原始佛教的语言问题

（附英文）

现在印度正以极其隆重的仪式纪念佛教创始人释迦牟尼涅槃2500周年。我们都知道，佛教在中印文化交流中起过很大的作用，对中国文化的许多方面都有过影响。因此，有很多人关心这次的纪念，这是完全可以理解的。下面我从佛教史里选出一个国外梵文学者和佛教研究者多少年来争而未决的问题，提出我的看法，借表纪念之意。

巴利文《小品》（Cullavagga ）V.33.1叙述了一个故事：

这时有两个丘比，姓耶弥卢谛拘罗，是兄弟俩，原来生在婆罗门家中，声音良好，善于谈说。他们来到世尊那里，向世尊致过敬，坐到一旁去；坐下以后，两个比丘向世尊说：“大德！现在的比丘，不同姓，不同名，不同门阀，不同家室，都来出家。他们用自己的方言俗语毁坏了佛所说的话。请允许我们用梵文表达佛语。”佛世尊呵责他们说：“你们这些傻瓜，怎么竟敢说：‘请允许我们用梵文表达佛语。’傻瓜呀！这样既不能诱导不信佛的人信佛，也不能使信佛的人增强信仰，而只能助长不信佛的人，使已经信了的人改变信念。”呵责完了以后，又给他们说法，然后告诉比丘说：“比丘呀，不许用梵文表达佛语！违者得突吉罗。” 〔1〕

佛最后说：

anujānāmi bhikkhave sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ pariyāpu-ṇituṃ。

上面这个故事牵涉到原始佛教的一个比较重要的问题，语言的问题。佛教在初兴起的时候，在许多方面，可以说是对当时占统治地位的宗教婆罗门教的一种反抗，一种革命。它坚决反对使用婆罗门教的语言梵文，是非常自然的。尽管在公元前五六世纪，梵文的发展已达到最高峰，如果使用它的话，可以给宣传教义带来很多好处，然而为了贯彻自己的主张，佛仍然丝毫不加考虑，并且骂这两个比丘是“傻瓜”。这两个比丘大概是由于出身婆罗门家庭的关系，脑筋里还有一些旧的思想意识，所以向佛建议采用梵文，因而受到了佛的呵责。

不用梵文，究竟用什么语言呢？在宗教宣传方面，“语言政策”还是一个比较重大的问题，对这个问题必须有一个决定。佛最后的一句话，就是回答这个问题的。

然而问题也就出在这里。这一句话本身比较含混，直译出来就是：

我允许你们，比丘呀，用自己的语言学习佛所说的话。

从汉文译文看起来，这句话也还算是清楚。但是专就巴利文原文来看，“自己的语言”（sakāya niruttiyā）这个词就可能有两种解释：一种是“佛自己的语言”，另一种是“比丘自己的语言”。多少年来，国外梵文学者和佛教研究者争论之点，就在这里。

英国学者T.W.Rhys Davids和德国学者H.Oldenberg把这个词解释为“比丘自己的语言” 〔2〕 。德国学者W.Geiger把它解释为“佛自己的语言” 〔3〕 。自从他们引起争端以后，国外的梵文学者和佛教研究者纷纷参加，展开了热烈的争论。大体上可以分为三派：一派同意前者，一派同意后者，一派异军突起，另立新说。否认W.Geiger的说法的有德国学者F.Weller 〔4〕 、英国学者A.B.Keith 〔5〕 、德国学者M.Winternitz 〔6〕 等。

英国学者E.J.Thomas提出了一个新的解释。他把nirutti解释为“文法”，把佛最后说的那一句话译为：

我允许你们，比丘呀，根据它的文法去了解佛所说的话。 〔7〕

这当然是讲不通的，因为nirutti决不能解释为“文法” 〔8〕 。

W.Geiger看起来很孤立。但是他有一个很有力量的靠山。他引用了巴利文佛典注释的权威佛音（Buddhaghosa）的注释作为自己的依据：

此处所谓sakā nirutti就是三藐三佛陀所说的摩揭陀方言。 〔9〕

这又是怎么一回事呢？要想说明这些问题，解决这些纠纷，必须研究一下佛在世时所说的方言和佛典编纂的过程。

我们知道，释迦牟尼生在当时印度的北部边陲地区，在现在的尼泊尔境内。但是他一生游行传教却多半是在当时的摩揭陀国（Magadha，约当现在的比哈尔邦）。因而他利用的语言，很可能就是摩揭陀语。 〔10〕 从各方面来推测，他活着的时候，还不会有写定的佛典，不管用什么语言。

