Пали и буддийский санскрит: история происхождения

Автор Ассаджи, 08:37 02 ноября 2008

« назад - далее »


"The dialect at the basis of Rgvedic language lay to the north-west, while the classical language was formed in Madhyadesa."

Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, page 84



Род Сакья не упоминается в Ведах, по-видимому, они пришли в Индию с Запада после ведийского периода, а затем переселились в восточную Индию задолго до времени жизни Будды.


Индолог Майкл Витцель предполагает, что переселение Сакьев было одним из первых вторжений Скифов (Саков) в Индию.

Both the Malla and Vrji apparently immigrated into the east only after the end of the Vedic period, but well before the time of the Buddha (c. 400 B.C.). This must have been one of the last great infiltrations in Vedic times of western peoples into the lower Gangå area. More or less about this time the so-called second urbanization began as well.

Nevertheless, the settlement pattern in the east was not as homogenous as it was in the more western areas where the indigenous population had become Indo-Aryan in language and culture since the Mantra period. Instead, the Kosala-Videha area was one of great mixture of peoples. There were some earlier eastern Indo-Aryan settlers, the local Munda people and some Tibeto-Burmese elements. Then, various types and groups new immigrants entered from the areas further west. These were some brahmanically oriented tribes but also other non-orthoprax Indo-Aryan tribes such as the Malla and Vrji. They immigrated from northwestern India into Bihar which had been already settled by the old, para-Vedic Indo-Aryan tribes such as the Iksvåku, Kosala, Kåśi, and Videha.

Many of these tribes, including the Śakya to whom the Buddha belonged, are called asurya in ŚB. For it is the Sakya and their neighbors, the Malla, Vajji, etc. who are reported in the Påli texts as builders of high grave mounds, such as the one built for the Buddha. According to ŚB the "easterners and others(!)" are reported to have round "demonic" graves, some of which may have been excavated at Lauriya in E. Nepal. These graves are similar to the kurgan type grave mounds of S. Russia and Central Asia. However, the origin of the Śakya is not as clear as that of the Malla and Vrji. They may very well have been (northern) Iranian, and would then constitute an earlier, apparently the first wave of the later Śaka invasions from Central Asia.


Possible Iranian Origins for Sākyas and Aspects of Buddhism
Jayarava Attwood




академик Андрей Анатольевич Зализняк

О языке древней Индии


Об истории русского языка


Некоторые проблемы порядка слов в истории русского языка



Попытаюсь собрать неуловимые аргументы в пользу того, что Палийский канон является неким переводом с неведомого языка:

Кеннет Норман пишет:

"It is, for example, not always understood by non-specialists that an early Pāli canonical sutta is itself a translation, and forms which were left untranslated when the Pāli recension was made from some earlier version can sometimes be identified.15

15 e.g. in Th 1279 (sacce atthe ca dhamme ca āhu santo patiṭṭhitā), sacce is probably the
locative case, while atthe and dhamme are in the nominative case. See Norman, EV
I, 292."

http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/a-philological-approach-to-buddhism_norman_tbf_1997.pdf стр. 11-12

Неужели вероятный падеж в одной из строф Тхерагатхи может что-то доказывать?

Кеннет Норман признает, что язык пали вполне мог существовать в третьем веке до нашей эры, и указывает на сходство с эдиктом Асоки в Гирнаре и джайнской надписью в Хатхигумпхе, но приводит в качестве странного контр-аргумента то, что некоторые палийские формы явно произошли не от санскритских:

"It has been claimed in the case of Pali that as there are resemblances between it and the Girnar dialect of the Asokan inscriptions, and also between it and the language of the Hathigumpha inscriptions, Pali must have been the language of one or other of these two areas. A careful examination of the language of these inscriptions shows that Pali is not identical with either of them, and there is, moreover, some doubt about the language of the Girnar version of the Asokan inscriptions, since it is possible that it represents, in part at least, the scribe's attempt to convert the Eastern dialect he must have received from Pataliputra into what he thought was appropriate to the region in which the edict was being promulgated, rather than the actual dialect of that region. The language of the Hathigumpha inscription, although it agrees with Pali in the retention of most intervocalic consonants and in the nominative singular in -o, nevertheless differs in that the absolutive ending is -(t)tā, and with two doubtful exceptions there are no consonant groups containing -r-.

