Here’s translation of my piece of text. I’m interested in any feedback.
So what language did Buddha speak, and why do the commentaries say what they say about Pali?
Western scholars (laymen and monks) who translated the Pali commentaries formed the now common opinion that when the commentaries say that Pali is “the language understood by all beings,” this is necessarily a secondary imitation of Sanskrit ideas about “the language woven into the universe,” which appeared as a kind of overlap of Sanskrit influence in the period of the later layers of commentaries after AD, when their replenishment was carried out exclusively in Sri Lanka. In my opinion, this is an extremely strong simplification, which is not even particularly wanted to be understood because of the obviousness of such conclusions, which, however, are certainly imaginary.
My observations are that such passages are rather the earliest parts of the original commentary corpus (i.e., BEFORE its compilation by Buddhaghosa in Sri Lanka in the 5th century AD; there is also a nuance here, see below), dating back to the early Indian Sangha (before its decline throughout Hindustan), and they speak of nothing other than a relatively common language (at least regionally), which was then what is now called “Pali” and which dominated (partially or completely) in a certain “Aryan” (i.e., non-Dravidian) part of India as the main language of non-priestly culture and trade (i.e., in almost all spheres), and this happened during a time of severe crisis for both Brahmanism and Sanskrit as a whole, and, accordingly, long before the rise of classical Sanskrit as the main language of culture. However, let us proceed in order and in summary:
-
Pali and classical Sanskrit equally originated from the more archaic Vedic language of the Rigveda etc.
-
Ven. Buddhagosa did NOT invent and did NOT write commentaries on his own. His work consisted of compiling and translating the corpus that already existed at that time, which, by the 5th century CE, had begun to disappear in India but remained intact in Sri Lanka, where he went. Based on sporadic direct quotations by Ven. Buddhaghosa from the original portions of the commentary corpus he had at his disposal, and their style, as well as based on the Buddha’s general desire to establish the tradition of commentary during his lifetime (hence the suttas about what is said having a meaning that still needs to be interpreted and a meaning that does not need to be interpreted, plus numerous episodes where Buddha himself wanted his great disciples to comment on his short phrases), the commentary material began to be collected during Buddha’s lifetime and in the early Sangha. Only later, after the decline of Theravada in India, did the commentary material begin to be supplemented almost exclusively in Sri Lanka. The compiled edition of Buddhaghosa eventually remained the only one, the originals being completely lost, with only rare direct quotations from it remaining.
-
By the time of Buddha’s life, Brahmanical culture and, accordingly, their priestly language (= Sanskrit) were at one of their greatest peaks of decline. Prakrits were everywhere.
-
Based on Ashoka’s inscriptions (and only them—there are no other similar sources), the language we now call “Pali” has a lot of both purely West Indian and purely East Indian language features—with the West Indian ones being more common. Added to this composite are borrowed words from Sanskrit (the most common being brāhmaṇa) and Vedic archaisms. Due to the comparative predominance of elements of “Western Prakrit,” a very popular version has emerged among Western scholars that the Tipitaka texts were originally memorized in Eastern Prakrit and then “translated” into Western Prakrit, but some parts were simply “forgotten” to be translated, and remnants of Eastern Prakrit seep through (e.g., the ending in e- for the masculine singular). A detailed analysis of this will not be presented here, but this is highly doubtful, if only because these “Eastern” elements were passed down through generations, and the entire Kathavatthu is replete with them, which suggests that they were an incorporated element within the language itself, a kind of “sub-dialect.” Other counterarguments lie in different planes, but another of the most prominent is the absurdity of the very possibility of translating such a large number of texts within the oral tradition of transmission, especially within the Brahmanical practices of transmission (a prominent link in the Sangha of Buddha was converted Brahmins, whose lifelong craft was precisely recitation). The very fact that Pali encompasses such a wide range of different Prakrits (separated by a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers) suggests that Pali was a common language that developed through contact between different regions of Hindustan, and became particularly firmly established in certain regions (due to fluctuations in ruling clans) as the “standard language.” When commentaries refer to the language of Buddha as “Magadhi,” they are hardly referring, as Western scholars think, to the local Eastern Prakrit, but rather to “the language accepted in the Magadhi region,” which was the standard common dialect — Pali. Why it is called this in the commentaries is an open question, but the name does not necessarily have to refer to the region of origin. Buddha chose this language for his teachings precisely because of its inclusiveness and prevalence. Another possibility is that the choice of Pali as the main language of preaching was intentional, because its characteristics could then be the most “average” for understanding by the maximum number of people, thereby promoting Pali. It is also possible that both were true. When it comes to translation, it is likely that for the purpose of unification and in view of the decision to preserve/promote/both Pali, the phonetics of individual characters of the sutras, which were very extreme for Pali, were translated into Pali phonetics already at the First Council (e.g., all ś and ṣ became s) at the suggestion of the venerable Ananda. These texts were then transmitted in this way.
-
Being versed in linguistic matters, the elders of the early Sangha (as well as the Buddha himself) understood the importance of language and how it affects meaning. Therefore, in the earliest Indian commentaries, attempts were made to preserve Pali (or, conversely, to promote it even more; or with the aim of both) with a subsequent logical description of its advantages — “everyone understands it.” Or these remarks were made in other contexts, as a general praise of the comprehensibility of Pali, as if at odd times.
-
After almost 10 centuries, these records in their entirety remained in the hands of Mahavihara in Sri Lanka, where Ven. Buddhagosa came there to compile the commentaries (there is no doubt about the cumbersomeness of the originals, which is evident from the style of the quoted excerpts) into a more tangible unit under the close guidance of the local elders. Reading these Pali odes, none of those present at the time fully understood what it was all about, because the linguistic landscape had changed so much by the 5th century, However, no one wanted to discard these parts due to the scrupulousness of both the editor and his strict supervisors from Mahavihara, which is why the final result was not entirely clear. The description of the “general comprehensibility” of Pali contains exaggerations (in the original or in the compilation — it is not clear), but in my opinion, they were undoubtedly intended to show its inclusiveness, rather than some abstract idea that Pali is a language woven into the very fabric of reality. And, of course, when Pali was praised as “understandable to all beings,” ‘all’ meant the “world” of Hindustan. Animals and devas can also learn human languages if they hear them constantly, or when there is a strong need (as in the case of the devas — to communicate with Buddha), which is why they also understood Pali. And so on. So, did the compilers from Mahavihara compile poorly? It is difficult to blame them for this particular issue — it is not directly related to doctrine and refers to a very niche topic, which they were no longer contemporaries of at the time, but they still decided to preserve this element, even though they may not have fully understood its significance (which again speaks to their conscientiousness).
-
Buddhist “philosophy” itself, especially in its developed form during the Mahavihara period, essentially does not accept any other view of language except as a concept, which is very easily confirmed by empirical observation even today, not to mention those times and for people of that circle.
Hence, I reiterate my original idea — the commentary praises the comprehensibility of Pali to a large number of people due to the natural reasons for the spread of linguistic processes (Pali as a lingua franca, etc.), and not because of magical ideas about the existence of paramatta-dhammas in the form of Pali words.