Learning from the Misread: A Study of some Pali Anomalous forms in the Sagathavagga
Loading...
Date
2001-11-16
Authors
Somaratne, G. A.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
Abstract
The origin of both the Pali language and the Pali canon is debatable. There are,
however, traces in the Pali canonical texts themselves to show that they are in the present form
after being subject to processes of translation and transmission. Translation was from several
ancient Magadhi idioms or Eastern dialects of the Ganges basin and Kalinga to the composite
language what we call Pall, and the transmission was from an oral tradition to a hand-written
one. Some of these traces are known as Magadhisms or Eastern forms and these forms are so
rare in the present version of the Pali canon that the extant ones have also been subjected to
misreading and misinterpretation even within the Theravida Buddhist tradition. The main
purpose of my research is to recover some of these archaic forms from the Sagathavagga of
the Samyuttanikaya. In this paper I present only the forms found in the Dhajaggasutta and the
Sakalikasutta.
In the Dhajaggasutta the <yam ... so> construction of the sentence <mamam hi vo
dhajaggam ullokayatam yaIp bhavissati bhayam... so pahiyissati>, the relative clause <yam
bhavissati bhayam ...> has been linked with the main sentence <so pahiyissati>. Here <yam> is
a neuter nominative singular of the relative pronoun <ya(d) and it goes with <bhayam> which
is also a form of neuter nominative singular. <so> in the main clause, however, is the
masculine nominative singular of the demonstrative pronoun <ta(d», and it does not match in
gender with the relative clause's <yam> and <bhayam>, This grammatical error is a result of
using the masculine nominative singular <so> in the main clause, and it is likely to be a
corruption of the Eastern form <se>. By considering a few other rare examples extant in the
Pali canon, where the neuter nominative forms of <ye ... se> are used instead of <yam ...
tam>, it is possible to amend the sentence to its archaic version to read <ye bhavissati bhayam
... se pahiyissati>.
In the Sakalikasutta, the terms <nagavata,sihavata, ijiniyavata, dhorayhavata,
nisabhavati, dantavati> are problematic since there are no such Pali forms found elsewhere in
the Pali canon. The commentator glosses, for instance, <nagavata> with <nagabhavena> but I
doubt its correctness. The sentence reads <nagavata ca pan'uppanna sarmka vedana ..,
adhiviseti avihaiiiiamano>, and in my PTS edition with a clue I gathered from a Lanna
manuscript I changed it to <nago'va ta ca pan'uppanna sanrikii vedana ... adhiviseti
avihaiifuunino>. But now I have a better idea about it. Here we have an anomalous form, a
Migadhi form, that is, <naga> of <nagavati> is another nominative singular form of <-a>
stems of some Eastern dialects. To show the extent of this form, another example is also found
elsewhere in the Pall canon. I argue that if it is the case we do not have to change anything in
the text except the breaking down of the word to read <naga va ta> where the feminine form
<ta> match well with the feminine noun <vedana>.
Description
Keywords
Art , Learning , Palianomalous , Sagathavagga
Citation
Proceedings & abstracts of the Annual Research Sessions 2001,University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka,pp.36