From:
“The Light of Majjhimadesa” - Volume (1), U Chandramani Foundation, 2001

Source:
http://www.rakhapura.com

Pali, in which only
the Buddha delivered his noble messages, appears to have been hallowed as
the text of the Buddhavacana. The language of the Buddhavacana is called
Pali or Magadhi and sometimes Suddha-Magadhi, presumably in order to
distinguish it from Ardha-Magadhi, the language of Jaina Canons. Magadhi
means the language or dialect current in the Magadha. In Pali Lexicon, the
definition of Pali is given thus: 1 pa paleti,
rakkhati ‘ ti pali. Since it preserves the Buddhavacana (words) in the
form of the sacred text, it is called Pali. In fact, the word Pali
signifies only “text” “sacred text”. 2

According to the tradition current in
Theravada Buddhist countries, Pali is Magadhi, Magadhanirutti,
Magadhikabhasa, that is to say, the language of the region in which
Buddhism had arisen. The Buddhistic tradition makes the further claim that
the Pali Tipitaka is composed in the language used by the Buddha himself.
3 For this reason Magadhi is also called Mulabhasa
4 as the basic language in which the words of the
Buddha were originally fixed. However, for Pali now arises the question,
which region of India was the home of that language which was the basis of
Pali.

Westergrd 5 and E.Kuhn
6 consider Pali to be the dialect of Ujjayini, because
it stands closest to the language of the Asokan-inscriptions of Girnar
(Guzerat), and also because the dialect of Ujjayini is said to have been
the mother-tongue of Mahinda who preached Buddhism in Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
R.O. Franke had a similar opinion by different means 7;
and he finally reached the conclusion that the original home of Pali was
“a territory, which could not have been too narrow, situated about the
region from the middle to the Western Vindhya ranges”. Thus it is not
improbable that Ujjayini was the centre of its region of expansion. Sten
Konow 8 too has decided in favour of the Vindhya region
as the home of Pali.

Oldenberg (1879) 9 and
E.Muller (1884) 10 consider the Kalinga country to be
the home of Pali. Oldenberg thinks that Buddhism, and with it’s the
Tipitaka, was introduced into Ceylon rather in course of an intercourse
between the island and the neighboring continent extending over a long
period. However, E.MUller bases his conclusion on the observation that the
oldest settlements in Ceylon could have been founded only by the people of
Kalinga, the area on the mainland opposite Ceylon and not by people from
Bengal and Bihar.

Maurice Winternitz 11
is of the opinion that Buddha himself spoke the dialect of his native
province Kosala (Oudh) and it was most likely in this same dialect that he
first began to proclaim his doctrine. Later on, however, he wandered and
taught in Magadha (Bihar) he probably preached in the dialect of this
province. When in course of time the doctrine spread over a large area,
the monks of various districts preached each in his own dialect. It is
probable that some monks coming from Brahmin circles also attempted to
translate the speeches of Buddha into Sanskrit verses. However, the Buddha
himself absolutely rejected it, and forbade learning his teachings in any
other languages except Magadhi. Here it is related 12,
how two Bhikkhus complained to the Master that the members of the order
were of various origins, and that they distorted the words of the Buddha
by their own dialect (Sakaya niruttiya). They, therefore, proposed that
the words of the Buddha should be translated into Sanskrit verses
(Chandaso). The Buddha, however, refused to grant the request and added:
Anujanamibhikkhave sakaya niruttiya buddhavacanam pariyapunitum. Rhys
Davids and Oldenberg 13 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 accorded with that of
Buddhaghosa, according to whom it has to be translated by “I ordain the
words of the Buddha to be learnt in his own language (i.e., in Magadhi,
the language used by Buddha himself)”. In fact, the explanation given by
Buddhaghosa is more acceptable, because neither the two monks nor Buddha
himself have thought of preaching in different dialects in different
cases.

Magahi or Magadhi 14 is
spoken in the districts of Patna, Gaya, Hazaribagh and also in the western
part of Palamau, parts of Monghyr and Bhagalpur. On its eastern frontier
Magahi meets Bengali. Dr.Grierson called the dialect of this region
Eastern Magahi (Magadhi). He (Dr.Grierson) has named western Magadhi
speeches as Bihari. In this time he includes three dialects, Magahi
(Magadhi), Maithili and Bhojpuri. Dr.Grierson, after a comparative study
of the grammars of the three dialects, had decided Maithili, Magahi and
Bhojpuri as three forms of a single speech. There are four reasons for
terming them as Bihari, viz.,

1. Between Eastern Hindi and Bengali have
   certain characteristics, which are common to the three dialects.
2. It becomes a provincial language like
   Gujarati, Punjabi, Marathi, etc.
3. The name is appropriate from the
   historical point of view. Bihar was so named after so many Buddhist
   Viharas in the state. Ancient Bihar language was probably the language
   of early Buddhists and Jainas.
4. It is not a fact that in Bihar there is
   no literature. In Maithili we have extant ancient literature.

