Why don't we have perfect verbatim records of the buddha-dhamma?

Different individuals have read the Pali suttas but interpret the Pali words differently. When this occurs, what exactly is the “verbatim transmission”? :neutral_face:

Well, I am definitely not one. I love exact citations and I am a bit of a bookworm. I would be very happy if we had a verbatim account of the Buddha’s words. However, it doesn’t really work for everyone, and I realize this approach has its difficulties. So, there are quite a few discussions about how Ajahn Chah’s words should be translated in English, since different translations seem to be interpreting his words in light of their own views. If you treat a text as an authoritative verbatim source, you may easily ignore some alternative interpetations. Something similar is discussed here. But yeah, I see wjere you’re coming from and I agree, that would be awesome.

Anyway, the facts seem to indicate there was and there could be no verbatim account of the Buddha’s words, no matter what your or I think would be awesome.

I think I’ll try to summarize some research on early transmission in a short essay and formulate my open questions on that basis. Hope it will be clearer then…

Here is a .pdf paper on this topic by Wynne (2004), in case it helps.

4 Likes

Thanks for the link! I think Wynne’s suggested transmission model roughly corresponds to what I imagined could be the case :slight_smile:

1 Like

Very well said. Thank you Timothy. I am one hundred percent certain that anyone with a genuine understanding of what exists can reach deliverance in this very life and what requires on the part of disciples is to understand the Dhamma and practice and practice and practice with a commitment to reach that lofty goal.
With Metta

2 Likes

Hi Gabriel,
I am as well interested by your questions in the opening post… Did you manage to find the time to write this short essay? I’d be quite interested to read it if you still plan to post it.

I have a related or more specific question:

Why do the suttas often spell exactly the same Pali word in exactly the same contextual concept differently? For example, paramata vs paramam vs paramaṃo?

Does this indicate different authors?

:seedling:

(1) Different scribes / copyists,
(2) random human error,
(3) alternative spellings (perhaps in part gradually accepted as a result of 1 and 2), or
(4) “original insights” into how the text should really read or what the Buddha “really” meant
– all common in traditions of textual transmissions.

And what means “author”?
– Some one who makes something up “from scratch”?
– Some one who transmits with commentary, or critique, and/or possibly emendation when they think they’ve found the “real” meaning?
– Some one who is simply tasked with rote copying or putting oral text into writing, but in fact may mis-read, mis-pen, mis-quote, just forget this or that or put it in the wrong place?

Problems common in every such tradition, e.g. Pali Canon, classical Chinese medical canon (roughly same period), and across history and subject areas and languages/media, down to musicological decoding of manuscripts, and even into the 20th and 21st centuries…

Yes, certainly. At SC, there appears to be the idea that certain suttas are later compositions rather than words of the Buddha.

Back to topic, for example, I was examining a certain phrase in the suttas. One spelling of the phase is only found in the SN. Another spelling of the phrase is mostly found in the AN

Thanks for the reminder! I did have the time but forgot about it, focusing on other topics…

This reminds me of a quote dealing with Asoka’s inscriptions:

Much more than is the case with the literary Prakrits of later times, the morphology and especially the orthography of the inscriptional dialects is unstandardized and inconsistent, to the extent that it is not unusual to fnd the same word spelled several different ways within the same inscription.

It comes from an article I can really recommend, where the author L.S. Cousins quotes and discusses Richard Salomon’s findings.

Here’s the reference, and some other very interesting works that I’ll go through in the near future but of course would like to see dealt with by others too:

  • L.S. Cousins (2013): The Early Development of Buddhist Literature and Language in India. JOCBS.
  • L.S. Cousins (1983): Pali Oral Literature. In Paul Williams (2005): Buddhism. Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Volume I.
  • Rupert Gethin (1992). The matikas: memorization, mindfulness, and the list. In the mirror of memory, 149-172.
  • Mark Allon (1997): The Oral Composition and Transmission of Early Buddhist Texts. In Indian Insights: Buddhism, Brahmanism and Bhakti, Papers from the Annual Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions (pp. 39-61).
  • Mark Allon (1997): Style and function: a study of the dominant stylistic features of the prose portions of Pali canonical sutta texts and their mnemonic function.
  • Eviatar Shulman (2015): Orality in Early Buddhist Discourses. academia.edu
  • Alexander Wynne (2004) : The Oral Transmission of the Early Buddhist Literature. JIABS
  • Bh. Anālayo (2009). The vicissitudes of memory and early Buddhist oral transmission. Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies.
2 Likes

Have you, perchance, read V. Sujato’s “A History of Mindfulness”, and I mean reading the whole thing?
c.f. http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A_History_of_Mindfulness_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf

Or familiar with V. Analayo’s writings?

My impression is these forums are discussion forums, which develop that benevolent aspect of the Buddhist path of helping others. It is taught teaching others is also a way to liberation. For example, it may be noticed how I personally often reply to every sentence in the questions or postings of another person. What I think I have knowledge of, I try to offer.

