Update:
2010-12-14 03:50 PM +0800
TIL
lang-probl.htm
by Chi Hisen-lin, Journal of the Burma Research Society, XLIII, i, June 1960
Copied, and set in HTML by staff of TIL Computing and Language Center,
Yangon, MYANMAR. Edited by U Kyaw Tun (UKT), et. al. Not for sale. Prepared
for students of TIL Computing and Language Center, Yangon, MYANMAR.
Contents of this page
(UKT: The table of contents and the subheadings are my own.)
What language?
Chinese translations of the Tipitaka
Vinaya-mātrkā-sūtra
Dharmagupta-vinaya
Mahisasaka-vinaya
Sarvāstivāda-vinaya
Mūlasarvāstivāda-nikāya-vinaya-samyuktavastu
Chi Hisen-lin note
UKT notes
•
Cemetery H culture
Noteworthy passages in this file:
• Rice became a
main crop. [UKT: in Cemetery H culture]
Contents of this page
JBRS p09
What language was used by primitive Buddhism? This is a problem yet unsolved
among the learned circles. Based upon some new materials I wish to propose my
personal views concerning this problem. In the Cullavagga, V. 33. 1, there is
narrated the following story:
Now there were two Bhikkhus surnamed Yamelutekula, who were brothers born in a
Brahman family. They had good voice and were expert in conversation. They came
to the presence of the Blessed One, to whom they paid their homage and sat
aside. After having taken their seat, the two Bhikkhus said to the Blessed One,
"Bhante, now the Bhikkhus with different family names and personal names, of
different social ranks and families, have come to join the Order. With their own
vernaculars they have marred the Buddha's words. Please permit us to express the
Buddha's words in Sanskrit."
The Buddha reproached them, saying,
"You fools, how
dare you say, 'Please permit us to express the Buddha's words in Sanskrit!'
Fools, by doing so you could neither induce those who did not have faith in the
Buddha to have faith in him, nor could you enhance the faith of those who
already had it in the Buddha. You could only help those who did not believe in
the Buddha and change the mind of those who already believed in him."
After having reprimanded them, he preached the Dhamma for them,
and then said to the Bhikkhus,
"Bhikkhus, you are not allowed to express the Buddha's words in
Sanskrit. Those who act contrarily will be considered as having committed the
offence of Dukkata
{doak~ka.Ta.}." fn09-01
And finally the Buddha said,
anujānāmi bhikkhave sakāya niruttiyā
buddhavacanam pariyāpunitum
UKT 101123 (I need to rewrite this note because it now involves two words,
nirutta
{ni.roat~ta.}, and
sphoṭa which could be interpreted as the Word of God - a
heretical view according to the Buddha. Caveat: my
analysis may change! )
Though the question of using Sanskrit to express Buddha's
words should have been laid to rest with the above rule
laid down by the Buddha, it is not so because the question
resurfaced in our times around the meaning of the word of
nirutti . So it is imperative to concentrate on
this word and a work on it by Yāska
(यास्कः)
{ya-þ~ka:}, an ancient
Sanskrit grammarian who undoubtedly preceded the Buddha. Refer to Wikipedia articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirukta 090806,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas 090807,
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphota 101123 [Sphota could be
interpreted as Revelation or the Word of the Creator. See H.G.Coward,
The Sphoṭa theory of language : a philosophical analysis, Part 2,
chapter 5 - sphota2-5.htm
in this package].
[Regretfully, my notes
on this section in the files buddh-philo.htm and
brah.htm , and accompanying files, have been found
to be lost on 101107.]
At the present
Nirukta has been identified with Etymology. --
UKT 090807
{ni.roat~ta.} (PMDict-495) nirutti
(Sk. nirukti ) (PTSDict-370) in Pali means:
- one of the Vedāngas, explanation of words,
grammatical analysis, etymological interpretation,
pronunciation, dialect, way of speaking, expression.
Skt-Devan: निर्वचन
nirvacana n. etymology, pronunciation, utterance,
interpretation, election - SpkSkt
I am sure when Buddha used the word
{ni.roat~ta.} he would have used it in the sense used by Yāska
(यास्कः)
{ya-þ~ka:}.
Over the centuries another word has come to be used, and the word is
sphoṭa . While the
sphoṭa theory proper (sphoṭavāda)
originates with
Bhartṛhari, the term has a longer history of use in the technical
vocabulary of Sanskrit grammarians, and Bhartṛhari may have been building on the
ideas of his predecessors, whose works are partly lost.
