Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Original Language

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269492/1

Page #1
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: the original language -Johannes BRONKHORST, Switzerland Languages in which the sacred texts of religious traditions have been composed and preserved tend to be looked upon as more than ordinary languages. This is not only true of India. Hebrew has been considered the original language by Christians and Jews alike!. This view, which in the case of the Jews is already attested before the beginning of our era, for the Christians of course somewhat later, survived right into the 19th century2. A similar view was held by at least some Moslems with respect to Arabic, the language of the Koran and therefore of Allah himself, this in spite of the fact that the composition of the Koran can be dated very precisely in historical and relatively recent times3. In India the followers of the Vedic tradition have always kept Sanskrit, the language of the Veda, in high regard. Sanskrit is the only correct language, other languages being incorrect. Patanjali's Vyakarana-Mahabhasya (ca. 150 B.C.E.). in its first chapter called Paspasahnika, distinguishes clearly between correct and incorrect words, pointing out that many incorrect words correspond to each correct word; besides correct gauh there are many incorrect synonyms: gavi, goni, gota, gopotalika, etc. There are various 1. Borst, 1957-63: 147 f. etc. (for an enumeration of the pages dealing with the subject see p. 1946 n. 204); Scholem, 1957: 19, 146; Katz, 1982: 43-88. 2. Borst, 1957-63: 1696; see also Olender, 1989. 3. Mounin, 1985: 117: Borst. 1957-63: 337 f.. 352 f.; Kopf. 1956: 55 f. Loucel, 1963-64. Bhuyamso pasabdah, alpiyamsah sabda iti. Ekaikasya hi Sabdasya bahavo'. pabhramsah. Tadyatha gaur ity asya Sabdasya gavi, goni gota gopotaliketyadayo bahavo'pabhramsah-Vyakaranamahabhasya of Patanjali [Navahnikam]. (Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, 1990) p.20. also see p.33.- (editor) K.N. MISHRA (ed.): Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit: The Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Language of the Sanskrit Buddhist Texts. (Oct. 1-5, 1991), Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, INDIA, 221007, 1993.

Page #2
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language reasons for using correct words only, the most important being that this produces virtue (dharma) and benefit (abhyudaya)*. Correct words are in fact used in many texts and regions: Patanjali mentions the earth with its seven continents and the three worlds, which shows that for him Sanskrit is the language of the universe*. Sanskrit is also eternal. The reasons adduced to prove this may seem. primitive to us, but they leave no doubt as to Patanjali's convictions. Someone who needs a pot, he points out, goes to a potter and has one made; someone who needs words, on the other hand, does not go to a grammarian to have them madel. Some later authors refer to Sanskrit as the language of the gods (daivi vak)". Among them is Bhartrhari (Vakyapadiya 1.182), who adds that this divine language has been corrupted by incompetent speakers2. The Mimamsakas and others, too, claim without hesitation that the Vedic texts, and therefore also their language, are eternal. I limit myself here to a quotation from Kumarila Bhatta's Slokavarttika, which states: "For us the word go ('cow') is eternal: and people have an idea of the cow from such vulgar deformations of it as gavi, etc.. only when it follows the original [correct] word (go): and such comprehension is due to the incapability [of the speaker to utter... the original correct form of the word]." The example is the same as the one given by Patanjali, but Kumarila adds a dimension which we do not find in the Mahabhasya: the original word is go, and gavi is nothing more * Evam ihapi yady apy apasabdajnane 'dharmas tathapi yas tv asau sabdajnane dharmas tena ca sa doso nirghanisyate bhuyasa cabhyudayena yogo bhavisyati. ibid p.57 (editor.) Mahan sabdasya prayogavisayah. Saptadvipa vasumati, trayo lokah, catvaro vedah sangah sarahasya bahudha bhinna...... ibid p.52. (edior) 1. Cp. Ibn Faris' remark: "Il ne nous est point parvenu que quelque tribu arabe, dans une epoque proche de la notre, se soit mise d'accord pour designer quelque objet que ce soit, en formant une convention a son sujet." (tr. Loucel, 1963-64: II: 257.) * . Samskrtam nama daivi vag anvakhyata maharsibhih/ Bhamahah Kavyadarsah. 1.33 ab/l 397 2. A closely similar observation occurs in Bhartrhari's commentary on the Mahabhasya (Dipika). Ahnika I p.16 1. 29 - p. 17 1. 1: anye manyante/ iyam daivi vak/ sa tu purusasakter alasyad va prakirna/. See also Tripathi, 1986: 88. 3. SIV, Sabdanityatadhikarana, 276: gofabde 'vasthite 'smakam tadasaktijakarita/ gavyader api gobuddhir mulasabdanusarini//Tr. Jha: 398 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit than a corruption of it1. Helaraja, commenting on Vakyapadiya 3.3.30, is even more explicit when he states that in an earlier era (purakalpe) language was free from corruptions2. He follows here the ancient Vrtti on Vakyapadiya 1.182 (146)3. [The much later author Annambhatta, interestingly, holds the view that not only Sanskrit, but also other languages like that of the Yavanas - were created by God in the beginning.]4 Brahmanism continued to use the language of its sacred texts. The same is true of Theravada Buddhism, whose sacred language, at present known by the name Pali, is called Magadhi by the Buddhists themselves. Magadhi, we read in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, is the original language (mulabhasa) of all living beings, the natural form of expression (sabhavanirutti)6. The Sammohavinodini, commentary to the Vibhanga of the Abhidhammapitaka, ascribes the following opinion to a monk called Tissadatta: "[Suppose] the mother is a Damili. the father an 1. Kumarila does not exclude the possibility that certain words, which are not (no longer?) in use among the Aryas because the objects designated are not familiar to them, survive among the Mlecchas, see Tantravarttika on 1.3.10. Ed. Iyer p. 143 1. 14: purakalpe 'nrtadibhir ivapabhramsair api rahita vag isid... 2. 3. Ed. Iyer p. 233-34: purakalpe svasarirajyotisam manusyanam yathaivanrtadibhir asankirna vag asit tatha sarvair apabhramsaih. See also p. 229 1. 1: Sabdaprakrtir apabhrainsah, and Iyer. 1964. 4. See Uddyotana I p. 96-91: vastuta isvarena srstyadav arthavisesavat Sabdavisesi api srsta eva.../ na hi tadanim samskrtam eva srstam na bhasantaram ity atra manam asti, tattadyavanadisrstau tadiyabhasaya api tadanim eva srstatvat/ na hi tesim api prathamam samskrtenaiva vyavaharah pascad apabhramsarupabhasapravrttir iti kalpanayam manam asti. Hinuber, 1977; 1986: 20. 5. 6. 7. Vism p. 373 1. 30-31; see also Saddaniti p. 632 1.4. Vibh-a p. 387.1. 29- p. 388 1. 7: mata damili pita andhako/ tesam jato darako sace matu katham pathamam sunati damilabhasam bhasissati/ sace pitu katham paltamam sunati andhakabhasam bhasissati/ ubhinnam pi pana katham asunanto magadhabhasam bhasissati/ yo pi agamake mahaaranne nibbatto tattha anno kathento nama natthi so pi attano dhammataya vacanam samutthapento magadhabhasam eva bhasissati/ niraye tiracchanayoniyam pettivisaye manussaloke devaloke ti sabbattha magadhabhasi ussanna/ tattha ottakirataandhakayonakadamilabhasadika attharasa bhasa parivattanti/ ayam ev'eka yathabhuccabrahmavoharaariyavoharasamkhata magadhabhasa va na va sesa