While it is not impossible that there existed in India in the third century B. C. an unattested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan which had all the features of Pali, the fact that some of the consonant clusters found in Pali are unhistoric and must therefore represent incorrect attempts at backformation, e.g. disvā (which cannot be from dṛṣṭva) and atraja (which cannot be from ātmaja), makes it more likely that by the third century B.C. the dialect of the canonical texts of the Theravadins conformed to the general pattern of Middle Indo-Aryan dialects of that time, and all consonant clusters had either been assimilated or resolved. It is probable that this represented the form of the language of the Theravadin canon at the time of the reign of Asoka, which was perhaps the lingua franca of the Buddhists of Eastern India, and not very different from the language of the Hathigumpha inscriptions."

http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pali-literature_norman_1983.pdf стр. 5

Может, я чего-то не понимаю? Почему вдруг эти палийские формы должны соотноситься с санскритскими? Пали как язык независим как от санскрита, так и от ведийского языка, о чем пишет Томас Оберлис.

Кстати, как пишет Мина Талим, и эдикты Асоки почему-то читают через призму санскрита, которого тогда еще не существовало.


Приведу еще аргументы Оберлиса с Пишелем:


"Pāli is the language of the texts of the Theravādins, an ancient school of Hīnayāna Buddhism. The Theravāda tradition has always claimed that the language the Buddha spoke was Māgadhi – i.e. an eastern language – and that this language was the same as that of its canonical texts, a language now called Pāli (a designation which originally meant 'text' and whose use as the name of a particular language seems to not to antedate the 18th century). And indeed we might expect that the language early Buddhism made use of was essentially an eastern one, current in the Gangetic basin in the 5th century B.C. Pāli, however, as we have it, is basically a language of western India, as the edicts of Asoka clearly show. Some of its salient features it shares with the western edicts (especially that of Girnār) ...

But sporadically it presents features that belong to the eastern part of the linguistic area of India, as evidenced by the Asoka edicts of (e.g.) Kālsi, Dhauli and of all pillars ..."

Оберлис с Пишелем относятся к тем упомянутым выше Норманом специалистам, которые подчеркивают сходство с надписью в Гирнаре, не обращая внимания на сходство с надписью в Хатхигумпхе, и у которых в итоге получается "западная" теория происхождения пали.

Это еще раз подчеркивает слабость любых теорий, основанных на нескольких надписях, сделанных через века после времени жизни Будды. Единственный современный Будде индийский язык дошел до нас в устной передаче, в ранних частях джайнского канона.

"Many Pāli words and forms - "with 'frozen' phonetics", as Richard Gombrich aptly characterised them (in: Geiger 1994: XXVII) – are relics from an earlier eastern dialect in which the 'texts' of early Buddhism were (orally) handed down. This proto-canonical language (which Heinrich Luders called Alt-Ardhamāgadhī) – akin to the administrative language of the Maurya king Asoka (268-232 B.C.) and based on an artistic MIA 'Dichtersprache' which was in use long before the time of the Buddha – was in many ways, when compared to OIA, further advanced than the western dialects of its time: Internal voiced occlusives had been lost, while the surds were voiced (-p- to -v-), original initial y- had (at least in some words) already become j-, and the gender distinction was about to break down (etc.).  That meant that the 'texts' were transformed into a more archaic language (unless the words were taken over unaltered) as Buddhism spread westward."

Хорошо, что Оберлис с Пишелем допускают хотя бы в скобках возможность того, что слова  были переданы без изменений. Кто, зачем и как в древней Индии, до появления развитой грамматики, преобразовывал бы искусственно тексты на более архаичный язык?