Sanskrit
sphoṭa is etymologically derived from the root
sphuṭ 'to burst'. It is used in its technical linguistic sense
by Patañjali
{pa.tiñ~za.li.} (2nd c. BCE), in reference to the "bursting forth" of meaning or
idea on the mind as language is uttered. Patañjali's sphoṭa is the
invariant quality of speech. The acoustic element (dhvani, audible part)
can be long or short, loud or soft, but the sphoṭa remains unaffected by
individual speaker differences. Thus, a single letter or sound ('varṇa'
{wuN~Na.})
such as /k/
{ka. þän} 'the sound of
{ka.}-akshara', /p/
{pa. þän}, or, /a/
{a. þän} is an abstraction, distinct from variants produced in actual
enunciation. Eternal qualities in language are
already postulated by
Yāska
(यास्कः)
{ya-þ~ka:},
in his Nirukta
(1.1), where reference is made to another ancient grammarian,
Audumbarāyaṇa, about whose work nothing is known, but who has been
suggested as the original source of the concept.
The grammarian Vyāḍi, author of the lost text Saṃgraha, may have
developed some ideas in sphoṭa theory; in particular, he made some
distinctions relevant to dhvani are referred to by Bhartṛhari.
There is no use of
sphoṭa as a technical term prior to Patañjali, but Pāṇini
(6.1.123) refers to a grammarian named
Sphoṭāyana as one of his predecessors. This has induced Pāṇini's
medieval commentators (such as
Haradatta)
to ascribe the first development of the
sphoṭavāda to
Sphoṭāyana.
Secondly, what about the word 'Sanskrit' itself. Was
the Buddha referring to Sanskrit of the Vedas, or
Sanskrit of Pāṇini
{pa-Ni.ni.} who flourished about the same time as the
Gautama Buddha (probably at a later date)? It is accepted
that Vedic Sanskrit was passed on from master to student
orally. But what about Pāṇini's Sanskrit? Was
it oral or written? If written, how was it's script like?
The Brahmi (or Asoka script) ? On which material was the
script written ? The most likely was on the leaf of the
Palmyra palm the marks being scratches made by a metal
stylus.
A comparatively important problem of primitive Buddhism,
the problem of language, is involved in this story.
Buddhism during the period of its initiation may be
considered, in many respects, as a sort of resistance
or revolution against Brahmanism, the principal religion
that occupied the position of predomination at the time.
[{See UKT note on
Cemetery H culture
UKT01.}]
It was but natural that it should have opposed with
determination the use of Sanskrit, the language of
Brahmanism. In spite of the fact that during the 5th
and 6th centuries B.C., the development of the Sanskrit
language had reached its zenith, and if used, it would
bring many advantages for the propagation of the Buddhist
doctrines, but for the sake of carrying out his own
ideas, the Buddha would not consider the use of that
language and scolded the two Bhikkhus as "fools"
Probably because they were the descendants of a Brahman
family, these two Bhikkhus still had some old conceptions
in their brains. That was why they made the proposal to the
Buddha for the adoption of Sanskrit and incurred his rebuke.
If Sanskrit was not used, then what language did they use? For the propagation
of religion, the "policy of language" was a comparatively important problem,
which must be settled. The Buddha's last sentence in the above story was for the
solution of this problem. [end JBRS p09]
Contents of this page
But the point is that this sentence itself is rather ambiguous,
and when literally translated it reads:
"I permit you, O Monks, to learn the word of
the Buddha in his own language."
In the translation the meaning is comparatively clear,
but the ambiguity lies in the original Pali words
sakāya niruttiyā
(one's own language), which might be
interpreted either as the "Buddha's own language" or as the "monks' own
languages". For many years in the past this has been the point of contention
among Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist research workers.
T.W. Rhys Davids and H. Olderberg interpreted this term as the "monk's own language",
fn10-01 while W.