Page #3
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 399 400 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit "With a voice that extends over a yojana, Lord Mahavira speaks in the Ardha-Magadhi language, a speech which is in accordance with all languages. That Ardha-Magadhi language changes into the own language of all those, both aryas and nonaryas." The Viyahapannatti adds that "the gods speak ArdhaMagadhi"!. We find the same position repeated in a work by a Jain author of the 11th century. Namisadhu. Interestingly, Namisadhu writes in Sanskrit, no longer in Prakrit. His commentary on Rudrata's Kavyalankara 2.12 contains the following explanation of the word Prakrta:2 Andhaka. Their newly] born child, if it hears first the speech of the mother, it will speak the language of the Damilas. If it hcars first the speech of the father, it will speak the language of the Andhakas. But it it doesn't hear the specch of either of them, it will speak the language of the Magadhas. Also someone who is born in a big jungle, devoid of villages, where no one else spcaks, he too will by his own nature start to produce words and speak this same language of the Magadhas!. In hell, among the animals, in the realm of ghosts, in the world of men and in the world of gods, everywhere this same language of the Magadhas is preponderant. The remaining eighteen languages - Otta. Kirata, Andhaka. Yonaka. Damila, etc.. undergo change in these [rcalms). Only this language of the Magadhas, rightly called language of Brahma and aryan language. does not change." The Mohavicchedani, which dates from the 12th - 13th century, goes to the extent of stating that all other languages are derived from Magadhi2 "It (ie.. Magadhi) was first predominant in the hells and in the world of men and that of the gods. And afterwards the regional languages such as Andhaka, Yonaka, Damila, etc., as well as the eighteen great languages. Sanskrit, etc., arose out of it." The Theravada Buddhists considered Magadhi, i.e.. Pali, the original language of all living beings. Not surprisingly, the Jains reserved this privilege for the language of their sacred texts, viz. Ardha-Magadhi. This position finds already expression in the Ardha-Magadhi canon. The Aupapatika Sutra (56) states: "Prakrta': The natural function of language, common to all men of this world and not beautified by the rules of grammar etc.. this is the basis (prakrti). That which is in this (basis). or that (basis) itself is (called) Prakrta?. Alternatively, Prakrta is prak krta 'what has been made before on the basis of the statement 'it has been established in the Jain canon (arsavacana. lit. words of the rsis) that Ardha-Magadhi is the specch of the gods and other statements. (Prakrit) is said to be a language casy to understand for children and women, the origin of all languages. Like the water released by a cloud, it has but one form, yet, oncc differences have entered because of the difference between regions and because of beautification, it acquires the later distinctions between Sanskrit and the other languages. This is why the author of our treatise (i.c. Rudrata) has mentioned Prakrit at the beginning, and after that Sanskrit etc." parivattati. Cf. Hinuber, 1977: 239. Similarly Patis-a I. p. 5. I. 27 ff. My wife, Joy Manne, drew my attention to this passage. 1. The idea that children who grow up without others will speak the original language is not unknown to the West; sec Borst, 1957-63: 800, 870, 1050, etc. Experiments were carried out in order to identify the original language: Borst. 1957-63: 39 (Psammetichus, cf. Katz, 1982: 54). 756 (Frederick it). 1010-11 (Jacob IV, 1473-1513), etc. (See p. 1942 n. 191 for further cases.) 2. Mohavicchedani p. 186 1. 14 f.. cited in Hinuber. 1977: 241: si (Sc. Magadhi) va apayesu manusse devaloke c'eva pahamam ussanni pacchi ca tato andhakayonakadamiladidesabhasi ceva sukkaadiartharasamahabhisica nibatta/ 3. bhagavam mahavire ... savvabhasinugaminie sarassaic loyananiharina sarenam addhamagahac bhasac bhasai... si vi ya nam aduhainigahi bhasa Iesim suvvesim ariyamanariyanam appuno sabhasac parinamenamparinamai. Leumann. 1883: 61: cited in Norman. 1976: 17: 1980: 66. Similar remarks at Samaviya 34: Viy (ed. Nathamal) 9.33.149. 1. Viy 5.4.24: deva nam addhamagahic bhaske bhasamti. Cr. Deleu. 1970: 108. 2. Namisadhu p. 31; cited in Nitti-Dolci. 1938: 159: priksteri/ sakalajagajjantunam vyakaranidibhir anahitasamskirah sahajo vacanavyaparah prakti/ tatra bhavan saiva vi prikstam/ 'irisavayane siddham devanam addhamagaha bani'ityadivacanid vi prik parvam krtam prikrtam balamahilidisubodhum sakalabhasanibandhanabhutam vacanam ucyate/ meghanirmuktajalam ivaikasvarupam tad eva ca desavisesat samskarakaranac cu samasiditavisesam sat samskytadyutlaravibhedan apnoti/ ata cva Sastrakta praktam idau nirdistam/tadanu sainsktadini 3. A similar argument is found in the Vihti on Bharthari's Vikyapadiya, and in the latter's Mahabhasyadipika; see below.