Though Hindi is highly respected as a
literary language in Biharyetthe Maithili, Magahi and Bhojpuri languages
are deeply entrenched in the emotions of the people. The fact is that
Bihari is a speech distinct from Eastern Hindi and has to be classified
with Bengali, Oriya and Assamese as they share common descent from
Magadhi, Prakrit and Apabhransha. It is clear 15 that
an uneducated and illiterate Bihari when he goes to Bengal begins to speak
good Bengali with little effort but ordinarily it is not easy for an
educated Bihari to speak correct Hindi. Dr.Grierson has inclined to decide
that Magadhi was a dialect of Magadha (Bihar) and some parts of West
Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.

The area covered by the Buddha’s
missionary activities included Bihar and Uttar Pradesh including the Nepal
Tarai. So it may be assumed that the Buddha spoke in a dialect or dialects
current in those regions. Welhelm Geiger 16 considers
that Pali was indeed on pure Magadhi, but was yet a form of the popular
speech which was based on Magadhi and which was used by Buddha himself. It
may be imagined that the Buddha might choose a widespread language which
was used or understood by common people in the region, because through
which he could propagate his noble teachings to the common people. Thus,
Pali or the dialect of Magadha was more probably the language of the
common people and also a lingua franca of a large region including mainly
Magadha (Bihar).

References

(1). Dhamma Annual - Vol. 19, No. 10-11
(June-1995).
(2). Cf. the expression iti pi pali, eg., th 2 co. 618, where pali=patho.
Further, pali “sacred text” as distinct from attha katha, Dpvs.=20-20;
Mhvs.=33-100; Sdhs. (Saddhammasamgaha, ed. by Saddhananda); Jpts. (Journal
of the Pali Text Society) 1890, p. 535.
(3). Cf. Buddhaghosa: etha saka nirutti nama sammasambuddhena vuttappakaro
magadhiko voharo, Comm. to Cullavagga V 33-1. see samantapasadika, ed. by
Saya U Pye, IV416.(10)
(4). Sdhs. (Saddhammasamgaha, ed. by Saddhananda). Jpts. (Journal of the
Pali Text Society) 1890, pp.55(23), 56(21), 57(19).
(5). Uber dem altesten Zeitram der indischen Geschi chte, p. 87.
(6). Beitr., p. 6ff. Cf. Mur, original Sanskrit texts, II, p. 356.
(7). Pali and Sanskrit, p. 131 ff. By Pali I, of course, always understand
what has been called “Literary PAW’ by Franke.
(8). The home of Paiuaci, ZDMG (Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen
Desell-schaft).
(9). The Vinaya Pitaka I, London 1879, p. L ff.
(10). Simplified Grammar of the Pali language, London 1884, p. III.
(11). History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, p. 13.
(12). Cullavagga V. 33 1=Vin. II, 139.
(13). Vinaya Texts III=Sacred Books of the East, XX, p.151.
(14). The Comprehensive History of Bihar, Vol. I, Part I, p. 91, edited by
Dr. Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha.
(15). Ibid. P. 89-90
(16). Pali Literature and Language, p. 6.

The Pali Language and Literature

From: Pali Text Society,
http://www.palitext.com/ 

Pali is the name given to the language of
the texts of Theravada Buddhism, although the commentarial tradition of
the Theravadins states that the language of the canon is Magadhi, the
language spoken by Gotama Buddha. The term Pali originally referred to a
canonical text or passage rather than to a language and its current use is
based on a misunderstanding which occurred several centuries ago. The
language of the Theravadin canon is a version of a dialect of Middle
Indo-Aryan, not Magadhi, created by the homogenisation of the dialects in
which the teachings of the Buddha were orally recorded and transmitted.
This became necessary as Buddhism was transmitted far beyond the area of
its origin and as the Buddhist monastic order codified his teachings.

The tradition recorded in the ancient
Sinhalese chronicles states that the Theravadin canon was written down in
the first century B.C.E. The language of the canon continued to be
influenced by commentators and grammarians and by the native languages of
the countries in which Theravada Buddhism became established over many
centuries. The oral transmission of the Pali canon continued for several
centuries after the death of the Buddha, even after the texts were first
preserved in writing. No single script was ever developed for the language
of the canon; scribes used the scripts of their native languages to
transcribe the texts. Although monasteries in South India are known to
have been important centres of Buddhist learning in the early part of this
millennium, no manuscripts from anywhere in India except Nepal have
survived. Almost all the manuscripts available to scholars since the PTS
(Pali Text Society) began can be dated to the 18th or 19th centuries C.E.
and the textual traditions of the different Buddhist countries represented
by these manuscripts show much evidence of interweaving. The pattern of
recitation and validation of texts by councils of monks has continued into
the 20th century.

