below are some points raised by Michael, who has given me the consent
to forward it to the group, many of which I believe are valuable
additions to our discussion.
metta,
Yong Peng
--- Michael Olds wrote:
I have been reading with dismay some of the comments concerning the
language spoken by the Buddha. Perhaps it is only difficulty with
subtle concepts in English, but some of the replies border on
statements about the writer's clarvoyance...ie. statements that "The
Buddha spoke..." Rather than "Evidence is that the Buddha spoke..." or,
"The current theory is....", etc.
Not trying to pick a fight here, please! (Sariputta says: This Dhamma
is for the precise, not for the diffuse; I'm just advocating
precision.) I have another theory which seems just as reasonable and is
almost never mentioned, although it is the one held by Buddhaghosa and
others, so I am not alone, although I did arrive at the notion on my
own. I think at the least it needs to be allowed for as a possibility
in one's speculation about this matter.
That notion is that "Pali" was never a language proper at all (but it
was also not an artificial language). It was a selection of words from
the languages current at the time. That selection was of those words
whose roots were the oldest, so that Pali actually represents a
language that antedates such languages as Maghadi.
Another way this is sometimes stated is that "Pali" was the father
tongue, the DNA of language, essentially a (if not the) root of all
language.
The intent was communication. The choice of words being such that they
would be hearable by all beings, across all cultures, across time, and
across all states of consciousness.
I use as an example of the method the idea of communicating today to
all English speakers. We have a choice of 'dialects'. Someone
interested in communicating a Buddhist notion, say, for example,
'dukkha', to all these language groups would choose a word that was
common to all of them. That choice would almost certainly fall on the
oldest words in English. So in such a case one would not use 'angst';
or 'anguish' which do not go to the roots of English, and are 'current'
only among certain classes of English language speakers. One would need
to use a word like 'pain', or my 'shit'.
Following this, it would be reasonable to say that the Buddha spoke
'Pali', where 'Pali' represented those words/terms used when teaching
Dhamma.
The issue concerning allowing the Dhamma to be taught in other
languages is also a matter that is not as settled as some of the
statements would indicate. To the best of my understanding what was
really intended by the instruction was that one should neither
disrespect another's language (by insisting on the use of Pali) nor
extole Pali, and one should not disrespect the Pali (by simply using
the other language). It was not a matter of condoning the teaching of
the Dhamma in other languages. What the instruction says is that one
should approach someone who uses a certain term for a thing (the
example is 'bowl') and when discussing Dhamma one should strive to
educate them to the Pali term: 'You use the term 'bowl'; in Pali we
call that a 'patta'. See: MN 3. 139. The Aranavibhanga Sutta
========================
My Translation (Remember! This is in the context of a discussion of not
taking sides, or non-bias.) Very Free!!!:
51. In different areas of the country, in different social classes, and
across Time, a patta has come to be known as a bowl, a platter, a
plate, a tin, a cup, a trencher, a saucer, a dish, a vessel, a pan, a
pot, a mug, a basin, china, and so forth.
52. One denegrates the local idiom and adheres rigidly only to what is
accceptable speech in certain circles by saying: "This is a patta, (or
a bowl, a platter, a plate, a tin, a cup, a trencher, a saucer, a dish,
a vessel, a pan, a pot, a mug, a basin, and so forth). This and this
alone is the proper word for this, all other words for this are
incorrect."
53. One does not denegrate the local idiom or adhere rigidly only to
what is acceptable speech in certain circles saying: "This which here
is called a patta, those there call a bowl (or a platter, a plate, a
tin, a cup, a trencher, a saucer, a dish, a vessel, a pan, a pot, a
mug, a basin, and so forth), so when the word "bowl (or platter, or
plate, or tin, or cup, or trencher, or saucer, or dish, or vessel, or
pan, or pot, or mug, or basin, and so forth) is used you should
understand the meaning to be "patta".
The actual statement can be read: "Use ONLY the words I have used..."
meaning the exact words, not 'Pali' or 'Magadhi', but the individual
words. Use these when examining Dhamma. When discussing Dhamma with
those who do not understand the Pali, use their language and translate
back into Pali.
{'certain circles' here meaning those teaching the Dhamma}
-------------------------
Bhk. Nanamoli/Bodhi:
"One should not insist on local language, and one should not override
normal usage.' So it was said. And with reference to what was this
said?
"How, bhikkhus, does there come to be insistence onlocal language and
overriding of normal usage? Here, bhikkhus, in different localities
they call the same thing a 'dish' [paati] [235 PTS] a 'bowl' [patta], a
'vessel' [vittha], a 'saucer' [seraava], a 'pan' [dhaaropa], a 'pot'
[po.na], a 'mug'[hana] or a 'basin [pisiila]. So whatever they call it
in such and such a locality, one speaks accordingly, firmly adhering
[to that expression] and insisting: 'Only this is correct; anything
else is wrong.' This is how there comes to be insistence on local
language and overriding normal usage.