根据佛教的传说，他涅槃后不久，他的弟子大迦叶就在王舍城召集五百罗汉，结集佛经。因为有五百人参加，故名“五百结集”。佛涅槃后一百年，佛教徒又在毗舍离集会。因为有七百人参加这次大会，故名“七百结集”。据早期的传说，这次集会的主要目的是铲除教律方面的十种邪说。 〔11〕 但是较后的传说则说，这次集会延续了八个月，把世尊的遗说校阅了一遍。 〔12〕 这说法显然有点太过火了。但是，佛死了已经一百年，前此专恃口头流传的佛经可能有一些已经写定下来。所以这个传说里面可能包含着一些历史事实。

据学者们一般的意见，大概在第三次结集的时候，大规模地编纂大藏经才有可能。 〔13〕 这时候正是佛教护法大王阿育王（即位时间约为公元前273年）在位的期间。高僧Tissa Moggaliputta在波吒利弗（Pāṭaliputra，现在的巴特那）会集众僧，来编纂佛典。我们上面已经说过，佛在世时宣扬教义所用的语言，可能是摩揭陀语。那么，在他死后，佛徒们根据口头流传下来的一些零碎经典而编纂佛典的时候，编定时所用的语言也就会是摩揭陀语。但又不会是纯粹的摩揭陀语，因为时间渐久，佛教传布的区域渐广，想保持一种纯粹的语言，是不能够想象的。所以德国学者H.Lüders就把这原始佛典所用的语言称为古代半摩揭陀语。Tissa Moggaliputta属于上座部（梵文是sthaviravāda，巴利文是theravāda），所以他带头编纂的也就是这一派的经典。他还派遣和尚四出宣传佛教。被派到锡兰去的就是阿育王的弟弟（一说是阿育王的儿子）摩哂陀（Mahinda）。 〔14〕 据锡兰佛教徒的传说，现存的巴利文《大藏经》就是摩哂陀带到锡兰去的，而巴利文也就是摩揭陀语（Māgadhā nirutti，Māyadhikā bhāsā），换一句话说，巴利文就是佛所说的话，而巴利文《大藏经》也就是佛教的唯一正统的经典。

写到这里，我们再回头看上面说过的佛音对sakā nirutti这两个字的解释。我们就可以明白，他之所以这样解释，是他的立场决定的。他是巴利文佛经注释的权威，他拥护巴利文经典，他当然会不遗余力地为巴利文经典争一个正统的地位。他的解释之不可靠，之主观，原因也就在这里。

我们还可以从语言特征上来阐明巴利文不是摩揭陀语。关于巴利文的流行地区问题，学者们有各种不同意见。Westergaard 〔15〕 和E.Kuhn 〔16〕 认为巴利文是优禅尼（Ujjayinī）地方的方言。R.O.Franke从碑刻方向来着手研究这个问题，结论是：巴利文是宾陀山（Vindhya）中部至西部一带的方言。 〔17〕 Sten Konow也以为宾陀山地带就是巴利文的故乡， 〔18〕 因为他发现巴利文与毗舍遮语之间相同的地方很多，而毗舍遮的故乡他就定为优禅尼。 〔19〕 H.Oldenberg最初主张巴利文是羯 迦（Kaliṅga）方言。 〔20〕 附和此说者有E.Müller。 〔21〕 但是H.Oldenberg后来又放弃了前说，另立新说，说巴利文是马拉提语的前身。 〔22〕 E.Windisch 〔23〕 和W.Geiger 〔24〕 则复归旧说，说巴利文就是摩揭陀方言。 〔25〕

上面这些说法虽然纷歧，但也有比较一致的一点，这就是，多数学者都主张巴利文是一个西部方言。事实上也正是这样子。巴利文的形态变化与阿育王石刻的吉尔那尔（Girnār）石刻相似，如“于”格的语尾是-amhi、-e，“业”格复数的语尾是-ne等等。但是另一方面，摩揭陀语则是一个东部方言，r变成l，s变成ś，以-a作尾声的字“体”格的语尾是-e等等。两者的区别是非常大的，无论如何也不能混为一谈。

根据上面的论证，我觉得，我们已经有把握来下一个结论了：sakā nirutti不是指“佛自己的语言”，也不是指什么“文法”，而是指“比丘们自己的语言”。佛允许比丘们用自己的方言俗语来学习佛所说的话。

如果有人认为，这样的论证还不够的话，那么我们可以再举出一些新的证据。上面引的巴利文《小品》里的那一个故事，在中译《大藏经》里有不少的异本。现在条列如下：

《毗尼母经》卷四：

有二婆罗门比丘，一字乌嗟呵，二字散摩陀，往到佛所，白世尊言：“佛弟子中，有种种姓，种种国土人，种种郡县人，言音不同，语既不正，皆坏佛正义。唯愿世尊听我等依阐陀至（指梵文）持论，撰集佛经，次比文句，使言音辩了，义亦得显。”佛告比丘：“吾佛法中不与美言为是。但使义理不失，是吾意也。随诸众生应与何音而得受悟，应为说之。”是故名为随国应作。 〔26〕

