🪔🪔🪔 Tidipa

Pind - Did the Buddha address the monks in Māgadhī? (2021)

44 min read

Did the Buddha address the monks in Māgadhī?

Ole Holten Pind†

JOCBS 2021(20): 83–106 ©2021 Ole Holten Pind

‘Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.’ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland § 1.

§ 1. The purpose of this paper is to study the distribution of the two vocatives bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in the Pāli canon, and to analyse the astute comments on the issue by Aggavaṃsa, the eminent 12th century AD Burmese Pāli scholar, who addressed it in a paragraph of his Pāli grammar, the Saddanīti. Aggavaṃsa’s analysis of the evidence sheds light on their distribution in the Pāli canon. Moreover, it raises some intriguing questions regarding the distribution of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in Burmese Pāli manuscripts, which deviates from that of Sinhalese manuscripts. I have therefore found it necessary to re-examine the question in the light of the evidence. I shall trace the textual background of the readings that Aggavaṃsa’s analysis presupposes and draw the conclusion that the distribution of the two vocatives reflects canonical prosody and has no historical or regional implications for the occurrence of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in the Pāli canon. In fact, their occurrence is parallel to the distribution of the two vocatives bhante and bhaddante.

§ 2. Pāli scholars have generally interpreted the vocative bhikkhave as an “eastern” speech form or Māgadhism.1 This assumption, however, fails to address the obvious question why the compilers of the Pāli canon transmitted it in a predominantly “western” Middle Indic (MI) dialect, but did not convert this particular vocative into its alleged “western” cognate bhikkhavo. The use of bhikkhave in the Pāli canon is assumed to represent a linguistic reflex of popular usage that mirrors the monks’ recollection of how the Buddha used to address them. This socio-linguistic explanation, however, does not apply to the pervasive canonical usage of another alleged “Māgadhism,” the particle seyyathā “(just) as, like” of which there are thousands of examples in canonical prose. It would be irrational to maintain that the compilers of the Pāli canon used seyyathā because it reflected, in their memory, the language of the Buddha or popular usage as they evidently preferred to reproduce the speeches attributed to the Buddha in a “western” MI linguistic idiom. this in itself raises the obvious question why they would consistently utilise a particle that allegedly would stem from an “eastern” MI dialect in a “western” MI linguistic context. The only conclusion to draw from the evidence is that the early compilers of the Pāli canon preferred to use seyyathā because they did not consider this particle as dialectically incompatible with the canonical language.

§ 3. In spite of this, h. Lüders considered seyyathā as cogent linguistic evidence of an original “eastern” Buddhist canon because he mentions it as an instance of an “eastern” form in the first paragraph of his influential monograph Beobachungen über die Sprache des buddhistischen Urkanons, followed by bhikkhave in the second one.2 It is necessary, however, to show beyond doubt that seyyathā and bhikkhave are dialectically “eastern” speech forms. There are well over 26,000 instances of bhikkhave in the Pāli canon. this contrasts with the highly restricted number of instances of bhikkhavo, of which there are only about 165 examples, including a few instances of the nominative and accusative plural that are identical to the vocative plural, thus constituting a mere fraction of the total number of recorded examples of the two vocatives. this is significant and underlines the linguistic markedness of bhikkhavo compared to bhikkhave. Moreover, it raises an obvious question that no one has answered: why is the use of bhikkhavo restricted to a mere fraction of the total number of instances of bhikkhave?

§ 4. If we assume ex hypothesi that the Pāli recensionists in a limited number of instances introduced the vocative bhikkhavo instead of bhikkhave, it is necessary to address the corollary: did they substitute bhikkhavo for bhikkhave randomly or systematically? the grammatical problem of the distribution of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave in the Pāli canon attracted the attention of Aggavaṃsa, who devoted a fairly long and interesting paragraph to it in the Saddanīti 190,6ff.3 the distribution of the two forms in the Pāli canon evidently puzzled Aggavaṃsa. since his attempt at explaining their distribution constitutes the first and so far only analysis of the problem, it may well serve as a point of departure for the following discussion. Addressing the use of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo, Aggavaṃsa makes the following observations at Saddanīti 190,6-15:

tatra bhikkhave ti āmantaṇapadaṃ cuṇṇiyapadesv eva dissati na gāthāsu, bhikkhavo ti pacattapadaṃ gāthāsu yeva dissati na cuṇṇiyapadesv. api ca bhikkhave ti āmantaṇapadaṃ sāvakassa bhikkhūnaṃ āmantaṇapāḷiyaṃ sandhivisaye yeva dissati na asandhivisaye; Buddhassa pana bhikkhūnaṃ āmantaṇapāḷiyaṃ sandhivisaye pi asandhivisaye pi dissati. bhikkhavo ti āmantaṇapadaṃ Buddhassa bhikkhūnaṃ āmantaṇapāḷiyaṃ gāthāsu ca dissati, cuṇṇiyapadesu ca sandhivisaye yeva dissati. sāvakassa pana bhikkhūnaṃ āmantaṇapāḷiyaṃ na dissati, ayaṃ dvinnaṃ viseso daṭṭhabbo.

“In the present context the vocative bhikkhave is observed exclusively in canonical prose (cuṇṇiyapadesu eva), but not in the verses (gāthāsu). the nominative bhikkhavo occurs in verses, not in canonical prose. Moreover, the vocative bhikkhave only occurs within the domain of sandhi, in the canon where a sāvaka addresses the monks, but it never occurs outside the domain of sandhi. however, in the canon where the Buddha addresses the monks, it occurs both within and outside the domain of sandhi. Moreover, the vocative bhikkhavo occurs both in the verses where the Buddha addresses the monks, and exclusively in the domain of sandhi in canonical prose. It never occurs, however, in canonical prose where a sāvaka addresses the monks. This is how one should regard the difference between the two forms.”

In this important paragraph, Aggavaṃsa analyses the distribution of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in terms of:

  1. Literary genre, i.e. if the two forms occur in prose (cuṇṇiyapada) or in verse (gāthā);
  2. Sandhi, i.e. if the particle ti follows bhikkhavo or bhikkhave; and
  3. The socio-religious status of the speaker, i.e. if it is bhagavat or a sāvaka who addresses the monks.

§ 5. the crucial question is whether the distribution of the two forms in the Pāli canon corroborates Aggavaṃsa’s observations. In order to decide whether they are linguistically valid, it is necessary to address each of his statements individually. his first claim that the vocative bhikkhave only occurs as vocative in canonical prose and never in verse is true in that it describes a pervasive feature of the Pāli canon: that bhikkhave never occurs in verse in contrast to bhikkhavo that only occurs in verse4 and in sentence initial position in prose. Aggavaṃsa thus indicates that they are contrastively distributed. The only recorded example of the use of bhikkhave in verse is clearly a corruption. It occurs in pādas ab) of a śloka at Ap 470,20: svākkhāto bhikkhave dhammo (– – – – | ˘ – – – |). the continuation of the verse: dukkhantakaraṇāya vo caratha brahmacariyaṃ icc āha munisattamo, shows that it is based on the well-known ordination formula that is recorded e.g. at Vin I 12, 37ff: etha bhikkhavo ti … svākkhāto dhammo. It is therefore evident that bhikkhave is a corruption of bhikkhavo, which could easily have come about considering the nature of the Sinhalese script in which the canon has been transmitted.

§ 6. The following claim that occurrences of the nominative plural bhikkhavo are restricted to vippajahitvā canonical verses is also correct, except that Aggavaṃsa understandably overlooked that this form also occurs in a single prose passage at D III 34,13 foll: viparīto samaṇo Gotamo bhikkhavo ca. The recorded occurrences of nominative plural bhikkhavo in verses comprise the following 14 instances:

1. sabbe c’ ime bhikkhavo sannisinnā, sn 384;

2. bhikkhavo tisatā … tiṭṭhanti, sn 5735 = 3. th 841 = 4. M II 146 (not printed in ee);

5. bhikkhavo samādahaṃsu, D II 254,1* = 6. s I 26,28*;

7. vajanti bhikkhavo, th 21;

8. sotaṃ odhenti bhikkhavo, th 1233;

9. vimuttā satta bhikkhavo, s I 35,6* = 10. s I 60,4*;

11. etaṃ rajaṃ bhikkhavo viharanti, Ja I 117,32*6

12. vippamuttā ca bhikkhavo, Ja IV 373,24*;

13. saṃviggā bhikkhavo, Ap 472,24;

14. ujjhāyanti … bhikkhavo, Ap 498,8.

