A History of Indian Literature v2.c22.3

v2.c22.3

but according to the commentary of Buddhaghosa: "I order you to learn the word of the Buddha in *his* own language" (*i.e.* in Māgadhī, the language spoken by the Buddha). Consequently, *Geiger* regards Pāli as an attempt to reconstruct the word of the Buddha in Buddha's own language. According to this the Pāli Canon would be identical with the Canon of Pāṭaliputra not only in content, but also in language. I do not think, however, that *Geiger's* explanation of Culla-Vagga V, 33 is tenable. *Geiger* is of opinion that, in the translation "I allow you" etc., we would expect a *vo* after *anujānāmi*, to which *sakāya* would refer However, this *vo* can, I think, be supplied easily enough from the vocative *bhikkhave*, especially when we remember that the expression *anujānāmi bhikkhave* occurs on almost every page of the Vinaya-Piṭaka, and has become stereotyped. If *Geiger's* explanation were correct, we should also expect that not only the translation into Sanskrit, but also the learning of the word of Buddha in the dialects of the monks of various districts, would have been forbidden. Then again, the stern words attributed to Buddha, in which he rejects the suggestion that the word of Buddha should be translated into the language of the Veda or set in verse after the manner of the Veda, because that would not contribute to the conversion of the unconverted nor increase the number of the converted, are additional evidence that the chief concern was to propagate the word of Buddha as widely as possible, which is only possible if the monks in various districts preach the word of Buddha in the languages of those districts.[^1)