《四分律》卷五十二：

时有比丘字勇猛，婆罗门出家，往世尊所，头面礼足，却坐一面，白世尊言：“大德，此诸比丘众姓出家，名字亦异，破佛经义。愿世尊听我等以世间好言论（saṃskṛta，梵文）修理佛经。”佛言：“汝等痴人，此乃是毁损，以外道言论而欲杂糅佛经。”佛言：“听随国俗言音所解，诵习佛经。” 〔27〕

《五分律》卷二十六：

有婆罗门兄弟二人，诵阐陀鞞陀（Chandas-veda）书，后于正法出家。闻诸比丘诵经不正，讥呵言：“诸大德久出家，而不知男女语、一语多语、现在过去未来语、长短音、轻重音，乃作如此诵读佛经。”比丘闻羞耻。二比丘往至佛所，具以白佛。佛言：“听随国音诵读，但不得违失佛意，不听以佛语作外书语，犯者偷兰遮。” 〔28〕

《十诵律》卷三十八：

佛在舍卫国。有二婆罗门，一名瞿婆，二名夜婆，于佛法中笃信出家。本诵外道四围陀（Veda）书。出家已，以是音声诵佛经。时一人死，一人独在，所诵佛经，忘不通利。更求伴不得，心愁不乐，是事白佛。佛言：“从今以外书音声诵佛经者，突吉罗。” 〔29〕

《根本说一切有部毗奈耶杂事》卷六：

缘处同前。时尊者舍利子与二婆罗门子而为出家，一名牛授，二号牛主。二人悉教读诵经教。后时此二人共游人间，至一聚落，多获利养，便住此村。时彼二人先学婆罗门歌咏声法。由串习故，今时诵读作本音辞。时彼一人遇病，忽然身死。其现存者既溺忧心，经多废忘。即便还诣室罗伐城，入逝多林。既停息已，便诣尊者 陈如所。礼敬事毕，白言：“尊者，可共温经。”答言：“善哉！我为汝诵。”既诵少多，报言：“尊者所诵经典，文皆谬误，声韵不长，致有所阙。”答言：“子我从先来如是习诵。”即便辞礼，更别往诣马胜、跋陀罗、大名、婆涩波、名称、晡律拿、牛主、毗摩罗、善臂、罗怙罗。既至彼已，白言：“尊者，共我温经。”答曰：“善哉！我为汝诵。”既诵少多，广如前说，乃至辞礼，遂诣尊者舍利子所。既礼敬已，白言：“邬波驮耶，可共温经。”答曰：“善哉！我为汝诵。”同诵之时，长引声韵。其舍利子声更倍长。白言：“大师，自余尊老，诵习皆谬。唯独亲教，音句无差。”报言：“汝愚痴人，自为谬误，谤余智者，不善诵经。彼诸大德，咸非谬误。”既被挫折，默尔无言。时诸苾刍以缘白佛。佛作是念：“苾刍诵经，长牵音韵，作歌咏声。有如是过。由是苾刍不应歌咏引声而诵经法。若苾刍作阐陀（Chandas，梵文）声诵经典者，得越法罪。若方国言音，须引声者，作时无犯。” 〔30〕

以上共引了五个异本。同一节经文，同一首伽陀，同一个故事，在佛经里可以找到许多异本，这是一件常见的事情。上面引用的异本里有相同的地方，也有相异的地方。相同的地方说明，它们出自一源；相异的地方说明，它们有了不同的发展。在这些异本里，尽管详略不同，但是基本内容是一致的，同巴利文《小品》里的那个故事比较，基本内容也是一致的。因此，我们可以说，这些中文异本同巴利文本也是来自同源。说明这一点是有必要的。只有在这个基础上，我们才能根据中文异本确定对巴利文本的解释。

这五个中文异本在“语言政策”方面都表达了同一个思想：梵文绝对不允许用，但是方言俗语的利用是完全可以的。根据这一点来看巴利文《小品》里那个故事最后佛所说的那一句话，它的涵义就非常清楚，毫无可以怀疑的余地了。那一句多少年来争论未决的话我们只能译为：

