THE
LANGUAGE PROBLEM OF
PRIMITIVE
BUDDHISM
What language was used by
primitive Buddhism? This is problem yet unsolved among the learned
circles. Based upon some new materials I wish to propose my personal
views concerning this problem.
In the Cullavagga,
V. 33.1, there is narrated the following story:
Now
there were two Bhikkhus surnamed Yamelutekula, who were brothers born
in a Brahman family. They had good voice and were expert in
conversation. They came to the presence of the Blessed One, to whom
they paid their homage and sat aside. After having taken their seat,
the two Bhikkhus said to the Blessed One, “Bhante,
now
the Bhikkhus with different family names and personal names, of
different social ranks and families, have come to join the Order.
With their own vernaculars they have marred the Buddha’s
words. Please permit us to express the Buddha’s
words in Sanskrit.” The
Buddha reproached them, saying, “You
fools, how dare you say, ‘Please
permit us to express the Buddha’s
words in Sanskrit’. Fools,
by doing so you could neither induce those who did not have faith in
the Buddha to have faith him, nor could you enhance the faith of
those who already had it in the Buddha. You could only help those did
not believe in the Buddha and change the mind of those who already
believed in him.” After
having reprimanded them, he preached the Dhamma for them, and then
said to the Bhikkhus, “Bhikkhus
you are not allowed to express the Buddha’s
words in Sanskrit. Those who act contrarily be considered as having
committed the offence of Dukkata.”[i]
And finally the
Buddha said: Anujānāmi
bhikkhave sakāya
niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ
pariyāpunituṃ
A comparatively
important problem of primitive Buddhism, the problem of language, is
involved in this story. Buddhism during the period of its initiation
may be considered, in many respects, as a sort of resistance or
revolution against Brahmanism, the principal religion that occupied
the position of predomination at the time. It was but natural that it
should have opposed with determination the use of Sanskrit, the
language of Brahmanism. In spite of the fact that during the 5th and
6th centuries B. C., the development of the Sanskrit language had
reached its zenith, and if used, it would bring many advantages for
the propagation of the Buddhist doctrines, but for the sake of
carrying out his own ideas, the Buddha would not consider the use of
that language and scolded the two Bhikkhus as “fools”.
Problem because they were the descendants of a Brahman family, these
two Bhikkhus still had some old conceptions in their brains. That was
why they made the proposal to the Buddha for the adoption of Sanskrit
and incurred his rebuke.
If Sanskrit was not
used, then what language did they use? For the propagation of
religion, the “policy of
language” was a
comparatively important problem, which must be settled. The Buddha’s
last sentence in the above story was for the solution of his problem.
But the point is that this
sentence itself is rather ambiguous, and when literarily translated
it reads:
“I
permit you, O Monks, to learn the word of the Buddha in his own
language.”
In
the translation the meaning is comparatively clear, but the ambiguity
lies in the original Pāli words
sakāya nituttiyā
(one’s own language), which
might be interpreted either as “the
Buddha’s own language”
or as “the monk’s
own language”. For many
years in the past this has been the point of contention among
Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist research workers.
T.
W. Rhys Davids and H. Olderberg interpreted this term as “the
monk’s own language”[ii],
while W. Geiger was of the opinion that it meant “the
Buddha’s own
language”.[iii]
Since they raised this dispute, many Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist
research worker have joined in the discussion and a hot debate has
been carried on. Generally speaking, they may be divided into three
groups. One group of scholars agreed with Rhys Davids and Olderberg,
another group accepted the opinion of Geiger, while the third one
proposed a new interpretation of their own. Those who denied Geiger’s
opinion included F. Weller,[iv]
A. B. Keith[v] and M.
Winternitz.[vi]
E.
J. Thomas proposed a new interpretation of the term and rendered the
word “nirutti”
as “grammar”,
thus translating the sentence as “I
order you, Monks, to master the word of the Buddha(Buddhavacanam)
in its own grammar”.[vii]
But
this is hardly justifiable, because the word nirutti
can by no means be interpreted as “grammar”.[viii]
P. C. Bagchi had
another new theory. He said that it was not a question of using one’s
own dialect for reciting the Buddhavacanam, but using one’s
natural intonation for the recitation. His theory, however, dose not
have sufficient ground, because nirutti
cannot be interpreted as “intonation”.
It
seems that W. Geiger was in a rather isolated position, but he had a
powerful basis for his argument. He quoted the commentary of
Buddhaghosa, the authoritative commentator of Pāli
texts,
as the basis of his theory. He said, “Here
the
words sakā nirutti refers to
the dialect of Magadha spoken by the Samyak-sambuddha”.[ix]
Then how is that so? To explain
these questions and to settle these disputes, we must make a study of
the dialect spoken by the Buddha himself and the compilation of the
Buddhist scriptures.
