Dear Ven Kumaara,
I had sent this extract of Geiger's in hopes that this expert had
properly addressed the subject but the more I think about it the more
I think Geiger may be wrong. After all, even today there are many
languages(dialects?) spoken in the area of the modern state of Bihar,
how much more so in Buddha's time. It seems perfectly natural that
if the dhamma was to be spread in the area in which the Buddha lived
it would have to be taught in many different languages.
It seems reasonable to argue that Buddha was against teaching the
dhamma in the language of the elite, sanskrit, and for teaching in
various vernacular tongues so that the dhamma was available to all.
The statement by Geiger that, "Neither the two monks nor Buddha
himself could have thought of preaching in different dialects in
different cases" seems a bit silly when you think that by traveling a
few miles in any direction one would encounter a different language,
to say nothing of the different dialects spoken in the same town by
people of different social classes.
Best Wishes,
Paul

--- In Pali@..., Paul O Cuana <paulocuana@...> wrote:
> From the introduction to "Paali Literature and
> Language by Wilhelm Geiger":
>
> "anujaanaami bhikkhave sakaaya niruttiyaa
> buddhavacana.m pariyaapu.nitu.m. Rys Davids and
> Oldenberg translate this passage by "I allow you, oh
> brethren, to learn the words of the Buddhas each in
> his own dialect." This interpretation however is not
> in harmony with that of Buddhaghosa, according to whom
> it has been translated by "I ordain the words of
> Buddha to be learnt in his own language (i.e. in
> Maagadhii, the language used by Buddha himself)."
> After repeated examinations of this passage I have
> come to the conclusion that we have to stick to the
> explanation given by Buddhaghosa. Neither the two
> monks nor Buddha himself could have thought of
> preaching in different dialects in different cases.
> Here the question is merely whether the words of
> Buddha might 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 his 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 Maagadhii, though according
> to tradition it is Paali."
>
> I've not included the footnotes.
> Paul O'Cuana
> --- Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@...> wrote:
> > At 07:20 PM 17-10-02, Ong Teng Kee wrote:
> > >you can read in Taiping buddhist society daily from
> > 8.oo pm to 10.00
> >
> > Thank you for the information.
> >
> > >pm.sakayanirutiya is about which language should be
> > used to teach buddha
> > >teaching-your own language or sanskrit.I think you
> > should know where it is.
> >
> > I see now. You must be referring to sakaaya
> > niruttiyaa. If this could be found among the Chinese
> > scriptures, then we can be sure that there are at
> > least fragments of equivalence to the Maha- and
> > Cuu.lavagga of the Pali Vinaya Pi.taka.
> >
> > Incidentally, this matter came up in our class
> > earlier. Perhaps the story may interest the members
> > here.
> >
> > Two bhikkhus of brahman birth approached the Buddha
> > and said that all sorts of monks were ruining the
> > Buddha's words "sakaaya niruttiyaa". They then
> > offered to render the Buddha's words in metrical
> > verse. The Buddha rebuked for them for saying that
> > and rejected it. He further imposed a dukka.ta for
> > whoever or renders it so, and gave formal allowance
> > "to master" (pariyaapu.nitu.m) Buddha's words
> > "sakaaya niruttiyaa".
> >
> > Now here's the controversy:
> > As you can see I left "sakaaya niruttiyaa"
> > untranslated. Literally, it means "with own
> > language/dialect". Modern translators translates it
> > as "with *one's* own language/dialect", rendering
> > the passage to mean that the monks were ruining the
> > Buddha's words with *one's* own language, and the
> > Buddha allowed monks to master the Buddha's words
> > with *one's* own language.
> >
> > However, my teacher, basing on the commentarial
> > gloss, says that it means "with *their* own
> > language/dialect", rendering the passage to mean
> > that the monks were ruining the Buddha's words with
> > *their* own language, and the Buddha allowed monks
> > to master the Buddha's words with *their* own
> > language, which the commentary gloss as Magadhi,
> > which is believed to be what we now call Pali.
> >
> > Can anyone throw more light to this?
> >
> > peace
> >
> > Ven Kumâra
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/