我允许你们，比丘呀，用（你们）自己的语言来学习佛所说的话。

这个结论看起来平淡无奇，但是它实际上却解决了一个佛教史上比较重要的问题，语言问题。我们上面已经说到过，佛教初兴起的时候，是对婆罗门教的一种反抗。因此它在被压迫的人民大众中间找到了不少的信徒。这些人流品很杂，语言不同，出身各种姓，来自各地区。如果决定利用梵文，或者利用摩揭陀语来作学习媒介，就一定会有不少困难，就一定会影响佛教在人民大众中的传播。因此，原始佛教采取了放任的语言政策，一方面它不允许利用婆罗门教的语言梵文；另一方面，也不把佛所利用的语言摩揭陀语神圣化，使它升为经堂语而定于一尊。它允许比丘们利用自己的方言俗语来学习、宣传佛教教义。这对于接近群众，深入群众有很大的好处。据我看，佛教初起时之所以能在人民群众中有那样大的力量，能传播得那样快，是与它的语言政策分不开的；另一方面，后来佛经异本很多，语言很杂，不像婆罗门教那样能基本上保持圣典的统一和纯洁，这也是与放任的语言政策分不开的。

1956年12月17日

附记：

此文写完后，曾送请向觉明（达）先生指正。向先生回信说：“我以为你的意见是正确的，也能说明佛陀的革命性和平等观。就在大乘佛教的传说中，也可以证明你的说法。如大乘佛教中经常说：‘佛以一音演说法，众生随类各得解。’虽然是大乘的传说，而原始佛教的语言问题，就在这里也还是可以反映出一点真实情况来的。大乘佛教中这一传说应照尊说解释，剥去那神秘的外衣，归还佛陀的人间面目，从而连大乘佛教的用语问题也迎刃而解了。”我觉得觉明先生这个解释很好。爰本“貂尾续狗”之义，把它抄录在这里。

注释：

〔1〕 巴利文《律藏》（The Vinaya Pitakam ），ed.by Hermann Oldenberg，Vol.II，（The Cullavagga，London），1880，p.139.

〔2〕 巴利文《律藏》英译本（Vinaya Texts），III，Sacred Books of the East ，XX，p.151.

〔3〕 《巴利文，文献和语言》（Pāli，Literatur und Sprache ），Strassburg，1916，p.5.

〔4〕 《佛教杂志》（Zeitschrift für Buddhismus ），n.F.I，1922，p.211 ff.

〔5〕 《印度历史季刊》（Indian Historical Quarterly ），I，1925，p.501.

〔6〕 《印度文学史》（A History of Indian Literature ），II，p.602.

〔7〕 《佛陀传》（The Life of Buddha ），New York，1927，p.253 ff.

〔8〕 参阅M.Winternitz，《印度文学史》，II，p.602ff.

〔9〕 Samantapāsādikā， ed.Saya u Pye IV，pp.416-420.

〔10〕 H.Oldenberg，《佛陀》（Buddha ），London，1928，p.177.

〔11〕 Cullavagga XX，Sacred Books of the East， Vol.XX.p，409 ff.

〔12〕 巴利文《岛纪》（Dipavaṃsa ），V.27 ff.；《大纪》（Mahāvaṃsa ），IV.

〔13〕 E.J.Thomas，《佛陀传》，p.170 ff.；Copleston，《佛教》（Buddhism ），pp.154，171，175.

〔14〕 Barth，《印度的宗教》（Religions of India ），London，1921，p.130；Copleston，《佛教》，p.176 ff.

〔15〕 《论印度史的最古时代》（Über den ältesten Zeitraum der indischen Geschichte ），p.87.

〔16〕 《巴利文法述论》（Beiträge zur Pāli-Grammatik ），p.6 ff.

〔17〕 《巴利文与梵文》（Pāli und Sanskrit ），p.131 ff.

〔18〕 《毗舍遮语的故乡》（The Home of Paiśāci ），ZDMG.64，p.95 ff.

〔19〕 Grierson，《印度西北部的毗舍遮语》（The Paiśāca Lauguages of NorthWestern India ），Asiatic Society Monographs，Vol.VIII，1906.书中说毗舍遮语是印度西北部方言。

〔20〕 巴利文《律藏》，Vol.I，London，1879，p.L ff.

〔21〕 《简明巴利文法》（Simplified Grammar of the Pāli Language ），London，1884，p.111.

〔22〕 《奥义书的学说和佛教的起源》（Die Lehre des Upanishaden und die Anfänge des Buddhismus ），Göttingen，1915，p.283.

〔23〕 《论巴利文的语言性质》（Über den sprachlichen Charakter des Pali ），Actes du XIV^e Congres International des Orientalistes，prem.partie，Paris，1906，p. 252 ff.

