If what you say is true, the claim that the Pali "Canon" preserves the words of the Buddha can't be true and phrases like, "The words of the Buddha have been preserved to this day in the Pali Canon"; or "the Buddha said in his own Pali words"; or "the Buddha defines x word/words in the Pali Canon as..." are meaningless or at least of low utility?polarbuddha101 wrote:There have been quite a few threads about this. From what I've gathered the Buddha did not speak Pali, rather he spoke some number of dialects very similar to pali and those dialects were brought together and became pali during the memorization and compilation of the suttas.
danieLion wrote:
I'd be interested to see those other threads if anyone knows where to find them.
danieLion wrote:If what you say is true, the claim that the Pali "Canon" preserves the words of the Buddha can't be true and phrases like, "The words of the Buddha have been preserved to this day in the Pali Canon"; or "the Buddha said in his own Pali words"; or "the Buddha defines x word/words in the Pali Canon as..." are meaningless or at least of low utility?polarbuddha101 wrote:There have been quite a few threads about this. From what I've gathered the Buddha did not speak Pali, rather he spoke some number of dialects very similar to pali and those dialects were brought together and became pali during the memorization and compilation of the suttas.
I'd be interested to see those other threads if anyone knows where to find them.
polarbuddha101 wrote:...the difference between being constantly on the object due to constant remembrance and being constantly aware of the object is nearly pointless. They mean basically the same thing.
tiltbillings wrote:danieLion wrote:
I'd be interested to see those other threads if anyone knows where to find them.
Do a search for Magadhi.
polarbuddha101 wrote:There have been quite a few threads about this. From what I've gathered the Buddha did not speak Pali, rather he spoke some number of dialects very similar to pali and those dialects were brought together and became pali during the memorization and compilation of the suttas.
danieLion wrote:tiltbillings wrote:danieLion wrote:
I'd be interested to see those other threads if anyone knows where to find them.
Do a search for Magadhi.
If the Buddha spoke Magadhi (and not Pali) then their's no preservation. For the preservation claim to stick we'd need a Magadhi Canon (along with other requirements).
Kare wrote:There is, however, a high probability for the Buddha's spoken dialect being so close to written Pali that there is no meaningful sense in differentiating between those two.
Danielion wrote:If the Buddha spoke Magadhi (and not Pali) then their's no preservation. For the preservation claim to stick we'd need a Magadhi Canon (along with other requirements).
Kare wrote:According to the Pali commentaries, that is exactly what we have. The language that we call Pali, the Pali commentaries call "Magadhi".
danieLion wrote:Kare wrote:There is, however, a high probability for the Buddha's spoken dialect being so close to written Pali that there is no meaningful sense in differentiating between those two.
What numerical value would you (or have scholars) assigned to this probability?
danieLion wrote:Danielion wrote:If the Buddha spoke Magadhi (and not Pali) then their's no preservation. For the preservation claim to stick we'd need a Magadhi Canon (along with other requirements).Kare wrote:According to the Pali commentaries, that is exactly what we have. The language that we call Pali, the Pali commentaries call "Magadhi".
I'll take your word for that. Do you think this strengthens the preservation claim?
Kare wrote:I do not assign any number to it. But from what I have seen of king Asoka's inscriptions and of fragments of Buddhist writings in Gandhari and other early dialects, the differences are not very large. It is rather unimportant if the Buddha pronounced a word as "kamma" or "karma".
Kamran wrote:...the Canon has so many contradictions...
Here is a discussion of that article that happened here and it goes for a couple of pages:sunyavadin wrote:There was a good article published in Tricycle last year, Whose Buddhism is Truest? At the time I was enrolled in Buddhist Studies at an Australian university, and the article was distributed by the Pali scholar there, who is quite well-regarded, so I think it is a pretty good analysis of the current state of knowledge of this question.
Registered users: Bhikkhu Cintita, Bhikkhu Pesala, Bing [Bot], Crazy cloud, Feathers, fivebells, Google [Bot], Kenshou, kilanta, Kim O'Hara, kiwi, kmath, Magoo, polarbuddha101, retrofuturist, robertk