in India. Such a lingua franca naturally contained elements of all dialects, but was surely free from the most obtrusive dialectical characteristics. It was surely not altogether homogeneous. A man from Magadha country must have spoken it in one way, and a man from the districts of Kosala and Avanti in another, just as in Germany the high German of a cultured person from Wurttemberg, Saxony or Hamburg shows in each case peculiar characteristic features. Now, as Buddha, although he was no Magadhan himself, displayed his activities mainly in Magadha and the neighbouring countries, the Magadhi dialect might have imprinted on his language its own characteristic stamp. This language could have therefore been called Magadhi even if it avoided the grossest dialectical peculiarities of this language. As Windish has rightly pointed out, after the death of the master, a new artificial language must have been evolved out of the language of the Buddha. Attempts were made to retain the teachings of the Buddha in authentic form, and to impose this form also upon those portions which, although derived from the monastic from the monastic organizations in various provinces, were gradually incorporated in the canon. In connection with the designation of the canonical language as Magadhi, Windish also refers to Aar.sa, the language of the Jaina-suttas. It is called Ardha-Magadhi, i.e. "half-Magadhi". Now it is surely significant that the Ardha-Magadhi differs from Magadhi proper on similar points as Pali. For Ardha-Magadhi too does not change the r into l, and in the noun inflexion it shows the ending -o instead of Magadhic -e at least in many metrical pieces. On the other hand, as I believe to have myself observed, there are many remarkable analogies precisely between Aar.sa and Pali in vocabulary and morphology. Pali therefore might be regarded as a kind of Ardha-Magadhi. I am unable to endorse the view, which has apparently gained much currency at present, that the Pali canon is translated from some other dialect (according to Luders, from old Ardha-Magadhi). The peculiarities of its language may be fully explained on the hypothesis of (a) a gradual development and integration of various elements from different parts of India, (b) a long oral tradition extending over several centuries, and (c) the fact that the texts were written down in a different country.
I consider it wiser not to hastily reject the tradition altogether but rather to understand it to mean that Pali was indeed no pure Magadhi, but was yet a form of the popular speech which was based on Magadhi and which was used bu Buddha himself. it would appear therefore that the Pali canon represents an effort to reflect the Buddhavacanam in its original form. This theory would have been refuted if it could be proved that the Pali canon must have been translated from some other dialect. Sylvain Levi has tried to prove this. He points out a number of termini such as ekodi, sa.mghaadisesa, etc., in which a sonant appears in the place of a surd. From these data he infers the existence of a pre-canonical language in which the softening of intervocalic surds was the rule. I do not consider Levi's arguments to be convincing. Firstly, because all these etymologies given by Levi are uncertain. Secondly, because the softening of the surds takes place not only in the "termini" but also in a large number of other words. Moreover, in my opinion, no special case should be made out of this phonological phenomenon. For they merely represent one of the various dialectical peculiarities which are also met with in Pali. Thus, for instance, we find equally frequent cases of the opposite process (hardening of a sonant) as well as various other features which considered together prove the mixed character of tha Pali language.
If Pali is the form of Magadhi used by the Buddha, then the Pali canon would have to be regarded as the most authentic form of the Buddhavacanam, even though the teachings of the master might have been preached and learnt from the very beginning in the various provinces of India in the respective local dialects. The conclusion has been drawn -- wrongly, in my opinion, -- from Culavagga V.33.1 = Vin II.139. Here it is related, how two Bhikkhus complained to the master that the members of the order were of various origins, and that they distorted the words of Buddha by their own dialect (sakaaya niruttiyaa). They therefore proposed that the words of Buddha should be translated into Sanskrit verses (chandaso). Buddha however refused to grant the request and added: anujaanaami bhikkhave sakaaya niruttiyaa buddhavacanam pariyaapu.nitum. Rhys-Davids and Oldenberg translate this passage by 'I allow you, oh brethren, to learn the words of the Buddha each in his own dialect.' This interpretation however is not in harmony with that of Buddhaghosa, according to whom it has to be translated by "I ordain the words of Buddha to be learnt in _his_ own language (i.e.Magadhi, the language used by Buddha himself)." After repeated examination of this passage I have come to the conclusion that we have to stick to the explanation given by Buddhaghosa. Neither the two monks or the Buddha himself could have thought of preaching in different cases in different dialects. Here the question is merely whether the words of Buddha migth be translated into Sanskrit or not. This is however clearly forbidden by the Master, at first negatively and then positively by the injunction beginning with 'anujaanaami'. The real meaning of this injunction is, as is also best in consonance with Indian spirit, that there can be no other form of the words of Buddha than in which the Master himself had preached. Thus even in the life-time of Buddha people were concerned about the way in which the teaching might be handed down as accurately as possible, both in form and in content. How much more must have been the anxiety of the disciples after his death! The external form was however Magadhi, thought according to tradition it is Pali."
Professor Rhys Davids in the introduction to his Pali-English Dictionary says:
"the Pali of the canonical books is based on that standard Kosala vernacular as spoken in the 6th and 7th century BC..... That vernacular was the mother tongue of the Buddha".
Even K.R. Norman admits that:
"is is not impossible that there existed in India in the third century B.C. an unattested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that had all the features of Pali"
http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=XdC ... A5&lpg=PA5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Research by Dr Meena Talim shows that the language of Asokan edicts was very close to Pali:
http://www.exoticindia.ru.com/book/deta ... on-IHF006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aryanbooks.co.in/product.asp?pro_id=65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The prose parts of the Suttas are somewhat stylised for the ease of oral transmission, but the verses, for example, of Sutta-Nipata preserve the original live language, with its sometimes irregular forms.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Maybe, along with other dialects. I also believe that he knew early Sanskrit because He knew quite well their teachings (which I believe were taught in early Sanskrit). Gotama seemed to be familiar with vedas which, as I understand it, were recited in early Sanskrit.danieLion wrote:Did the Buddha know Pali?
Of course Pāli Canon has translations from other dialect into pāli. No doubt about that. I can't believe that if Gotama traveled in India (which consisted of many republics) and spoke to Kings and poor people - that he or they always spoke in pāli rather than their dialects.
With all this in mind, I question debating, hair splitting and overly analyzing some pāli words as unquestionable truth set in stone. Pāli is dead language today, and I strongly doubt that non-native speakers living 2,500 years later in another country and culture could know every possible shade of meaning. This gets even worse if that pāli word is already translation from another dialect.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
If the preservation of the Buddha's teachings are exemplified in the Pali texts, why do we have no record of the Buddha saying his teachings would or should be preserved in such (or any) way?
It's clear Pali was close to the language(s) of the Buddha, but what's not clear is if the Buddha himself actually cared to have his teaching preserved, and if he did, in what form. To wit, (from Dmytro's excerpt):
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
Add to this the comparative scholarship of Reverend Analayo et al we have even more reason to be sceptical.
For clarity: I don't believe scepticism is necessarily contrary to faith, and I don't officially subscribe to positivism.
It's clear Pali was close to the language(s) of the Buddha, but what's not clear is if the Buddha himself actually cared to have his teaching preserved, and if he did, in what form. To wit, (from Dmytro's excerpt):
So even if the Buddha knew Pali, we have no idea if the program that ensued post-mortem was approved of by the Buddha or even on his radar.After the death of the master, a new artificial language must have been evolved out of the language of the Buddha. Attempts were made to retain the teachings of the Buddha in authentic form, and to impose this form also upon those portions which, although derived from the monastic from the monastic organizations in various provinces, were gradually incorporated in the canon.
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
Add to this the comparative scholarship of Reverend Analayo et al we have even more reason to be sceptical.
For clarity: I don't believe scepticism is necessarily contrary to faith, and I don't officially subscribe to positivism.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Can we clearly distinguish where the live language ends and the imposed form begins?Dmytro wrote:The prose parts of the Suttas are somewhat stylised for the ease of oral transmission, but the verses, for example, of Sutta-Nipata preserve the original live language, with its sometimes irregular forms.
And doesn't an attempt to preserve--make static, consistent, formal--a live language imply a denigration of the original message?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Just for the record, I share Richard Gombrich's observation: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not the work of one genius."danieLion wrote:
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Is there a Pali word or words for our words "define, definition" etc...?Alex123 wrote:With all this in mind, I question debating, hair splitting and overly analyzing some pāli words as unquestionable truth set in stone. Pāli is dead language today, and I strongly doubt that non-native speakers living 2,500 years later in another country and culture could know every possible shade of meaning. This gets even worse if that pāli word is already translation from another dialect.
I don't see the Buddha engaging in definitionalism (formal, permanent proclamations of the permenent, static meanings of words) in the suttas like we're want to do as moderns.
Plus, I'm not sure Pali is as "dead" as we wish it to be.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Cool reference. Thanks. Would you mind citing the source?tiltbillings wrote:Just for the record, I share Richard Gombrich's observation: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not the work of one genius."danieLion wrote:
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Fortunately, the main teachings are repeated over and over again in the texts, so I just concern myself with the central claim of the Buddha's teachings, and take the rest with a grain of salt
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
Now, I shall haveto reread a number of his essays that I have xeroxed to see if I can find it.danieLion wrote:Cool reference. Thanks. Would you mind citing the source?tiltbillings wrote:Just for the record, I share Richard Gombrich's observation: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not the work of one genius."danieLion wrote:
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Did the Buddha Know Pali?
tiltbillings wrote:Just for the record, I share Richard Gombrich's observation: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not the work of one genius."danieLion wrote:
Add to this the transmissional, political, and historical challenges presented to the preservation/authenticity claim (Cf., e.g., the Tricycle article Tilt linked to) and we have even more reason to be sceptical that the teachings of the Buddha were preserved in Pali.
This looks very familiar. Probably from "What the Buddha Thought", in the bit where he disputes Schopen (and the other denialist-heretics) without naming them.