〔24〕 同注〔3〕。

〔25〕 关于这个问题的文献不胜枚举，请参阅：季羡林《使用不定过去时作为确定佛典年代和来源的标准》（Die Verwendung des Aorists als Kriterium für Alter und Ursprung buddhistischer Texte），德国《格廷根科学院集刊·语言学历史学类》，1949，p.288，Anm.2。

〔26〕 《大正新修大藏经》卷24，页822（下面缩写为 24，822。当页的上、中、下栏表示为a、b、c）。

〔27〕 22，955a。

〔28〕 22，174b。参阅《五分律》卷六（ 22，39c）：“时诸比丘种种国出家，诵读经偈，音句不正。诸居士便讥呵言：‘云何比丘昼夜亲承，而不知男女黄门二根人语及多少语法？’诸比丘闻，各各羞耻，以是白佛。佛以是事集比丘僧，问诸比丘：‘汝等实尔不？’答言：‘实尔，世尊！’佛即遥责诸居士：‘汝愚痴人，如何讥呵异国诵经，音句不正！’”

〔29〕 23，274a。

〔30〕 24，232b-c。

附：

The Language Problem of Primitive Buddhism

What language was used by primitive Buddhism？ This is a problem yet unsolved among the learned circles.Based upon some new materials I wish to propose my personal views concerning this problem.In the Cullavagga ，V.33.1，there is narrated the following story：

Now there were two Bhikkhus surnamed Yamelutekula，who were brothers born in a Brahman family.They had good voice and were expert in conversation.They came to the presence of the Blessed One，to whom they paid their homage and sat aside.After having taken their seats，the two Bhikkhus said to the Blessed One，“Bhante，now the Bhikkhus with different family names and personal names，of different social ranks and families，have come to join the Order.With their own vernaculars they have marred the Buddha's words.Please permit us to express the Buddha's words in Sanskrit.”The Buddha reproached them，saying，“You fools，how dare you say，‘Please permit us to express the Buddha's words in Sanskrit！’Fools，by doing so you could neither induce those who did not have faith in the Buddha to have faith in him，nor could you enhance the faith of those who already had it in the Buddha.You could only help those who did not believe in the Buddha and change the mind of those who already believed in him.”After having reprimanded them，he preached the Dhamma for them，and then said to the Bhikkhus，“Bhikkhus，you are not allowed to express the Buddha's words in Sanskrit.Those who act contrarily will be considered as having committed the offence of Dukkata.” 〔1〕

And finally the Buddha said，

Anujānāmi bhikkhave sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanam pariyāpunitum.

A comparatively important problem of primitive Buddhism，the problem of language，is involved in this story.Buddhism during the period of its initiation may be considered，in many respects，as a sort of resistance or revolution against Brahmanism，the principal religion that occupied the position of predomination at the time.It was but natural that it should have opposed with determination the use of Sanskrit，the language of Brahmanism.In spite of the fact that during the 5th and 6th centuries B.C.，the development of the Sanskrit language had reached its zenith，and if used，it would bring many advantages for the propagation of the Buddhist doctrines，but for the sake of carrying out his own ideas，the Buddha would not consider the use of that language and scolded the two Bhikkhus as“fools”.Probably because they were the descendants of a Brahman family，these two Bhikkhus still had some old conceptions in their brains.That was why they made the proposal to the Buddha for the adoption of Sanskrit and incurred his rebuke.

If Sanskrit was not used，then what language did they use？ For the propagation of religion，the“policy of language”was a comparatively important problem，which must be settled.The Buddha's last sentence in the above story was for the solution of this problem.

But the point is that this sentence itself is rather ambiguous，and when literarily translated it reads：

“I permit you，O Monks，to learn the word of the Buddha in his own language.”

In the translation the meaning is comparatively clear，but the ambiguity lies in the original Pāli words sakāya niruttiyā （one's own language），which might be interpreted either as the“Buddha's own language”or as the“monk's own languages”.For many years in the past this has been the point of contention among Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist research workers.

T.W.Rhys Davids and H.Oldenberg interpreted this term as the“monk's own language”， 〔2〕 while W.Geiger was of the opinion that it meant the“Buddha's own language”. 〔3〕 Since they raised this dispute，many Sanskrit scholars and Buddhist research workers have joined in the discussion and a hot debate has been carried on.Generally speaking，they may be divided into three groups.One group of scholars agreed with Rhys Davids and Oldenberg，another group accepted the opinion of Geiger，while the third one proposed a new interpretation of their own.Those who denied Geiger's opinion included F.Weller， 〔4〕 A.B.Keith 〔5〕 and M. Winternitz. 〔6〕

E.J.Thomas proposed a new interpretation of the term and rendered the word nirutti as“grammar”，thus translating the sentence as“I order you，Monks，to master the word of the Buddha（Buddhavacanam ）in its own grammar.” 〔7〕

But this is hardly justifiable，because the word nirutti can by no means be interpreted as“grammar”. 〔8〕

P.C.Bagchi had another new theory.He said that it was not a question of using one's own dialect for reciting the Buddhavacanam，but using one's natural intonation for the recitation.His theory，however，does not have sufficient ground，because nirutti cannot be interpreted as“intonation”.

