Pali Literature and Language c5: Introduction
Pāli Literature and Language c5
- Language
- English
Introduction
c5.1
I. By Pāli is understood the language in which is composed the Tipiṭaka, the sacred scriptures of Ceylon and Hinter India, and its ancillary literature. The word Pāli however signifies only "text," "sacred text." ¹ If we use this word to designate the language, it is merely a convenient abbreviation for pālibhāsā. Synonymous with pālibhāsā is tantibhāsā.
c5.2
¹ Cf. the expression iti pi pāli, e.g., Th2Co. 618, where pāli = pāṭho. Further, pāli "sacred text" as distinct from aṭṭhakathā, Dpvs. 20. 20; Mhvs. 83. 100; Sdhs. JPTS. 1890, p. 595.
c5.3
Pāli is an archaic Prākrit a Middle-Indian idiom, which is characterised by the same peculiarities which distinguish the Middle-Indian from the Old-Indian ² Pāli however cannot be directly derived from Sanskrit; for it shows a number of characteristic features which suggest its closer relation to Vedic. Thus the g.r. in -tvāna (beside -tvā), the forms tehi, yehi = Ved. tebhis, yebhis (as opposed to Skr. tais, yais), etc. This has always to be borne in mind when in the following Pāli forms are compared with Sanskrit forms. The former cannot be derived from the latter but stand beside them as later formations.
c5.4
² R O. Franke, Strassburg 1902, Pāli und Sanskrit, p. 90 ff.
c5.5
II. Pāli is not a homogeneous language. Numerous double forms reveal it to be a mixed dialect. Dialectical particularisme are found in it in large numbers. Yet, however, stages of development associated with periods following one after another can be clearly distinguished in the history of the Pāli language. Four different stages can be distinguished:
c5.6
1. The language of the Gāthās, i.e., the metrical pieces. It is of a very heterogeneous character. On the one hand, it contains many archaic speech-forms which are distinguished from the Old-Indian forms only phonologically; on the other hand, there are also used in it in large numbers such new formations as are wholly characteristic of Pāli, and they are often crossed by the archaic forms which may occur side by side with them, not seldom even in one and the same verse. In some cases the exigencies of metre might have determined the choice of the forms to be used. Particularly in those cases where verses out of an older language were translated into a later one, the use of archaic forms was liberal, because it afforded a closer approximation to the original.
c5.7
2. The language of the canonical prose. It is more homogeneous and uniform than the language of the Gāthās. The archaic forms diminish more and more in number and partly disappear altogether. The use of new formations is no longer accidental or arbitrary as in the oldest period of the language, but is governed by more rigid rules.
c5.8
3. The later prose of the post-canonical literature, as of the Milinda-book, the great commentaries, etc. It is based on the canonical prose and reflects its artificial and erudite usage. The difference between the first and the second period is therefore much greater than that between the second and the third. The latter is further characterised by a still more restricted use of the archaic forms.
c5.9
4. The language of later artificial poetry, which no longer possesses a homogeneous character. The authors derived their knowledge of the language and borrowed the speech-forms indiscriminately from older and later literature, and their propensity to archaism and Sanskritism is more pronounced or less in different cases.
c5.10
III. There is now on the whole a concensus of opinion that Pāli bears the clear stamp of a "Kunstsprache," *i.e.*, it is a compromise of various dialects. This has been most emphatically declared by H. Kern.¹ Minayeff's² opinion stands close to his. But already E. Kuhn³ rightly pointed out that the problem is not solved merely by defining Pāli as an artificial language—its solution is only deferred by it. "Even an artificial and literary language, which on occasions draws materials from all possible dialects, must have had as its foundation a particular dialect." For Pāli now arises the question, which region of India was the home of that language which was the basis of Pāli.
c5.11
¹ Over de Jaartelling der zuidelijke Buddhisten en de Gedenkstukken van Açoka den Buddhist, Amsterdam 1878, p. 13.