Geiger was of the opinion that it meant the "Buddha's own language".
fn10-02 Since they raised this dispute,
many Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist research workers have joined in the discussion
and a hot debate has been carried on. Generally speaking, they may be divided into
three groups. One group of scholars agreed with Rhys Davids and Olderberg,
another group accepted the opinion of Geiger, while the third one proposed a new
interpretation of their own. Those who denied Geiger's opinion included F. Weller,
fn10-03 A.B. Keith
fn10-04 and M.Winternitz.
fn10-05
UKT:
language : If one accepts the view that
language is just a medium of communication between two persons, -- for example,
the monk teaching Buddhism and the layperson learning it -- then there
is no ambiguity. Language does not necessarily mean words carried through the
air, it can also mean a sign language. How would a monk carry his message to a
deaf-mute person? Unless the monk used the sign-language of the deaf-mute person
(please note there are many sign languages which are different from each other)
, then the word of Buddha would be denied to a fairly large part of the world's
population -- the deaf-mutes!. See my further comments in
language2
E.J. Thomas proposed a new interpretation of the term and rendered the word
nirutti as "grammar", thus translating the sentence as "
I order you, Monks, to master the word of the Buddha
(buddhavacanam) in its own grammar."
fn10-06
But this is hardly justifiable, because the word nirutti
can by no means be interpreted as "grammar".
fn10-07
P.C. Bagchi had another new theory. He said that it was not a question of using
one's own dialect for reciting the buddhavacanam, but using one's natural
intonation for the recitation. His theory, however, does not have sufficient
ground, because nirutti cannot be interpreted as "intonation".
It seems that W. Geiger was in a rather isolated position, but he had a powerful
basis for his argument. He quoted the commentary of Buddhaghosa, the
authoritative commentator of Pali texts, as the basis of his theory. He said,
"Here the words sakā nirutti refers to the dialect of Magadha spoken by the
Samyak-sambuddha."
fn10-08
Then how is that so? To explain these questions and to settle these disputes, we
must make a study of the dialect spoken by the Buddha himself and the
process of the compilation of the Buddhist scriptures.
As we all know that Sakyamuni was born in the frontier regions of North India in
the territory of present Nepal. But he spend most of his time travelling in the
then kingdom of [end JBRS p10] Magadha (approximately in the present province of Bihar)
for the propagation of his doctrines. Thus the language he spoke might most probably be
the dialect of Magadha. Conjectured from different respects, no written record of the
Buddhist texts in whatever language existed during his lifetime.
According to Buddhist tradition, not long after the Buddha's Nirvana, his
disciple Mahakasyapa assembled five hundred Arahants at Rajagrha to recite the
Buddhist scriptures. That assemblage, was known as the "Council of Five Hundred
Arahants", because five hundred persons took part in the meeting. One
hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, the Buddhists again held another
council at Vaisali, in which seven hundred persons were present, and so it was
known as the "Council of Seven Hundred Persons".
According to earlier tradition, the chief purpose of this council was to
wipe out the ten points of erroneous views concerning the Vinaya.
fn11-01
But according to later tradition it is said that
this council lasted eight months, in which the participants recited and
collated the Buddha's teachings.
fn11-02
This supposition is apparently a bit exaggerated. It is possible, however,
that one hundred years after the Buddha's demise, some of the
Buddhist scriptures which were taught only orally, had been committed to writing
at that time. Thus this tradition might have implied some historical facts.
According to the opinions of scholars in general,
it was probably at the third Buddhist council that the possibility of
compiling the Tipitaka on a large scale presented itself.
fn11-03
That was the time when Asoka, a great protector of Buddhism
(whose ascension occurred in about 273 B.C.), was on the throne. The eminent
monk Tissa Moggaliputta assembled the monks at Pataliputra (present Patna) to
compile the Buddhist texts. We have mentioned above that the language spoken by
the Buddha for the propagation of his doctrines might have been the dialect of
Magadha. If that was the case, when the Buddhists compiled the Buddhist texts,
after the demise of the Buddha, out of the fragmentary scriptures orally taught
to them, the language they used must also be the dialect of Magadha. But it
cannot be pure Magadhi, for it is unimaginable that the purity of the language
could be retained after the duration of a long time when Buddhism had been
spread to more and more regions. Therefore, the German scholar H. Liiders called
this language used in primitive Buddhist texts as ancient semi-Magadhi. As Tissa
Moggaliputra belonged to the School of Sthaviravada (or Theravada in Pali), the
scriptures compiled under his supervision also belonged to this school. He also
dispatched monks to various places to propagate the teachings of Buddhism. The
one who was sent to Ceylon was Asoka's younger brother Mahinda (also said to be his son).
fn11-04
According to the tradition of the Buddhists of Ceylon, the extent
Pali Tipitaka was brought to Ceylon by Mahinda.
