Re: Sadd: some responses to Jim's comments

Hi Rett,

Sorry for the delay in responding to this message from last week.

> >I'm not sure what the 'naya' (method?) in 'paa.linaya' (=
paa.ligati)
> >really stands for but the 'paa.li' part is applicable to just the
> >language of the Tipitaka.
>
> Perhaps I should amend  Pali to 'canonical' there?

Yes, I think 'canonical <usage>' would be better for 'paa.li(-naya)'.
We've become so accustomed to equating Pali with the language as found
in all kinds of texts regardless of whether it's in the tipi.taka, the
a.t.thakathaa, or otherwise. Sadd II 562 derives it from the root
'paal': attha.m paaletiiti paa.lii (it protects the meaning) with a
change of -l- to -.l-. And paa.lii is equated to 'pariyatti' not the
language per se. Another interesting derivation given is: pa + aa.lii
(row, line).

> >There is also an a.t.thakathaanaya,
> >.tiikaanaya, and pakara.nanaya. I'm not too familiar with this
chapter
> >but it sure looks interesting. It is concerned mostly with matters
of
> >textual exegesis and methodology and there is even a small section
on
> >logic (where there is smoke, there is fire). As I was glancing
through
> >this chapter I came across some interesting material on Maagadhii
and
> >Sanskrit, pp. 923-4 which I didn't know was there until now.
>
> More interesting stuff thanks. I looked in there, and it appears
that
> the Pali word for Sanskrit is sakka.ta? I would have expected
> something like sankha.ta.

The fuller form 'sakka.tabhaasaa(to)' is given at Sadd III 923-4 just
as 'Maagadhikaa bhaa.saa' is given for Maagadhii. I also understand
'sakka.ta' to be Sanskrit. You'd have to search the .tiikaa-s to find
the few occurrences of sakka.t.abhaasaa which is fairly prevalent in
the Saddaniti.

> I haven't read closely, but would the author be equating maagadhii
> with what we call pali? So we could roughly understand it like this:
>
> Sadd.    >   Translation
>
> Pali     >    Canon(ical)
> Magadhii >    Pali
> Sakka.ta >    Sanskrit
>
> ?

Yes, that seems right to me. I'd take Pali to refer to the canonical
texts ie. the pariyatti, the tipi.taka, or the navanga. There is a
verse ascribed to the ancients (poraa.nas) given on page 924, lines
4-5 as follows:

dhammo jinena Magadhena vinaa na vutto,
neruttikaa ca Magadha.m vibhajanti tasmaa ti.

The Dhamma is not spoken by the Conqueror without Magadha,
And the etymologists therefore analyse Magadha.

I believe arguments have been made to show that the language of the
Pali canon is not Maagadhii. I think K.R. Norman has presented such an
argument but I can't tell you where you could find it. There have been
a fair amount of speculation about the origins of Pali.

> Note, the last one is an example of where perhaps the naturalized
> English (Sanskrit) should be chosen over the Pali form, despite it's
> being a sanskrit form.

Yes, I agree. There will be the odd exception like this one where the
Sanskrit form is preferred over the Pali in a translation.

> And on second thought perhaps the second should just be translated
as
> Magadhi, and we could mention in a footnote that they equate
Magadhii
> with what we call Pali.

Not sure what you mean by 'the second'. At any rate, I wouldn't equate
the paa.li of paa.linaya to Magadhi. There could be some confusion in
using the word Magadhi or Magadha or Magadhese (I'm not sure of the
proper form) as some do not accept that the language of the Pali canon
is Magadhi. Geiger speaks of Magadhisms as if Magadhi is foreign to
Pali. I really don't know much about how these terms are used. I'm
going by what it says in Sadd. Maybe we should be saying the language
of Magadha instead of Magadhi.

Best wishes,
Jim