"Buddha" before the Pali Canon?

L.S.Cousins selwyn at NTLWORLD.COM
Tue Sep 19 09:07:55 UTC 2000


A prominent Vedicist:

>  > Pali texts are
>>  certainly not the oldest of Buddhist texts, and Pali was not the
>>  language of the Buddha or of the early Buddhist community. This
>>  is a myth propagated in the 19th century by the Pali Text Society
>>  etc. There certainly are very old documents within the Pali canon
>>  -- e.g. the Suttanipata, and within it the Attakavagga (see
>>  Vetter's article on this).

It isn't anything like as simple of this. But I would still take the
view that the Pali texts are an older recension than anything else
available to us in an Indic dialect. In truth, the only other large
body of material available to us is that found in the
Muulasarvaastivaadin Vinaya texts and these are plainly considerably
later as a recension. Obviously individual texts and passages have to
be argued on a case by case basis.

Steve Farmer:
>I take it that he is referring here to Vetter's arguments (e.g.,
>in his 1988 monograph, pp. 101 ff.) concerning pre-Buddhist
>strata in the Attakavagga. But I have no information about his
>reference to Pali not being the "language of the Buddha or of the
>early Buddhist community." Can someone more knowledgeable about
>than I am about recent Buddhist studies help me out with
>bibliography in any European language?

I don't find Vetter's arguments very convincing.

>In general, I should point out that I take arguments about the
>historicity of "the Buddha" with deep skepticism, since ancient
>biographies of figures like this (cf. "Confucius," "Aristotle,"
>"Jesus," etc.) were invariably late constructs,

'Invariably' ? This is an extremely strong claim. So strong that one
example is sufficient to refute it. How about Alexander ? Can we
conclude from the proliferation of the Alexander legend that we
should have 'deep scepticism' as to the historicity of Alexander ? I
think not.

>  reflecting
>scattered data in rapidly growing textual canons (collected
>syncretically to generate figures who eventually reached cosmic
>dimensions), self-serving claims by warring schools, and other
>equally dubious sources. Indeed, I think that strong
>cross-cultural models can be built for how biographies like these
>grew over time. The credence that these biographies (stripped
>only of their miraculous elements) are still given even by modern
>researchers rests on no stronger grounds than the fact that they
>have been endlessly repeated.

There are certainly groups of scholars who _construct_ models on
these lines, but it seems to me that they too are based upon
particular agenda and should be taken with a large dose of salt.

>Hence I view the redatings of early Buddhism by Bechert et
>al.(which I fully support) to be redatings of the Pali canon and
>not of "the Buddha"

This is just wrong. These redatings are nothing to do with the Pali
Canon which doesn't exist before the early first century B.C. at the
very earliest. They are not even redatings of the earliest texts
contained in the Pali Canon, since such issues are mostly not being
addressed. They are attempting to locate the date of the historical
figure whose place of death was marked by Asoka in the third century
B.C. with a pillar at Lumbini. Note that there may have been people
alive at this time who had spoken to people who met the Buddha in
their youth.

This is particularly true if one follows Bechert himself who adopts a
very late date 'close to Alexander' (or something like that) or
follows the traditional Sarvaastivaadin dating uncritically as do
Charles Willemen and company. In other words Asoka Moriya put up his
pillar (or inscribed it) about a century and a half after the death
of the individual recognized as the 'Buddha' by his followers.

Most participants in Bechert's Symposium preferred a dating closer to
400 B.C. or a little earlier.

>  -- and am hence equally skeptical about claims about "the language
>of the Buddha"

This is really a debate about the language of the earliest Buddhist
literature, but it is more convenient to refer to 'the Buddha'. But
it is important to note here that there is actually no real doubt as
to what 'language' the 'Buddha' spoke. The debate is about the
precise 'dialect' or 'dialects' spoken in the area of modern Bihar in
the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

In other words whatever exact dialects were spoken there is no doubt
that they were at least as close to the language of the earlier texts
of the Pali Canon as the language in which I am writing this is to
that in which Shakespeare wrote. In some ways the dialect of the Pali
Canon can be compared to that of modern editions of Shakespeare which
do not spell at all as he did. In effect it is a modernized dialect,
not a different language at all.

>  Vetter too (1988: xxi ff.), despite his
>work on pre-Buddhist levels of Buddhist texts, accepts a lot of
>conventional lore about the life of "the Buddha" that no one
>could *possibly* support using well-controlled evidence.

It would be a mistake to insist on 'well-controlled evidence' in this
context. That would simply amount to a concealed argument from
silence. The kind of criteria you seem to want to use are those
appropriate to a time and place where we have a lot of data. If a
figure supposed to have existed in 16th century Europe is not
mentioned until the 18th century we would rightly be very suspicious,
especially if he is claimed to have been well-known, etc. At that
time we have a lot of information and the absence of evidence is very
significant. At other times when we have very little data mere
absence of evidence tells us little and even priority may be an
artifact of mere chance survivals.

>In any event, does anyone have any comments about the "language
>of the Buddha," Buddhist texts antedating the Pali canon, etc?

The term Paa.li for the language of these texts is an innovation
dating from around the 17th century. Before that the language was
referred to as Maagadha-bhaasaa and this is certainly the correct
name for it - in use for nearly two millennia, if not longer. (The
fact that various grammarians use the name Maagadhii in other ways is
irrelevant to this.)

Lance Cousins

--
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com





More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list