And Pali means the language of Magadha
(māgadhā nirutti or
māgadhikā bhāsā),
or in other words, Pāli is the language spoken by the Buddha and
the Pali Tipitaka is the only orthodox Canon of the Buddhists.
Now let us go back to the point about the explanation of the two words
sakā nirutti given by Buddhaghosa, and we may understand that it was his standpoint
that made him to interpret them in such a way. As he was an authoritative
commentator on Pali texts and stood for them, he would surely try with utmost
effort to procure an orthodox position for the Pali texts. And here lies the
reason why his interpretation is unreliable and subjective. [end JBRS p11]
Contents of this page
JBRS p12
From linguistic characteristics we may also elucidate that the Pali language
was not the language of Magadha. There have been various opinions concerning the
problem of the region in which the Pali languages was prevalent. Westergaard
fn12-01
and E. Kuhn fn12-02
considered that Pali was the local dialect of Ujjayini. From a
research of this problem in the field of inscriptions, R. O.
Franke came to the conclusion that Pali was the dialect of the
regions in the central and western part of the Vindhya Ranges.
fn12-03
Sten Konow was also of the opinion that the zone
of the Vindhya Ranges was the home of the Pali language,
fn12-04 because he discovered
many similarities between the Pali and the Paisaci languages,
and he fixed the home of Paisaci at Ujjayini.
fn12-05 At first,
H. Oldenberg advocated that Pali was the dialect of Kalinga,
fn12-06 and E. Muller followed his opinion.
fn12-07
But afterwards H. Oldenberg gave up his view and established a new theory, saying that Pali was
the predecessor of the Magadhi language.
fn12-08 Meanwhile E. Windisch
fn12-09 and W. Geiger
fn12-10
returned to the old theory, considering Pali as the dialect of Magadha.
fn12-11
UKT: language2.
Please note that this article by Chi Hisen-lin
was published in the Journal of the Burma Research Society, XLIII, i, June 1960.
His conclusions as well as the conclusions of the authors of the references
cited by him, were all written in periods in or before 1960. One of the papers
cited by him went as far back as 1884
fn12-07.
There have been more archeological discoveries made since 1960
(the date of publication of this paper), and the science of
linguistics has changed considerably. At the present, linguists have made a
clear distinction between the "spoken language" (now technically "language"),
and "written language" (now technically "script"). Since voice recording
machines suitable for field work were not available before 1960, all references
to "languages" must meant "written languages" and not "spoken languages".
Since no one has heard the Pali language spoken (if we assumed it was spoken at all),
I am not convinced of the conclusions on "languages" made by Chi Hisen-lin and
the authors cited by him. Go back to my previous comments on
language .
Although the above-mentioned views vary from one another, there is a
comparatively concordant point, that is, most of the scholars advocated that the
Pali language was a Western dialect, and such was truly the fact. The
declensions of the Pali words are similar to those of the language used in the Girnar
Inscriptions of the Asokan Pillars,
such as the locative case ending in-amhi and
-e, the accusative case in -ne, etc. But on the other hand, the
Magadha language
was an eastern dialect, in which r
{ra.} had become as l
{la.}, and
s as ś [UKT: in my version of Bur-Myan "s as ś
" should read: 
{þa.} /θ/ as
{þhya.} /ʃ/ ], while the nominative case of words ending in
-a, ended in -e, etc. There is a vast difference between the two
languages and they should by no means be confused with each other.
UKT: See
The Edicts of King Asoka ,
An English rendering by Ven. S. Dhammika, The Wheel Publication
No. 386/387, ISBN 955-24-0104-6, Published in 1993, BUDDHIST PUBLICATION
SOCIETY, KANDY SRI LANKA, Copyright 1993 Ven. S. Dhammika, DharmaNet Edition
1994.
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
The Girnar version mentioned in this article was
issued in 257 B.C. These fourteen edicts, with minor differences,
are found in five different places throughout India. In two
other places, they are found minus numbers 11, 12 and 13.
See Ven. S. Dhammika's
The
Edicts of King Asoka in TIL collections.