If there are any excepts in these books you know of that pertain to this topic then I think it would be beneficial to post them. However, I personally do not see the point in posting links to hundreds of pages of reading. Regards :seedling:

Thank you Gabriel. This is very useful, insightful & pertinent. (However may not explain why the Buddha or Ananda would use different words.) Regards :seedling:

[quote=“Deeele, post:54, topic:3375, full:true”]

…If there are any excepts in these books you know of that pertain to this topic then I think it would be beneficial to post them. However, I personally do not see the point in posting links to hundreds of pages of reading… [/quote]
With the inclination to do so, one can find ways to shoot down any specific example or statement. The idea is that having a sense of an extensive collection of evidence, from some of the best minds at work on it, could provide a learning opportunity.

There is in fact very little spelling variation in Pali texts. In the examples you quote the variations are mostly simply grammatical cases. Para is from the same root as the English word “far”. Parama adds a superlative ending, i.e. “furthest”, i.e. ultimate, supreme. Paramatā adds an abstractive suffix to this, which is typically used in idioms requiring the sense “at most”. Paramaṁ is simply parama declined to agree with an accusative noun. Paramaṃo is not a word, so this must be an error in your sources.

There is some variation that we find, for example initial vya/bya is quite common. Of course in such a large corpus, a certain degree of inconsistency is inevitable. But on the whole, these cases are few, well known, and do not affect the meaning.

Different spellings do not indicate different authors, except in a few cases of later texts not in the EBTs. The Dipavamsa, as is well known, is poorly written and full of spelling mistakes. But generally speaking, even much later Pali literature is spelled the same. The differences are in terminology, style, and syntax rather than spelling.

There is also virtually no evidence for personal interpolations in the early texts. In the thousands of passages where the Pali and the Chinese texts have been compared, there is hardly anything that can be clearly identified as a personal interpolation. Variations arise because of editorial practices and the manner of transmission, rather than deliberate interpolation of ones’ own views. Such views were carefully excluded from the canonical texts: even in the much later commentaries the reliance on one’s own view is regarded as the weakest form of authority. This is discussed in Nyanamoli’s introduction to his translation of the Visuddhimagga.

4 Likes

Again, this is just more generalisations & not anything specific, which was similar to your ‘paggāha’ contribution. I would suggest to follow your own advice here for yourself. To reiterate, I regard it as pointless to refer to hundreds of pages of texts in general books. Regards.

[quote=“sujato, post:56, topic:3375”]There is in fact very little spelling variation in Pali texts. In the examples you quote the variations are mostly simply grammatical cases. Para is from the same root as the English word “far”. Parama adds a superlative ending, i.e. “furthest”, i.e. ultimate, supreme. Paramatā adds an abstractive suffix to this, which is typically used in idioms requiring the sense “at most”. Paramaṁ is simply parama declined to agree with an accusative noun. Paramaṃo is not a word, so this must be an error in your sources.
[/quote]

Thank you Sujato. My error. I was referring to ‘paramo’, which looks like a personal title.

In general, I was referring to the texts below, which give the impression ‘paramata’ & ‘paramam’ are used in the same context.

Here, ‘paramata’ only found in the SN and ‘paramam’ mostly found in the AN caused me to question this.

In addition, the respective SN vs AN doctrines sounded different to me. The SN suttas that use ‘paramata’ make the stream-enterer sound very enlightened (since most suffering has been extinguished) where as the AN suttas make the stream-enterer appear rather ordinary (highlighting morality as the predominant factor).

To me, these SN vs AN suttas sound like different genres & give the impression of two different authors. Otherwise, they are for two different audiences. As I mentioned, the AN suttas sound very mundane where as the SN suttas sound quite supramundane.

SN 13.10 : Dutiyapabbatasutta
parikkhīṇaṃ pariyādiṇṇaṃ upanidhāya yadidaṃ sattakkhattuṃparamatā. Evaṃ mahatthiyo kho, bhikkhave, dhammābhisamayo

SN 13.2 : Pokkharaṇīsutta
parikkhīṇaṃ pariyādiṇṇaṃ upanidhāya, yadidaṃ sattakkhattuṃparamatā. Evaṃ mahatthiyo kho, bhikkhave, dhammābhisamayo;

SN 13.1 : Nakhasikhāsutta
parikkhīṇaṃ pariyādiṇṇaṃ upanidhāya yadidaṃ sattakkhattuṃparamatā. Evaṃ mahatthiyo kho, bhikkhave, dhammābhisamayo;

In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven times is next to nothing:

:seedling:

15.10 : Puggalasutta
caṭṭhaṅgikaṃ maggaṃ, dukkhūpasamagāminaṃ. Sa sattakkhattuṃparamaṃ, sandhāvitvāna puggalo; Dukkhassantakaro

That person for seven at times at most makes an end of suffering by destroying all other fettters

:seedling:

AN 3.88 : Tatiyasikkhāsutta
tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā

AN 3.87 : Dutiyasikkhāsutta
tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti. Sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā

AN 9.12 : Saupādisesasutta
tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā

This person is a seven-times-at-most-attainer who… roaming and wandering seven times at most

Yes, this is a very characteristic Pali idiom. The -o ending is nominative, so it is the subject of hoti and takes the sense “he is a seven-times-at-most-attainer”. But as this translation shows, this idiom makes for clumsy translation if you insist on literalism. I translate the above passage:

with the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths

2 Likes