Re: Dhp 39

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the informative summary. Do you know what the "lifespan" of Pāli was as a language? Assuming its origins were some time in the 5th century B.C. (the underlying strata in any case) and that it was standardized around the 2nd or 1st century B.C. by the monks some place in western India (per Ujjayinī?), from whence it was exported to Śri Lanka, how long did it continue to be used? Was it only used in the monasteries? or is there any evidence that it was a real vernacular? When Buddhaghosa wrote in the fifth century A. D. in Pāli, is there any evidence that he spoke Pāli or was it strictly a literary, scholarly, written language? Do the grammarians say anything about the use of Pāli in their time? i. e. was it still in use?

Sorry for the multiple questions, but it seems to me there is a "genealogy" of Pāli to be written that has barely been started. From what I can see from studying Geiger, Lamotte, Norman, von Hinüber and others, western scholarship believes that Pāli was never a spoken vernacular, but a composite, learned language, developed by the monks to transmit Buddhadharma. Do the grammarians have anything to say on this subject?

Also, would it be possible to circulate (like you are doing with the Dhp) a sutta from the grammarians with a translation once in a while? I have never studied a grammarian, Sanskrit or Pāli in their own language, so it would be very helpful for me to become familiar with their work and style,

Best wishes,

Bryan






________________________________
From: Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 8:01:29 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Dhp 39

  
Bryan,,

You wrote:

<< When it comes to the Buddhist dialects (other than Pāli) and the
earlier Prakrit layer(s) underlying Pāli and BHS/Gāndhārī,  I think
we're all on shaky ground, as it's just not a subject that has been
studied in any detail. We only have snippets here and there and the
morphology (inflections) is probably better understood than exactly
what happens with the phonology. Dhp 39 is a good example as it's hard
or impossible to figure out what word the Patna Dhp redactors were
working with before they tried to Sanskritize it, or whether it's just
an error in writing or copying from another text. And of course there
is always the possibility of a separate transmission, as some have
argued (i. e. the Buddha said different things at different times
rather than being uniform),  >>

Sounds reasonable.

<< I would love to study the grammars too when I get the time.
Geiger's has a very good introduction to phonological variations in
Pāli (from Sanskrit and some Prakrit forms). Do Kaccaayana and the
Saddaniiti have anything on phonological variations between Pāli and
the other Prakrits? or do they just concern themselves with Pāli? >>

The latter. The Saddaniiti (12th cent.) has about twice as many suttas
(rules) as Kaccaayana, the latter being the earliest extant Pali
grammar we have. There were others but they have disappearred through
the ravages of time and neglect but fragments are found in quotations
of later works. I think many of the extra rules in the Saddaniiti are
due to the changes in Pali that had occurred over the centuries since
Kaccaayana and which Aggava.msa had to account for in his grammar.
Kaccaayana seems to describe a simpler Pali than the one Aggava.msa
describes. Kaccaayana's grammar is usually dated as a 7th or 8th
century work. This may be true for its vutti but I'm inclined to think
that the suttas alone originated at a much earlier period. It is said
that the original author is Mahaakaccaayana, one of the Buddha's great
disciples, which is a possibility in my mind. I like to think that the
Pali we have today goes directly back to the one spoken by the Buddha
himself but we have to accept the fact that the language of the texts
has gone through some changes over the past 2500 years or so.

There is a third important school based on the Moggallaaavyaakara. na
which itself is based on the Sanskrit Candravyaakara. na. Apparently,
it is the most esteemed of the three schools among the scholarly monks
in Burma. It's the one I'm least familiar with. The Kaccaayana school
is now getting neglected and several of its important commentaries
have become sleeping books in Burma. Thanks to Ven. Pandita for this
valuable information.

Best wishes,
Jim





       __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

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