Re: MSV vs. Pali Canon

Balaji: Are you saying that we have inscriptions saying that Sanskrit was not spoken before 1st century BCE? I did not hear of this before. Do you have a reference?

In fact, in my understanding, although the word Saṃskṛtaṃ did exist and meant "that which has been fabricated", the name Saṃskṛtaṃ was not used to describe the Sanskrit language until much later.

So you're right that Sanskrit was a fabricated language. But the words that became part of Sanskrit were already in use before it was formalized. In particular, the word sthavira (related to sthāvira) is found in the Ṛg Veda IV.20.6:

ādartā vajraṃ sthaviraṃ na bhīma udgeva kośaṃ vasunā nyṛṣṭaṃ|

 

Again, in RV I.171.5:

... ugra ugrebhi sthaviraH sahodAH|

There are at least two more occurances in Ṛg Veda itself.

Balaji: I'm not sure I understand it as you describe it. Instead, I would go by what Pāṇinī himself explicitly says in his commentary to the Aṣṭādhyāyī - his purpose was not to reconstruct the language of the Vedas, but merely to show that the words used during his time shared the same common etymological roots as the Vedic language. He did so in the theory of dhātus. This theory forms the basis for the claim of the classical Indian philosophy school of mīmāṃsā, that the Vedas are essentially "eternal" (technically apauruṢeya). According to Paṇinī's own commentary to his Aṣṭādhyāyī, and other sub-commentaries, wherever the pada (roughly meaning "word") in Paṇinian Sanskrit is the same as the pada in Vedic Sanskrit, the padārtha (meaning of the pada) is also the same. It is only where the pada is not the same that the two languages differ. But such differences are very rare.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi Balaji,

Although it is true there is a difference between saying that Sanskrit was written and saying that Devanagari was written. The earliest epigraphical record of Devanagari comes from 1st century BCE Udayagiri inscriptions as you correctly point out.

And the earliest epigraphical record of Sanskrit also comes from 1st century BCE.

 

But the language that we call Sanskrit today was formalized in Panini's grammar, which was essentially a derivative of other grammar traditions that predated Panini, especially the grammar traditions of Vedic or Upanishadic language.

Yes, despite all the differences in grammar between Vedic and Sanskrit languages, there's a significant continuity. 

So I don't think it would be right to assume that Sanskrit did not exist at all. We don't have enough evidence to say that a particular language was not spoken,

Fortunately, we have an abundant evidence in inscriptions.

 

especially since Vedic and Upanishadic language are so similar to classical Sanskrit.

Quite similar. But Vedic was a dead language for such a long time that the reconstruction of it as Sanskrit resulted in a quite different language.

"The dialect at the basis of Rgvedic language lay to the north-west, while the classical language was formed in Madhyadesa."

Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language

http://books.google.com/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&pg=PA84

This reminds me of Modern Hebrew, which is quite different from Biblical Hebrew, despite being a reconstruction of it.

But we can say with some degree of certainty that the Devanagari script was invented around 1st century BCE. And we can see that the reason for doing so, was rooted in the inadequacy of the Brahmi script in recording all middle-Indic sounds.

Thank you, this is new for me, I'll explore this further.

Best wishes,

                         Dmytro

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:22 AM Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi Petra,

As evidenced by inscriptions, Sanskrit began to be used only in the first century B.C. So no Buddhist school before that could have used a sanskritized name, since Sanskrit didn't yet exist. Only several centuries after the Mahāsāṃghika split, due to sanskritization, Sanskrit names began to be used.

The "Sthaviras" are just a buddhological legend, which, similarly to "Sthaviravada" legend, originated from the erroneous assumption that Sanskrit somehow existed earlier that Pali.

The "Sthaviravada" legend has been discussed at:

https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Buddhism&month=0612&week=c&msg=siI5i%2BC/il8JXBV1DW/HFg&user=&pw=

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=%2BfS4L2WmvhEPEuuaEQI9HQ&user=&pw=

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=TxHxLAk5yHB7CL%2BzgCUvTQ&user=&pw=

https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=cNpOwFTGhXD7KH7xfdq3Lw&user=&pw=

Best wishes, Dmytro

2017-03-06 20:18 GMT+02:00 petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

 

The first split in the Buddhist community is the one leading to the two branches of Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras. Except for the Vinayas of the Mahāsāmghikas and of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādas all other extant Vinayas go back to the Sthavira branch, who naturally is not the Theravāda (i.e. the Pāli tradition), but comprises Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Mahīśāsaka, Theravāda, etc. Some of these schools used Sanskrit from the beginning, others used Gandhārī or other Middle Indian languages.

Kind regards,

Petra Kieffer-Pülz

Am 06.03.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

Dear Pali friends,

Shayne Clarke's article can be read fo free at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24663789 , by adding it to the "shelf".