As we all know that
Sākyamuni was born in the
frontier regions of North India in the territory of present Nepal.
But he spend most of his time travelling in the then kingdom of
Magadha (approximately in the present province of Bihar) for the
propagation of his doctrines. Thus the language he spoke might most
probably be the dialect of Magadha. Conjectured from different
respects, no written record of the Buddhist texts in whatever
language existed during his lifetime.
According
to Buddhist tradition, not long after the Buddha’s
Nirvāna, his disciple
Mahākaśyapa
assembled
five hundred Arahants at Rājagṛha
to recite the Buddhist scriptures. That assemblage was known as the
“Council of Five Hundred
Arahants”, because five
hundred persons took part in the meeting. One hundred years after the
Buddha’s Nirvāna,
the Buddhists again held another council at Vaiśālī,
in which seven hundred persons were present, and so it was known as
the “Council of Seven
Hundred Persons”. According
to earlier tradition, the chief purpose of this council was to wipe
out the ten points of erroneous views concerning the Vinaya.[x]
But according to later tradition it is said that this council lasted
eight months, in which the participants recited and collated the
Buddha’s teachings.[xi]
This supposition is apparently a bit exaggerated. It is possible,
however, that one hundred years after the Buddha’s
demise, some of the Buddhist scriptures which were taught only
orally, had been committed to writing at that time. Thus this
tradition might have implied some historical facts.
According
to the opinions of scholars in general, it was probably at the third
Buddhist council that the possibility of compiling the Tipitaka on a
large scale presented itself[xii].
That was the time when Aśoka, a
great protector of Buddhism (whose ascension occurred in about 273 B.
C.), was on the throne. The eminent monk Tissa Moggaliputta assembled
the monks at Pātaliputra(present
Pantna) to compile the Buddhist texts. We have mentioned above that
the language spoken by the Buddha for the propagation of his
doctrines might have been the dialect of Magadha. If that was the
case, when the Buddhists compiled the Buddhist texts, after the
demise of the Buddha, out of the fragmentary scriptures orally taught
to them, the language they used must also be the dialect of Magadha.
But it cannot be pure Magadhi, for it is unimaginable that the purity
of the language could be retained after the duration of a long time
when Buddhism had been spread to more and more regions. Therefore,
the German scholar H. Lüders
called this language used in primitive Buddhist texts as ancient
semi-Magadhi. As Tissa Moggaliputra belonged to the school of
Sthaviravāda (or Theravāda
in Pāli), the scriptures
compiled under his supervision also belonged to this school. He also
despatched monks to various places to propagate the teachings of
Buddhism. The one who was sent to Ceylon was Aśoka’s
younger brother Mahinda (also said to be his son).[xiii]
According to the tradition of the Buddhists of Ceylon, the extent
Pāli Tipitaka was brought to
Ceylon by Mahinda. And Pāli
means the language of Magadha (Māgadhā
nirutti or Māgadhikā
bhāsā), or in other words, Pāli
is
the language spoken by the Buddha and the Pāli
Tipitaka
is the only orthodox Canon of the Buddhists.
Now let us go back
to the point about the explanation of the two words sakā
nirutti given by Buddhaghosa, and we may understand that
it was his standpiont that made him to interpret them in such a way.
As he was an authoritative commentator on Pāli
texts
and stood for them, he would surely try with utmost effort to
procure an orthodox position for the Pāli
texts.
And here lies the reason why his interpretation is unreliable
and subjective.
From
linguistic characteristics we may also elucidate that the Pāli
language of Magadha. There have been various pinions concerning the
problem of the region in which the Pāli
language was prevalent. Westergaard[xiv]
and E. Kuhn[xv] considered
that Pāli was the local dialect
of Ujjayinī. From a research of
this problem in the field of inscriptions, R. O. Franke came to the
conclusion that Pāli was the
dialect of the region in the central and western part of the Vindhya
Ranges.[xvi] Sten Konow was
also the opinion that the zone of Vindhva Ranges was the home of the
Pāli language,[xvii]
because he discovered many similarities between the Pāli
and the Paiśāci languages,
and he fixed the home of Paiśāci
at Ujjayinī.[xviii]
At first, H. Olednberg advocated that Pāli
was
the dialect of Kalinga,[xix]
and E. Muller followed his opinion.[xx]
But afterward H. Olednberg gave up his view and established a new
theory, saying that Pāli was the
predecessor of the Magadhi language.[xxi]
Meanwhile E. Windisch[xxii]
and W. Geiger[xxiii] returned
to the lod theory, considering Pāli
as the dialect of Magadha.[xxiv]
Although the
above-mentioned views vary from one another, there is a comparatively
concordant point; that is, most of the scholars advocated that the
Pāli language was a Western
dialect, and such was truly the fact. The declensions of the Pāli
words are similar to those of the language used in the Girnār
Inscriptions of the Aśokan
Pillars, such as the locative case in -amhi
and -e. the accusative
case in -ne, etc. But on
the other hand, the Magadha language was an eastern dialect, in which
r had become as l,
and s as ś,
while the nominative case of words ending in -a
ended in -e, …etc.
