Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Original Language

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

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 "prakṛtayapi bhāṣaya", when it is arthapratisaranam na-vyañjanapratisaranam. 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 Kumaralāta's vyakaraṇa 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. Mäheśvara 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 Kumaralāta which were edited by Heinrich Lüders (1930) under the title Katantra and Kumaralāta, and as far as I know, it was reprinted again in 1940 by Waldschmidt of Göttingen. 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. Candravṛtti 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 Kṣemendra. 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 tuṣṇimbhāva.
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 Vijñana, even including the Vedas themselves. All schools identify the words of the scriptures with the