Для искусственной архаизации, как показывает пример санскритизации, нужна многовековая работа грамматиков.

And that process over-reached itself in not a few instances, i.e. hyper-forms like Isipatana (Ṛsyavṛjana) were created.

Опять, как у Нормана, идет соотнесение с предположительными санскритскими формами, - как будто кто-то искусственно создавал упрощенные формы. "Исипатана", как и упомянутое Норманом "дисва", просто гораздо легче произносить в живом разговорном языке.


Дениел Баучер в книге "Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna" тоже пишет о "переводе":

     The history of the transmission of Buddhism has also in many ways been the history of its translations. Regardless of which language the Buddha himself spoke, a source of ongoing scholarly debate, he certainly did not preach in any of the languages in which his purported sayings are preserved. Although not frequently brought to the fore, our corpus of Indian Buddhist texts — be they Pāli, Gāndhārī, or Sanskrit — is a corpus of translations.

и объясняет в статье, что имеется в виду:

Even if we want to suppose the existence of a considerable number of Buddhist texts written in the Gandhari language, most canonical texts used in the northwest would have originated from central Indian Prakrits. And the process of turning such Prakrits into Gandhari would have decidedly shaped and perhaps significantly altered the final text. K. R. Norman, for example, has argued: "It cannot be emphasized too much that all the versions of canonical Hinayana Buddhist texts which we possess are translations, and even the earliest we possess are translations of some still earlier version, now lost."(123) Heinz Bechert, on the other hand, has suggested that translation - a linguistic transfer between mutually unintelligible languages or dialects - is too strong a characterization of this process:
            Some scholars believed that this transformation was a real "translation" of texts which at that time already existed as written literary texts. Others think - and I agree with them - that the transposition was no formalized translation. It was another kind of transformation from one dialect into another dialect, that took place in the course of a tradition, which was still an oral tradition, but had already entered the process of being formalized linguistically . . . .(124)

            However, these positions are not necessarily as sharply opposed as they might first appear. Norman has shown that these "translations" were often carried out by scribes who applied certain phonetic rules mechanically.(125) Nevertheless, some of these transpositions led to hypercorrections and mistaken interpretations, suggesting that the movement between these dialects was not always clear even to learned scribes.(126) This problem was especially acute in Gandhari, as Gerard Fussman has recently indicated:
            Il ne faut pas surestimer la gene qu'apporte h l'usager l'existence d'une orthographe vieillie assez eloignee de la prononciation  reelle. . . . Dans ces conditions les textes bouddhiques gandh. s'ecartaient tellement de la norme parlee qu'ils n'etaient parfois plus comprehensibles, meme a leur redacteur.(127)

            For our purposes then it is important to realize that before an Indian sutra arrived in China, it may have undergone one or more stages of transference between Middle Indic languages. This process almost certainly would have resulted in a very mixed and layered text.(128)


Оказывается, речь идет о преобразовании между индийскими диалектами. При чем тут тогда искусственная архаизация? Для оправдания архаичных форм в пали?


Pāli as an Artificial Language,
by Oskar von Hinüber:


Pāli: How Do We See It Eighty Years After Geiger's Grammar?
by Oskar von Hinüber:


стр. [459-469]

Pāli and Paiśācī as Variants of Buddhist Middle Indic,
by Oskar von Hinüber:


стр. [505-521]



О влиянии буддийских идей на Упанишады:

Michael Witzel
The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools : The Social and Political Milieu

The eastern region thus supplied the ideal ferment for the meeting of ideas and the development of new concepts. Just as the break-up of the old tribal society of the Ṛgveda saw strikingly new developments in ritual and the emergence of the brahmanical pre-scientific science of homologies (bandhu), the new stratified and partly aristocratic, partly oligarchic society of the east witnessed the emergence of many of the typically Upanisadic ideas.

