"This is OUR instruction to you"

Discussion
1

Ayaṃ vo amhākaṃ anusāsanī

this is a stock phrase appearing in a number of suttas, just to list a few sn 47.44, sn 43.44, sn 35.146, sn 36.8

some of them start with the phrase

Bhikkhus, I will teach you

but nonetheless in the concluding phrase (this thread subject) plural personal pronoun amhākaṃ is used

in the following phrase the perceived incoherence is even more obvious

“Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the destination and the path leading to the destination. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees, bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.

SN 43.44

in a search a phrase came up, which could hint at one possible reason for this

So conviction & virtue, confidence & Dhamma-vision
should be cultivated by the wise,
remembering the Buddhas’ instruction.

AN 7.7

so it could be that the Buddha speaks on behalf of all the buddhas, as their representative as it were, because their Dhamma is essentially the same
it’s unclear however why he would speak this way and why in the context of those particular discourses

another faint possibility is that it’s a collective voice of the actual composers of those suttas, still the purpose of which is difficult to understand considering the need in maintaining suttas status as purported records of the Buddha’s own words

would be interested in other opinions on the subject

4 Likes
2

The use of first person plural in this way is not uncommon, and it is not restricted to the Buddha. I haven’t looked into it closely enough to be able to say why it’s used in particular contexts. It seems to have a certain portentous significance; but that might be just me reading the English connotations into it.

1 Like
3

There is a passage in MN 38 where the Buddha used both singular and plural of first personal pronoun:

“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

3 Likes
4

Yes, they seem to be mixed up a lot. I usually use the singular to translate such cases, as we don’t really use the plural in this way in modern English.

5

it could be an equivalent of the royal ‘we’, but i believe the context would have to warrant its use like in the case of a kind of solemn occasion

2 Likes
6

plural form is also used in the formula of absolution of transgression

But since you see your transgression as a transgression and make amends for it in accordance with the Dhamma, we pardon you for it

SN 12.70, SN 16.6

here the Buddha seemingly speaks on behalf of the Sangha and to me “I” would have sounded somewhat conceited

also

Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

Nanu mayā, moghapurisa, aneka­pariyā­yena paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ viññāṇaṃ vuttaṃ, aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti? Atha ca pana tvaṃ, moghapurisa, attanā duggahitena amhe ceva abbhācikkhasi, attānañca khaṇasi, bahuñca apuññaṃ pasavasi

MN 38

1 Like
7

in the Bahiya sutta (Ud 1.10) Bahiya too refers to himself in plural

Atha kho bāhiyo dārucīriyo yena te bhikkhū tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā te bhikkhū etadavoca: “kahaṃ nu kho, bhante, etarahi bhagavā viharati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho? Dassanakāmamhā mayaṃ taṃ bhagavantaṃ arahantaṃ sammā­sambud­dhan”ti

Then Bāhiya of the Bark Robe went to those monks, and after going, he said this to those monks:
“Where, reverend Sirs, is the Gracious One living at present, the Worthy One, the Perfect Sambuddha? We have a desire to see the Gracious One, the Worthy One, the Perfect Sambuddha.”

one possibility is that Bahiya was thought to be with companions

or could that all be corruptions of transmission or of recording?