I'm a dilettante in this matter, yet I would say that IMHO, confusion here is caused largely by the popular buddhological myth about the mythical "Sthavira" school (quite different from Thera), which has parted ways with Mahasanghika school.

No "Sthavira" school could have existed at the time of the split, since Sanskrit wasn't yet invented, and the sanskitized name "Sthavira" couldn't have been used:

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=28943

As Richard Salomon wtites,

 "Sanskrit began to come into epigraphic use only in the first century B.C."

https://books.google.com/books?id=XYrG07qQDxkC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://archive.org/stream/IndianEpigraphy/Indian%20Epigraphy#page/n107/mode/2up/

Best wishes, Dmytro

2017-03-06 18:25 GMT+02:00 petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@...e [palistudy] <palistudy@...groups.com>:

 

I think you got something wrong. It is the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya which is so different in structure form all the Sthavira Vinayas.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is special because of its length, and the many details it contains, which to a large extent reflect the reaction

of  the Buddhist community on the environment in which they settled.

Kind regards,

Petra

Am 06.03.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

After reading through Clarke's article, it sounds like the MSV is quite different from the other five Vinayas, which are quite similar to each other... And yet at one point he suggests that the MSV may have had an influence on the others, which seems counterintuitive. Given that the MSV is such an oddball, why give it such importance?

On Mar 6, 2017 9:52 AM, "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Thanks for the reference, Petra. And yes, Schopen was Shayne's supervisor,

Metta, Bryan

---

From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] MSV vs. Pali Canon

 

Thank you both, that helps. Shayne Clarke is at our university, and i think a student of Schopen. I'll read his article. 

On Mar 6, 2017 5:04 AM, "petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@...e [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear Bryan and Ven Yuttadhammo,

with regard to the theory of the origin of the Vinayas you should read Shayne Clarke’s article, "VINAYA Mātṛkā – MOTHER OF THE MONASTIC CODES, OR JUST ANOTHER SET OF LISTS? A RESPONSE TO FRAUWALLNER’S HANDLING OF THE MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA“, Indo Iranain Journal 47 (2004), 77–120.

Best,

Petra

Am 06.03.2017 um 04:55 schrieb Bryan Levman bryan.levman@...[palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

 

I don't think it's a question of the Mulasarvastivadin (MSV) Vinaya being closer to the original, but being derived from the same source as the Pali and other Vinayas extant, of which we have six different schools (Theravādin, Sarvāstivādin, Dharmaguptaka, Mahīśāsaka, Mahāsāṃghika and MSV). This is Frauwallner's thesis in his monograph The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (1953), where he specifically examines the Khandhaka(Mahavagga and Cu lavagga) of the different schools and concludes that they all derive from a common source. Of course the language of the MSV is Sanksrit and much later than the Pali, but that doesn't necessarily mean the content is not as early, simply that it has been translated from an earlier Prakrit.

 

Lamotte in his History of Indian Buddhism, rejects Frauwallner's claim (p. 178) and says the MSV  is much later than the Pali and probably from Kashmir (Frauwallner argues against this), so there are obviously two different views as to the antiquity of the MSV; and Lamotte, as you know, is often very reliable – that would account for your intuition about the latteness of the MSV. I don't know enough about it to offer an informed opinion, and there must be further discussion since Lamotte's work in 1958. Schopen, as you have pointed out, does a lot of work on the MSV stories and what they indicate about the customs and practices of the Sangha in MSV communities and has published I think at least three anthologies of articles: Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks,  Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India - many of the articles are based on texts from the MSV Vinaya. He may in fact discuss the relation between the MSV and the other Vinayas in terms of time line, and if you do find anything further on it, I would appreciate knowing (or if anyone else in the group knows),

 

Metta,

 

Bryan

 

 

 

For Frauwallner’s work: http://www. ahandfulofleaves.org/ documents/The%20Earliest% 20Vinaya%20and%20the% 20Beginnings%20of%20Buddhist% 20Literature_Frauwallner.pdf

 

For Lamotte's; http://www. ahandfulofleaves.org/ documents/History%20of% 20Indian%20Buddhism_Lamotte. pdf

---

From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@...  [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 11:43 AM
Subject: [palistudy] MSV vs. Pali Canon

 

Dear Friends,

I've been hearing more about the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya at our university... Apparently, there is some work by people like Gregory Schopen to show that it is more likely to have been closer to the original teachings than the Pali Vinaya. I'm just trying to piece together what evidence there is for the origins and alterations of the various texts... I always thought the MSV was clearly later with procedures surrounding money, etc. Anyone can point me in the right direction here? Thank you.

Metta,

Yuttadhammo

--

Balaji