There won’t be any official experiment, because of the ethics. Not in our day and age at any rate. Rulers in the past have tried language deprivation to see if there is a natural language. Nothing ever came of them. We see the same with neglected or wild children. They don’t suddenly know Pali. According to modern science, language has to be learned. Furthermore Pali is an Indo-European language. From linguistics we know there are languages which aren’t related to Pali at all. Hebrew, for example. These aren’t offshoots of Pali. They belong to a completely different family of languages. I mean, all humans came from Africa so why don’t sub-Saharan Africans speak an offshoot of Pali? They don’t. Now we do see this claim, of a root language, elsewhere; with the Brahmins and Sanskrit. It’s the same type of thinking.
I appreciate though that no evidence or argument given would be accepted by you, since you have decided in advance that only the view of the commentators is true.
In my opinion, current children who are thrown into the wilderness won’t learn any languages on their own, but I believe children in the past(when human beings were more virtuous and lived longer) would naturally learn Pali even if no one taught them. People of the past were also able to memorize more things much easier than us.
Just because certain things are impossible or nearly impossible now does not mean they weren’t possible in the past.
I think one of reasons Pali is the natural language of all beings is because Brahmas speak pali, and when they turned into humans at the beginning of the world, they continued speaking pali.
I also think the Abidhamma can only be best expressed in Pali.
The Brahmin view is that the Vedas and so Vedic Sanskrit is Apauruṣeyā (divinely revealed). It’s a perfect language of the Gods, and it exists innately. From the divine it spread on Earth, with all other languages being degenerate forms of it. You sometimes hear Jews say the same about Hebrew through Adam & Eve.
It’s not “asserted”. It’s what strong evidence from genetics, archeology, history and linguistics shows us. It’s as certain as drinking arsenic tomorrow will kill you. Sub-Saharan Africans don’t speak various offshoots of Pali. They speak languages that developed independently of it. I’m sorry but the commentary is clearly wrong here. Would the Buddha want us to believe something just because it’s tradition, and so dogma, like Brahmins do or would he want us to be more pragmatic and empirical?
The crux of the matter here is exactly this: in the absence of a ‘scientific’ experience in this regard, the theory of innate language still stands. To expand on the entire framework, we can take this issue in its broader sense, not just Pāli. There has been an ongoing heated debate about the innateness of language, within linguistics, psycholinguistics, and other areas of cognitive sciences. Various perspectives have emerged, and what needs to be acknowledged is that the theory of the mind as a blank slate is not the only one in the field.
In a article titled “The Origin of Language and Cognition” by Ib Ulbaek, published by Cambridge University Press, the author states (I will summarize),When it comes to the origins of language, researchers generally fall into two camps:
The Gradual Approach (Continuity Theory)
Some scientists argue that language didn’t just pop into existence—it evolved step by step from simpler communication systems in animals. This idea fits well with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Just like the eye didn’t suddenly appear in its fully developed form, language, too, must have had precursors in the way animals communicate.
The Sudden Leap (Discontinuity Theory)
On the other hand, some argue that language is so fundamentally different from any form of animal communication that it couldn’t have evolved gradually. Noam Chomsky, one of the biggest voices in this camp, suggests that language is an innate ability—something hardwired into the human brain, like a “language organ.” In this view, language wasn’t just a refined version of animal signals; it was something entirely new that set humans apart.
So what excludes Pāli here, and on what basis, from being characterized by innateness? (as the Commentaries confirmed).
If we indeed follow what you mentioned about Hebrew and move away from Pāli, let’s take Vedic Sanskrit as an example (which is somewhat close to Pāli, though it might in form). There are significant overlaps between them in terms of phonetics and shared synonyms, despite differences in their respective language trees. This is just an illustrative example, as there is no serious study comparing these various languages.
Unfortunately, comparative linguistics, as one of the branches of historical linguistics, was supposed to focus intensively on comparing different languages with great effort. However, this approach became unsuitable for serious study, and the pursuit of tracing the origins of languages was banned at least twice before being revived. Yet, this does not mean we should ignore the current explanation presented to us—that all languages share a genetic relationship in the form of a primitive proto-language (the nature of which remains unknown). Therefore, we have not strayed from anything, given that all languages trace back to a single root (before they evolved), and their origin (language) within the context of Buddhism, I believe, is clear to us.
That is not actually the case. The bigger issue is that none of these “evidences” or “arguments” carry any real weight. Most of the data is contradictory and inconsistent. So, no matter how you look at it, if you rely on selectively picking sources and information to avoid the (Assertions of the Commentaries), then no matter how clear the matter is, you will keep searching for a small loophole to continue.
I see that you are mixing two different things here, perhaps concluding in your mind that there is a connection between the idea regarding Pāli and the beliefs of the Brahmins. Apauruṣeyā refers only to the eternity of the Vedas and their unconditional nature (in their standalone existence) without a source, and it does not mention anything about their language being “universal” and supreme. The Brahmins considered Sanskrit to be the language of their upper class only and would not have shared it with all types of humans (from various hierarchical classes) despise having their language associated with the lower classes, whom they find repulsive.
What makes you so sure of this? Assumptions based on what science currently asserts can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, if someone believes human emotions such as anger, greed, and fear can’t be fully eradicated if that’s what science asserts, then one may lose faith in the path to Enlightenment. One might also not believe in the rounds of rebirth because it’s not proven by science, which would be an obstacle on his path. The point is some things have to be taken by faith. One of the things that should not be contemplated is the world. Why? Because we can’t find the answer just by logical thinking and some experimentation. It requires supernormal powers such as divine eye, past life recollection, or omniscience. # Acinteyyasutta
“Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?
The domain of the Buddhas …
The domain of one in absorption …
The results of deeds …
Speculation about the world …
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”
“Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, acinteyyāni, na cintetabbāni; yāni cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa. Katamāni cattāri?