Page #4
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 401 402 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit We see that Namisadhu goes to the extent of considering Ardha-Magadhi the predecessor of Sanskrit, from which the latter has been derived. It is also clear from this passage that Namisadhu, who wrote in Sanskrit, took this idea from his sacred texts, which themselves were still composed in Ardha-Magadhi. We have seen that both the Theravada Buddhists and the Jains believed that the language of their sacred texts was the original language of all living beings. Both went to the extent of claiming that also Sanskrit had descended from their respective original language. This is not particularly surprising in the case of the Theravadins, who went on using their original language. The Jains, on the other hand, shifted to Sanskrit. Potentially this was very embarrassing for them. For by doing so they abandoned their original language, in order to turn to the very language which the rival Brahmins claimed to be original and eternal. The Vedic Brahmins solved this problem by denying its existence. This is particularly clear from the well-known refutation of Kautsa in the Nirukla (1.15-16). Kautsa claimed that the Vedic mantras have no mcaning. Among the reasons he adduces the most important one for our purposes is that they are unintelligible!. To illustrate this Kautsa cites a number of obscure Vedic forms. Yaska's reply is categorical:2 "It is no deficiency of the post that a blind man does not sce it; the deficiency lies with the man." Vedic is therefore a form of Sanskrit that uses words and verbal forms that are not in common use in classical Sanskrit: that is not however the fault of the Vedic language, but rather of the person who is content not to employ those forms. For essentially, the words of Vedic and of classical Sanskrit are identical.3 A similar discussion occurs in the Mimamsa Sutra and Sabara Bhasya. Here too we are reassured that the sentencemeaning in Vedic is no different from classical Sanskrits, and that The example of Namisadhu shows that the later Jains based their conviction on statements dating from he time when ArdhaMagadhi was still in use. This is of interest because the Jains who used Sanskrit were in a position closely similar to that of those Buddhists who used Sanskrit but whose sacred texts were, at least partly, in Hybrid Sanskrit. A crucial difference, however, is that, to my knowledge, no Hybrid Sanskrit text claims to be composed in the original language of all living beings. "the meaning is there; only there is ignorance of it". The repetition of this discussion in the basic work of Mimamsa shows how important it was for Brahmanism to emphasize the continuity or rather: essential identity - between Before we consider the question how the Buddhists explained the use of Hybrid Sanskrit in their sacred texts, we must return once more to the language of the Veda. I stated earlier that the Brahmins continued to use the language of the Veda, but this is of course not completely truc. Vedic differs in various respects from the classical language, and indeed much of Vedic literature did not fail to become unintelligible cven to speakers of Sanskrit. This problem was already acute in the time of Yaska, one of the aims of whose Nirukta is precisely to find the meaning of unknown Vedic words. We also know that already Panini, who may antedate Yaska. gives an incomplete analysis of the Vedic verb. Both the Vedic Brahmins and the Buddhists whose sacred texts were in Hybrid Sanskrit found themselves therefore in closely similar situations. Both of them used classical Sanskrit, whereas their sacred texts had been preserved in languages that, though related to classical Sanskrit were in many respects clearly different from it. 1. Nir 1.15: athapy avispasrartha bhavanti 2. Nir 1.16: yatho etad avispastartha bhavantiti naisa sthapor aparadho yad enam andho na pasyati purusaparidhah sa bhavati. 3. Nir 1.16: arthavantah Sabdasamanyal. 4. Mis 1.2.31-45 (31-53): pp. 48-69 in the Anandasrama edition. Pp. 74-86 in Jha's translation. 5. Mis 1.2.32 (siddhanta)/40: avisistas tu vikyarthah. Cp, alsu MIS 1.3.30 prayogacodanabhavid arthaikatvam avibhagal, which Clooney (1990: 133) translates: "(A word used in ordinary and Vedic contexts) has the same meaning in both, because they are not differentiated, for there are no (special) injunctions in regard to the usage (prayoga) of words." 84) translates the first compound of this sutra: "(Sinon), il n'y aurait pas d'injonction de quelque chose a faire." 6. Mis 1.2.41/49: salah param avianam. Tr. Jha.

Page #5
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit 403 Vedic and classical Sanskrit. Because the two are identical, there is no need to state that one of them is the original, eternal language, and the other a development of the former. In fact, both are original and eternal, because they together constitute one and the same language. (This explains how Yaska's Nirukta 2.2 can derive Vedic primary nouns from classical verbal roots, and classical nouns from Vedic roots.) Kasika. Kumaralata's use of arsa suggests therefore that he looked upon Hybrid Sanskrit as on a par with Vedic. And just as Vedic is not considered another language than classical Sanskrit by the Brahmins, one might think that Kumaralata looked upon Hybrid Sanskrit as essentially the same language as classical Sanskrit. Here, however, we have to be circumspect. The Jains, too, use the term arsa to refer to their sacred language, which is ArdhaMagadhi. But the Jains do not think that Ardha-Magadhi is a form of Sanskrit, in their opinion it is the source of Sanskrit. All this we have seen. For the position of the Buddhists with regard to Hybrid Sanskrit we need, therefore, further evidence. The situation of the Vedic Brahmins was in many respects parallel to that of those Buddhists who used Sanskrit but preserved sacred texts in Hybrid Sanskrit. And the solution accepted by the Brahmins would do equally well in the case of the Buddhists. They could simply deny that Hybrid Sanskrit is a different language, and maintain that it is essentially identical with classical Sanskrit, just like Vedic. There are some indications that this is indeed the solution that was chosen by at least some Buddhists. We consider first one of the surviving Buddhist Sanskrit grammars. Unfortunately none of the other surviving Buddhist Sanskrit grammars deal with Hybrid Sanskrit. nor indeed with Vedic. It is possible that the Candra Vyakarana once had an Adhyaya dealing with Vedic forms. None of it has however been preserved, so that it is not possible to sce whether these rules were used to explain Hybrid Sanskrit forms. A number of such grammars have come down to us. Generally they make no mention of Hybrid Sanskrit, and confine themselves to describing the classical language. The only exception appears to be the Kaumaralata. called after its author Kumaralata. This grammar is the first Buddhist Sanskrit grammar we know of, and only some fragments of it, found in Turkestan, have survived. Fortunately these fragments allow us to observe, with Scharfe (1977: 162): There is however a passage in Candrakirti's commentary on Aryadeva's Catuhsataka which can throw further light upon our question. The commentary survives only in Tibetan translation, which has recently been edited, studied and translated into English by Tom J.F. Tillemans. Candrakirti cites. under karika 278 of the Catuhsataka, a verse which has been preserved in its original form in the Samadhirajasutra (9.26) as well as in Candrakirti's own "Just as Panini has special rules for Vedic forms, Kumaralata makes allowances for peculiar forms of the Buddhist scriptures that resulted from their transposition into Sanskrit from Middle Indo-Aryan dialects (c.g. bhaveti for bhavayati, bhesyati for bhavisyati and elisions of final -am/-im). The name used for these forms [is] arsa 'belonging to the rsi-s,'... 2 Panini's grammar uses once (1.1.16) the word anarsa, in the sense avaidika 'non-Vedic' according to the interpretation of the 1. P.S. 1.1.16: sambuddhau fikalyasyetav anarse. The Kafiki explains: oriti vartate/ sambuddhinimitto ya okarah sa fikalyasya iciryasya matena praghyasanjo bhavati itisabde anarse avaidike paratal viyo iti viyaviti bhano iti bhanav iti/ctc. 2. This is not necessarily truc of all Jains. Hemacandra, who uses the term arsa and describes the language concerned, does not appear to give evidence that he looked upon this language as the source of Sanskrit (unless his use of por pa 'old' in connection with this language (IV.287: see Hoernlc. 1880: xviii f.) shows the opposite). CI. Ghosal. 1969. 3. Sec Oberlies. 1989: 2-3. 1. See Scharfe, 1977: 162 ff. 2. For details, see Luders. 1930: 686, 693-95. See also Ruegg. 1986: 597.