The main division of the Pali canon as it
exists today is threefold, although the Pali commentarial tradition refers
to several different ways of classification. The three divisions are known
as pi.takas and the canon itself as the Tipitaka; the significance of the
term pitaka, literally “basket”, is not clear. The text of the canon is
divided, according to this system, into Vinaya (monastic rules), Suttas
(discourses) and Abhidhamma (analysis of the teaching). The PTS edition of
the Tipitaka contains fifty-six books (including indexes), and it cannot
therefore be considered to be a homogenous entity, comparable to the
Christian Bible or Muslim Koran. Although Buddhists refer to the Tipitaka
as Buddha-vacana, “the word of the Buddha”, there are texts within the
canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event
post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been
composed after that time. The first four nikayas (collections) of the
Sutta-pitaka contain sermons in which the basic doctrines of the Buddha’s
teaching are expounded either briefly or in detail.

Source:  “Buddhist
Studies - Lecture Notes”, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University,
Australia,

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/asianstudies/Buddha/index.html

This is the last chapter on the
pre-Mahayana in this book. It covers a period from around the 6th century
BCE to the 2nd century CE. Within the scope of this chapter I will attempt
to simply sketch out various key aspects of Buddhist language and
literature over a period of eight centuries. This will be rather more an
investigation of the issues raised by the these topics than a detailed
study.

Three key terms which we need to consider
are Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit. We will also need to consider the terms
Magadhi and Ardha-Magadhi. What does Sanskrit mean? It has a root meaning
which does not actually refer to a language as such but to the concept of
something being refined or purified. The term Sanskrit can be found in
Buddhist texts used in the sense of meaning that which is refined as
opposed to that which is natural which is called Prakrit. Likewise in
Samkhya the principle of Prakriti is nature, hence Prakrit is
that which is natural. So in a sense then Sanskrit does not refer to a
language as such but to that which is refined or purified speech.

The languages in which the Vedas are
written are not quite the same as classical Sanskrit which was
standardised by Panini in about the 2nd century BCE. Despite the
variations in the linguistic forms from the Rig Veda, which is
considerably different from classical Sanskrit, the languages of the
majority of Indian high cultural texts are all in forms of Sanskrit. Some
of the later texts, such as the Puranas and the Epics are often not
in very refined Sanskrit, but they are still in Sanskrit. Also from around
the second century BCE onwards Buddhist texts began to be produced in
Sanskrit. These texts are often in a kind of Sanskrit mixed with
vernacular forms and which is often referred to as ‘Buddhist Hybrid
Sanskrit’. They are hybrid as they are a mix of Sanskrit and Prakrit. So
you should bear in mind that the term Sanskrit does not simply refer to
the classical standard form of the language but rather to a group of
related language forms which share a common heritage in grammar,
vocabulary and syntax.

In a similar manner the term Prakrit,
which means ‘natural [speech]’ refers to a group of language forms. Indeed
Prakrits appear in Sanskrit texts. For instance, classical Sanskrit
dramas, such as Kalidasa’s ‘Little clay cart’ include speeches by
different characters in various forms of Prakrit. For instance, whereas
the cook speaks in a ‘cook’s Prakrit’ and monkeys speak in a Prakrit
appropriate for monkeys, the king the leading characters and the narrator
speak in Sanskrit. This is similar to the modern linguistic situation in
India where within a single environment or location a variety of language
forms are spoken by different people. For instance in a monastery in Bodh
Gaya, the cooks and workers will speak in varieties of local dialect, but
the monks will speak in standard Hindi as well as their mother tongues,
and the leading figures will also be able to converse in English. In other
words the use of multiple languages according to social register is a
common feature in South Asia.

There are also three other elements which
need to be considered. First, there is the Dravidian element in the
language situation in India. This term refers to a completely different
language group nowadays spoken in the forms of Tamil, Malayalam, Telegu
and Kannada in the Southern states of India. There is also an isolated
pocket of the Dravidian languages in the Brahui language of modern
Pakistan. This language group is based on a quite distinct vocabulary and
grammar. Second, it should be noted, for completeness sake, that there are
also a variety of ‘tribal’ languages spoken in India which belong to
various other language groups again. These include the languages of the
tribal groups in Bihar, such as Santhali and Gond. Third there are also
languages from distinct language groups spoken in the Himalayan and
Burmese border regions of South Asia.