By the time of the Buddha (c. 400 B.C.), wandering teachers of all sorts were normal appearances in the towns and villages of the east (Dīghanikāya 2). We get a glimpse of the earlier state of this phenomenon when Yājñavalkya leaves home (BĀU 4.5.15). If we may trust the BĀU and ŚB accounts of Uddālaka's travels in the Panjab, he reached both the western and the eastern ends of Vedic India in his travels. In fact, the geographical horizon of the early Upanisads stretches from Gandhāra to Anga.


Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, by Johannes Bronkhorst

"Greater Magadha, roughly the eastern part of the Gangetic plain of northern India, has so far been looked upon as deeply indebted to Brahmanical culture. Religions such as Buddhism and Jainism are thought of as derived, in one way or another, from Vedic religion. This belief is defective in various respects. This book argues for the importance and independence of Greater Magadha as a cultural area until a date close to the beginning of the Common Era. In order to correct the incorrect notions, two types of questions are dealt with: questions pertaining to cultural and religious dependencies, and questions relating to chronology. As a result a modified picture arises that also has a bearing on the further development of Indian culture."



Интересная заметка в блоге Джаяравы:
Asoka, Pāli, and some red herrings.


Спасибо, интересно.

Отзыв Ленса Казинса о книге Оскара фон Хинюбера:

"If von Hinuber's work has a bias, it lies perhaps in a certain tendency to neglect or undervalue the results of English-language scholarship. Of course, in many ways this only redresses the balance, since English-language writing has all too often neglected work done in German! But it does have the result that this account is oddly conservative in places, sometimes to my mind unacceptably so. One example of this is von Hinuber's acceptance of the old claim that the inscriptions of the Emperor Asoka can be used to 'draw a very rough linguistic map of northern India' and that Pali is therefore 'rooted in a language spoken in western India far away from the homeland of Buddhism' (§ 7). Quite apart from the fact that we are here talking of minor differences of dialect, rather than the difference between distinct languages, it is clear that the variations between the inscriptions of Asoka in different parts of India (excluding the case of the North-West) may often be better accounted for by different scribal or epigraphic practices i.e. the degree to which it was felt necessary to adopt a more 'literary' form. Since Pali itself is a more literary form of Middle Indian, such practices can sometimes produce a result closer to Pali, but this may be nothing to do with geography."



Цитата: Ассаджи от 06:34 07 марта 2013
Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, by Johannes Bronkhorst

"Greater Magadha, roughly the eastern part of the Gangetic plain of northern India, has so far been looked upon as deeply indebted to Brahmanical culture. Religions such as Buddhism and Jainism are thought of as derived, in one way or another, from Vedic religion. This belief is defective in various respects. This book argues for the importance and independence of Greater Magadha as a cultural area until a date close to the beginning of the Common Era. In order to correct the incorrect notions, two types of questions are dealt with: questions pertaining to cultural and religious dependencies, and questions relating to chronology. As a result a modified picture arises that also has a bearing on the further development of Indian culture."


Кере Альберт Лиэ пишет:

The language of the Pali canon was called Magadhi by the commentators in Sri Lanka. According to the chronicles the canon reached Sri Lanka at the time of king Asoka. Therefore we have to ask: What was Magadha at the time of Asoka?

At the time of the Buddha Magadha was a minor, but aggressive kingdom in eastern North India. We may call this "original Magadha". The Buddha was not born in Magadha, so there is no reason to assume that he spoke the local dialect of that region. He was born further to the north east, in Kapilavatthu, which then belonged to the kingdom of Kosala. In the years after the death of the Buddha Magadha conquered its neighbors and expanded, so that at the time of Asoka the kingdom of Magadha comprised both Kosala and other areas, in fact most of northern and central India. We may call this "greater Magadha".

So where did the canon come from when it reached Sri Lanka? It came from Magadha, from "greater Magadha", and to the sinhalese "Magadha" may have had approximately the meaning of "India". To the sinhalese regional and local nuances of dialect probably mattered little. Their canon came from the mainland, from "Magadha", and it would be natural for them to say that the language of the canon was "something from Magadha", that is "Magadhi".

