The Vinaya (Kd 15:33) presents us with the scenario of a couple of otherwise unknown brahmin brothers who proposed making some sort of change in the way the Dhamma was recited, which the Buddha did not accept. The exact details have attracted much scholarly attention, to which I will add my own tuppence. The language of this passage offers a number of notable features, so let us look at the background first.
some background on the passage
The Buddha’s teaching is referred to as buddhavacana, a term so common that it excites little interest. But it is rare in early Pali. In fact we only find it in Snp 1.11, usually regarded as somewhat late; in SN 41.7, which is set after the Buddha’s passing; and in Thag 6.5, spoken by a monk. Nowhere else is it said by the Buddha, who used rather tathāgatabhāsita. It became common in later canonical Pali such as the Niddesa (buddhavacanaṁ pariyāputaṁ hoti suttaṁ geyyaṁ …), the Milinda (eg. tepiṭakaṁ buddhavacanaṁ, or navaṅge buddhavacane suttāgataṁ), and the Apadāna (navaṅgaṁ buddhavacanaṁ). It seems safe to say that buddhavacana is a term that rose to prominence only after the Buddha’s passing. It is also clear that it is associated with the literal texts that we know, which were recited orally from the start.
The reference to “two brothers” appears innocuous, but it is found in only one other place (Kd 8:24.5.1). This is also in the Vinaya, and also features names unknown elsewhere, Isidāso and Isibhaṭo. This passage is noteworthy as it goes on to feature the famous monk Sāṇavāsī. He was a leader of the Sangha at the Second Council, so this reference is definitively dated around that time, a century after the Buddha.
The connection with the Second Council also illuminates another rare expression. The brothers encourage the Buddha to change the phrasing of the Dhamma with the expression, handa mayaṁ bhante. It seems an oddly forward way to make a suggestion. Normally a polite request to the Buddha would be framed with sādhu bhante, “It would be good if …”. In fact the only other occurrence of handa mayaṁ bhante is in the Second Council, where the one addressed is not the Buddha, but a senior monk.
It is noteworthy that the brothers are concerned not with regional nationalities (as in MN 139, which deals with regional dialects) but with social standing.
etarahi, bhante, bhikkhū nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā
These days, sir, mendicants of different names, clans, lineages, and families have gone forth.
The phrase they use (nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā) is found in one specially revealing passage in the Vinaya (Parajika 1:3.2.5).
This key passage is in the Introduction to the entire Vinaya, when Sāriputta asks the Buddha about why the dispensation sometimes lasts long, and other times does not. The Buddha replies that the dispensation does not last long in the time of some Buddhas who do not teach many Suttas—literally the ninefold aṅgas later referred to as buddhavacana—and do not lay down training rules or enforce the recital of the patimokkha. In later years, after those Buddhas and their direct disciples died, those who followed were of “different names, clans, lineages, and families”, and it was they who made the dispensation disappear. The Buddha compared this to a bunch of flowers not tied up with string.
On the other hand, when a Buddha taught many Suttas and laid down the patimokkha, the later disciples of diverse names, etc., made the dispensation last.
The phrase also occurs in an interesting Sutta passage (DN 27), where the brahmin students Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja, who are said to be brahmins “by lineage and family” (brāhmaṇajaccā brāhmaṇakulīnā), having gone forth, suffer harassment from other brahmins because of it. The Buddha says that, despite the fact that they are both brahmins, they are of “different names, clans, lineages, and families”, yet they both refer to themselves as followers of the Sakyan, having relinquished their caste. So it seems that the phrase is not necessarily speaking of people from different castes, since even two brahmins are different. Why then does the Buddha speak to them like this?
Now, the four terms in this phrase are defined in detail under Pacittiya 2, where they are forbidden to be used as a basis for abuse (as the brahmins did to Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja). There, among the “high families” we find the Vāseṭṭhas, and among the low families the Bhāradvājas. This would explain how the Buddha could distinguish them as of different families. Another interesting detail in the Vinaya passage is that the differences are said to pertain to different countries, acknowledging that such social prestige varies from place to place.