It seems that W.Geiger was in a rather isolated position，but he had a powerful basis for his argument.He quoted the commentary of Buddhaghoṣa，the authoritative commentator of Pāli texts，as the basis of his theory.He said，“Here the words sakā nirutti refers to the dialect of Magadha spoken by the Samyaksambud-dha.” 〔9〕

Then how is that so？ To explain these questions and to settle these disputes，we must make a study of the dialect spoken by the Buddha himself and the process of the compilation of the Buddhist scriptures.

As we all know that Śākyamuni was born in the frontier regions of North India in the territory of present Nepal.But he spent most of his time travelling in the then kingdom of Magadha（approximately in the present province of Bihar）for the propagation of his doctrines.Thus the language he spoke might probably be the dialect of Magadha.Conjectured from different respects，no written record of the Buddhist texts in whatever language existed during his lifetime.

According to Buddhist tradition，not long after the Buddha's Nirvāṇa，his disciple Mahākāśyapa assembled five hundred Arhats at Rājagṛha to recite the Buddhist scriptures.That assemblage was known as the“Council of Five Hundred Arhats”，because five hundred persons took part in the meeting.One hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvāṇa，the Buddhists again held another council at Vaiśālī，in which seven hundred persons were present，and so it was known as the“Council of Seven Hundred Persons”. According to earlier tradition，the chief purpose of this council was to wipe out the ten points of erroneous views concerning the Vinaya. 〔10〕 But according to later tradition it is said that this council lasted eight months，in which the participants recited and collated the Buddha's teachings. 〔11〕 This supposition is apparently a bit exaggerated.It is possible，however，that one hundred years after the Buddha's demise，some of the Buddhist scriptures which were taught only orally，had been committed to writing at that time.Thus this tradition might have implied some historical facts.

According to the opinions of scholars in general，it was probably at the third Buddhist council that the possibility of compiling the Tipitaka on a large scale presented itself. 〔12〕 That was the time when Aśoka，a great protector of Buddhism（whose ascension occurred in about 273 B.C.），was on the throne.The eminent monk Tissa Moggaliputta assembled the monks at Pātaliputra（present Patna）to compile the Buddhist texts.We have mentioned above that the language spoken by the Buddha for the propagation of his doctrines might have been the dialect of Magadha.If that was the case，when the Buddhists compiled the Buddhist texts，after the demise of the Buddha，out of the fragmentary scriptures orally taught to them，the language they used must also be the dialect of Magadha.But it cannot be pure Magadhi，for it is unimaginable that the purity of the language could be retained after the duration of a long time when Buddhism had been spread to more and more regions.Therefore，the German scholar H.Lüders called this language used in primitive Buddhist texts as ancient semi-Magadhi.As Tissa Moggaliputta belonged to the School of Sthaviravāda（or Theravāda in Pāli），the scriptures compiled under his supervision also belonged to this school.He also despatched monks to various places to propagate the teachings of Buddhism.The one who was sent to Ceylon was Aśoka's younger brother Mahinda（also said to be his son）. 〔13〕 According to the tradition of the Buddhists of Ceylon，the existent Pāli Tipitaka was brought to Ceylon by Mahinda.And Pāli means the language of Magadha（Māgadhā nirutti or Māgadhikā bhāsā ），or in other words，Pāli is the language spoken by the Buddha and the Pāli Tipitaka is the only orthodox Canon of the Buddhists.

Now let us go back to the point about the explanation of the two words sakā nirutti given by Buddhaghoṣa，and we may understand that it was his standpoint that made him to interpret them in such a way.As he was an authoritative commentator on Pāli texts and stood for them，he would surely try with utmost effort to procure an orthodox position for the Pāli texts.And here lies the reason why his interpretation is unreliable and subjective.

From linguistic characteristics we may also elucidate that the Pāli language was not the language of Magadha.There have been various opinions concerning the problem of the region in which the Pāli language was prevalent.Westergaard 〔14〕 and E.Kuhn 〔15〕 considered that Pāli was the local dialect of Ujjayinī.From a research of this problem in the field of inscriptions，R.O.Franke came to the conclusion that Pāli was the dialect of the regions in the central and western part of the Vindhya Ranges. 〔16〕 Sten Konow was also of the opinion that the zone of the Vindhya Ranges was the home of the Pāli language， 〔17〕 because he discovered many similarities between the Pāli and the Paiśāci languages，and he fixed the home of Paiśāci at Ujjayinī. 〔18〕 At first，H.Oldenberg advocated that Pāli was the dialect of Kalinga， 〔19〕 and E.Muller followed his opinion. 〔20〕 But afterwards H.Oldenberg gave up his view and established a new theory，saying that Pāli was the predecessor of the Magadhi language. 〔21〕 Meanwhile E.Windisch 〔22〕 and W.Geiger 〔23〕 returned to the old theory，considering Pāli as the dialect of Magadha. 〔24〕