The situation at the time of the Buddha
was probably very similar with a wide variety of languages being spoken in
the area in which he lived. The dominant Prakrit language of his period in
the area where he was active was called Magadhi, as is the present Hindi
dialect of the area. This name is also preserved in the name given to the
Prakrit of many of the Jaina scriptures. These were compiled from oral
sources based on traditions active mainly in the Magadh area and the
language of these scriptures is called ‘Adha-Magadhi’, that is
‘Half-Magadhi’. It is a form of cleaned up Magadhi, half way between
everyday speech and a ‘pure’ language.

The most important reason to consider any
of this is that we need to consider how the Buddha would have addressed
his audiences. He would have needed to speak in such a manner as would
have been comprehensible to his audience. Clearly is a situation of such
linguistic diversity he would have had to modulate his forms of speech
according to the audience he was addressing. Speaking to a king and to a
gang of street children, you need to speak in different ways.

Also we should consider that modern
mass-education and media have been rapidly erasing the differences between
dialects but that the situation in pre-modern cultures is one in which
language forms vary considerably over short distances. There is a Hindi
saying that after every three villages the language (that is the dialect)
changes. So in that the Buddha was born on the Nepali border then his own
language would not have been the same as that of Rajgir in Magadh or
Sarnath in Uttar Pradesh. There are elements in the texts of the Pali
canon which can be regarded as indicative of slight differences in
language perhaps reflective of these ancient dialect differences.

Surely when the Buddha was addressing King
Bimbasara he would have expressed himself in a different register than
when he was addressing an ascetic who was visiting from another part of
India, such as Bahiya who had come from Maharashtra to visit the Buddha. I
would speculate that a skilled orator would express even the same notion
to both audiences in different ways in order to get the teaching across as
well as possible. If then you had been listening to both speeches you
would have heard two versions of the same teaching. Were you then to be
asked ‘which was the genuine teaching of the two’ you would have had to
say that both were genuine, although they were different in exact wording
as they carried the same teaching.

The question of how to teach and the
languages in which to teach is indeed addressed in the Pali canon. It is
said that the Buddha was asked when teaching in different areas should the
teachings be in a single language or adapted to the local language. The
Buddha said that the teachings should be made in the language of the area.
So disciples of the Buddha would have been teaching in a variety of
languages according to the contexts in which they found themselves, so
that people could understand them.

The Buddha is also said to have favoured
natural language, Prakrit, over refined speech, Sanskrit, as the latter
would not have been comprehensible to the general public. So what then is
the relationship between Prakrit and Pali?

In a sense the term Pali, like Sanskrit,
does not refer to a language at all. Richard Gombrich pointed out that it
actually means ‘sacred scripture’ and is a descriptive term for the
Theravada scriptures and the language they are in. It is a standardised
and consistent language based on earlier dialects. It is not exactly what
the Buddha said, it is a standardised form of what the Buddha said. It is
close to the Prakrit Magadhi languages that the Buddha probably spoke in,
but it is not identical to them.

The Pali canon features long set phrases
which are repeated countless times in identical terms. Such as the
formulation of the Noble Truths and set descriptions like ‘he saluted the
Buddha and sat down at one side of him’. These set doctrinal phrases and
stock descriptive elements are, however, normally contextualised within
passages which are each in a sense unique.

It seems to therefore be appropriate to
point out that we have no way of knowing when the tradition of explaining
the Pali canon with further commentorial material began. The textual
traditions now extant always feature the main texts and subsidiary
commentaries. It is known than that this tradition goes back in Sri Lanka
to the time of the introduction of Buddhism, when it is said that
commentaries explaining the texts were introduced along with the texts
themselves. (I am using the term text here to refer to a spoken text, not
a written text). This pattern of text and commentary is common in South
Asian literature. It is also a feature of non-Buddhist Indian literature
and a Sutra (Skt) or Sutta (Pali) means a ‘string’ or
‘thread’ and is the condensed essence of a text onto which a commentary
should be stung.

The repetition of set phrases and material
to contextualise and explain them is a feature which is typical of texts
with commentaries. Part of the motivation for this is clearly that it is
no good giving a teaching in a language nobody understands, it has to be
accessible. Likewise even if the main teaching is linguistically
comprehensible it will probably need an explanation to contextualise and
make the meaning clear to the particular audience which is being
addressed. Thus the issue of what constitutes ‘the speech of the Buddha’ (Buddhavacana)
is further complicated here by the possibility that we may have multiple
versions of reported versions of what the Buddha said, all genuine, but
all slightly different.

There is also an issue which is raised by
a reference in the canon to two Brahmin brothers who had become monks and
remembered the teachings and asked for permission to chant them in the
manner of a Vedic chant. But the Buddha said that this was not
appropriate. Despite this the Buddhist texts are chanted, but the manner
and styles of their chanting do not conform to the Vedic patterns for the
chanting of texts.