DN 27 uses the term brāhmaṇajaccā to mean “of brahmin birth”, while the sakāya niruttiyā passage uses brāhmaṇajātika. That term occurs in a Ud 1.5:2.5, Ja 179:1.3, and Kd 18:9.1.1, all of which may be suspected to be somewhat late.
One phrase that is not unusual is kalyāṇavācā kalyāṇavākkaraṇā, which is a standard phrase praising eloquent speech, including that of the Buddha. Since it is the editorial voice that describes them that way, we should assume that it is meant to show that they were well-spoken, like the Buddha is well-spoken. In other words, the phrase is meant sincerely, not ironically.
the structure and meaning of the central passage
The main portion appears in three phrases that are largely parallel.
- sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṁ dūsenti
- buddhavacanaṁ chandaso āropema
- sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṁ pariyāpuṇituṁ
Ven Brahmali suggests we read the two occurences of sakāya niruttiyā in two different ways: the first means “in (the monks’) own expression”, while the second means “in (the Buddha’s) own expression”. But it seems to me unlikely that such a parallel phhrase has two different senses. The grammatical argument (following Gieger and Levman) is that the sense of saka must refer back to the most recent subject, namely “they” in the first case and “I” in the second. But I find this unconvincing. Normally Pali would make such shifts explicit, and there seems to me no reason why it shouldn’t retain the same referent, especially since the “I” is not even stated but left implicit. Surely the Buddha would have said mama (“my”) here. The commentary supports this, as it explains it only once, which implies that there is no need for two different explanations.
Let us look more closely and see if we can resolve this.
First consider the meaning of nirutti. In Pj 2:7.6.9, niruttipatha means “a way of speaking”, a “manner of expression”, and normally the word refers to “terminology”.
But let us not forget that this term is introduced here not by the Buddha, but by two brahmins, and we should consider how they understood it. In Sanskrit, nirukti means an interpretation, especially using the classic Indian method of defining terms using (real or playful) etymology. We find such edifying etymologies commonly in the Suttas, as when the Buddha says a brahmin is one who “has banished bad qualities” (bāhitapāpadhammo). This is what it means to be niruttipadakovido, “expert in the interpretation of terms” (Thag 17.3:15.2).
So this suggests that sakāya niruttiyā means “with their own interpretation” or “with their own explanation”. In other words, the mendicants were reciting the suttas, then explaining the meanings of the words and terms used as they understood them.
As for chandaso, it has has two meanings in Pali, both rare. The root for “desire” sometimes has the -as ending. We find the instrumental form chandasā (“willingly”, AN 5.44:8.2; cf. chandasā vā dhanena vā at Ja 262:3.2 etc.), while chandaso, though formally dative, has a similar sense “willingly”, “with consent” in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha. See below for a more detailed discussion of the grammar.
The other meaning is “prosody”, stemming from the sense of “Vedic metre”, used for metrical compositions. This is used only in one phrase, Sāvittī chandaso mukhaṁ, “The Sāvitri is the foremost of metres”.
Again, we should consider what this word meant to the people who used it, namely the two brahmins. We have a couple of early Sanskrit texts that offer us an explanation—a nirukti if you will—for the word chandas.
They (the metres) pleased him, and inasmuch as they pleased (chand) him they are (called) metres (chandas). (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.5.2)
This suggests the two meanings are related, as the original sense of chandas as “metre” was “pleasing”, i.e. the art of creating literary works that are pleasing both to listeners and, of course, the gods.
This aligns with why the two brahmins wanted to “elevate” (āropema) the Buddhavacana. Again I feel the sense has been lost, as āropema doesn’t have the sense of “revise” or “redact”, but “uplift”. Note that they say that they want to elevate it; but how could two brahmins undertake a wholesale redaction of the entire canon? It seems unlikely. The passage is, after all, included in a chapter called “Minor Matters”, where the preceding section dealt with monks climbing trees, and the following section with some bad monks who wanted to learn cosmology. Surely this is an odd place for a major proposal. I think what they wanted to do was in the classic Indian style of adding some decoration, some flourish, to make it fancy.
Another explanation, however, connects chandas with channa in the sense of “covered”.