UKT:
Magadha language :
""the Magadha language was an eastern dialect, in which
r had become as l, " is acceptable, except for the
term "dialect". The term "dialect" is incomplete,
because a "dialect" is a subset of a "language" ,
and the author has not explicitly stated what language he meant.
However, if Magadi had been a distinct language -- a Tibeto-Burman language,
and being in the east, far from the place in north-western India through which
the Sanskrit speakers had filtered in from the west
(a view now being questioned after extensive archeological in the
Sarawati-Indus area), we could expect it to be relatively free from
the rhotic nature of Indo-European languages. And we should expect to see
/l/ in the place of /r/. I am basing my conclusions from my knowledge
of Burmese, a typical Tibeto-Burman language.
In the above paragraph we see "in which r had become as l, and
s as ś " : this I presumed to be
• r
{ra.} -->
{la.}
र U0930 Devanagari letter Ra --> ल U0932 Devanagari letter La
• s
{þa.} --> ś
{þhya.}
स U0938 Devanagari letter Sa --> श U0936 Devanagari letter Sha
There is a problem in the second statement because of ś
{þhya.}. Pali-Myan and Bur-Myan (Tib-Bur aka Tibeto-Burman) sharing the
same set of graphemes, do not have a basic grapheme to represent the IPA
phoneme /ʃ/. This phoneme is represented by a conjunct
{þhya.}
which indicates that /ʃ/ is considered to be a medial and thus cannot have
its vowel killed by a viram, whereas in Skt-Dev (IE aka Indo-European), it
is allowed.
Skt-Dev: श + ् --> श् - allowed
Bur-Myan:
+
-->
- not allowed.
This has prompt me to suggest that for Skt-Myan, a dedicated grapheme with
the "pure" sound IPA /ʃ/ be introduced. Since, the sound would be close to
/s/, the shape of the grapheme should be close to Bur-Myan
{sa.}
suggesting that it is derived from it by the application of {ha.hto:} (not
allowed in Bur-Myan).
Skt-Myan:
{sa.}
+
+
{ha.} -->
{sha.}
Since,
{sha.} is a grapheme representing a medial sound, it would not be allowed in
Myanmar akshara system. To show that it is a special case for use with IE
languages like Sanskrit and English, the shape should be modified to
{sha.}
Romabama:
{sha.} +
-->
{s}
Then I can safely transcribe English <she> as
{shi} . This would make more phonological sense than
{rhi}.
Transcription of English <ship> into Bur-Myan is problematical. My
older rendition as
{ship}
is unsatisfactory when we compare it to the pronunciations of
{saip} and
{sait}.
The pronunciation of <ship> is comparable to Bur-Myan
{hkít} 'time of" or 'age of' as in 'in our modern age'. My suggestion is to
spell <ship> as
{shíp}. Of course, spelling with an
{ra.}
as 
would be the most unsatisfactory.
I am waiting for comments from my peers who know Devanagari and Myanmar
especially from MLC (Myanmar Language Commission).
Based upon the above evidences, I feel we can safely come to the conclusion that
sakā nirutti neither means the "Buddha's own language",
nor implies "grammar" or "intonation", but it indicates
the "monks' own languages". The Buddha permitted the monks to learn
his word with their own dialects and vernaculars.
If the above evidences are considered as insufficient, then some more new
testimonies can be produced. The story from the Cullavagga as quoted above, has
many variant versions in the Chinese translations of the Tipitaka. Some of them
are enumerated as follows [end JBRS-p12]:
Contents of this page
JBRS p13
There were two Brahman Bhikkhus, named Usaha and Samadha, who went to the Buddha
and said to him, "The disciples of the Buddha come from different castes of
different places in different countries. Their language is not the same and
their pronunciation is incorrect, and thus they distorted the right teachings of
the Buddha. May the Blessed One allow us to carry out debates and compile the
scriptures according to the Chandas way (referring to Sanskrit), so that the
sentences may be arranged in order and the pronunciations corrected, in order to
unveil the teachings of the Buddha." The Buddha told the Bhikkhus, saying, "In
my teachings emphasis is not laid on rhetoric. What I mean is that the doctrines
should not be misunderstood. They should be taught in any language which is
understood by the people, according to their suitability." Therefore, his
teachings were taught according to the circumstances of the land."
fn13-01
Contents of this page
There was a Bhikkhu named Bravery, who was the descendant of a Brahman family.
