Re: Paali question(sanskrit allowed?)

Dear Bryan
http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36
has some info on this.
robert

--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:


From: Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>
Subject: [palistudy] Paali question
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 12:23 AM


 



Hello All,

I am looking at that old phrase sakaaya niruttiyaa ("own dialect") from the Paali Vinaya (II, 139).Two brahmin brothers ask the Buddha for permission to translate his teachings into Sanskrit (chandaso, although this interpretation is controvserial, but not germane to my question) as various monks are destroying Buddha's teachings with their own dialect (Te sakaaya niruttiyaa
buddhavacanaM duusenti)

"sakaaya" presumably goes back to Skt. svayam with the loss of final m and change of y>k and sv>s. (the y>k change looks like a hyper-Sanskritism, i. e. a misinterpretation of intervocalic -y- as representing an omitted unvoiced stop)

Since svayam/saka means "self" in the sense of "myself" "yourself" and "him/herself" , do you know if it is ever used to refer to anyone other than the subject of the sentence or clause?

The controversy is when Buddha answers, he forbids his works to be set in Skt. and says

Anujaanaami bhikkhave sakaaya niruttiyaa buddhavacanaM pariyaapuNitunti.
I allow, O monks, my teaching to be learnt in my own/their own (?) dialect.

What does he mean by "own dialect" (sakaaya niruttiyaa). Mine of theirs? Buddhaghosa takes it as "mine"

Sakaaya niruttiyaati ettha sakaa nirutti naama
sammaasambuddhena vuttappakaaro maagadhiko vohaaro.
("His own dialect" refers to
the Māgadhi dialect in the form spoken by the Enlightened One.)

but most modern commentators opt for "theirs". It seems to me grammatically incorrect to say "I allow, O monks, the teachings to be learned in their dialect, when the speaker is I, and therefore the meaning must be, as Buddhaghosa has stated,
" I allow, O monks, the teachings to be learned in my dialect."

Commentators argue this because the Buddhavacanam was indeed translated into other dialects and languages. But this is surely much later than the incident related, and it seems to me that the bhaaNaka tradition argues for the retention and recitation of the Buddhavacanam in "my own dialect."

What do you think? I can't find anything on the usage of svayam in Speyer or Whitney or anything on saka. Anywhere else that I can look?

Best,

Bryan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]