Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Bankei wrote:- The Pali canon was translated into Pali from another language(s), and errors have occured and misunderstandings or misinterpretations
- Various councils occured throughout history to 'fix' errors.
- There are variations in the wording of different manuscripts available in different countries. which one would count as correct?
Pali was not "translated" from the spoken language of Magadha.
T.W. Rhys Davids in his book Buddhist India, and Wilhelm Geiger in his book Pali Literature and Language suggested that Pali may have originated as a form of lingua franca or common language of culture among people who used differing dialects in North India, used at the time of the Buddha and employed by him.
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.
Attachments
Variant Readings.png
Variant Readings.png (17.43 KiB) Viewed 5047 times
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi JC

Because of a number of reasons:
- many variations between sutta preserved in the various traditions
- The Pali canon was translated into Pali from another language(s), and errors have occured and misunderstandings or misinterpretations
- Various councils occured throughout history to 'fix' errors.
- There are variations in the wording of differernt manuscripts available in different countries. which one would count as correct?

I think it is naive to consider Thervada the pure unaltered teaching as the Buddha taught it. ie The exact word of the Buddha.
Where is your proof for these?
Translated is too strong a word, given that we are likely talking about very closely related prakrits.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Manapa wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi JC

Because of a number of reasons:
- many variations between sutta preserved in the various traditions
- The Pali canon was translated into Pali from another language(s), and errors have occured and misunderstandings or misinterpretations
- Various councils occured throughout history to 'fix' errors.
- There are variations in the wording of differernt manuscripts available in different countries. which one would count as correct?

I think it is naive to consider Thervada the pure unaltered teaching as the Buddha taught it. ie The exact word of the Buddha.
Where is your proof for these?
Translated is too strong a word, given that we are likely talking about very closely related prakrits.
Hi Tilt,
I am not sure why he used translate, but he specified 'another language, errors, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations,' which is the area which was more interesting to me, in that part at least.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bankei »

Hi

Thanks Bhikkhu Pesala. That is interesting. But, there has been a lot of modern swapping of manuscripts between the various Theravada countries, especially with the re-introduction of the Upasampada from one country to another. I wonder what the more ancient texts were like.

As for the The Pali canon being a translation from other languages, this comes up frequently in the writings of Prof K. R. Norman, former president of the Pali Tex Society. I don't have the linguistic knowledge to understand what he talks about, but he frequently brings up the issues of sanskritisation of Pali words in various sutta and has identified more than a few errors with the meaning of the oriignal word being lost and translators being mistaken in their conversion of the word to Pali. He has also clearly stated that Pali was not likely to have been used by the Buddha and the Pali canon being a translation. This is located in volumes of his collected works published by the PTS - I am not home at the moment but can give references in a few weeks when I return.

Having said this, if it was a translation, then it must be based on earlier works.

As for the foreign interchange between monks, I don't think there was much influence on the Pali, but how do we really know? There are Pali inscriptions from 1100s or 1200s in Bodhgaya india showling Sinhalise monks were there then. fa Xian went to Sri lanka around the 700s etc. The Pali commentary on the vinaya was translated into Chinese too. This is all interesting stuff, and I may start another thread to collect this information - I have some notes which i will put up in a few weeks.

Regards

Bankei
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post 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.)
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post 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.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post 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
-----------------------
Bankei
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post 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.
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bankei wrote:. . .
So, at this point in the thread, your point is?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bankei »

no point, just thought some may be interested.
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bankei wrote:no point, just thought some may be interested.
Rather speaking in general, has your question been answered?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bankei »

no
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bankei wrote:no
That is really not helpful. So, none of the above answers has addressed your question in anyway.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply