Page 2 of 4
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:25 pm
by tiltbillings
Bankei wrote:
As for the foreign interchange between monks, I don't think there was much influence on the Pali, but how do we really know?
Because it would require a vast multi-country, multi-generational conspiracy and a rewriting of such works as the Visuddhimagga.
As for Norman, his work is sound, but we are not talking about different languages from the Ardha-Magadhi that the Buddha likely spoke to the Pali; we are talking about dialects, patois maybe. We are talking about closely related prakrits.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:51 pm
by Cittasanto
tiltbillings wrote:Bankei wrote:
As for the foreign interchange between monks, I don't think there was much influence on the Pali, but how do we really know?
Because it would require a vast multi-country, multi-generational conspiracy and a rewriting of such works as the Visuddhimagga.
As for Norman, his work is sound, but we are not talking about different languages from the Ardha-Magadhi that the Buddha likely spoke to the Pali; we are talking about dialects, patois maybe. We are talking about closely related prakrits.
English is possibly the modern day equivelent here, in the UK alone there are two distinct main languages (the other being Scottish & not including the Gaelic variants.)
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:39 pm
by seanpdx
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Here is a screen shot of a typical variant reading between different editions of the Pāli text of the Vinaya Piṭaka, Pārājikakaṇḍa. The tooltip shows the variant readings in the Singhalese (si) and Thai (sya) editions of the Pāli texts. The text being the Chatthasangayana Burmese edition.
In all variant readings that I have come across, the differences are trivial, different spellings, or a word or phrase missing here and there. Certainly nothing to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Pāli texts.
Sn1071-1072, pārāyanavagga, contains a reading of "vimutto" which is contrasted with a reading of "'dhimutto" in nidd2. Wynne argues the case that "'dhimutto" is the correct reading. If this is true, then it appears that the correct reading would have been entirely lost without the existence of the commentary. In how many other passages of the canon has this happened, of which we are unaware? This is not a trivial difference.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:16 am
by Bankei
There is an interesting and related paper online at
http://www.mb.mahidol.ac.th/bodhi/downl ... ritcle.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Peter Skilling, "An impossible Task? The classical 'edition' and Thai Pali Literature."
He mainly talks about more recent Thai manuscripts, but the same would apply to earlier manuscripts.
Bankei
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:20 am
by Bankei
Prof K. R. Norman has a new article out, "Sanskritisms or Orthographical Variants?" in the Indo Iranian Journal, Vol 52/2-3, 2010. It looks interesting, though I don't have access.
Abstract:
In Middle Indo-Aryan, Old Indo-Aryan consonant groups as a general rule assimilate to geminate groups or are resolved by a svarabhakti vowel. Some consonant groups in Pāli are neither assimilated nor resolved. Where they are identical with Sanskrit they are commonly called "Sanskritisms". Some are deliberate, e.g. brāhmana. Others are only apparent, and happen to have acquired in some way a shape which is identical with that expected in Sanskrit. Where they occur in verse, an analysis of the metre shows that the appearance of Sanskritisms may possibly be due to the reduction of the length of the svarabhakti vowel in an attempt to facilitate recitation. I would suggest that these are not attempts to make a text look more like Sanskrit. They are really examples of orthographic variation.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:24 am
by tiltbillings
Bankei wrote:. . .
So, at this point in the thread, your point is?
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
by Bankei
no point, just thought some may be interested.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:47 am
by tiltbillings
Bankei wrote:no point, just thought some may be interested.
Rather speaking in general, has your question been answered?
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:54 pm
by Bankei
no
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:24 am
by tiltbillings
Bankei wrote:no
That is really not helpful. So, none of the above answers has addressed your question in anyway.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:49 am
by Nibbida
tiltbillings wrote:Bankei wrote:
Don't forget there was a great deal of exchange between monks in the pre-modern era. Theravada monks in Tibet, Tibetan monks in Sri Lanka, Sri Lankans in India and Indonesia and the Chinese travelling monks, Faxian etc. They are the ones we know about, how many more where there? This is another facinating topic.
As for the Tibetan monks; certainly unlikely that they hasd any influence on the Pali suttas, given that the canon was settled long before Buddhism went to Tibet, and Tibetan monks did not - do not - have a complete set of the Agamas.
As for the travelling Chinese monks, there is no evidence that they had any influence on the Pali texts.
As an aside, I heard a talk by Guy Armstrong on the history of Buddhism in India (see below). He stated that the Tibetans have the Sarvastivadin canon is in Sanskrit. While similar to the Theravadan Pali canon, with much overlap, it is not complete.
Part 1:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/79/talk/3293/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/79/talk/3295/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:08 am
by tiltbillings
Nibbida wrote:tiltbillings wrote: As an aside, I heard a talk by Guy Armstrong on the history of Buddhism in India (see below). He stated that the Tibetans have the Sarvastivadin canon is in Sanskrit. While similar to the Theravadan Pali canon, with much overlap, it is not complete.
Part 1:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/79/talk/3293/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/79/talk/3295/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is not complete is because it is "hinayana," and was not worth the time and effort to translate i from Sanskrit into Tibetan.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:49 am
by jcsuperstar
if i remember correctly its pretty small isnt it?
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:19 am
by tiltbillings
jcsuperstar wrote:if i remember correctly its pretty small isnt it?
It is not very much, which is really too bad given the care that was used in the translations done by the Tibetans.
Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:25 am
by Bankei
tiltbillings wrote:Bankei wrote:no
That is really not helpful. So, none of the above answers has addressed your question in anyway.
I would like to try to find something in more detail, and more scholarly. Thanks