c5.12
² Pāli Grammar, p. XLII.
c5.13
³ Beiträge zur Pāli-Grammatik, Berlin 1875, p. 9.
c5.14
IV. According to the tradition current in Ceylon, Pāli is Māgadhi, Māgadhānirutti, Māgadhikabhāsā, that is to say, the language of the region in which Buddhism had arisen. This is very important, for strengthened by this argument the Buddhistic tradition makes the further claim that the Pāli-Tipiṭaka is composed in the language used by Buddha himself¹ and therefore in contrast to all other collections it alone represents the original canon. For this reason Māgadhi is also called Mūlabhāsā² as the basic language in which the words of Buddha were originally fixed, whereas the other versions are regarded as secondary variations.
c5.15
¹ Cf. Buddhaghosa: *ettha sakā nirutti nāma sammāsambuddhena vuttappakāro Māgadhiko vohāro*, comm. to Culla-Vagga V. 33. 1. See Samantapāsādikā, ed. Saya u Pye, IV. 416[^10].
c5.16
² Sdhs., JPTS. 1890, pp. 55[^23], 56[^21], 57[^19].
c5.17
V. Weighty arguments have however been urged against the view that Pāli is a dialectical form of Māgadhi or is based on it. Precisely the chief distinguishing features of Māgadhi, as we know them from the grammarians and from the inscriptions and the dramas, are unknown to Pāli. These features are: 1. the mutation of every *r* into *l* and every *s* into *ś*, and 2. the ending *-e* in N. Sg. Masc. and Neut. of *a*-stems and of consonantal stems inflected like them. Pāli however retains the *r* (its change into *l* is indeed frequent but not the rule), and possesses no *ś* at all, but only *s*, and the nominal forms mentioned above end in it with *-o*, or *-am*. For this reason already Burnouf and Lassen³ contested the theory that Pāli is a Magadha-dialect.
c5.18
³ Essai sur le Pāli, Paris 1826.
c5.19
VI. Westergaard,⁴ and after him E. Kuhn,⁵ consider Pāli to be the dialect of Ujjayinī, because it stands closest to the language of the Aśoka-inscriptions of Girnar (Guzerat), and also because the dialect of Ujjayinī is said to have been the mother-tongue of Mahinda who preached Buddhism in Ceylon. R. O. Franke reached a similar conclusion by altogether different means.⁶ In his attempt to locate Pāli by eliminating all those Indian popular dialects which on account of their peculiar linguistic features cannot be regarded as the source of Pāli, he finally reached the conclusion that its original home was "a territory, which could not have been too narrow, situated about the region from the middle to the western Vindhya ranges." Thus it is not improbable that Ujjayinī was the centre of its region of expansion. Sten Konow ¹ too has decided in favour of the Vindhya region as the home of Pāli. In his opinion there is a closer relationship between Pāli and Paiśācī, and differing from his predecessors in the field, particularly from Grierson,² he seeks the original home of Paiśācī not in North-West India but in the region of Ujjayinī.
c5.20
⁴ Über den ältesten Zeitraum der indischen Geschichte, p. 87
c5.21
⁵ Beitr., p. 6 ff. Cf. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, II[^2], p. 356.
c5.22
⁶ Pāli und Sanskrit, p. 131 ff. By Pāli I of course always understand what has been called "literary Pāli" by Franke.
c5.23
¹ The home of Paiśācī, ZDMG. 64. 95 ff., particularly 103 f., 114 f., 118.
c5.24
² The Paiśācī Languages of North-Western India, Asiatic Society Monographs, Vol. VIII, 1906; Pischel, Gramun. der Prākrit-Sprachen, § 27.