If we entertain the notion that the Pali
texts are not the actual speech of the Buddha, but standardised versions
of what he said, what then would be the relationship of the Sanskrit
versions of the texts to the Pali versions? The Sanskrit versions are also
standardised versions and would stand in similar relationship to the
original utterances.

If we put aside the Theravada claim that
the Pali texts are literal word of the Buddha then we have to consider
this possibility. The existence of other Prakrit versions also seems to
point to the same truth. None of the extant versions are simply ‘the
literal words’ of the Buddha, all textual traditions are, in one way or
another, standardised versions of the words of the Buddha. The canon
itself contains references to how it is important to understand the
intended meaning of the text and not get caught up in the literal meaning.

In the present day the various Sanskrit
and Prakrit versions of the canon are not all perfectly preserved. There
are large sections of the canons of a number of Nikaya Buddhist
traditions extant in their original language forms and, fortunately, more
extensive translations of these texts into Chinese. Therefore it is
possible to compare the Sanskrit, Prakit and Pali versions of some texts.

An instance of this is the Dhammapada.
This is available in Pali, Sanskrit, two Prakrits, Chinese and Tibetan
translations. The various traditions do not have exactly the same text.
The number of verses vary, the order of the verses vary and the texts of
the verses vary and to some extent even the meaning of individual verses
vary.

The common endeavour behind all of this
was clearly a constant effort by different people in diverse locations to
keep the Buddha’s teachings comprehensible. For some people it seemed that
Pali was the best, for some Prakrits, for some a widely know standard
language, Sanskrit, seemed the most appropriate. For some it was necessary
to translate the texts into totally new languages, such as Chinese. In the
article by (I have forgotten his name) on the translation of the Lotus
Sutra into Chinese there is a fine description of this translation
process. It needed one or more Indian Pandits and one or more central
Asian and Chinese Pandits who would sit together. The India Pandit reads
out the text to the Chinese Pandit who writes it down and then it is
compared for meaning by the various people involved. In the particular
case that was being studied in this article it is argued that although the
text is described as being in Sanskrit, the Indian Pandit was apparently
reading it out in Prakrit based on the evidence of the kinds of mistakes
that were being made in translation. So this suggests that not only do we
need to consider the languages of the written forms of the texts but of
the spoken forms of exposition which were employed. We must remember then
that the text consists of the text, the expounder and the listener.

One other point about the linguistic
changes in the growth of the canon. It seems to reflect to some extent the
geographical spread of Buddhism. By the second century CE Buddhism had
spread throughout South Asia and into Central Asia and China. Therefore
the issue of how to give the teachings must have been of prime concern in
the Buddhist world. The common consensus was clearly that the texts needed
to be translated into languages appropriate for the peoples of the areas
in which Buddhism was active. But at the same time there is of course the
overarching need to maintain the meaning of the teachings while the form
of expression varies. Within the North Indian linguistic area is was
possible to maintain key terms in forms which were commonly employed,
sukha, dukkha, dharma, karma, nirvana, samsara, etc.

But, once the texts started being
translated into Chinese a new set of problems was apparent. Just as terms
such as dharma, nirvana, samsara present problems for translation
into English, so to is there a problem when translating such terms into
Chinese. There was, for instance, no common view of reincarnation
samsara as a given truth in Chinese.

Interestingly enough the first school of
Chinese translation, the old school, translated by finding the most
similar Chinese terms available for Indic terms, normally finding terms
from Taoism that were equivalent. Thus the Buddha became a teacher of the
Tao rather than the dharma. This translation approach was standard
from the beginnings in the 1st/2nd century CE up to around the 5th
century. At this point the translators revised their views and
retranslated the texts again using Chinese equivalent versions of the
Indic terms rather than Taoist equivalents.

So was the canon of the Nikaya Buddhist
traditions exactly the same for all the traditions? I have indicated above
that in the case of the Dhammapada there were variations between
the different traditions. Variations in the number of verses and verses
that are common to all traditions and unique to individual traditions. You
cannot simply say that one version is the original version, yet it is
desirable to consider how the versions related to each other. It is likely
that non of the extant versions are the original version as oral
traditions are often more fluid than textual traditions. So rather than
saying that any one textual version it might be better to propose that all
the versions are but windows onto an earlier oral tradition. There are in
the case of other texts instances where the Pali versions of texts seem
more developed than other versions. For instance the Pali
Mahaparinibbana sutta seems more complex than the version translated
into Chinese from the Sanskrit Sarvastivada tradition. The latter having a
more simple description of the funeral rites and the former a more
elaborate version.