Page #6
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit : The Original Language 405 406 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit hesitation to explain a Hybrid Sanskrit form with a Vedic rule of the Astadhyayi. Prasannapada (on Mulamadhyamakakarika 25.3) where it is cited, too. The verse reads: nivrttidharmana na asti dharma ye neha? asti na te jatu asti astiti nastiti ca kalpanavatam evam carantana na duhkha samyati/ This means : Candrakirti's second grammatical remark on the same quoted verse confirms this impression. It concerns the singular na asti, where we would cxpect na santi. Here Candrakirti notes: "Correctly speaking one would say na santi (Tib. rnams yod min). But in accordance with the rule to the effect that it should be stated that verbal endings (tin) arc (substituted) for (other) verbal endings', (the verse) says na asti dharma (Tib. chos yod min)." The rule here invoked can be identified as a line from the Mahabhasya on the same Panininan sutra 7.1.39. This linc reads: tinam ca tiro bhavantiti vaktavayam 2 and concerns, again. Vedic forms. "In extinction dharmas are without dharmas. Whatever is inexistent in this (state) does not exist at all. For those who imagine 'existence' and 'inexistence and practise accordingly, suffering will not ceasc.4 Note that this verse is not written in classical Sanskrit. In the Prasannapada this fact is not so much as hinted at. In his commentary on the Catuhsataka, on the other hand, Candrakirti makes two grammatical remarks in this connection. The first one reads, in translation: The above passages support the view that at least some Buddhists held the opinion that Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit was not really a different language from classical Sanskrit. We must now consider a passage in Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya which may indicate the opposite for certain other Buddhists. We have alrcady had an occasion to refer to verse 1.182 of this text, according to the first half of which the divine language- i.e., Sanskrit - has been corrupted by incompetent speakers. The second half of the verse contrasts this view with another one:3 "Here (i.c., in the words nivrtti dharmana na asti dharma) the seventh case-ending (i.c., of the locative) does not appear in nivetti). in accordance with the sutra: 'for sup. (substitute] su, luk, etc." The sutra to which Candrakirti refers is, of course, P.S. 7.1.39: supam sulukpurvasavarnaccheydadyayajalah. This, however, is a Vedic sutra ! The preceding rule contains the term chandasi, and the phenomena described by 39 itself leave no room for doubt as to their Vedic nature. Candrakirti apparently feels no "The upholders of impermanence, on the other hand, hold the opposite view with regard to this doctrine." The precise meaning of 'upholders of impermanence' (anityadarsin) is not specified, but it is at least conceivable that Buddhists are meant: the Buddhists, after all, considered impermanence one of their key doctrines, and used this very term anitya to refer to it. The point of view adopted by these upholders of impermanence is less problematic: they apparently believed that the so-called 'corrupt language' rather than deriving from Sanskrit, was 1. In Tibetan (Tillemans, 1990: II: 8): mya ngan das la chos mams chos yod min/ 'di na gang med de dag gzhar yang ined// yod dang med ces rlog pa dang ldan zhing/ de Itar spyod mams sdugs bnga/zhi mi 'gyur// 2. The Prasannapada has nirvitti. 3. This reading agrecs with the Prasannapadi and with the Tibetan. The Samadhirajasutra has yeneti nasti. See further Tillemans, 1990: II: 9 n. 1. 4. Tr. Tillemans. 1990: I: 117. 5. Tillemans, 1990: II: 8: dir "sup rnams kyi su mi mngon par byas so zhes bya ba la sogs ba'i mdor byas pa bdun pa mi mngon par byas pa'o. For the translation, cf. Tillemans. 1990: 1: 118, 235-36 n. 154. 1. Tillemans, 1990: II: 10: legs par bshad pa las ni rnams yod min zhes bya bar 'gyur mod kyi "tingam ni ting ngor gyur ro zhes bya ba brjod par byao" zhes bya ba'i mishan ayid las na chos yod min zhes gsungs so. CI. Tillemans, 1990: 1: 118. 236 n. 158. 2. Mbh II p. 256 I. 14. 3. VP 1.182cd: anityadarsinar Iv asmin vade buddhiviparyayah.

Page #7
* Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 407 408 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit the source of the latter. This is indeed how the ancient vrtti understands the line, for it explains: passages, unlike Vakyapadiya 1.182cd, refer to the same current of thought, probably Jainism. "The upholders of impermanence, on the other hand, ... say that Prakrit constitutes the collection of correct words, [because Prakrta means that which is in the basis (prakrtau bhava). But later on a modification has been established which is fixed by men of impaired understanding, by means of accents and other refinements (saskara)." It seems then, at last possible to maintain that Vakyapadiya 1.182cd refers to Buddhists who held that their sacred texts were composed in a language which, though appearing corrupt to orthodox Brahmins, represents in reality the origin of Sanskrit. Since we have no reason to believe that Bharthari was acquainted with the Pali tradition and with its belief that this language was identical with Magadhi, the original language, we are led to the conclusion that he may here refer to Buddhists who believed that some kind of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit was the original language, which formed the basis of other languages, including Sanskrit. The 'modification here mentioned, which is characterized by accents and other refinements, is, of course, Sanskrit. This passage from the Vitti contains points of similarity with Namisadhu's defence of Prakrit studied above. This suggests that the Vrtti refers here to Jains rather than to Buddhists. Does this indicate that also the Vakyapadiya refers here to Jains, and not to Buddhists? Here several points have to be considered. First of all, it is more than likely that the author of the Vrtui is different from the author of the verses explained in it.2 Equally important is the fact that the Vakyapadiya never uses the word Prakrta to refer to a language different from Sanskrit. Bharthari does mention the term in this sense in his commentary on the Mahabhasya, but there in the context of 'some' who hold that Prakrit words are eternal.3 The 'some here referred to can hardly be the 'upholders of impermanence'. Add to this that all the three passages considered from the Mahabhasyadipika, from the Vrtti and from Namisadhu's commentary mention the same grammatical explanation (prakrta = prakstau bhava) and it is tempting to conclude that these three The preceding considerations have made clear that the different religious currents of classical India which we have considered all shared the belief that their sacred texts were composed in the earliest language, the source of all other languages. In the case of Theravada Buddhism and Jainism, this position was fairly straightforward. Their sacred languages. Magadhi (ie. Pali) and Ardha-Magadhi respectively, were the source of all other languages, including Sanskrit. The position of the Vedic Brahmins was slightly more complicated, for the differences between Vedic and classical Sanskrit are considerable. But neither of these two was claimed to be the source of the other. Rather. Vedic and classical Sanskrit were maintained to constitute together one single language which, of course, was the language of the gods. the eternal language. It appears that at least some of those Buddhists who preserved sacred texts in Hybrid Sanskrit took csscntially the same position as the Brahmins. They looked upon the language of their sacred texts as fundamentally identical with classical Sanskrit. They even used Vedic rules of Panini to account for some of the special features of Hybrid Sanskrit. Onc linc in Bharthari's Vakyapadiya, on the other hand, suggests that perhaps some of these Buddhists, too, 1. Vitti on VP 1.182 (146), ed. lyer p. 234: anityavadinas tu ... praktau bhavain prakstam sadhunam Sabdanam samuham kcaksate/vikaras tu pascad vyavasthipitah. yah sambhinnabuddhibhih purusa ih svara samskiridibhir nirniyate itill 2. Ct. Bronkhorst. 1988; and Jan E.M. Houben's forthcoming article on this subject. 3. Mahabhasyadipiki, Ahnika I p. 16 I. 28-29: kecid cvain manyante/ ya evaite prikrah Sabdah ta evaite nityaprakstau bhavah praktah/ Note however that elsewhere in the same commentary (p. 23 I. 24) Bhartrhari ascribes a concept of cternality to the 'upholders of momentariness: ... kapikavadinim avicchedenu pravpttir yi si nityati. 1. Hinuber (1988: 17-18: 1989) draws attention to the fact that some kinds of Buddhist Sanskrit remain faithful to Middle-Indic, whereas others manifest the desire to adjust to correct Sanskrit. It is of course not impossible that these two tendencies were accompanied, or even inspired by different views regarding the original language. See Hinuber's (1989: 349) remarks about Asvaghosa's ideas concerning the language of the Buddha.