c5.25
VII. Oldenberg ³ considers Pāli to be the language of the Kalinga country. He considers the legend of Mahinda and his mission to be unhistorical. In his opinion Buddhism, and with it the Tipiṭaka, was introduced into Ceylon rather in course of an intercourse between the island and the neighbouring continent extending over a long period. As regards the character of the language, he compares it above all with that of the inscription of Khandagiri, which in his opinion agrees with Pāli on essential points. Also E. Müller ⁴ considers the Kalinga country to be the home of Pāli. He bases his conclusion on the observation that the oldest settlements in Ceylon could have been founded only from the opposite mainland and not by people from Bengal or thereabout.
c5.26
³ The Vinaya Piṭaka I, London 1879, p. L ff.
c5.27
⁴ Simplified Grammar of the Pāli language, London 1884, p. III.
c5.28
VIII. A concensus of opinion regarding the home of the dialect on which Pāli is based has therefore not been achieved.⁵ Windisch ⁶ therefore falls back on the old tradition—and I am also inclined to do the same—according to which Pāli should be regarded as a form of Māgadhī, the language in which Buddha himself had preached. This language of Buddha was however surely no purely popular dialect, but a language of the higher and cultured classes which had been brought into being already in pre-Buddhistic times through the needs of intercommunication in India.¹ Such a *lingua franca* naturally contained elements of all the dialects, but was surely free from the most obtrusive dialectical characteristics. It was surely not altogether homogeneous. A man from the Magadha country must have spoken it in one way, and a man from the districts of Kosala and Avanti in another, just as in Germany the high German of a cultured person from Württemberg, Saxony or Hamburg shows in each case peculiar characteristic features. Now, as Buddha, although he was no Magadhan himself, displayed his activities mainly in Magadha and the neighbouring countries, the Māgadhī dialect might have imprinted on his language its own characteristic stamp. This language could have therefore been well called Māgadhī even if it avoided the grosseest dialectal peculiarities of this language. As Windisch has rightly pointed out, after the death of the master, a new artificial language must have been evolved out of the language of Buddha. Attempts were made to retain the teachings of Buddha in authentic form, and to impose this form also upon those portions which, although derived from the monastic organisations of the various provinces, were gradually incorporated into the canon. In connection with the designation of the canonical language as Māgadhī, Windisch also refers to the Ārṣa, the language of the Jaina-suttas. It is called Ardha-Māgadhī, i.e., "half-Māgadhī." Now it is surely significant that the Ardha Māgadhī differs from Māgadhī proper on similar points as Pāli.² For Ardha-Māgadhī too does not change the *r* into *l*, and in the noun inflexion it shows the ending *-o* instead of Māgadhic *-e* at least in many metrical pieces. On the other hand, as I believe to have myself observed, there are many remarkable analogies precisely between Ārṣa and Pāli in vocabulary and morphology. Pāli therefore might be regarded as a kind of Ardha-Māgadhī. I am unable to endorse the view, which has apparently gained much currency at present, that the Pāli canon is translated from some other dialect (according to Lüders, from old Ardha-Māgadhī). The peculiarities of its language may be fully explained on the hypothesis of (*a*) a gradual development and integration of various elements from different parts of India, (*b*) a long oral tradition extending over several centuries, and (*c*) the fact that the texts were written down in a different country.
c5.29
⁵ I refer particularly to H. Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, Berlin 1911, p. 40 ff.; A. Berriedale Keith, Pāli, the Language of the Southern Buddhists, Ind. Hist. Qu. I, 1925, p. 501 ff.; P. V. Bapat, The Relation between Pāli and Ardha-māgadhī, Ibid., IV, 1928, p. 23 ff.
c5.30
⁶ Über den sprachlichen Charakter des Pali, in the Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Orientalistes, Algère 1905, prem. partie, Paris 1906, p. 252 ff. Windisch's opinion is similar to that of Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, p. 13.
c5.31
¹ For a graphic description, see Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 140 ff.
c5.32
² Pischel, Gramm. d. Pkr. Spr., p. 15.