There are basically three parts of the
Nikaya Buddhist canon. The Sutta pitaka, the Vinaya pitaka
and the Abhidhamma pitaka. The Sutta pitaka is fairly
consistent in some parts over the various versions, in particular the
Digha and Majjima, Anguttara and Samyakta Nikayas are
fairly consistent in their contents, if not in the exact forms of the
texts.

However the next Nikaya,
Khuddaka Nikaya which in the Pali version contains 14 texts has a much
greater variation in its contents. It includes the Khuddaka Pattha,
a sort of early version of a collection of the chants for daily recitation
and the Dhammapada, which I have already noted has considerable
variations between the various versions. The next text is the Udana,
which at least in the Sarva stiva da version is similar to the name given
to the Dhammapada which is called the Udanavarga. There is
also the Itivuttika further sayings of the Buddha and the jatakas.
The number of the jatakas also varies from tradition to tradition.
There are also instances of completely different works being included in
this part of the canon by different traditions.

The Sarvastivada tradition included a text
called the Mahavastu in the canon, a kind of life of the Buddha,
but the Theravada tradition does not include this text. While the
Theravada tradition included the Vimanavattu and the
Pettavatu in its canon, tales on the good and bad results of giving or
not giving to the samgha. These last two texts are regarded as very
late by scholars. So to are the following texts called the Buddhavamsa,
an account of the previous 24 Buddhas and the Cariya-pitaka which
is an account of how the Buddha manifested the ten perfections in his
previous lives as a Bodhisattva. The very fact that the title of the last
includes the term pitaka in its title, which is a term that means
basket or winnowing fan suggest that it must have come from a time when
the canon could be put into baskets, clearly only possible once it had
been written down.

The Pali canon was first written down in
the first century BCE in Sri Lanka according to Sri Lankan sources. The
traditional explanation of this is that it was due to fear of parts of the
canon getting lost that led to it being written down. It is said that
during a famine there was only a only a single monk left alive who knew
one section of it and this was the cause of it being set down in writing.
You may think it was odd that it was not previously written down, but
there seems to have been a reluctance to write things down in ancient
India.

To return to the contents of the canon the
next part is the Vinaya pitaka which includes details on how the
monks and nuns should live and stories to explain the rules of the
monastic code. Even in the fifth century CE when Chinese pilgrims were
visiting India and trying to get copies of the Vinaya they found it
quite difficult as in many places it existed only in the form of oral
tradition. The reluctance to commit to writing parts of the canon seems to
have been a long standing aspect of the tradition in India. People simply
preferred to remember the whole thing. It was indeed one specialisation
that monks could have was to memorise entire parts of the canon, and
memorisation of the Vinaya pitaka was apparently a common
phenomena.

The last part of the canon is the
Abhidhamma pitaka, a philosophical study of the Buddha’s teachings.
This contains seven works in the Theravada version. In the Sarva stiva da
version the number and nature of the works was somewhat different. Certain
parts show evidences of having been based on similar earlier traditions,
others are clearly distinctive contributions of the various schools. It is
not clear if all schools had their own Abhidhamma pitaka traditions
or they were shared in common by various traditions. The main
Abhidhamma pitaka traditions seem to have been those of the Theravada
and the Sarva stiva da traditions.

The different Abhidhamma pitaka
traditions are acknowledged to be later parts of the canon which were not
in existence at the time of the first council and they post date the
Sutta and Vinaya pitakas. There are considerable variations
between the different philosophical traditions. The Theravada tradition
held that there were only four realities rupa, citta, cetasaka and
Nibbana, whereas the Sarva stiva da tradition held that
there were five realities and included space a ka sa as a fifth
reality. Also whilst the Theravada tradition held that only the present
moment ‘existed’ when things were perceived, the Sarva stiva da
tradition held that things ‘existed’ in the past, present and future. This
last view accounts for the name of the tradition which means ‘all exists’.
Due to this it is natural that the philosophical texts vary in their
contents. Despite sharing a common interest in philosophical analysis.
Indeed the differences between the traditions form the basis for a
Theravada tradition text, the Katthavattu or ‘Points of
controversy’ which outlines the differences between the traditions as seen
from a Theravada viewpoint.

A point of note in this is that in the
Katthavattu the philosophical position on the possibility of
transferring merit to deceased relatives of the Theravada tradition is put
as that it is impossible in distinction from that of the other schools
which say that it is possible. But, this viewpoint also conflicts with the
views expressed in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Theravada
canon itself, in which the transfer of merit is clearly regarded as
possible. A further twist to this issue is that in the later text called
Milanda Panha a compromise is suggested that merit can be
transferred to some classes of preta, and this is the current view
of most Theravada tradition followers.