Although the above-mentioned views vary from one another，there is a comparatively concordant point，that is，most of the scholars advocated that the Pāli language was a Western dialect，and such was truly the fact. The declensions of the Pāli words are similar to those of the langage used in the Girnār Inscriptions of the Aśokan Pillars，such as the locative case ending in-amhi and -e ，the accusative case in -ne ，etc.But on the other hand，the Magadha language was an eastern dialect，in which r had become as l ，and s as ś ，while the nominative case of words ending in -a ，ended in -e ，etc.There is a vast difference between the two languages and they should by no means be confused with each other.

Based upon the above evidences，I feel we can safely come to the conclusion that sakā nirutti neither means the“Buddha's own language”，nor implies“grammar”or“intonation”，but it indicates the“monks' own language”.The Buddha permitted the monks to learn his word with their own dialects and vernaculars.

If the above evidences are considered as insufficient，then some more new testimonies can be produced.The story from the Cullavagga as quoted above，has many variant versions in the Chinese translations of the Tipitaka.Some of them are enumerated as follows：

In the Vinaya-mātṛkā-sūtra：

There were two Brahman Bhikkhus，named Usaha and Samadha，who went to the Buddha and said to him，“The disciples of the Buddha come from different castes of different places in different countries.Their language is not the same and their pronunciation is incorrect，and thus they distorted the right teachings of the Buddha.May the Blessed One allow us to carry out debates and compile the scriptures according to the Chandas way（referring to Sanskrit），so that the sentences may be arranged in order and the pronunciations corrected，in order to unveil the teachings of the Buddha.”The Buddha told the Bhikkhus，saying，“In my teachings emphasis is not laid on rhetoric.What I mean is that the doctrines should not be misunderstood.They should be taught in any language which is understood by the people，according to their suitability.”Therefore，his teachings were taught according to the circumstances of the land.” 〔25〕

In the Dharmagupta-vinaya Vol.LII：

There was a Bhikkhu named Bravery，who was the descendant of a Brahman family.He came to the presence of the Buddha，and after having worshipped him，he sat aside and said to the Blessed One，“Venerable Sir，the Bhikkhus come from different castes and have different names.They misinterpreted the teachings of the Buddha. May the Blessed One permit us to rearrange the Buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit.”The Buddha said，“You are fools！That would be a defacement to mix the Buddhist scriptures with a heretical language.”He further said，“Recite the scriptures in the language of the country according to the custom of the people.” 〔26〕

In the Mahisāsaka-vinaya ，Vol.XXVI：

There were two Brahman brothers who were versed in the Chandas-veda and later became monks in the Buddhist Order.They heard that the Bhikkhus were reciting the scriptures in an improper way，and said to them scornfully，“You venerable sirs have become monks for a long time，and yet you don't know the masculine and feminine genders，the singular and plural numbers，the present，past and future tenses，the long and short vowels，and the heavy and light accents.In such a way you are reciting the scriptures！”The Bhikkhus were ashamed to hear this remark，and the brothers went to the Buddha and reported the case to him.The Buddha said，“They are allowed to recite the scriptures in their own native tongue，only that they should not misunderstand the Buddha's meaning.No one is allowed to mix the Buddha's word with a heretical language.One who acted contrarily would be considered as having committed the offence sthūlātyaya.” 〔27〕

In the Sarvāstivādavinaya ，Vol.XXXVIII：

Once the Buddha was in Srāvastī.There were two Brahmans，one being named Gopa and the other one，Yapa，who had a devout faith in Buddhism and become Buddhist monks.They had formerly learned the heretical four Vedas ，and after having become monks they recite the Buddhist scriptures with Vedic intonations.Then one of them died，and the one who was alive forgot some passages of the scriptures and could not recite them fluently.He could not find a companion and was unhappy of it.Thus he told it to the Buddha，who said to the monks，“From now onwards anyone who recites the Buddhist scriptures with a heretical intonation will be considered as having committed the offence of Dukkata.” 〔28〕