Page #8
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 409 410 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit entertained the claim that their sacred language was the source of Sanskrit References and Abbrevations Delcu. Jozef: Viyahapannatti (Bhagavai). The Fifth Anga of the Jaina Canon. Introduction, critical analysis, commentary & indexes. (De Tempel. Brugge: 1970). Ghosal, S.N. "The Arsa Prakrit as Hemacandra viewed it." (Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, 18, 1969.304-314). Annambhatta: Uddyotana I. In: Mahabhasya Pradipa Vyakhyanani I (Adhyaya 1 pada 1 Ahnika 1-4). Edition par M.S. Narasimhacharya, presentation par Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat. Pondichery: Institut Francais d'Indologie. 1973. Bharthari: Vakyapadiya. (1) Wilhelm Rau (ed.) (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 1977. Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XLII. 4.) (2) Kanda I edited, with the Vrtti and the Paddhati of Vrsabhadeva, by K.A. Subramania Iyer (Deccan College. Poona, 1966. Deccan College Monograph Series, 32.) (3) Kanda III part 1. with the commentary of Helaraja, K.A. Subramania Iyer (ed.) (Deccan College, Poona, 1963. Deccan College Monograph Series, 21). Bharthari: Mahubhasyadipika. Fasc. IV: Ahnika I. Johannes Bronkhorst (ed.) (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1987. Post-Graduate and Rescarch Department Series, 28). Biardeau, Madeleine : Theorie de la connaissance et philosophie de la parole dans le brahmanisme classique - (La Haye: Mouton, Paris, 1964). Borst, Arno: Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen uber Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker. 6 vols. (1957-1963) Anton Hiersemann. Stuttgart. Hinuber, Oskar von : "Zur Geschichte des Sprachnamens Pali." Beitrage zur Indienforschung. Ernst Waldschmidt zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet. (Muscum fur Indische Kunst, Berlin, 1977). pp. 237-246. Hinuber. Oskar von: Das altere Mittelindisch in Uberblick (Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademic der Wissenschaften, Wien, 1986). Hindber, Oskar von : Die Sprachgeschichte des Pali im Spiegel der sudostasiatischen Handschriften uberlieferung. (Untersuchungen zur Sprachgeschichte und Handschriftenkunde des Pali I. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, 1988. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainz. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jhrg. 1988. Nr. 8.) Hinuber, Oskar von : "Origin and Varieties of Buddhist Sanskrit." (Dialectes dans les litteratures indo-aryennes. Colette Caillat (ed.). de Boccard. Paris, 1989). pp 341-367. Hoernlc, A.F. Rudolf : The Prakrta-Lakshanam or Chanda's Grammar of the Ancient (arsha) Prakrit. Part I: Text with a critical introduction and indexes. (Asiatic Society. Calcutta, 1880). Bronkhorst, Johannes "Etudes sur Bhartrhari. 1: L'auteur et la date de la Vrtti." (Bulletin d'Etudes Indiennes 6. 1988. 105-143). Iyer, K.A. Subramania: "Bhartrhari on Apabhramsa". (Vishveshvarananda Indological Journal 2 (2). 1964), 242-246. Candrakirti: Prasannapada. Madhyamakasastra of Nagarjuna with the commentary Prasannapada by Candrakirti. P.L. Vaidya (ed.) (Second edition by Shridhar Tripathi. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute. 1987. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts. 10). Katz, David S. : Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England 1603-1655. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). Kopf. L. : "Religious influences on medieval Arabic philology." (Studia Islamica 5. 1956), 33-59. Clooney, Francis X. : Thinking Ritually. Rediscovering the Purva Mimansa of Jaimini. (Gerold & Co. Vienna: 1990). (Publications of the De Nobili Rescarch Library. XVII).

Page #9
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 411 412 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit Leumann, Ernst: Das Aupapatika Sutra, I. Theil. Einleitung, Text und Glossar. (Nachdruck: Klaus Reprint. Nendeln. Liechtenstein. 1966. Leipzig, 1883.) Loucel, Henri : "L'origine du langage d'apres les grammairiens arabes, I-IV." (Arabica 10, 1963), 188-208 & 253281: (11, 1964), 57-72 & 151-187. Luders, Heinrich (1930): "Katantra und Kaumaralata." (Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. K1.. pp. 482-538 =) Philologica Indica (Festgabe Luders). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1940, pp. 659-721. Mbh = The Vyakarana-Mahabhasya of Patanjali. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third edition by K.V. Abhyankar. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962-72. 3 vols. Nitti-Dolci. Luigia (1938): Les grammairiens prakrits. Adrien-Maisonneuve, Paris. Norman, K.R.: "The language in which the Buddha taught." Buddhism and Jainism. Edited by Harish Chandra Das et al. (Institute of Oriental and Orissan Studies. Part I. 1976). pp. 15-23. Norman, K.R.: "The dialects in which the Buddha preached." (Dic Sprache der altesten buddhistischen Uberlieferung, Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung. II.) Herausgegeben von Heinz Bechert. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, pp. 61-77. Oberlics. Thomas : Studie zum Candravyakarana. (Eine kritische Bearbeitung von Candra IV.4.52-148 und V.2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 38.) Olender, Maurice : Les langues du Paradis. Aryens et Semites: un couple providentiel. Le Seuil, Gallimard, 1989. Mis = (1) Mimarsa Sutra. Edited, with Kumarila Bhatta's Tantravarttika and Sabara's Bhasya, by Pt. Gancsasastri Josi. Padas 1.2 - 2.1. Poona: Anandasrama. 1981. (2) Sibara-Bhasya. Translated into English by Ganganatha Jha. Vol. I. Baroda: Oriental Institute. 1973. Patis-a = Saddhammappakasini, commentary on the Patisambhidamagga. C.V. Joshi (ed.) (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1979, 3 vols. Pali Text Society Text Series, 103-105). Mohavicchedani by Kassapatthera of Cola. Edited by A.P. Buddhadatta and A.K. Warder. (London: Luzac & Co. 1961. Pali Text Society.) P.S.= Paninian sutra. Mounin, Georges : Histoire de la linguistique des origines au XXe siecle. 4e edition corrigee. (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1985.) Ruegg. D. Seyfort : Review of Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, 3. (Journal of the American Oriental Society. 106. 1986. 596-597.) Saddaniti. La grammaire palic d'Aggavamsa. (Texte etabli par Helmer Smith. 6 vols. C.W.K. Gleerup. Lund, 1928-1966). Namisadhu. In: Kavyalankara (A Treatise on Rhetoric) of Rudrata, with the Sanskrit commentary of Namisadhu, edited by Pt. Ramadeva Sukla. Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, Varanasi. (Vidyabhawan Rastrabhasha Granthamala, 136.) Samadhirajasutra. P.L. Vaidya (cd.) (Thc Mithila Institute, Darbhanga, 1961. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, 2.) Nir = (1) Jaska's Nirukta sammt den Nighantavas, (herausgegeben und erlautert von Rudolph Roth. Gottingen 1852. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1976) (2) The Nighantu and the Nirukta. Edited and translated by Lakshman Sarup. (Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1967). Samavaya Anga. In: Anga Suttani I. Ayaro - Suyagado. Thanam - Samavao. Muni Nathamal (ed.) (Jain Viswa Bharati. Ladnun, Rajasthan): V.S. 2031. pp. 827 ff.