We can see many other examples in history of names being moved around on thee map and used for an expanded area after conquests. Rome was originally just a town. Then it became the name of an empire. You could be a Roman even without having set your foot in Rome. And even after the empire fell, Anatolia (Asia Minor) was called "Rum" by the turks, since that area once had belonged to the Roman empire. The famous poet Rumi, "the Roman" never had anything to do with Rome. He got his name not because he came from Rome (he was born in eastern Iran), but because he lived most of his life in Anatolia, in Rum.

After Asoka, after the Magadhan dynasties fell, the name Magadha again was "shrunk" into the area of "original Magadha", which developed its own dialectal peculiarities. So when this later Magadhan dialect, Prakrit Magadhi, became standardized as a Prakrit language, it caused endless rounds of confusion among scholars. Since they knew the late Prakrit Magadhi, and since the read that the commentators said the Pali canon was in Magadhi, some scholars thought that the canon originally was in some kind of Prakrit Magadhi and had been translated into Pali. This is one of the reasons behind some persistent rumors about the Pali canon being a translation.



Ленс Казинс пишет:

"The standard epigraphical language used in the Gangetic plain and beyond in the last centuries B.C. and a little after was a form of Middle Indian rather close to Pali. We have no reason to believe that any other written language existed in that area at that time. Like Pali it is eclectic with word-forms originally from different dialectics and also with no standardized spelling (as was probably originally the case for Pali). So the first Buddhist texts written down in that area should have been in that form. Since the enlarged kingdom of Magadha eventually extended over nearly the whole Gangetic plain, that language was probably called the language of Magadha, if it had a name. And that of course is the correct name of the Pali language.

Pali is essentially a standardized and slightly Sanskritized version of that language. Māgadhī is a language described by the Prakrit grammarians and refers to a written dialect that developed later (early centuries A.D. ?) from the spoken dialect in some part of 'Greater Magadha'.

In effect, then, Pali is the closest we can get to the language spoken by the Buddha. And it cannot have been very different — we are talking about dialect diferences here, not radically distinct languages."



Из статей Татьяны Яковлевны Елизаренковой:

"Ведийский язык и особенно санскрит различаются хронологически, лингвистически (черты различия прослеживаются на всех уровнях: в фонологии, морфологии, синтаксисе), диалектной базой (первый связан с крайним северо-западом Индии — Пенджабом и долиной Инда, второй — не только с северо-западом, но и с центральной частью северной Индии, с бассейном Ганга). Эпический санскрит тесно связан со среднеиндийскими диалектами и, как полагают некоторые ученые, имеет среднеиндийскую основу, подвергнувшуюся санскритизации.

    Таким образом, древнеиндийский этап развития по своему составу не является единым, притом что он определяется в отличие от среднеиндийского периода на основе чисто лингвистических критериев, а не (или не только) хронологически.

    Периодизация истории развития индоарийских языков осложняется еще и тем, что её невозможно построить только с помощью лингвистических данных, так как разные периоды развития языка представлены памятниками разных жанров и - более того — могут принадлежать к разным культурам (ведийский — язык древнего религиозного культа, санскрит — язык литературы, науки и религии: индуизма и буддизма махаяны, пали — язык буддизма хинаяны и т.д.). Неизвестно, был ли санскрит вообще когда-либо разговорным языком.

    Среднеиндийский период представлен многообразием языков и диалектов: палии пракритами, а поздний его этап — апабхранша. На уровне терминов существует противопоставление: санскрит — пракрит (prakrta 'исконный, связанный с основой, природный, естественный'), - которое можно толковать двояко: 1) санскрит — имеющий основой (санскрит) и 2) искусственный — естественный. Так или иначе, но к тому времени, от которого до нас дошли пракриты, они уже не были разговорными языками и представляли собой определенную обработку языка для употребления его в делопроизводстве, проповедях (пракриты надписей Ашоки - III в. до н.э.) или в литературных целях (сценические и литературные пракриты — первые века н.э.). Пали — наиболее архаичный из среднеиндийских языков вообще, видимо, представлял собой койне, на котором был записан буддийский канон (pa:li 'линия, текст').