From my experience, my practice as a Buddhist got much easier and better once I focused more on the practice rather than analyzing texts too much and getting into debates. I don’t waste my time thinking thoughts like “what is the natural language of living beings” or “which continent did humans first appear on”. I like to place my faith in the suttas and commentaries and do my practice.
Evenso science would also probably say that animals talking to humans ( as an example) (or rebirth as noted by others in this thread)- as we see in Suttanta is also untrue.
I think we should be cautious before refuting either sutta or Commentary. The round of rebirths is vast and whatever period of time that science thinks it understands is relatively tiny…
It is possible if one has faith in past lives, cause and effect and the removal of external forces… animals or parents teaching one to speak another language…it is possible that one “remembers” from past experience. Why not?
The problem is people don’t believe in past lives.
Here is a presentation about languages by Ven. Bodhirasa,
Can we simply suspend judgment on matters we are unsure of or do not fully understand? For instance, if someone does not believe in or doubts the infallibility of commentaries, suttas, or certain teachings, can they set that issue aside without either denying or accepting it based on faith? Could a monk or layperson do this and continue practicing without falling into the hindrance of skeptical doubt?
But unless someone is a pure sceptic there are things we know to be true or false. For example, it’s not true that the world is flat. That theory has been shown to be entirely false. Likewise we know that humans evolved in Africa and left through successive waves. We also know through linguistics that there are different families of languages. We also know that neglected children don’t suddenly have the ability to speak an Indian language. If Pāli was an innate language, none of that would hold. What we find though is that Sub-Saharan Africans don’t speak Pāli or a form of it, a language like Hebrew belongs to a different family of languages compared with Pāli (Afroasiatic language vs Indo-European) and neglected children never speak Pāli at all.
The denial of these things comes from people not wanting the commentaries to be found to commit error, because then you might ask “what else did they get wrong?” I don’t see the issue myself. Arahants aren’t all knowing. Arahants can be ignorant about worldly things, say plate tectonics as an example. What matters is if they make an error when it comes to the Dhamma, the 4NT etc. Of course if they are Arahants, they won’t. That doesn’t mean they necessarily understand biology, or chemistry or linguistics though.
The mountain of evidence for it, thus not being an assumption. Do we really want to follow the evangelicals in being deniers of science?
For example, if someone believes human emotions such as anger, greed, and fear can’t be fully eradicated if that’s what science asserts, then one may lose faith in the path to Enlightenment. One might also not believe in the rounds of rebirth because it’s not proven by science, which would be an obstacle on his path.
Science doesn’t assert that. On rebirth you’ve switched from something we can demonstrate to be false to something which is outside of science, and so what science is silent on (rebirth). I don’t disbelieve the claim about Pāli because of no evidence. I disbelieve it because all of the evidence we have points in the other direction. If there were no evidence either side then I would be agnostic.
The point is some things have to be taken by faith.
Do we need to believe these claims about Pāli in order to awaken? Not as far as i can see.
Are you trying to convince those who believe in the inerrancy of the commentaries to think otherwise? I don’t think this debate will lead anywhere. The arguments just go in circles
It doesn’t stand because all the evidence points the other way. Regarding the theories of how language started, none of that supports your claim. One claims it evolved slowly from learning body movements and hand gestures, the other that it developed suddenly due to a sudden mutation. None of that supports the view that Pāli is an innate language.
If we indeed follow what you mentioned about Hebrew and move away from Pāli, let’s take Vedic Sanskrit as an example (which is somewhat close to Pāli, though it might in form). There are significant overlaps between them in terms of phonetics and shared synonyms, despite differences in their respective language trees. This is just an illustrative example, as there is no serious study comparing these various languages.
Vedic Sanskrit would be related to Pāli since it’s from the same family (Indo-European). Both developed in the same geographical area.
Unfortunately, comparative linguistics, as one of the branches of historical linguistics, was supposed to focus intensively on comparing different languages with great effort. However, this approach became unsuitable for serious study, and the pursuit of tracing the origins of languages was banned at least twice before being revived. Yet, this does not mean we should ignore the current explanation presented to us—that all languages share a genetic relationship in the form of a primitive proto-language (the nature of which remains unknown). Therefore, we have not strayed from anything, given that all languages trace back to a single root (before they evolved), and their origin (language) within the context of Buddhism, I believe, is clear to us.
It’s possible there was a singular proto-language, but it’s also possible language developed several times in different areas. Either way even if we say there was originally 1 language known, that’s a different claim to there being an innate language which is Pāli.
That is not actually the case. The bigger issue is that none of these “evidences” or “arguments” carry any real weight. Most of the data is contradictory and inconsistent. So, no matter how you look at it, if you rely on selectively picking sources and information to avoid the (Assertions of the Commentaries), then no matter how clear the matter is, you will keep searching for a small loophole to continue
I think you need to look up what “inerrant” means. You said that for you the commentaries are such, and so no matter what argument or evidence is given you won’t change your mind. I could perform 1000 experiments of language deprivation in infants demonstrating that Pāli isn’t innate and you still wouldn’t accept it, because you’ve decided in advance that the commentaries are without any error. It’s no different than with the evangelical Christians regarding Evolution vs their reading of Genesis.
The reason why the Vedas are seen as eternal is because the language they are in is eternal. It’s part of the fabric of the universe. This is why “Om” gets such a special focus. They further claim Sanskrit is the perfect language for capturing reality (you yourself have made a similar claim regarding Pāli) That through it ultimately reality is revealed. This connection between language and reality is quite a Brahmin one. For example it underpins much of Mīmāṃsā.
Anyway I don’t want to discuss it much further. We’ll only start going around in circles.