Page #10
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 413 Scharfe, Hartmut Grammatical Literature. (Otto Harassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1977. A History of Indian Literature, Vol. V, Fasc. 2.) Scholem, Gershom: Die judische Mystik in ihren Hauptstromungen 1957. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1980. SIV (1) Slokavarttika of Sri Kumarila Bhatta, with the commentary Nyayaratnakara of Sri Parthasarathi Misra. Swami Dvarikadasa Sastri (ed.) (Ratna Publications, Varanasi, 1978. Ratnabharati Series, 3.) (2) Slokavarttika, translated... with extracts from the commentaries 'Kasika' of Sucarita Misra and 'Nyayaratnakara' of Parthasarathi Misra. by Ganga Nath Jha. (Second edition. Sri Satguru Publications. Delhi, 1983. Sri Garib Das Oriental Series, 8). Tillemans, Tom J.F.: Materials for the Study of Aryadeva, Dharmapala and Candrakirti. (The Catuhsataka of Aryadeva, chapters XII and XIII, with the commentaries of Dharmapala and Candrakirti: Introduction, translation. Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese texts, notes. 2 vols. Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien. Universitat Wien. Wien. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 24. 1-2. 1990). Tripathi, Dipti S.: "Apabhramsa in Sanskrit grammar: an appraisal of Bhartrhari's view." Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies 3(2), 1986, 81-92. Vibh-a Sammohavinodani, Abhidhamma-Pitake Vibhangatthakatha. A.P. Buddhadatta Thero (ed.) (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980. Pali Text Society Text Series. 116). Viy Viyahapannattisultam Pt. Bechardas J. Doshi (ed.) for part II assisted by Pt. Amritlal Mohanlal Bhojak. Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay. 1974-78. 2 parts. (Jaina-Agama-Series No. 4.) Viy (ed. Nathamal) = Anga Suttani, II: Bhagawai Viahapannatti. Muni Nathamal (ed.) (Jain Viswa Bharati, Ladnun V.S. 2031). Vism Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosacariya. Henry Clarke Warren (ed.) revised by Dharmananda Kosambi. Harvard = 414 University Press Oxford University Press, 1950. (Harvard Oriental Series, 41). Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit Comments K.N. Mishra Thanking Ven. N. Samten, who kindly consented earlier to read out the paper in absentia. I request the scholars to present their responses on this paper by Prof. Bronkhorst. S.K. Pathak verse I think this paper has given a new dimension to our discussion. The learned author has endeavoured to press before us two important points. Outlook of each and every religion to accept certain way of presentation or communication, belong to each religious society, that is one point. In the second part he has dealt the thing very interestingly with reference to Vakyapadiya and other comments. How these things have been taken into consideration in respect of the language used by the Buddhists who do not claim themselves that this is the only language in which the Buddha's teachings can be declared? These are two points he has given. I think first point requires no much discussion that is a general tendency. Christians say that Hebrew and Jains say that Ardhamagadhi and Buddhists say that Magadhi is the original language of the teachings of the Lord. But the second part of the discussion, I think, is very interesting. I just want to be aquainted with the point he has raised. There is a passage in Candrakirti's commentary on Aryadeva's Catuhsataka, which can throw further light on our question. The commentary survives only in Tibetan translation, which has recently been edited and studied and translated into English by Tom-J.F. Candrakirti cites under the karika no 278, of the Catuhsataka which is preserved in original form in Samadhirajasutra as well as in the Candrakirti's own Prasannapada commentary. There is cited the nivrttidharmana na asti dharmah ye neha asti na te jatu asti/ astiti-nastiti ca kalpanavatam

Page #11
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 415 evam carantana na duhkha samyati"// In this bhasya he has given his exposition in this way. Whatever is in existence, is the state that does not exist at all. For those who imagine existence and inexistence and practice accordingly suffering will not go to extinction. Afterwards he has discussed these things. Let other scholars come forward and I will only give the conclusion that we can have better discussion on the topic. Preceeding considerations have made it clear that different religions of the classical India which we have considered or share the belief that their sacred texts composed in the earliest language is the source of all other languages. In the case of the Theravada Buddhism and Jainism, position is fairly straight forward. The sacred language Pali. Magadhi and Ardhamagadhi have respectively the source of other languages including Sanskrit. Position of the Vedic Brahmins was likely more complicated for differences between the Vedic and classical Sanskrit are considerable. But neither of these two was claimed to be the source of the other rather the Vedic and classical Sanskrit were maintained to constitute together one single language on which, ofcourse, was the language of the god's internal language. It appears that atleast some of those Buddhists who preserved the sacred texts in a Hybrid Sanskrit, took essentially the same position as the Brahmins. Please note this sentence. It appears that atleast some of those Buddhists who preserved sacred texts in Hybrid Sanskrit took essentially the same position as the Brahmins. They looked upon the language of he sacred texts as fundamentally identical with the classical Sanskrit. And they even used the Vedic rules of Panini to account for some special features of Hybrid Sanskrit. Bhartrhari in the Vakyapadiya suggests some of those Buddhists to entertain the claim that their sacred language was the source of Sanskrit. This is the point. Alex Wayman Well, the thing is for Bronkhorst. I met him. I know more about him. But you know if you want to compare the way he does. the trouble is, you have to put these different systems in a more comprehensive way than he preferred, because the individual systems would go the wrong way without him if you try to talk Samadhiraja sutra 9.26 quoted in the Prasannapada on MMK 25.3. 416 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit about every thing in one paper, Jainism, Veda, Buddhist texts. You have to admit it is a good write up. While speaking of all these things when he says for example in his conclusion, "it seems, then, atleast possible to mainain that... the origin of Sanskrit". In other words there were one or two who wrote in Sanskrit because there was some value in it. That is very true but what does it mean? What is the use of saying so? In other words, I fear that the two statements in his article are some sort of things that every body agrees on anyway, and there is the other speculative which is going its own way. That is what I want to say to Bronkhorst. B. Oguibenine I would like to say that this paper is interesting in so far as it seems to point out that since Buddhists use Sanskrit preserved in their texts in Buddhist Sanskrit. It seems to imply that they composed their text directly in the variety of Sanskrit. This may be confirmed. This is the major point which I collected from Bronkhorst's paper. Now the other question. One point seems to be most important and I don't know exactly the answer. Since he says rightly that some Buddhist Hybrid or Buddhist Sanskrit usages are explained by Sanskrit scholars like Candrakirti by reference to Panini, they always consider that their language is to be analysed according to Panini. At the same time they looked upon their. Sanskrit as superior as the Vedic. It is little bit contradictory so far as Vedic Sanskrit does not concern with Panini's rules. And the next important point is, I think. the grammarians at that time had a certain prestige, and it was not quite natural to refer to Panini, because it evinced prestige. This does not prove much that the desire to refer to Panini is exactly reflecting the nature of language. K. Bhattacarya First I have to congratulate Bronkhorst, in his absence, of course, for bringing together all these valuable materials, some of which are well known and others not well known. I am to say much about the title. The title seems to me to be a little misleading. So, when I started reading the paper yesterday. I thought that I was going to get something very sensational, that is, he was going to reveal to us that the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is the original language. But the matter is entirely different. This is a minor question. I think that he can modify the title a little bit. I come to the

