Dear Bankei, Stefan.

The same would apply to the vedas though. Earliest inscriptions, if I remember correctly, are not found before 100BC. I think this supports Stefan's argument.

>>"English speakers still read Chaucer and Shakespeare in the original "

The Buddha's discourses would have continued in memory, while in daily discussion about them they would have used contemporary forms (As we do with Shakespeare etc.).

However, I would then have expected the Mauryans at least to name or enlist the suttas in their Pali names - which Ashoka did not do.

Aliyavasāni (P. Ariyavaṃsāni)
Anāgatabhayāni (P. same)
Munigāthā, (P.same)
Moneyasūte (P. Moneyyasutta - almost)
Upatisapasine (P. Upatissapañha)

Lāghuvāde musāvādaṃ adhigicya (P. Rāhulovādo musāvādaṃ
adhigacca), identified as the Ambalaṭṭhika Rāhulovāda
-> seems his inscription was more concerned with people knowing what he referred to than the exact name, but all in all pretty close to Pali forms).

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "stefan_karpik" <stefankarpik@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Bankei, for this addition to my reading list. My first thoughts are the rarity of Pali inscriptions would be consistent with my claim that Pali was an oral tradition until about 100 BCE. I must read the book before saying more.
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Bankei <bankei@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > Interesting stuff.
> >
> > If Pali was the language of the Buddha we could conclude that the majority
> > of the early Buddhists would have used this language.
> >
> > It is therefore interesting to note that inscriptions in Pali are extremely
> > rare in both India and early Sri Lanka, according to Richard Salomon in
> > Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit,
> > and the other Indo-Aryan Languages, Oxford University Press, 1998.
> >
> > Bankei
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>