c5.33
IX. I consider it wiser not to hastily reject the tradition altogether but rather to understand it to mean that Pāli was indeed no pure Māgadhī, but was yet a form of the popular speech which was based on Māgadhī and which was used by Buddha himself. It would appear therefore that the Pāli canon represents an effort¹ to reflect the Buddhavacanam in its original form. This theory would have been refuted if it could be proved that the Pāli canon must have been translated from some other dialect. Sylvain Lévi² has tried to prove this. He points out a number of termini such as ekodi, samghādisesa, etc., in which a sonant appears in the place of a surd. From these data he infers the existence of a pre-canonical language in which the softening of intervocalic surds was the rule. I do not consider Lévi's arguments to be convincing. Firstly, because all these etymologies given by Lévi are uncertain. Secondly, because the softening of surds takes place not only in the "termini" but also in a large number of other words.³ Moreover, in my opinion, no special case should be made out of this phonological phenomenon. For they merely represent one of the various dialectical peculiarities which are met with in Pāli. Thus, for instance, we find equally frequent cases of the opposite process (hardening of a sonant) as well as various other features which considered together prove the mixed character of the Pāli language.
c5.34
² Journal Asiatique, sér. 10, t. XX, p 495 ff.
c5.35
³ Cf. below, § 38 f.
c5.36
X. If Pāli is the form of the Māgadhī used by Buddha, then the Pāli canon would have to be regarded as the most authentic form of the Buddhavacanam, even though the teachings of the master might have been preached and learnt from the very beginning in the various provinces of India in the respective local dialects. This conclusion has been drawn—wrongly, in my opinion—from Cullavagga V. 33.¹ = Vin. II.139. Here it is related, how two Bhikkhus complained to the master that the members of the order were of various origins, and that they distorted the words of Buddha by their own dialect (sakāya niruttiyā). They therefore proposed that the words of Buddha should be translated into Sanskrit verses (chandaso). Buddha however refused to grant the request and added: anujānāmi *bhikkhave sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ pariyāpuṇituṃ*. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg ¹ translate this passage by "I allow you,² oh brethren, to learn the words of the Buddhas each in his own dialect." This interpretation however is not in harmony with that of Buddhaghosa, according to whom it has to be translated by "I ordain the words of Buddha to be learnt in his own language (i.e., in Māgadhī, the language used by Buddha himself)."³ After repeated examinations of this passage I have come to the conclusion that we have to stick to the explanation given by Buddhaghosa. Neither the two monks nor Buddha himself could have thought of preaching in different dialects in different cases. Here the question is merely whether the words of Buddha might be translated into Sanskrit or not. This is however clearly forbidden by the Master, at first negatively and then positively by the injunction beginning with *anujānāmi*. The real meaning of this injunction is, as is also best in consonance with Indian spirit, that there can be no other form of the words of Buddha than in which the Master himself had preached. Thus even in the life-time of Buddha people were concerned about the way in which his teaching might be handed down as accurately as possible, both in form and in content. How much more must have been the anxiety of the disciples after his death! The external form was however Māgadhī, though according to tradition it is Pāli.⁴
c5.37
¹ I say this intentionally; for, as the Pāli canon is the result of a long development extending over more than one century, it would naturally contain much that is unauthentic. It may have also lost much that is authentic and is preserved in other canons.
c5.38
¹ Vinaya Texts III = Sacred Books of the East, XX, p. 151.
c5.39
² In the text there is no *vo*! But I think this word was indispensable for the interpretation given by the English translators in order to get something with which to connect *sakāya niruttiyā*. According to the actual text *saka* may be connected only with *buddhavacanaṃ*. For the meaning "ordains, decides" for *anujānāti*, cf. Vin., I. 45^25, 88^31, 85^19, 24, 94^13, etc.
c5.40
³ Cf. above, p. 3, f.-n. 1.
c5.41
⁴ See Fr. Weller, Zeitschr. für Buddhismus, 1922, pp. 211-13 and my reply, Ibid., pp. 213-14.
Linked texts (4)
- Cullavagga — Pāli
- Dīpavaṃsa — Pāli
- Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
- Samantapāsādikā — Sanskrit