    Пракриты надписей соотносятся с определенными географическими ареалами, при этом для многих из них диалектная база является иной, чем у санскрита.

    Ситуация осложняется еще тем, что ряд изоглосс в области фонетики и морфологии объединяет ведийский язык со среднеиндийскими, минуя санскрит, не говоря о том, что уже в ведах встречаются отдельные фонетические пракритизмы."


Индоарийские языки являются языками великой культуры, развивающейся на протяжении приблизительно четырех тысяч лет. Тексты на этих языках представляют различные религии (ведизм, индуизм, буддизм, джайнизм), самые разнообразные литературные жанры (религиозные гимны, эпос, лирическую поэзию, повествовательные и драматургические произведения), научные и философские трактаты, а также многочисленные комментарии на них, эпиграфические надписи и проч. Принадлежность к этой традиции и обусловила ту специфическую ситуацию, в которой развивались индоарийские языки.

Для мертвых индоарийских языков проблему составляет хронологическое деление на древнеиндийский и среднеиндийский этапы, поскольку хронологически они в значительной степени совмещаются и с определенного момента сосуществуют на протяжении многих веков, употребляясь в разных сферах (в зависимости от жанра произведения или от принадлежности его к той или иной религии). Поэтому во многих случаях дифференциальными являются не столько хронологические различия, сколько структурные.

Наиболее отчетливо эти различия выражены в фонетике: в средний индоарийский период происходит ассимиляция групп согласных древнего индоарийского и отпадение конечных согласных; отсутствуют слоговые сонанты r, l и дифтонги ai, au; количественная характеристика гласных регулируется законом двух мор и т.д. Все эти фонетические изменения в свою очередь вызвали изменения в области морфологии и синтаксиса: унификация типов склонения и спряжения за счет ликвидации согласных основ, развитие полуаналитических конструкций и т.п.

Проблема осложняется еще и тем, что весьма непросто бывает решить на материале мертвых языков соотношение языка и диалекта. Первые дошедшие до нас тексты на индоарийских языках — это ведийские поэтические собрания и ритуальные пояснения к ним. Культовая поэтическая речь, адресованная богам, по своему назначению и стилю не могла иметь много общего с разговорным языком того времени, о котором практически нет оснований судить. Однако уже в самом раннем ведийском собрании Ригведе (веде гимнов) - встречаются отдельные пракритизмы, что вызвало оживленную дискуссию ученых. Наконец, в пракритах, первоначально основанных на местных разговорных диалектах, есть изоглоссы, объединяющие их с ведийским, но не с более поздним и нормированным санскритом. Относительно же санскрита, имеющего иную диалектную базу, чем ведийский, так и не решен окончательно вопрос, был ли это рафинированный, искусственный язык (samskrta - составленный, сохраненный / prakrta - естественный, природный) высших слоев общества, их науки и культуры, или он был достаточно распространенным разговорным языком определенной области.

В древнеиндийской традиции язык был прочно закреплен за определенным классом текстов или же литературным жанром. Так, в научной и комментаторской литературе заметно преобладает именной строй, не используется в достаточной мере богатство личных глагольных форм, широко употребляются существительные с абстрактными суффиксами; начиная с периода сутр (приблизительно 600-400 гг. до н.э.) становятся все более употребительными длинные сложные слова вместо двучленных, более характерных для предшествующего периода брахман; в классической драме явно преобладает пассивный строй и т.п. В результате можно сказать, что по своим морфологическим и синтаксическим характеристикам язык разных классов текстов на санскрите принадлежит к разным лингвистическим типам. Именно поэтому вполне оправдано мнение, что лингвистическая эволюция в древней Индии определяется в большей мере жанром текстов, чем временем и местом (Renou 1956, 236).

