In this seemingly never-ending discussion about the origins of Pali
there is one point that I have never seen brought up. I find this
rather puzzling, since the point should be rather obvious. I can only
suppose that I have missed the discussion of this particular point.
Anyway, I would like to mention this point here. If it already has
been soundly refuted by someone, I would like to learn about it.
Is Magadhi and Magadhi really the same?
The Pali commentaries from Sri Lanka call the language "Magadhi". Why?
When Buddhism (and the Pali texts) reached Sri Lanka at the time of
king Asoka, it was brought there from Asoka's empire. This empire had
it roots in the earlier state of Magadha, but through conquests it now
comprised most of India. Still it was known as Magadha. So what did
"Magadhi" mean to the authors of the commentaries? It probably meant
"a language from the northern part of the Indian mainland". There is
no particular reason to think that the commentaries associated the
language with the original state - and later the region - of Magadha.
And consequently there is no particular reason to associate the Pali
language - or the dialect that the Buddha originally spoke, whatever
that might have been - with the region of Magadha or with the later
Prakrit language called Magadhi.
We should therefore diffentiate between "Original (or regional)
Magadha" and Asoka's "Greater Magadha". The informations we can deduce
from the commentaries use of the term "Magadhi", is probably just that
the texts were transmitted in a language from "Greater Magadha", that
is, from somewhere in the northern parts of the Indian mainland, not
that this language necessary has any special connections or relations
to the Prakrit "Magadhi".
This phenomenon, that the name of a smaller region is transferred to a
larger region, is well known from other cases. Just remember the names
of "Africa" and "Asia" (originally small regions, and not continents),
or see how the name of Rome stuck in Asia Minor (as Rum) a long time
after the last Roman soldier had left the area.
If there is any truth in this theory, we can let go of any attempts to
connect the Pali language particularly to the Prakrit language
Magadhi.
But, I may of course be wrong. If you see any objections against the
theory, or if it already has been refuted, please tell me about it.