There is a further question which is worth
addressing here is. ‘What parts of the Nikaya Buddhist canon are
also accepted by Mahayana Buddhist traditions?’ Interestingly enough
though the question becomes not really what are accepted texts, so much as
what are texts that interest different traditions. The Sutta texts
for instance are accepted as genuine by the Mahayana tradition, but they
are of little interest to the Mahayana it seems. However, almost all the
traditions agree on the importance of the Dhammapada as the essence
of the Buddha’s teachings.

The Vinaya pitaka is also a
commonly held part of the early canon. Although that majority of East
Asian and Himalayan traditions follow the Sarva stiva da Vinaya
rather than the Theravada Vinaya, however there are in theory no
major differences. This is of course quite separate from the question of
how the Vinaya is interpreted which evidently varies widely between
the Northern and Southern traditions.

The Abhidhamma contains almost no
texts which are common between Nikaya Buddhists, let alone between
the Nikaya Buddhists and the Mahayana Buddhists. However, there is
a similar fascination with philosophy in all the traditions.

It is also vital to realise that there is
much in Theravada tradition which is unique to it and not held in common
with other Nikaya Buddhist traditions. The great synthesis of
teachings in the Visuddhimagga, ‘The Path of Purification’ by
Buddhaghosa which was composed in the 5th century CE is distinctly
Theravada in its viewpoint. It was based on a translation into Pali
of the existing Singhalese commentaries on the canon and records
traditions which may well go back in origin to India but had undergone
centuries of evolution in Sri Lanka. Buddhaghosa himself was from North
India, from near Bodh Gaya and went to Sri Lanka to translate their
vernacular commentaries into Pali.

The famous Sri Lankan chronicles, such as
the Mahavamsa are also distinctly Sri Lankan Theravada creations
that link the history of Buddhism to that of the ruling dynasties of Sri
Lanka.

There was also a continuous tradition of
creating new Pali texts in South East Asia, in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia
and Laos. It is interesting to note that in this case the argument for
Pali as the sacred language has completely altered. The early argument for
Pali it seems was, as suggested above, that it was comprehensible to the
people as it was close to everyday speech. Evidently in Sri Lanka and
South East Asia this was not the case. Rather it was seen as being the
authentic language of the Buddha. In a sense then it has become a kind of
purified language whose function is akin to that of Sanskrit in India, a
kind of sacred lingua franca comprehensible over a wide area and
felt to be the essence of refinement and imbued with great power and
sophistication.

Finally, as an epilogue let us consider
the case of the earliest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered. A few years
ago the British Library in London was approached to find out if it was
interested in acquiring what appeared to be some old manuscripts which had
emerged from war torn Afghanistan. These were a collection of rolled up
birch bark manuscripts. These are very difficult materials to deal with as
they normally crumble into dust as you touch them. In this case they were
stored in urns and they were purchased in the urns. The library spent a
year and a half gradually humidifying and unrolling the manuscripts a
millimetre at a time and ended up with fragile sheets of birch bark
sandwiched between perspex sheets. It should be born in mind that birch
bark is a bit like vellum, as long as its kept in normal conditions it is
pliable and an excellent writing surface, it only become so crumbly if
left to dry out in an arid environment for two thousand years. These were
then photographed and digitised. They are a very exciting discovery as it
has become apparent that they date from around the first century CE. They
are written in a dialect of Prakrit in a script called Kharoshti,
and the number of scholars it is said who can read this script are said to
be merely a handful. The Kharoshti script was popular in the North
Western part of India and dropped out of use by the time of the Islamic
invasions of India. The group of scholars who are working on these
manuscripts are still working on deciphering them.

The initial reports indicate that they are
all fragments of works. This turns out to be because they are fragments of
old manuscripts which had been re-copied and the old manuscripts were
interred in an urn and buried as if they the body of the Buddha. This in
itself is fascinating as it shows that the Buddhists buried their old
manuscripts, Hindu’s also treat their manuscripts like their dead and
prefer to ideally place them into rivers as they do the ashes of bodies.

The contents of the manuscripts include
sections from Dhammapada, the rhinoceros verses, and verses in
praise of the lake now known as Manasarover by Mount Kailash, known in
Buddhist literature as lake Anavatapta. There also indications that they
productions of the Dhammaguptika tradition. They contain no parts of the
Vinaya or Abhidhamma pitakas and appear to be all drawn from
the Sutta pitaka. However, we are still waiting for further
detailed reports on their contents.

In conclusion then it is clear that the
breadth and depth of Buddhist literature is hard to comprehend. Even were
you to become a master of the Theravada Tipitaka you would still
not have read the greater part of the literature of the other Nikaya
Buddhist traditions. Also to be able to do a good comparative study of
this literature in real depth you would need to know not just Pali,
Prakrit and Sanskrit, but also to access the translations of the parts of
the Nikaya Buddhist canons lost in Indic languages you need to
learn Chinese to read these portions in translation. This is as they say
in Australia ‘a big ask’, however, beginning to map out the dimensions of
this issue is the first step on the road to the study of Nikaya
Buddhist literature.