Есть еще одно важное обстоятельство, оказавшее решающее воздействие на развитие индоарийских языков. В древней Индии очень рано возникла и достигла очень высокого уровня развития наука языкознание. Потребность в ней диктовалась необходимостью сохранять в неприкосновенности древние священные тексты, в то время как язык продолжал изменяться. Высшим достижением древнеиндийского языкознания была грамматика Панини (приблизительно V в. до н.э.), в которой дается системное изложение правил, моделирующих санскрит (называемый bhasa < bhas- говорить). Считается, что Панини описывал язык, близкий к периоду брахман, на котором говорила элита. Самое важное, что с момента создания грамматики Панини описанный им санскрит стал рассматриваться как вечный язык, образец для подражания. Употреблять следовало только — правильные — панинийские формы, а тот путь развития, которому следовал в дальнейшем реальный язык, рассматривался как отход от нормы.

Согласно этим теоретическим воззрениям, развитие санскрита прекратилось. В действительности же на много веков утвердилось одновременное употребление санскрита и пракритов (а затем и апабхранша), получивших к тому времени литературный статус в разных классах текстов. Бывали случаи, когда санскрит мог постепенно вытеснять среднеиндийские языки из первоначально закрепленной за ними сферы (ср., например, буддийские тексты в хронологической последовательности: пракритские надписи Ашоки, Южный буддийский Канон на языке пали, Северный буддийский Канон на санскрите и контаминация пракритской и санскритской моделей вплоть до почти полной санскритизации в текстах Северного буддизма на буддийском гибридном санскрите). Возможной оказалась и такая парадоксальная ситуация, что расцвет санскрита классической литературы приходится на IV в. н.э., в то время как пракритские надписи Ашоки датируются III в. до н.э. До X в. н.э. сосуществуют различные жанры санскритской и пракритской литературы, начиная же с X в. с ними конкурируют в качестве литературного языка и апабхранша как язык лирической поэзии, джайнской литературы, поздних буддийских гимнов.



Ленс Казинс пишет:

The problem with discussions of the language the Buddha spoke is that people do not define their terms.

It is perfectly possible that the native language of the Buddha was a non-IndoEuropean language, but, if he preached in Kosala and Magadha, he certainly gave his teachings in either Sanskrit or an early Prakrit. The former would only be plausible if we date the Buddha very early. Otherwise it is clear that he taught in an early Prakrit and his teachings were preserved in one or more Prakrit dialects.

We can then speculate that there were eventually multiple dialects in which the teachings were preserved. If that is the case, then it is important to understand that these were probably not languages as we usually understand them. Rather they were dialects which would have been mutually comprehensible.

At some point the texts were written down, some probably already in the reign of Asoka. But the oral collections as a whole were put into writing somewhat later. At this point we are talking about a written language, which is an entirely different matter. At present we know of only one such language — the 'standard Epigraphic Prakrit' used for almost all inscriptions in the second century B.C. until the first century A.D. and continuing in use in some areas for a number of centuries. Pali is a somewhat developed and slightly Sanskritized form of that. There were other such descendants, but they were probably not that different. I would not call them distinct languages. Rather they too are dialects.

Whether Buddhist scriptures were ever put into the later developed Prakrit languages such as Mahārāṣṭrī is unknown. I exclude Gāndhārī from consideration here as that was far from the homelands of Buddhism and writing there may go back to the time of Persian rule.

Lance Cousins.



Ленс Казинс пишет:

The use of the Anglicised form Pali for the Pāḷibhāsā dates back to the early nineteenth century and so considerably predates Rhys Davids and the Pali Text Society. It is the correct form to use when writing in English, just as Sanskrit or Prakrit are the correct forms, rather than Saṃskṛta or Prākṛta.

It's use as a name for the language properly known as Māgadhabhāsā certainly dates back to the seventeenth century. Kate Crosby has argued that it is already used in texts from around the twelfth and thirteenth century. She may be right about this, but I am not completely convinced by her examples and need to go through them carefully when I have time.