There is vast difference between the two languages and they should by
no means be confused with each other.
Based upon the above
evidences. I feel we can safely come to the conclusion that sakā
nirutti neither means the “Buddha’s
own language” nor implies
“grammar”
or “intonation”,
but it indicates the “monks’
own language”. The Buddha
permitted the monks to learn his word with their own dialects and
vernaculars.
If the above
evidences are considered as insufficient, then some more new
testimonies can be produced. The story from the Cullavagga
as quoted above, has many variant versions in the Chinese
translations of the Tipitaka. Some of them are enumerated as
follows:
In the
Vinaya-mātrkā-sūtra:
There
were two Brahman Bhikkhus, named Usaha and Samadha, who went to the
Buddha and said to him, “The
disciples of the Buddha came from different cases of different places
in different countries. Their language are not the same and their
pronunciation is incorrect, and thus they distorted the right
teachings of the Buddha. May the Blessed One allow us to carry out
debates and compile the scriptures according to the Chandas way
(referring to Sanskrit), so that the sentences may be arranged in
order and the pronunciations corrected, in order to unveil the
teachings of the Buddha.”
The Buddha told the Bhikkhus, saying, “In
my
teachings emphasis is not laid on rhetoric. What I mean is that
the doctrines should not be misunderstood. They should be taught in
any language which is understood by the people, according to their
suitability.” Therefore,
his teachings were taught according to the circumstances of the
land.”[xxv]
In the
Dhramagupta-vinaya, Vol.
LⅡ
There
was a Bhikku named Bravery who was the descendant of a Brahman
family. He came to the presence of the Buddha, and after having
worshipped him, he sat aside and said to the Blessed One, “Venerable
Sir, the Bhikkhus come from different castes and have different
names. They misinterpreted the teachings of the Buddha. May the
Blessed One permit us to rearrange the Buddhist scriptures in
Sanskrit” The Buddha said,
“You are fools! That would
be a defacement to mix the Buddhist scriptures with a heretical
language.” He further said,
“Recite the scriptures in
the language of the country according to custom of the
people.”[xxvi]
In the
Mahisāsaka-vinaya,
Vol. ⅩⅩⅥ:
There
were two Brahman brothers who were versed in the Chandas-veda and
later became monks in the Buddhist Order. They heard that the
Bhikkhus were reciting the scriptures in an improper way, and said to
them scornfully, “You
venerable sirs have become monks for a long time, and yet you don’t
know the masculine and feminine genders, the singular and plural
numbers, the present, past and future tenses, the long and short
vowels, and the heavy and light accents. In such a way you are
reciting the scriptures!”
The Bhikkhus were ashamed to hear this remark, and the brothers went
to the Buddha and reported the case to him. The Buddha said, “They
are allowed to recite the scriptures in their own native tongue, only
that they should not misunderstand the Buddha’s
meaning. No one is allowed to mix the Buddha’s
word with a heretical language. One who acted contrarily would be
considered as having committed the offence sthūlātaya.”[xxvii]
In the
sarvāstivāda,
Vol.
ⅩⅩⅩⅧ:
Once
the Buddha was in Śrāvastī.
There were two Brahmans, one
names Gopa and the other one Yapa, who had a devout faith in Buddhism
and become Buddhist monks. They had formerly learned the heretical
four Vedas, and after
having become monks they recited the Buddhist scriptures with Vedic
intonations. Then one of them died, and the one who was alive forgot
some passage of the scriptures and could not recited them fluently.
He could not find a companion and was unhappy in it. Thus he told it
to the Buddha, who said to the monks, “From
now
onwards anyone who recites the Buddhist scriptures with a
heretical intonation will be considered as having committed the
offence of Dukkata.”[xxviii]
In
the Mūlasarvāstivāda-nikāya-vinaya-samyuktavastu,
Vol Ⅵ:
Once
the Buddha was in Śtrāvastī.