He came to the presence of the Buddha, and after having worshipped him, he sat
aside and said to the Blessed One, "Venerable Sir, the Bhikkhus come from
different castes and have different names. They misinterpreted the teachings of
the Buddha. May the Blessed One permit us to rearrange the Buddhist scriptures
in Sanskrit." The Buddha said, "You are fools! That would be a
defacement to mix the Buddhist scriptures with a heretical language." He further
said, "Recite the scriptures in the language of the country according to the
custom of the people."
fn13-02
Contents of this page
There were two Brahman brothers who were versed in the Chandas-veda and later
became monks in the Buddhist Order. They heard that the Bhikkhus were reciting
the scriptures in an improper way, and said to them scornfully, "You venerable
sirs have become monks for a long time, and yet you don't know the masculine and
feminine genders, the singular and plural numbers, the present, past and futrue
tenses, the long and short vowels, and the heavy and light acents. In such a way
you are reciting the scriptures!" The Bhikkhus were ashamed to hear this remark,
and the brothers went to the Buddha and reported the case to him. The Buddha
said, "They are allowed to recite the scriptures in their own native tongue,
only that they should not misunderstand the Buddha's meaning. NO one is allowed
to mix the Buddha's word with a heretical language. One who acted contratily
would be considered as having committed the offence sthulatyaya."
fn13-03
In the Sarvastivada-vinaya, Vol. XXXVIII [end JBRS-p13]:
Contents of this page
JBRS p14
Once the Buddha was in Sravasti. There were two Brahmans, one being names
Gopa and the other one, Yapa, who had a devout faith in Buddhism and become
Buddhist monks. They had formerly leaned the heretical four Vedas, and after
having become monks they recited the Buddhist scriptures with Vedic intonations.
Then one of them died, and the one who was alive forgot some passages of the
scriptures and could not recite them fluently. He could not find a companion and
was unhappy of it. Thus he told it to the Buddha, who said to the monks, "From
now onwards anyone who recites the Buddhist scriptures with a heretical
intonation will be considered as having committed the offence of Dukkata."
fn14-01
Contents of this page
Once the Buddha was in Sravasti. At that time the Ven. Sāriputra ordained two
Brahmans into the Order. One of them was called Ox-given and the other one, Ox-born.
Both of them studied the recitation of Buddhist scriptures. Afterwards
they travelled about and came to a village, where they obtained many offerings
and took up their lodgings there. Now these two persons had formerly learned the
grammatical method of Brahmanic hymns. So when they recited the Buddhist
scriptures, they habitually followed their old method. Then one of them suddenly
died of illness. The one who was living was grieved by the death of his friend,
and forgot most of the scriptures through negligence. Thus he returned to
Srāvasti and came to the Jetavana Grove. After having taken rest, he went to see
the Ven. Kaundinya, to whom he paid his respect and said, "Venerable Sir, let us
review the scriptures together." "Very well, I shall recite them for you," was
the reply. After the elder had recited some passages of the scriptures, the monk
said to him, "Venerable Sir, your recitation of the scriptures is mistaken. The
vowels are not pronounced as long ones, and so there is something missing." The
elder said in reply, "I have always recited the scriptures in this way." Thus
the monk took his leave and went to see Asvajit, Bhadra, Mahānāma, Vasas, Yaśas,
Pārna, Gavāmpati, Vimala, Subāhu and Rāhula, to each of whom he said, "Venerable
Sir, let us review the scriptures together." "Very well, I shall recite the
scriptures for you," was the reply. After the elder had recited some passages,
etc. etc., the monk took his leave and went to see the Ven. Sāriputra, to whom
he paid his respect and said, "Upādhyāya, let us review the scriptures
together." While they were reciting the scriptures together the monk elongated
the vowels, and Sāriputra pronounced them with double length. The monk said,
"Venerable teacher, all the other elders are mistaken in their recitation. Only
you, Venerable teacher, are correct in pronunciation and grammar." Sāriputra
said to him, "You are a fool. You are mistaken yourself, and yet you slander
those wise men, saying that they do not know how to recite the scriptures. None
of the elders is mistaken in the recitation." Having been rebuked, the monk
remained silent. Then the monks reported this to the Buddha, who thought in his
mind, "All this trouble is caused by the elongation of vowels in the way of
singing hymns when the monks recite the scriptures. Therefore the monks should
not elongate the vowels in the way of singing hymns when they recite the
scriptures. Any monk who recites the scriptures in the Chandas (Sanskrit) way
shall be considered as committing a transgression. But one is not considered so,
if the vowels are elongated according to his own dialect."
