There was also a mention in the video that the Buddha forbade Sanskrit - but that is evidently a gross misinterpretation. The passage in question (in the Theravāda Vinaya) raises many more questions than it answers, but sanskrit is not the topic of discussion there. It goes like this:
Tena kho pana samayena yameḷakekuṭā nāma bhikkhū dve bhātikā honti brāhmaṇajātikā kalyāṇavācā kalyāṇavākkaraṇā. Te yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkamiṁsu, upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdiṁsu. Ekamantaṁ nisinnā kho te bhikkhū bhagavantaṁ etadavocuṁ—“etarahi, bhante, bhikkhū nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā. Te sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṁ dūsenti. Handa mayaṁ, bhante, buddhavacanaṁ chandaso āropemā”ti.
Vigarahi buddho bhagavā …pe… kathañhi nāma tumhe, moghapurisā, evaṁ vakkhatha—“handa mayaṁ, bhante, buddhavacanaṁ chandaso āropemā”ti. Netaṁ, moghapurisā, appasannānaṁ vā pasādāya …pe… vigarahitvā …pe… dhammiṁ kathaṁ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi—
“na, bhikkhave, buddhavacanaṁ chandaso āropetabbaṁ. Yo āropeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṁ pariyāpuṇitun”ti.
The brahmin brothers Yameḷu and Kekuṭa are described as having excellent voices (kalyāṇa-vāc) and excellent diction (kalyāṇa-vākkaraṇa). They appear to be aware (and are really concerned) that some other bhikkhus, bearing a diversity of nāma (names), and being from different gotras (clans), jātis (classes/castes) and kulas (families) were “dūsenti” (i.e. spoiling/corrupting) the buddhavacana (the teachings of the buddha) through “sakāya niruttiyā” (a phrase that we will look at in greater detail below). The brothers suggest the solution - “buddhavacanaṃ chandaso āropema” (“let us elevate the buddhavacana to the level of the metrical vedic mantras i.e. chandas”). The buddha is alarmed by this suggestion and castigates them, saying - "How can you foolish men say such a thing? That would not make it (the buddhavacana) any more clearer to those who already lack the clarity. I permit learning the buddhavacana through “sakāya niruttiyā”.
Here are my observations on this passage:
- Evidently the Buddhavacana is available in a particular pre-existing language, and the brothers through their own correct knowledge and understanding of the buddhavacana in its original form, were able to come to the conclusion that those other errant bhikkhus were corrupting the buddhavacana.
- Instead of correcting those errant bhikkhus by teaching them the original/correct buddhavacana, they come to the buddha asking for permission to evidently make changes to the buddhavacana itself, which sounds very odd.
- Is the complaint really about what the errant bhikkhus were doing, or is there something wrong about the original buddhavacana itself that needs rectifying?
- The errant bhikkhus were evidently novices who didnt know the buddhavacana as the buddha finally says “anujānāmi sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanam pariyāpuṇitum” i.e. grants permission to “learn” the buddhavacana … thus reinforcing the idea that the bhikkhus did not know the proper buddhavacana, otherwise why would he need to allow them to “learn” (pariyāpuṇitum) it?
- The brothers say that the errant bhikkhus were spoiling the buddhavacana by “sakāya niruttiyā” (the word nirutti is feminine, so its adjective sakā is also feminine - and both words are evidently in the instrumental case, but instead of using the plural form sakāhi niruttīhi referring to a multiplicity of niruttis collectively spoiling the buddhavacana, it is stated in the singular as sakāya niruttiyā. So this raises the question - was there only one nirutti (common to all the errant bhikkhus) that was defiling the buddhavacana?
- Nirutti here could have one of several meanings - language, speech, pronunciations, expressions, etymology, interpretations etc. It doesnt look like it means their own ‘language’, for if it meant ‘language’, how would changing the buddhavacana’s language change the own language of the errant bhikkhus with which they were defiling the pre-existing buddhavacana? For the same reason, nirutti cannot mean speech/pronunciation/expressions/etymology etc either as changing the buddhavacana’s language wouldnt evidently ipso-facto change the speech/pronunciation/expressions/etymology/interpretation etc of the errant bhikkhus. If the bhikkhus were spoiling it, the solution evidently doesnt lie in changing the buddhavacana, and if the problem was inherently with the pre-existing buddhavacana itself, then why blame some bhikkhus for spoiling it?
- What language did these 2 brothers learn the buddhavacana in? Evidently their complaint is not about themselves (the sakā nirutti of the brothers themselves), or about the sakā nirutti of the senior monks, or that of the buddha himself - but about some other ‘novice’ bhikkhus who didnt have a proper grasp of the correct buddhavacana in its original form. Did the brothers learn the buddhavacana in the “chandas” form (as they claim that to be the solution)? If so, it would have already existed in chandas form, so they would have no need to convert the buddhavacana to chandas. If the brothers learnt it in a different nirutti, why not teach it to the errant bhikkhus in that nirutti used by the brothers themselves - and why convert it to chandas?
- The word chandas does not mean prose (or versified) sanskrit. Chandas here means the metric style and language of the early vedic mantra hymns. What could be the plausible advantage of elevating (“āropema”) the buddhavacana into the form of early vedic mantra style poetry? Do we as readers understand the suggestion of these brothers correctly?
- The buddha here refers to his own teachings in the 3rd person as “buddhavacanam” (the buddha’s words) rather than say “mama vacanam” (my words), which sounds a bit odd. On the whole, the incident looks like a narrative framed after the buddha’s demise and put into the mouth of the late Buddha. Evidently there were other early Buddhist sects with their nikāyas in a non-pali register (that they may have considered to be the original) and they may have likely accused the pali tradition of spoiling the buddhavacana by transmuting it to pāli. The Pali tradition therefore may have had to insert this rule (claimed to be received from the buddha’s own mouth) into their own vinaya to ensure that those bhikkhus following the pali tradition could use it to defend the idea that the buddha allowed bhikkhus (who were being accused of spoiling the buddhavacana) to learn it in “his” own language, the “his” meaning the Buddha’s (not the language of each bhikkhu), which to the pali tradition was Pali itself.
- In any case, we dont find historically that any Indian EBT tradition allowed its bhikkhus to learn the buddhavacana in any language of their choice, or their own language whatever it may be. Each tradition for many many centuries has sought to understand the buddhavacana in the traditional language that they preserved it in. So in the case of the Pali tradition, they probably knew that sakāya niruttiyā doesnt mean each bhikkhu’s own language/dialect.
If there is something else significant about this vinaya passage that I’ve missed, please let me know.