At that time the Ven. Śāriptra
ordained two Brahmans into the Order. One of them was called Ox-given
and the other one Ox-born. Both of them studied the recitation of
Buddhist scriptures. Afterwards they travelled about and came to a
village, where they obtained many offerings and took up their
lodgings there. Now these two persons had formerly learned the
grammatical method of Brahmanic hymns. So when they recited the
Buddhist scriptures, they habitually followed their old method. Then
one of them suddenly died of illness. The one who was living was
grieved by the death of his friend, and forgot most of the scriptures
through negligence. Thus he returned to Śrāvastī
and came to the Jetavana Grove. After having taken rest, he went to
see the Ven. Kaundinya, to whom he paid his respect and said,
“Venerable Sir, let us
review the scriptures together.”
“Very well, I shall recite
them for you,” was the
reply. After the elder had recited some passages of the scriptures,
the monk said to him, “Venerable
Sir, your recitation of the scriptures is mistaken. The vowels are
not pronounced as long ones, and so there is something missing.”
The elder said in reply, “I
have always recited the scriptures in this way.”
Thus the monks took his leave went to see Aśvajit,
Bhadra,
Mahānāma,
Vāsas, Yaśas,
Pūrṇa,
Gavāmpati, Vimala, Subāhu
and Rāhula, to each of whom he
said, “Venerable Sir, let
us review the scriptures together.”
“Very well, I shall recite
the scriptures for you,”
was the reply. After the elder had recited some passages, etc., the
monk took his leave and went to see the Ven. Śāriputra,
to whom he paid his respect and said, “Upādhyāya,
let us review the scriptures together.”
While they were reciting the scriptures together the monk elongated
vowels, and Śāriputra
pronounced them with double length. The monk said, “Venerable
teacher, all the other elders are mistaken in their recitation. Only
you, Venerable teacher, are correct in pronunciation and grammar.”
Śāriputra
said
to him. “You are a
fool. You are mistaken yourself, and yet you slander those wise men,
saying that they do not know how to recite the scriptures. None of
the elders is mistaken in the recitation.”
Having been rebuked, the monk remained silent. Then the monks
reported this to the Buddha who thought in his mind. “All
this trouble is caused by the elongation of vowels in the way of
singing hymns when the monks recite the scriptures. Therefore the
monks should not elongate the vowels in the way of singing hymns when
they recite the scriptures. Any monk who recites the scriptures in
the Chandas (Sanskrit) way shall be considered as committing a
transgression. But one is not considered so, if the vowels are
elongated according to his own dialect.”[xxix]
The above are quoted
five different versions of the story. It is not unusual to find
different versions of one passage, one version or one srory in the
Buddhist scriptures. There are similarities and dissimilarities in
the above quoted different versions of the story. The similarities
indicate that they were derived from the same origin, and the
dissimilarities denote that they have been developed along different
lines. In spite of fact that some of them are in detail and some are
brief, but the fundamental contents are the same. Comparing with the
story contained in the Cullavagga,
the fundamental contents are the same. Therefore, we may also say
that these variant Chinese versions are derived from the same source
as the Pāli version. It is
necessary to make this point clear, because it is on this basis that
we can ascertain the interpretation of the Pāli
version
of the story in accordance with the Chinese versions.
In these Chinese
versions the same thought is expressed concerning the “policy
of language”; namely, the
use of Sanskrit was absolutely disallowed, while the use of dialects
and vernaculars was quite permissible. With this point in view,
meaning of the last sentence spoken by the Buddha as mentioned in the
story in the Cullavagga is
perfectly clear and has left no room for doubt. This sentence which
has caused contention for many years without a decision should thus
be rendered only as:
“I
permit you, O monks, to use (your) own language to study the word of
the Buddha.”
This conclusion
seems to be quite plain and simple, and yet it factually solved the
problem of comparative importance in the history of Buddhism–the
problem of language of primitive Buddhism. As we have mentioned above
that Buddhism, during its first period of propagation, was a sort of
resistance against Brahmanism. Therefore it attracted many followers
among the oppressed masses. These people was of different social
ranks, speaking different languages and coming from various castes of
various places. If Sanskrit was adopted, or the language of Magadha
was used as the medium of study, it would certainly cause many
difficulties and would have as unfavourable influence upon the spread
of Buddhism among the masses. Therefore, primitive Buddhism adopted a
liberal policy of language, disallowing on the one hand, the used of
Sanskrit which was the language of Brahmanism, and on the other hand,
not sanctifying the Magadhi dialect
spoken by the Buddha so as to raise it to the position of the only
scriptural language. It permitted the monks to use their own dialects
and vernaculars for the study and propagation of the Buddhist
teachings. This had a great advantage for approaching the masses and
going deep into them. According to my personal view, the fact that
Buddhism during its first period of propagation had such a great
force among the masses, and that it could spread so fast, was
inseparable with its policy of language. On the other hand, at later
times Buddhist scriptures had many variant versions in quite a number
of variegated languages, unlike Brahmanism which could basically
preserve the unity and purity of its canons, and this was also due to
liberal policy of language adopted by primitive Buddhism.
