Oh dear. Shamu was your post in response to Meluhhan (why that name?) :not sure: Anyway, it's too late: I've already responded to it, by assuming it addressed #142.
[quote name='Meluhhan' date='24 October 2011 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1319394836' post='113440']
Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages like Pali and Prakrit because he thought they would be more accessible to the common man. There was absolutely no need for Buddhists to come up with complicated Sanskrit grammars, since they didn't use that language in the first place.[/quote]
1. "Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages"
Can say "Buddha's teachings were transmitted in popular languages", since what is known of Buddha's teachings derive from his followers. On some points at least, the different kinds of Buddhism that came to be don't *agree* on what these teachings were, in some cases to the point of mutual exclusivity. See post 139 of the vegetarianism thread which quotes an example.
2. "Prakrit" appears to be a word used for many languages and Pali is one of them (?) I think the Jains' sacred language "Arya Magadha" (sp?) or something is perhaps classed as a Prakrita also? Though I wouldn't know if Buddhists used this language.
3. While I think Theravada texts may be in Pali etc, the later Mahayana Buddhism did consciously adopt Samskritam* - and there appears to have been an element of competition even in the use of this. (And there had been times when the other Indic Dharmic religions found fault with Samskritam for being of the "brahminical religion" - so-called since one is not allowed to recognise laity in Hindooism.)
Ex-brahmins who'd converted out of Hindu religion contributed a lot in this regard.
(But whether Buddhists had "a need for coming up with complicated Skt grammars" or not becomes irrelevant in *this* case since Buddhism had nothing to do with Panini's work on Skt grammar.)
* Though not all Samskritam employed in Mahayana Buddhism seems to be recognisable as Samskritam. E.g. there's a famous Asian chanteuse who has sung Tibetan Buddhist mantras in.... "Sanskrit", which doesn't sound like Samskritam to me. After looking up a transliteration of the lyrics, though I could see the language is somehow related to Skt, can't see that it is indeed Samskritam. In fact, it sounded more like Pali to me, but I wouldn't know.
Either way, her singing and the sounds she made didn't offend my ears.
4. "[Buddhism used languages] more accessible to the common man"
Not a response, just something I was reminded of:
While Hindus *have* been sticklers for employing Skt when it comes to the religious use of certain existing scriptures in their religion - and one can see why, when the very sounds matter in exactly these cases - it is not true that the other Indic religions alone were interested in using/promoting the regional languages (this last is a common assumption and even argument against Hindus' religion. It's even been one of the working assumptions behind the other Dharmic religions laying claims on Hindu works authored by local Hindus in TN).
Hindus composed many sacred (as also generally informative) works in their own local languages. And local languages tend to be considered sacred in their own right. E.g. Tamizh is considered a very sacred language of Hindoo origin by Hindus of the region. <- And this is another aspect that indologicals and others have been working on: to divorce the language from the Hindu religion in the same way Panini's work was.
In addition to that, while there's perhaps not much purpose to translating the Vedas into other languages (again, since the sounds are of no little importance) - other than for people to give it a once-over for the meaning - other materials have been translated. Even Skt-language works and commentaries composed today frequently get immediate translation into the local regional language by their authors.
[quote name='Meluhhan' date='24 October 2011 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1319394836' post='113440']
Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages like Pali and Prakrit because he thought they would be more accessible to the common man. There was absolutely no need for Buddhists to come up with complicated Sanskrit grammars, since they didn't use that language in the first place.[/quote]
1. "Buddha gave most of his teachings in popular languages"
Can say "Buddha's teachings were transmitted in popular languages", since what is known of Buddha's teachings derive from his followers. On some points at least, the different kinds of Buddhism that came to be don't *agree* on what these teachings were, in some cases to the point of mutual exclusivity. See post 139 of the vegetarianism thread which quotes an example.
2. "Prakrit" appears to be a word used for many languages and Pali is one of them (?) I think the Jains' sacred language "Arya Magadha" (sp?) or something is perhaps classed as a Prakrita also? Though I wouldn't know if Buddhists used this language.
3. While I think Theravada texts may be in Pali etc, the later Mahayana Buddhism did consciously adopt Samskritam* - and there appears to have been an element of competition even in the use of this. (And there had been times when the other Indic Dharmic religions found fault with Samskritam for being of the "brahminical religion" - so-called since one is not allowed to recognise laity in Hindooism.)
Ex-brahmins who'd converted out of Hindu religion contributed a lot in this regard.
(But whether Buddhists had "a need for coming up with complicated Skt grammars" or not becomes irrelevant in *this* case since Buddhism had nothing to do with Panini's work on Skt grammar.)
* Though not all Samskritam employed in Mahayana Buddhism seems to be recognisable as Samskritam. E.g. there's a famous Asian chanteuse who has sung Tibetan Buddhist mantras in.... "Sanskrit", which doesn't sound like Samskritam to me. After looking up a transliteration of the lyrics, though I could see the language is somehow related to Skt, can't see that it is indeed Samskritam. In fact, it sounded more like Pali to me, but I wouldn't know.
Either way, her singing and the sounds she made didn't offend my ears.
4. "[Buddhism used languages] more accessible to the common man"
Not a response, just something I was reminded of:
While Hindus *have* been sticklers for employing Skt when it comes to the religious use of certain existing scriptures in their religion - and one can see why, when the very sounds matter in exactly these cases - it is not true that the other Indic religions alone were interested in using/promoting the regional languages (this last is a common assumption and even argument against Hindus' religion. It's even been one of the working assumptions behind the other Dharmic religions laying claims on Hindu works authored by local Hindus in TN).
Hindus composed many sacred (as also generally informative) works in their own local languages. And local languages tend to be considered sacred in their own right. E.g. Tamizh is considered a very sacred language of Hindoo origin by Hindus of the region. <- And this is another aspect that indologicals and others have been working on: to divorce the language from the Hindu religion in the same way Panini's work was.
In addition to that, while there's perhaps not much purpose to translating the Vedas into other languages (again, since the sounds are of no little importance) - other than for people to give it a once-over for the meaning - other materials have been translated. Even Skt-language works and commentaries composed today frequently get immediate translation into the local regional language by their authors.