Page #12
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 417 418 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit same point as the one asked by Prof. Pathak. It has been mentioned by Prof. Oguibcnine also. I was wondering. I don't know the context, he refers to the very recent study which I have not read. I don't know the context. Bronkhorst may be right. I may be wrong But I am saying what I feel this moment about this. Now, first of all Candrakirti, as far as I know, was of a very scientific mind among all the commentators on Nagarjuna. He is the only one to point out the grammatical background of Nagarjunian thought. And "prathame hi vidvamso vaiyakaranah, vyakarana- mulatvat sarvavidyana." It had not been still said in this form. But Candrakirti was aware of this. In this context it is quite natural that Candrakirti tried to justify the forms by referring to Panini. He had read entire Panini, he had read the Vedic sutras whether or not they were read by the Buddhists in general, whether Candragomin had commented upon them or not, is a different matter. At least, so far as Candrakirti is concerned, he was well versed in Panini. As far as I know, in his Prasannapada, he has never tried to explain grammatically. This is a canonical quotation. There are so many quotations from the Samadhirajasutra in the Prasannapada, as far as I know, he did not explain them grammatically. Here is an instance where he did that. I am rather reluctant to draw the conclusion that Bronkhorst draws. I was forgetting something in this connection. I was talking about his scientific mind. Now so far as the Catuhfataka itself is concerned, I would mention just one thing to show his scientific mind. I don't have the passage here. I think it is in the tenth chapter of the Catuhsataka. Aryadeva just denics motion while denying Atma. denies that if Atma were eternal, and omnipresent. Sarvan or Sasvata, well, it could have no motion at all. kriyavan sasvasto nasti, nasti sarvagate kriya. It is a very simple thing and I don't think that Aryadeva had any grammatical idea in mind. But Candrakirti brings in a very complicated grammatical theory which started from Katyayana, but developed precisely in his own time. We find that in Jinendrabodhi. That is he refers to the distinction. It is not clear in Vidhushekhara Sastri's reconstruction. The idea is there. I could get that from what he says, but I don't think that the Sanskrit terms that have been used in place of the Tibetan are quite adequate. This is a very technical point. Candrakirti has to explain why there should not be any motion? An eternal entity of omnipresent entity, refers to the four kinds of the Dhatu, well known in the Paninian tradition. karts-prakriya, kartr-bhavaka, karma-prakriya, karmatva-bhavaka. Now this was the procedure that Candrakirti was following. So. I am not quite surprised. Perhaps he adopted different methods in his commentary in Catuhsataka, a little bit different from the one he followed in Prasannapada. Of course in the Prasannapada, so far as Nagarjuna is concerned, he explains Nagarjuna in the light of Bhartrhari. Now I think he is right. Nagarjuna was not aware of Bharthari. Bharthari just developed he idea of Patanjali. It is quite understandable that while Nagarjuna was basing himself upon Patanjali. Candrakirti coming after Bharthari. was just citing Bharthari. Here, so far as the reference of the Vedic sutra is concerned, he felt that he should explain those things grammatically. There was no choice here, because it was only the Vedic sutras which could explain that. Now, we may confine ourselves to the conclusion or go a bit further. Given by the scientific mind of Candrakirti, I am rather inclined to think that he was conscious of certain similarities between Vcdic Sanskrit and Buddhist Sanskrit as some of us have been calling in the Hybrid Sanskrit and which I call simply Buddhist Sanskrit. Perhaps he was aware, he was conscious of these similarities, so he quotes the Vedic sutra just to explain that. That does not necessarily mean to me that he was just treating Buddhist Sanskrit as something other than the Vedic Sanskrit. It is just his proceeding as a linguist, as a grammarian here. Either of these, he had no choice. If he had to explain these things he had no choice, but to refer to the Vedic sutras of Panini. And on the other hand, perhaps he was just conscious. aware of certain similarity between Vedic Sanskrit and Buddhist Sanskrit. That is all G.C. Pande I mainly want to raise some questions for you to discuss in your own. I would like the audicnce to comment. It seems to me that the paper raises two different questions. One is the question of original language, which is a philosophical question, not historical one. The other is a historical question about the language of Buddhist scriptures. Throughout the paper, there sccms to be a Literary interpretation of different views Vrtti on kiriki 13 of the Ist chapter of the Dhvanyaloka p.26 of K. Krishnamoorthy's edition. Dharwar. 1974. This verse of the Catuhsalaka (10.17) is quoted in the Prasannapadi of MMK 2.5ab