fn14-02 [end JBRS-p14]
Contents of this page
JBRS p15
The above are quoted five different versions of the story. It is not unusual to
find different versions of one passage, one version or one story in the Buddhist
scriptures. There are similarities and dissimilarities in the above quoted
different versions of the story. The similarities indicate that they were
derived from the same origin, and the dissimilarities denote that they have been
developed along different lines. In spite of fact that some of them are in
detail and some are brief, but the fundamental contents are the same. Comparing
with the story contained in the Cullavagga, the fundamental contents are also
the same. Therefore, we may also say that these variant Chinese versions are
derived from the same source as the Pali version. It is necessary to make this
point clear, because it is on this basis that we can ascertain the
interpretation of the Pali version of the story in accordance with the Chinese
versions.
In these Chinese versions the same thought is expressed concerning the "policy
of language", namely, the use of Sanskrit was absolutely disallowed, while the
use of dialects and vernaculars was quite permissible. With this point in view,
the meaning of the last sentence spoken by the Buddha as mentioned in the story
in the Cullavagga is perfectly clear and has left no room for doubt. This
sentence which has caused contention for many years without a decision should
thus be rendered only as:
"I permit you, O monks, to use (your) own language to study the word of the
Buddha."
This conclusion seems to be quite plain and simple, and yet it factually solved
the problem of comparative importance in the history of Buddhism -- the problem
of language of primitive Buddhism. As we have mentioned above that Buddhism,
during its first period of propagation, was a sort of resistance against
Brahmanism. Therefore it attracted many followers among the oppressed masses.
These people were of different social ranks, speaking different languages and
coming from various castes of various places. If Sanskrit was adopted, or the
language of Magadha was used as the medium of study, it would certainly cause
many difficulties and would have an unfavourable influence upon the spread of
Buddhism among the masses. Therefore, primitive Buddhism adopted a liberal
policy of language, disallowing on the one hand, the use of Sanskrit which was
the language of Brahmanism, and on the other hand, not sanctifying the Magadhi
dialect spoken by the Buddha so as to raise it to the position of the only
scriptural language. It permitted the monks to use their own dialects and
vernaculars for the study and propagation of the Buddhist teachings. This had a
great advantage for approaching the masses and going deep into them. According
to my personal view, the fact that Buddhism during its first period of
propagation had such a great force among the masses, and that it could spread so
fast, was inseparable with its policy of language. On the other hand, at later
times Buddhist scriptures had many variant versions in quite a number of
variegated languages, unlike Brahmanism which could basically preserve the unity
and purity of its canons, and this was also due to the liberal policy of
language adopted by primitive Buddhism.
Contents of this page
fn09-01.
The Vinaya Pitakam, ed. by Hermann Olderberg, Vol. II,
The Cullavagga, London, 1880, p. 139.
fn09-01b
fn10-01. Vinaya Texts, III, Sacred Books of the East, XX, p. 151
fn10-01b
fn10-02. Pali-Literatur und Sprache. Strassburg, 1916, p. 5
fn10-02b
fn10-03. Zeitschrift fur Buddhismus, n. F. I, 1922, p. 211 ff
fn10-03b
fn10-04. Indian Historical Quarterly, I, 1925, p. 501
fn10-04b
fn10-05. A History of Indian Literature, II, p. 602
fn10-05b
fn10-06. The Life of Buddha, New York, 1927, p. 253 ff.
fn10-06b
fn10-07. Cf., M. Winternitz's A History of Indian Literature, II, p. 602 ff.
fn10-07b
fn10-08. Samantapasadika, ed. Saya U Pye, IV, pp 416-20
fn10-08b
fn11-01. Cullavagga, XX, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XX, p. 409 ff.
fn11-01b
fn11-02. Dipavamsa, V. 27 ff.: Mahavamsa, IV
fn11-02b
fn11-03. E.J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha, p. 170 ff.: Copleston, Buddhism, pp. 154, 171, 175
fn11-03b
fn11-04. Barth, Religions of India, London, 1921, p. 130: Copleston, Buddhism, p. 176 ff.