The Pali Language

Source:
http://www.buddhamind.info

A question often asked is: “Did the
Buddha speak Pali?” If so, how much of the original language has been
retained? If not, how much has translation affected the accurate
transmission of the teachings? There seems to be no one answer to these
questions but I offer the following as the results of my investigation.

The paramount power in India for two
centuries, spanning both before and after the Buddha, was the Kingdom of
Kosala, of which the Buddha’s birth kingdom, Magadha, was a fiefdom.
Magadhi seems to be a dialect of Kosalan, and there is some evidence that
this was the language that the Buddha spoke. The Pali of the Canon seems
to be based on the standard Kosalan as spoken in the 6th and 7th centuries
BC. The script used on the rock edicts of Asoka is a younger form of this
standard. On one of the Asoka pillars (about 300 BC) there is a list of
named Suttas which can be linguistically placed within the Singhalese
Canon.

Sanskrit was also widely spoken and
warrants discussion. It seems to have been the language of the Brahmin’s,
the ’spiritual’ class. It is etymologically older than Pali but, as
regards texts and inscriptions, the native tongue (Kosalan) was the more
common or popular medium. In the Text we see the Buddha encouraging his
disciples to teach in the popular language of any area. However after the
Buddha’s death, what were considered more ‘learned’ forms were gradually
made use of, despite the fact that these gave a less faithful picture of
the living speech. Slowly the efforts to represent the real facts of the
spoken language gave way to another effort, the expression of learned
phraseology, until roughly 300 AD, classical Sanskrit became used
exclusively in relation to Buddhism. This trend is reflected in the
scripture of later Buddhist traditions.

The use of Pali is practically confined to
Buddhist subjects, and then only in the Theravada school. It’s exact
origin is the subject of much learned debate and from the point of view of
the non-specialist, we can think of it as a kind of simplified, common
man’s Sanskrit. The source of the Pali Text we have lies in the North of
India. It is definitely not Singhalese in origin as it contains no mention
of any place in Sri Lanka, or even South India. The similes abounding in
the Singhalese literature are those of a sub-tropical climate and of a
great river valley rather than those of a tropical island.

Being an essentially oral language,
lacking a strong literary base of its own, it adopted the written script
of each country it settled in. It is clear that by the time the Text
arrived in Sri Lanka, with Asoka’s son Mahinda, about 240 BC, it was
considered closed.

Conclusion:

Any historical study is much like a jigsaw
puzzle. Piecing together information from a scrap of parchment here, a
clay tablet there; comparing various bits of antiquity, the opinions and
insights of others; analysing and evaluating - and then - coming to a
conclusion. The more Buddhist history books I studied, to try and
determine precise information, the more opinions I ended up collecting.
History, it seems, can be very much a matter of opinion.

Very few undisputed facts exist by which
to prove the authenticity of the Pali Canon. Even the dates of the Buddha
are questionable. The earliest reliable dates in Indian history that we
have are those for Emperor Asoka’s rule; 274 - 236 BC. We can also be
relatively certain that the Text remained unchanged from the time it was
written down, about 80 BC.

As regards the reliability of the Text I
felt two items to be of greatest importance.

* Firstly: The reason that anything
survives the rigours of more than 2000 years of history is that it is
considered to be of great value. Presumably the reason for this evaluation
was that the teaching was seen to work, i.e. to lead to the transcendence
of suffering. Such a known treasure would have been well guarded and part
of this protection would have been a tremendous concern for retaining the
‘jewel’ in its entirety, i.e. accurately.

* Secondly: After several centuries of
travelling to many different lands and being translated into different
languages, the disparity between the various renderings of the main Text
existing today in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan is typically
greatest in matters of least importance. Only very rarely are differences
founded on doctrinal matters. It can be seen that these works are clearly
not independent compositions, being very similar in their substantive
content. This “authenticity by comparison” is an important item in support
of scriptural accuracy. More specifically, the Vinaya is almost without
exception, identical in every Buddhist tradition.

On a more general note:

I feel that the majority of us who have
come to give the Text some consideration, originally set out in search of
a guide by which to find a way to resolve the root-problem of our personal
existence. The process of production warrants investigation but surely the
true test of any guide book is its ability to lead one to the desired
destination. The whole energy behind the Buddha’s teaching was the ending
of suffering. If what you glean from the Text eases or ends your suffering
then the teaching has been accurately transmitted. What is of greatest
importance is to take the teachings that seem relevant, that feel
applicable to your life, and to make them a personal reality, to turn the
theory into practice.

-ooOoo-