Page #13
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 419 420 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit There are scholars who distinguish their goal from the sound. It is not the sound which is determined that something has been expressed in the sound. It is an ideal form that they had in mind, combination of the different feelings. A language may be an ideal concept. It seems the Vedic language, as a spoken language, has the perpetual existence. Buddhists believe in the sayings, the Vedantins believe in the sayings, yet there is no similarity at all. My point is the paper begins with the discussion with the idea that Buddhists like others belicve in original language, and then pocs on to discuss the explanations offered by Candrakirti and others, deserving the unique usages. Now how do we take these two different levels which are very widely separated. That is my question, I would like you to comment on, if you feel so. Anarsa means avaidika no doubt, but avaidika in the sense different from the language of the Vedas. That is the meaning here. As he uses bhasa, as he uscs laukika and for Vedic language Panini uses mantra Panini uses Chandas, Panini uses Veda. So far the language of the common people the grammar of which he was writing, he uses anarsa and does not uses anarsa in this very sense that language was not spoken by rsis. While speaking about this Hybrid Buddhist Sanskrit, he says that both are an arsa. The Vedic language is Arsa and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is also arsa? So they are equally at par with. That is not the thing, which is said in this paper. How can we adopt this idea? That is the difficulty. We call the uscs which are aberrations which are not in conformity with the Paninian rules used in the Puranas and Mahabharata or in other slokas of Jyotisasasra Samudrikasastra in slokas like yasundari sa patina etc. The word patina is called arsa prayoga. So, such ages are called arsa, which are oldest than Panini, which we should not judge from the rules of Panini and here he says that every aberration in the type of the language used by Buddhists is arsa, these are the things and other philosophical things to be discussed in detail. L.N. Tiwari Alex Wayman As the author of this paper is not present, it is very difficult to raise questions or criticism or observations on this paper. But it seems that it has been written in a haphazard way. For instance he says "The example is the same as the one given by Patanjali. but Kumarila adds a dimension which we do not find in the Mahabhasya". That is a totally incorrect statement. The author of the Mahabhasya has cited the example of go itself and gives certain aberrations of the word go. So, how he says that the exposition given by Patanjali is not like that as it has been given by Kumarila. Then he mentioned at the same page that Kumarila takes this in reference to the language of the mlecchas. In the very begining of the Paspasahnika of the Mahabhasya, where aims and objectives of the study of grammar is explained. He says na mlecchitavai. That means that one should not speak as the mlecchas speak, therefore, one should study grammar. Thus the intentions of the Mahabhasyakara and Kumarila, are the same. Both are misrepresented here. The author brings forth the idea that Vedic language is also Hybrid Sanskrit. That is very peculiar. He says that like Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, also stands the Sanskrit. Both are Hybrid because both are Arsa. A new trend had started to call Vedic language as a Hybrid language. Look at his statement when he writes. "The situation of the Vedic Brahmins was in many respects parallel to that of those Buddhists who used Sanskrit but preserved sacred texts in "Hybrid Sanskrit." It is a typical statement. Thereafter he says 'Panini's grammar uses once (I. I, 16) the word anarsc, in the sense of avaidika 'non-vedic according to the interpretation of the Kafika". I may, in agreement, say that this kind of argument is like saying that the Asoka Hotel is Jewish. You know that they named this hotel Asoka. And we can use the same when we are using the word- arsa. It would make this hotel Atri. that is what he has done. What I said last night, also I realise, I should mention here, that he tried to cover too many subjects in one paper. If you can talk about Kumaralata, why don't you study Kumaralata, why not a paper on Kumaralata. If you could talk about Jainas, then study the Jainas, write, a paper on the Jainas. If you are talking about the Hebru then study what they do and write a paper on them. Otherwise everybody would be dissatisfied. Why could say about Vedic, why could'nt you say about Kumaralata? Nobody is satisfied because he tried to cover everything in onc paper. N.H. Samtani I think consensus here is not much appreciative of the jumbling of facts. Last conclusion is even very much dissatisfying when he said that Buddhist "look upon the language of their sacred texts as fundamentally indentical with classical Sanskrit ". Now I

Page #14
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: The Original Language 421 would bring some issues on these contexts. The first issue is about that cullavagga quotation which is the most important one about what was Buddhas attitude towards the language. And he says "sakaya niruttiya Buddha-vacanam parayapanitum" and main thing is that he not only says that but it has apatti-dukkata etc. This is peculiar in that context also that Buddhavacanam dusayanti. (That they are misprououncing.) This complaint of the Brahmins had come and inspite of that Buddha was very clear in saying sakayaniruttiya. It is quite different that Buddhagosa presents differently. But that is the gap of one thousand years. In that contexts. I think it is impossible that Buddhists will have any accessive estimation of sacredness to any one language. Now number two. It is absolutely in the tradition and the whole Buddhists doctrinal and ethical stand, that Buddhists will not attach importance to one language or sacredness of it, because they found that with Brahmins. Here it was unconventional when the Bodhisattva bhumi clearly says that "prakrtayapi bhasaya", when it is arthapratisaranam na-vyanjanapratisaranam. I think these are quite clear even doctrinally and ethically which emphasise on the purification of mind. It is impossible to think that Buddhists or the Buddha attached importance to a particular language. N. Samten In the absence of the author of the paper, may I request the august gathering of the scholars if anyone may make some clarification or give some information regarding Kumaralata's vyakarana which the author has mentioned here. This is the first Buddhist grammar which shows rules on certain words or forms which are not used in other Sanskrit texts. I, therefore, want to know that, whether this grammar is deviating from the two basic traditions of Sanskrit grammer, i.c. Mahesvara and Aindra traditions or it is written by a Buddhist scholar on Sanskrit in general. On which points it gives rules and formulas whether on verbs and forms which are peculiar and used in the Buddhist texts? S. Dietz Very few fragments are available of this grammar of Kumaralata which were edited by Heinrich Luders (1930) under the title Katantra and Kumaralata, and as far as I know, it was reprinted again in 1940 by Waldschmidt of Gottingen. This is the only thing I 422 Aspects of Buddhist Sanskrit know about it. But I can enquire in Germany if there is something else. Candravrtti was edited in fragments by Peter Schlingloff in the series of Berlin Academy. G.C. Pande The first paper convincingly argued that the language of Aryasura is pro-classical Sanskrit and the reasons for thinking of hybridism in its case are unclaimable. It has also commented on the aspects of the style of Aryasura. The second paper, was somewhat similar commenting on the ancient stylistic feature of Avadanakalpalata of Ksemendra. The third paper. we have just discussed, wide ranging paper which. similarly seems to suggest or consider the possibility of original Buddhist language which the Buddhists regarded as the original language of the whole universe. That idea has been at par with similar ideas in other religious traditions. Therefore, in some sense, different philosophical issues connected with the language are wide ranging in the sense that different languages are different symbolic stystems. Then they translate the ability and suggest that they say transformation. a sort of transformation of views which means that logically all the languages are united. See the concept of the speech about the Gayatri Madhyama is the speech available to the mind from which this spoken speech has its origin. Where logical articulate issues exist, differences are these. objects are distinguished. So is the case of their sign, but they are all different as these spoken words. Though they can correspond between them in the way, I think, of the object and the word which are used. Resources of correspondence are unique. And even there in the level of logical thought, there is some kind of import if understanding the distinction between the mind and its object is also lost. There is an undifferentiated conciousness, I mean not that they derive the objects but objective conciousness. Now in this sense, this has been argued by many different schools. Infact, the Buddhist schools believe that after the enlightenment the Buddha had the tusnimbhava. In Vedanta too, the Upanisads themselves declare the truth of human mind, they are in speech and thought both. They are all placed by Vedanta in the Vijnana, even including the Vedas themselves. All schools identify the words of the scriptures with the

Page #15
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit : The Original Language 423 words of truth. Every religious tradition has been contested by their people. Religious truth belongs to the realm of realization which exceeds not only talking about speech, but also the logical particular thoughts. There is a question in the Goraksasiddhantasangraha enquiring about Vedas. It is a kind of knowledge realised in the Ajnacakra wherever it is. I am only trying to say that the question of the original language of Buddhism has two kinds of levels. One is on the larger level, where I should not be confused with questions of the history of the language. The other thing is as far as the linguistic historical point of view is concerned. I am afraid that, there seems to be different points of view that the spoken language in the days of Buddha was constituted different from the tradition of Sanskrit. It's influence on later Sanskrit also makes it different from classical Sanskrit. This idea has not been unfortunately critically examined. The evidence of believing that there was a different language than the current Sanskrit of that time. Ofcourse, Sanskrit like any other language, was damaged in different ways. But that there was a language other than Sanskrit in structure, grammar and so on, at the time of the Buddha. This is probably re-cstablished. What is called Magadhi or Pali is possibly the spoken dialect. Asoka himself uses the language throughout his vast empire from east to west & north to south, Kandhara to Mysore.