In the Mūlasarvāstivādanikāya-vinaya-samyuktavastu ，Vol.VI：

Once the Buddha was in Srāvastī.At that time the Ven.Sāriputra ordained two Brahmans into the Order.One of them was called Ox-given and the other one，Oxborn.Both of them studied the recitation of Buddhist scriptures.Afterwards they travelled about and came to a village，where they obtained many offerings and took up their lodgings there.Now these two persons had formerly learned the grammatical method of Brahmanic hymns.So when they recited the Buddhist scriptures，they habitually followed their old method.Then one of them suddenly died of illness.The one who was living was grieved by the death of his friend，and forgot most of the scriptures through negligence.Thus he returned to Srāvastī and came to the Jetavana Grove. After having taken rest，he went to see the Ven.Kaundinya，to whom he paid his respect and said，“Venerable Sir，let us review the scriptures together.”“Very well，I shall recite them for you，”was the reply. After the elder had recited some passages of the scriptures，the monk said to him，“Venerable Sir，your recitation of the scriptures is mistaken.The vowels are not pronounced as long ones，and so there is something missing.”The elder said in reply，“I have always recite the scriptures in this way.”Thus the monk took his leave and went to see Asvajit，Bhadra，Mahānāma，Vāsas，Yaśas，Pūrna，Gavāmpati，Vimala，Subāhu and Rāhula，to each of whom he said，“Venerable Sir，let us review the scriptures together.”“Very well，I shall recited the scriptures for you，”was the reply.After the elder had recited some passage，etc.，the monk took his leave and went to see the Ven. Sāriputra，to whom he paid his respect and said，“Upādhyāya，let us review the scriptures together.”While they were reciting the scriptures together the monk elongated the vowels，and Sariputra pronounced them with double length.The monk said，“Venerable teacher，all the other elders are mistaken in their recitation.Only you，Venerable teacher，are correct in pronunciation and grammar.”Sāriputra said to him，“You are a fool.You are mistaken yourself，and yet you slander those wise men，saying that they do not know how to recite the scriptures.None of the elders is mistaken in the recitation.”Having been rebuked，the monk remained silent.Then the monks reported this to the Buddha，who thought in his mind.“All this trouble is caused by the elongation of vowels in the way of singing hymns when the monks recite the scriptures.Therefore the monks should not elongate the vowels in the way of singing hymns when they recite the scriputres.Any monk who recites the scriptures in the Chandas（Sanskrit）way shall be considered as committing a transgression.But one is not considered so，if the vowels are elongated according to his own dialect.” 〔29〕

The above are quoted five different versions of the story.It is not unusual to find different versions of one passage，one version or one story in the Buddhist scriptures.There are similarities and dissimilarities in the above-quoted different versions of the story.The similarities indicate that they were derived from the same origin，and the dissimilarities denote that they have been developed along different lines.In spite of the fact that some of them are in detail and some are brief，the fundamental contents are the same.Comparing with the story contained in the Cullavagga ，the fundamental contents are also the same.Therefore，we may also say that these variant Chinese versions are derived from the same source as the Pāli version.It is necessary to make this point clear，because it is on this basis that we can ascertain the interpretation of the Pāli version of the story in accordance with the Chinese versions.

In these Chinese versions the same thought is expressed concerning the“policy of language”，namely，the use of Sanskrit was absolutely disallowed，while the use of dialects and vernaculars was quite permissible.With this point in view，the meaning of the last sentence spoken by the Buddha as mentioned in the story in the Cullavagga is perfectly clear and has left no room for doubt.This sentence which has caused contention for many years without a decision should thus be rendered only as：

“I permit you，O monks，to use（your）own language to study the word of the Buddha.”

This conclusion seems to be quite plain and simple，and yet it factually solved the problem of comparative importance in the history of Buddhism—the problem of language of primitive Buddhism.As we have mentioned above that Buddhism，during its first period of propagation，was a sort of resistance against Brahmanism.Therefore it attracted many followers among the oppressed masses.These people were of different social ranks，speaking different languages and coming from various castes of various places.If Sanskrit was adopted，or the language of Magadha was used as the medium of study，it would certainly cause many difficulties and would have an unfavourable influence upon the spread of Buddhism among the masses.Therefore，primitive Buddhism adopted a liberal policy of language，disallowing，on the one hand，the use of Sanskrit which was the language of Brahmanism，and on the other hand，not sanctifying the Magadhi dialect spoken by the Buddha so as to raise it to the position of the only scriptural language.It permitted the monks to use their own dialects and vernaculars for the study and propagation of the Buddhist teachings.This had a great advantage for approaching the masses and going deep into them.According to my personal view，the fact that Buddhism during its first period of propagation had such a great force among the masses，and that it could spread so fast，was inseparable with its policy of language.On the other hand，at later times Buddhist scriptures had many variant versions in quite a number of variegated languages，unlike Brahmanism which could basically preserve the unity and purity of its canons，and this was also due to the liberal policy of language adopted by primitive Buddhism.

（SinoIndian Studies ）