注
釋
[i]
The Vinaya Pitakam, ed.
by Hermann Olerberg, vol. Ⅱ, The
Cullavagga, London, 1880, p. 139.
[ii]
Vinaya Texts, Ⅲ, Sacred
Books of the East, ⅩⅩ, p. 151.
[iii]
Pāli-Literatur und Sprache.
Strassburg, 1916, p. 5.
[iv]
Zeitschrift fur Buddhismus,
n. F. Ⅰ, 192, pp. 211 ff.
[v]
Indian Historical Quarterly,
Ⅰ, 1925, p. 501.
[vi]
A history of Indian Literature,
Ⅱ, p. 62.
[vii]
The Life of Buddha, New
York, 1927, pp. 253 ff.
[viii]
Cf., M. Winteritz’s, A
History of Indian Literature, Ⅱ, pp. 602 ff.
[ix]
Samantapāsādikā,
ed. Saya U Pye, Ⅳ,pp. 416-20.
[x]
Cullavagga, ⅩⅩ, Sacred
Books of the East, Vol.ⅩⅩ, pp. 409 ff.
[xi]
dipavaṃsa,
v.27 ff.: Mahāvaṃsa,
Ⅳ.
[xii]
E. J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha,
pp. 170 ff.: Copleston, Buddhism,
pp. 154, 171, 175.
[xiii]
Barth, Religions of India,
London, 1921, p.130: Copleston, Buddhism,
pp. 176 ff.
[xiv]
Über den ältesten Zeitraum
der indischen Geschichte, p. 87.
[xv]
Beiträge zur Pāli-Grammatik,
pp.6 ff.
[xvi]
Pāli und Sanskrit,
pp. 131 ff.
[xvii]
The Home of Paiśāci,
ZDMG. 64, pp. 95 ff.
[xviii]
Grierson, The
Paiśāci Languages of North-Western Indian, Asiatic Society
Monograghs, vol. Ⅷ. 1906, in which it is said that
Paiśāci was the dialect of
North-Western India.
[xix]
The Vinaya Pitakam. Vol.
London, 1879, pp. L. ff.
[xx]
Simplified Grammar of the Pali
Language, London, 1884, p. 111.
[xxi]
Die Lehre des Upanishaden und die
Anfänge des, Buddhismus, Göttingen,
1915, p. 283.
[xxii]
Über den sprachlichen Charakter
des Pāli, Actes du XIVe Congrés
International des Orientaliste, prem. partie. Paris. 1906, pp. 252
ff.
[xxiii]
Pāli-Literatur und Sprache,
p. 5.
[xxiv]
Concerning this problem there are numerous literatures. Cf. Chi
Hsien-lin: “Die Verwendung
des Aorists als Kriterium fur Alter und Ursprung buddhistischer
Textes,” Collected
Publications of the Academy of Sciences of Göttingen, the
Section of Languages and History, 1949, p. 288, Anm. 2.
[xxv]
The Revised Taisho Edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. ⅩⅩⅣ, p. 822.
[xxvi]
The Revised Taisho Edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. ⅩⅩⅣ, p. 955.
[xxvii]
The Revised Taisho Edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. ⅩⅩⅡ, p. 174. Cf. the
Mahisāśāka-vinaya,
vol. Ⅵ (The Revised Taisho Edition
of the Tripitaka, vol.ⅩⅩⅡ. p. 39): “The
Bhikkhus came to become monks from different countries, and their
intonation for the recitation of the scriptures was incorrect. Some
laymen sneered at them and said, ‘How
is it, monks, that you are under the direct instruction of the
Buddha and yet do not know the masculine and feminine genders and
the singular plural numbers in grammar?’
Upon hearing this the monks felt ashamed and told it to the Buddha,
On account of this event the Buddha assembled the monks and asked
them, ‘Was it really so?’
They replied , ‘It was
really so, Sir.’ Then the
Buddha reproached the laymen from a distance, saying, ‘You
folls, why should you have sneered at these foreign monks, saying
that their pronunciation and grammar are incorrect in the recitation
of the scriptures?”
[xxviii]
The Revised Taisho Edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. ⅩⅩⅢ, p. 274.
[xxix]
The Revised Taisho Edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. ⅩⅩⅣ, p. 232.