fn11-04b
JBRS, XLIII, i, June 1960
fn12-01. Uber den altesten Zeitraum der indischen Geschichte, pp.87
fn12-01b
fn12-02. Beitrage zur Pali-Grammatik, p. 6 ff.
fn12-02b
fn12-03. Pali und Sanskrit, p. 131 ff.
fn12-03b
fn12-04. The Home of Paiśāci, ZDMG. 64, p. 95 ff.
fn12-04b
fn12-05. Grierson, The Paiśāci Languages of North-Western India,
Asiatic Society Monographs, Vol. VIII. 1906,
in which it is said that Paiśāci was the dialect of North-Western India.
fn12-05b
fn12-06. The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. I, London, 1879, p. L. ff.
fn12-06b
fn12-07. Simplified Grammar of the Pali Language, London, 1884, p. 111
fn12-07b
fn12-08. Die Lehre des Upanishaden und die Anfänge des, Buddhismus,
Gottingen, 1915, p. 283
fn12-08b
fn12-09.
Uber den sprachlichen Charakter des Pāli,
Actes du XIVe Congres International des Orientaliste,
prem. partie, Paris. 1906, p. 252 ff.
fn12-09b
fn12-10. Pali - Literatur und Sprache, p. 5
fn12-10b
fn12-11.
Concerning this problem there are numerous literatures. Cf. Chi Hsien-lin:
"Die Verwendung des Aorists als Kriterium fur Alter und Ursprung buddhistischer
Textes," Collected Publications of the Academy of Sciences of Gottingen, the
Section of Languages and History, 1949, p. 288, Anm. 2.
fn12-11b
fn13-01. The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXIV, p. 822
fn13-01b
fn13-02. The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXII, p.955
fn13-02b
fn13-03.
The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXII, p.174. Cf.
the Mahisasaka-vinaya, Vol. VI
(The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXII. p. 39): "The Bhikkhus
came to become monks from different countries, and their intonation for the
recitation of the scriptures was incorrect. Some laymen sneered at them and
said, 'How is it, monks, that you are under the direct instruction of the Buddha
and yet do not know the masculine and feminine genders and the singular and
plural numbers in grammar?' Upon hearing this the monks felt ashamed and told it
to the Buddha. On account of this event the Buddha assembled the monks and asked
them, 'Was it really so?' They replied, 'It was really so, sir.' Then the Buddha
reproached the laymen from a distance, saying, 'You fools, why should you have
sneered at these foreign monks, saying that their pronunciation and grammar are
incorrect in the recitation of the scriptures?"
fn13-03b
fn14-01. The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXIII, p. 274
fn14-01b
fn14-02. The Revised Taisho Edition of the Tripitaka, Vol. XXIV, p. 232
fn14-02b
Contents of this page
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture 090805
The Cemetery H culture developed out of the northern part of the Indus Valley
Civilization around 1900 BCE, in and around western Punjab region located in
present-day Pakistan. It was named after a cemetery found in "area H" at
Harappa.
The Cemetery H culture is part of the Punjab Phase, one of three cultural
phases that developed in the Localization Era of the
Indus Valley Tradition.
[1]
It is considered to be part of the Late Harrappan phase.
The distinguishing features of this culture include:
• The use of cremation of human remains. The bones were stored in painted pottery burial urns.
This is completely different from the Indus civilization where bodies were buried
in wooden coffins. The urn burials and the "grave skeletons" were nearly
contemporaneous.
[2]
• Reddish pottery, painted in black with antelopes, peacocks etc., sun or star
motifs, with different surface treatments to the earlier period.
• Expansion of settlements into the east.
• Rice became a main crop.
• Apparent breakdown of the widespread trade of the Indus civilization, with
materials such as marine shells no longer used.
• Continued use of mud brick for building.
The Cemetery H culture also "shows clear biological affinities" with the
earlier population of Harappa.
[3]
The archaeologist Kenoyer noted that this culture "may only reflect a change
in the focus of settlement organization from that which was the pattern of the
earlier Harappan phase and not cultural discontinuity, urban decay, invading
aliens, or site abandonment, all of which have been suggested in the past."
[4]
Remains of the culture have been dated from about 1900 BCE until about 1300
BCE. Together with the
Gandhara grave culture and the
Ochre Coloured Pottery culture, it is considered by some scholars a nucleus
of Vedic civilization.
Go back cemetery-H-culture-note-b
Contents of this page
End of TIL file