We should not confuse the Māgadha language now known as Pali with the Māgadhī dialect. The latter is a spoken dialect of a core locality in the eventual enlarged kingdom of Māgadha, a dialect which eventually became a written language described by the Prakrit grammarians. The language we call Pali was referred to as the language of Māgadha because that was the only written language in general use across most of North India in the Maurya and Suṅga periods at a time when the King of Māgadha ruled large parts of that area.

Lance Cousins



The language of early Buddhism

Bryan Levman


(См. также его диссертацию
Linguistic Ambiguities, the Transmission al Process, and the Earliest Recoverable Language of Buddhism
by Bryan Geoffrey Levman

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68342/1/Levman_Bryan_G_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf )


Брайан Левман пишет по поводу того, как называть процесс формирования палийских текстов:

We probably don't have a good word for the transmission process in English. When going from Gāndhārī to Chinese, I would call that a translation (as does Boucher in his article), but from one Prakrit to another, is not properly a translation, but a transformation. Normalization might work, but that suggests that there is a standard somewhere, which really doesn't exist. Just because Pāli survived (probably because it was exported to Sri Lanksa), doesn't mean it was the only (or even the principal) dialect in which the Buddha's teachings were transmitted - in fact, we know it wasn't, but the other dialects by and large didn't survive. The same goes for any non Indo-European languages (like Dravidian or Munda) that the teachings may have been translated into, during or shortly after the Buddha's ministry.

Derivation would be a good word (which Lamotte uses, see below)  or transformation as Bechert uses.

My use of the word "translation" basically follows Norman who uses the word, while others, as you have noted, eschew the term; Bechert calls it "transference of text from one linguistic form to another, either in the form of a deliberate translation or a gradual transformation in the oral tradition" (eine Übertragung der Texte aus einer sprachlichen Form in eine andere mit oder ohne Zwischenstufen, in Form einer bewußt vorgenommenen Übersetzung oder aber durch eine allmähliche Umsetzung in mündliche Überlieferung). I give some quotes below from these scholars, if you are interested in pursuing it.

Best wishes,

K. R. Norman, in Tadeusz Skorupski, ed., The Buddhist Forum, Volume I (London, 1990), 34. Also found in Collected Papers 4 (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1993), 84. ) :
"It cannot be emphasized too much that all the versions of canonical Hīnayāna Buddhist texts which we possess are translations, and even the earliest we possess are translations of some still earlier version, now lost."

H. Bechert, 1980. "Allgemeine Bemerkungen zum Thema "Die Sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung." In Die Sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung, H. Bechert ed., Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 117: 24-34.English version in Buddhist Studies Review, 8 1-2 (1991):3-19.:
"Wir können davon ausgehen, daß kein uns erhaltener kanonischer Text die Sprache des Buddha oder auch nur der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung genau repräsentiert und daß dementsprechend die uns vorliegenden Textfassungen in irgendeiner Weise auf ältere Überlierferungsstufen in einer abweichenden sprachlichen Form beruhen, so daß wir annehmen müssen, daß eine Übertragung der Texte aus einer sprachlichen Form in eine andere - mit oder ohne Zwischenstufen, in Form einer bewußt vorgenommenen Übersetzung oder aber durch eine allmähliche Umsetzung in mündliche Überlieferung - stattgefunden hat."
Translated in Buddhist Studies Review, 8 1-2 (1991), 6, as
"We can proceed from the above on the assumption that none of the canonical texts exactly reflects the language of the Buddha or even of the earliest Buddhist tradition and that accordingly, the various textual versions are based in one way or another on earlier stages of the tradition couched in a different linguistic form. Thus we must further assume that there has been a transference of the texts from one linguistic form to another, with or without intermediate stages, either in the form of a deliberate translation or a gradual transformation in the oral tradition."

Lamotte uses more neutral terminology: "Both [the S and P canons] were derived from prototypes in a Magadhan dialect."                   
(History of Indian Buddhism from the origins to the Śaka Era, translated from the French by Sara Webb-Boin
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1958, 1988, 587)