Re: Milindapañha or Milindapañhaa

This is an interesting question which I suspect that a number of us
have wondered about.

Some comments:

1. We probably shouldn't assume that works necessarily have a single
title. Rather the case is like people who may be referred to in
various ways by different people in different contexts. Jim = Jimmie
= Jimbo = James = Anders = Mr. Anderson. None of these would
necessarily be 'correct' before the relatively recent introduction of
state registration and even since then it is different in different
countries or legal systems.

2. Sp IV 742 has: Me.n.dakamilindapañhesu therassa sakapa.tibhaane
anaapatti, ya.m rañño saññaapanattha.m aaharitvaa vutta.m, tattha
aapatti. I think that the 19th century Paacityaadiyojanaa is right to
interpret this as equivalent to a dvandva i.e. "in the Me.n.dakapañha
and in the Milindapañha". I conclude from this that at the time of
writing of the Vinaya commentary these were two separate works.

3. If so, the explicit reference at Spk II 99 is presumably to the
Milindapañha as a separate work corresponding roughly to the Chinese
trsl and to Mil 2-89.

4. All other references in the commentaries of "Buddhaghosa" are
citing passages from separate works of what we may call the Milinda
literature. The last section of Mil (361-420) is known only to the
slightly later (?) Dh-a.

5. By the time of the subcommentaries attributed to Dhammapaala, etc.
these works have been collected into a single anthology, now known as
Milindapañha (masc. or nt). This included most known works of this
genre, but at least one such work was omitted, since Mil 419 states
that 42 Milinda questions are not included.

6. The passage at Mil 2 seems to suggest at least two phases of collection:
Ettha .thatvaa tesa.m pubbakamma.m kathetabba.m, kathentena ca
chaddhaa vibhajitvaa kathetabba.m, seyyathiida.m: Pubbayogo,
Milindapañha.m, Lakkha.napañha.m, Me.n.dakapañha.m, Anumaanapañha.m,
Opammakathaapañhan ti.
Tattha Milindapañho: Lakkha.napañho, Vimaticchedanapañho ti duvidho;
Me.n.dakapañho pi: Mahaavaggo, Yogikathaapañho ti duvidho.

Here we seem to have attested both a masculine and a neuter. This
suggests to me that an original anthology supposedly in six parts has
been reorganized by a later redactor to include additional material
but retaining the idea of six parts. I find it difficult to believe
that the same person would have taken Milindapañha- as neuter and
then masculine in successive sentences.

7. There is no reason in principle why the original version of the
Me.n.dakapañha might not be as old as the original version of the
Milindapañha. This needs more detailed study of the contents than I
have so far seen.

Lance Cousins

>Western scholars usually spell the Pali title of this work as
>Milindapañha, however this seems incorrect. Like Theragáthá, the title
>probably needs to be plural because it means the "questions (/pañhá/) of
>Milinda" not "the question (/pañha/) of Milinda." In the /Milindapañhá
>/Pali itself (p. 419) the work is called /Milindapañhá/:
>
>/Iti chasu kaóðesu bávìsativaggapatimaóðitesu dvásaþþhi-adhiká dvesatá
>imasmií potthake ágatá _milindapañhá samattá_, anágatá ca pana
>dvácattálìsá honti, ágatá ca anágatá ca sabbá samodhánetvá catúhi adhiká
>tisatapañhá honti, s_abbáva milindapañhá ti saòkhaí gacchanti._ :/
>"Complete are the questions of Milinda (milindapañhá), handed down in
>six sections, Š there are 304 questions, all these are reckoned as the
>questions of Milinda (milindapañhá). (Mil 419)
>
>However, the text (Be) concludes with "/Milindapañho ni.t.thito/," which
>is singular masculine. In this case one needs to take /pañho/ as an
>action noun "inquiring, questioning"and the compound as an instrumental
>tappurisa: "The Questioning by Milinda" or "The Inquiry by Milinda" or
>the "The Interrogation by Milinda."
>
>What is the correct Pali title?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
>
>Kandy
>Sri Lanka