The gods, being afraid of death, entered the threefold knowledge (veda). They covered themselves with metres (chandas), because of which the metres are called chandas. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.4.2)
This seems unlikely philologically, but that is the nature of nirukti. What is interesting, though, is that the gods’ fear of death suggests that one of the roles of chandas was to “wrap up”, to cover and protect, the teachings so that they would last a long time. This reminds us of the idea that the Dhamma would become scattered if it were not tied up with string.
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 9.5.7 emphasizes that the study of the Vedic chandas leads to growth in happiness and wisdom, and one who recites daily is furnished by the gods with every enjoyment.
The discussion on this point has often contrasted the Vedic idea of chandas with the supposedly non-Vedic idea of nirutti. But that is a false contradiction, as the Vedic literary tradition includes both chandas and nirukti.
Sikṣā (phonetics), Kalpa (ceremonial injunctions), Vyākaraṇa (grammar), Nirukta (glossarial explanation of obscure Vedic terms), Chandas (prosody), and Jyotiṣa (astronomy) form the Aṅgas (Kauṭilya-Arthaśāstra 1.3).
The contrast, rather, is between analytical texts that focus on the definitions of terms, and flowery texts that elevate through literary pleasure. The brahmins were well aware that their own tradition had flourished not merely because of the intellectual precision, but because of the joy and pleasure found in the words.
Thus we should perhaps render chandas as “pleasing poetry”. This echoes the chief quality of the brahmins, that their speech was delightful.
The final term to consider is much easier. Pariyāpuṇituṁ is a common verb that means “to memorize”. I think the significance of this has been lost somehow. The whole purpose is to memorize the texts, word for word, letter for letter. That is not in question. Of course they would continue to memorize them just as they have always been doing. The phrases sakāya niruttiyā and chandaso should be read as auxiliary qualifiers, something extra to the memorization, as I explain in the next section.
on the cases of niruttiyā and chandaso
As a feminine noun, the case of niruttiyā is ambiguous. Formally it could be instrumental, ablative, genitive, dative, or locative. The commentary does not clear this up.
Chandaso, on the other hand, would seem to require a dative or genitive form. The commentary glosses with sakkatabhāsāya, which must be dative, “into a prestigious language”.
Now, ordinarily we would assume that, since the two passages are mostly parallel, the forms are the same if possible. Assuming a dative that would yield:
- They degrade Buddhavacana into their own interpretation.
- Let us elevate Buddhavacana into pleasing poetry.
- I allow you to memorize Buddhavacana into your own interpretation.
But that seems unlikely.
Another possibility is that the dative/genitive form of chandaso here has an instrumental sense. This is supported by the use of chandaso in Bhikkhuni Parajika 1, where the commentary glosses chandaso with chandena. In this case we can, contra the commentary, read both passages as instrumental.
- They degrade Buddhavacana with their own interpretation.
- Let us elevate Buddhavacana with pleasing poetry.
- I allow you to memorize Buddhavacana with your own interpretation.
This seems to me to yield a satisfying meaning. The assumption that the terms are instrumental gives them an auxilliary or accompanying role. This means that the request is not really about a wholesale redaction of the Dhamma into a new form. Rather, it is about the role played by adding extra explanations of terms, or else by adding verse flourishes that decorate and aim for enjoyment. We know that the Buddha encouraged mendicants to explain things their own way (pariyāyena), and did not insist on only one interpretation of things. So long as the explanation is in line with the Dhamma it is fine.
Of course, the tradition ended up doing both these things. All Buddhist traditions have a massive amount of texts, the entire Abhidhamma tradition, whose primary concern is the precise definition and explanation of terms. But they also include versified and elevated retellings of events, especially the life of the Buddha. Verses are added as decorative flourishes, for example, at a Dhamma talk when reciting uplifting verses at the start or end.
As noted above, this passage seems to be connected with the Second Council, a time when monks from all over India gathered, highlighting the diversity in the Sangha. The chief conflict to be resolved was between the “rigorist” monks exemplified by Bakkula, who had a hard-core, unrelenting attitude, with the “laxist” monks of Vesali, who wanted to carry money. I’m guessing they might have enjoyed a little poetry now and then. So this passage should be read as a “rigorist” position, arguing that the Sangha should focus on analytical definitions rather than fancy poetry.