In contrast to the limited number of instances of nominative plural bhikkhavo, all other instances of nominative plural of bhikkhu in the Pāli canon invariably read bhikkhū. In this regard, the language of the canon does not differ from other MI instances of nominative plural of masculine *u-*stems.

§ 7. Aggavaṃsa does not quote examples of the accusative plural bhikkhavo, although he evidently assumed their existence as it appears from the bhikkhu paradigm recorded at sadd 189,15ff. there are, in fact, eleven recorded instances of the accusative plural in the Pāli canon.7 they occur mostly in verses (a) and rarely in prose (b):

a.

1. ath’ addasaṃ bhikkhavo, D II 272,24*;

2. so ’ham ete pajānāmi vimutte satta bhikkhavo (so read with sinhalese v.l. and Be; ee °ve), s I 36,3* = 3. 60,27* (ee °vo);

4. sakkaccaṃ ne upaṭṭhāsi bhikkhavo tatthavāsike, Ja VI 118,19*;

5. sā anadhivaraṃ upāgamiṃ pāsādike kusalarate ca bhikkhavo namassituṃ, Vv 148;

6. sādhū ti sā paṭissutvā bhojayitāṭṭha bhikkhavo, Pv 159;

7. bhikkhavo paribhāsisaṃ, Pv 770 = 8. Pv 778;

9. addasaṃ sāsanakāre bhikkhavo, Ap 263,6;

10. oruddhe bhikkhavo disvā, Ap 599,18;

b.

11. viparītā ye bhagavantaṃ viparītato dahanti bhikkhavo ca, D III 34,23.

It is thus evident that the distribution of the accusative plural bhikkhavo follows the same pattern as that of nominative plural bhikkhavo, the majority of the examples being found in verses, whereas only a single example is recorded in prose. Apart from the limited number of accusative plural bhikkhavo, all other instances of accusative plural are identical with nominative plural bhikkhū. Thus, the use of nominative and accusative plural bhikkhavo for bhikkhū is linguistically marked like the use of vocative plural bhikkhavo for bhikkhave.

§ 8. Aggavaṃsa’s subsequent statement that bhikkhave is found, where a sāvaka addresses the monks and only within the domain of sandhi, is interesting because it illustrates a feature that is primarily recorded in Burmese mss of the Pāli canon*.* Aggavaṃsa quotes a formula that the compilers used, on the one hand, as an introduction to suttantas in which an eminent sāvaka like Moggallāna or sāriputta addressed the monks and, on the other hand, as their way of addressing the monks, when either one developed the Buddha’s talk for the sake of the monks. In the latter instance it is introduced by the corresponding bhagavat formula. As an example of the sāvaka formula, Aggavaṃsa quotes s II 274,7: tatra kho āyasmā Sāriputto bhikkhū āmantesi: āvuso bhikkhave ti.

§ 9. Aggavaṃsa’s statement evidently presupposes a distinct Burmese reading of the sāvaka formula because the recorded instances of the formula in the Sinhalese version read with a few exceptions bhikkhavo8 ti. this difference of reading raises the question of why only the Burmese tradition introduced bhikkhave in the twenty-nine instances of the sāvaka formula,9 but not in any of the 106 instances of the bhagavat formula,10 of which Aggavaṃsa quotes an example at sadd 190,25: tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi: bhikkhavo ti.

§ 10. the question is whether the Burmese reading is original or interpolated from non-canonical sources. This necessitates an investigation of the background of Aggavaṃsa’s analysis. the question is whether he records Burmese usage as known to him or whether the Burmese readings reflect later sources. the latter appears to be the case: Aggavaṃsa’s explanation of the sāvaka formula appears to presuppose analyses found in Buddhaghosa’s aṭṭhakathās. Since they would support the Burmese readings rather than the sinhalese, they require careful analysis. I shall quote them in the traditional order of the aṭṭhakathās:

  1. āvuso bhikkhave ti sāvakānaṃ ālapanaṃ etaṃ. buddhā hi parisaṃāmantayamānā: bhikkhave ti vadanti. sāvakā: satthāraṃ uccaṭṭhāne ṭhapessāmā ti Satthu ālapanena anālapitvā: āvuso ti ālapanti. sv 1053,5 foll.11 on D III 272,5: °ve, v.l. °vo. “āvuso bhikkhave ti is the vocative12 of the sāvakas. For the Buddhas say ‘bhikkhave’ when addressing the congregation. The sāvakas, however, address them as ‘āvuso,’ avoiding doing so by the teacher’s vocative, thinking: ‘we shall place [our] teacher in a high position’.”
  2. āvuso bhikkhave ti ettha pana buddhā bhagavanto sāvake ālapantā bhikkhave ti ālapanti. sāvakā pana “buddhehi sadisā mā homā” ti āvuso ti paṭhamaṃ vatvā pacchā bhikkhave ti bhaṇanti. buddhehi ālapito bhikkhusaṅgho bhad(d)ante ti paṭivacanaṃ deti, sāvakehi āvuso ti. (Ps I 100,7-12; ad M I 13,36: āvuso bhikkhavo sic!) “āvuso bhikkhave ti. In this context, however, the blessed Buddhas, when addressing the sāvakas, address them as ‘bhikkhave.’ The sāvakas, however, first address them as ‘āvuso,’ for fear they would be similar to the Buddhas, and thereafter they say ‘bhikkhave.’ The congregation of monks answers by saying ‘bhad(d)ante’13 when addressed by the Buddhas, but ‘āvuso’ when addressed by the sāvakas.”
  3. āvuso ti sāvakānaṃ ālapo. buddhā hi bhagavanto sāvake ālapantā bhikkhave ti ālapanti. sāvakā pana buddhehi sadisā mā homā ti āvuso ti paṭhamaṃ vatvā pacchā bhikkhavo (ee; -ve, Be) ti bhaṇanti. buddhehi ālapito bhikkhusaṅgho bhad(d) ante (ee; bhante, Be) ti paṭivacanaṃ deti, sāvakehi āvuso ti. (Sāratthapakāsinī – spk – II 233,4-9; ad s II 273,5: ee ˚ve). “āvuso is the vocative of the sāvakas. For the Blessed Buddhas, when addressing the sāvakas, address them as ‘bhikkhave’ etc. The sāvakas, however, first address them as ‘āvuso,’ for fear they should be similar to the Buddhas, and thereafter they say ‘bhikkhavo.’ The congregation of monks answers by saying ‘bhad(d)ante’ when addressed by the Buddhas, but ‘āvuso’ when addressed by the sāvakas.”
  4. āvuso ti hi avatvā bhikkhave (v.l. °vo) ti vacanaṃ buddhālāpo nāma hoti. ayam pan’ āyasmā Dasabalena samānaṃ ālāpaṃ na karissāmī ti Satthu gāravena sāvakālāpaṃ karonto āvuso bhikkhave (v.l.°vo) ti āha. (Manorathapūraṇī – Mp – II 127,18-22; ad A I 63,19: °vo sic!). “For by avoiding saying ‘āvuso’ the expression bhikkhave is the vocative of the Buddhas. Moreover, when addressing the sāvakas this honorable person (namely sāriputta) says āvuso bhikkhave out of respect for the teacher thinking ‘I shall not use the same vocative as the honourable Dasabala.’ ”

§ 11. The four explanations are slightly divergent although those quoted under 2. and 3. do not diverge from one another as do the mutually divergent explanations quoted under 1. and 4. the underlying idea, however, is the same. The aṭṭhakathās identify the following criteria for the use of bhikkhave as opposed to that of āvuso bhikkhave:

  1. the Buddhas exclusively address the monks as bhikkhave.
  2. The sāvakas address them first as āvuso, subsequently adding bhikkhave, because the use of the vocative bhikkhave without further qualification is restricted to the Buddhas whose rank is higher than that of a sāvaka like, for instance, sāriputta.

Thus, the aṭṭhakathās explain the usage in terms of the socio-religious rank of the person who addresses the monks. This is not surprising in itself. Indeed, the modes of address recorded in the Pāli canon indicate the rank and social status of the persons whose exchange of greetings and conversations the Pāli canon reproduces in agreement with contemporary norms of cultured behavior.14

§ 12. It is not possible to identify with certainty the aṭṭhakathā on which Aggavaṃsa based his explanation. It is likely that he relied on either Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (henceforth sv) or Papañcasūdanī (henceforth Ps) because they are the only Buddhaghosa commentaries that do not record variants. the readings °ve and °vo are recorded for the Dīgha passage that sv addresses, whereas the identical Majjhima passage as explained at Ps reads °vo. Spk juxtaposes °ve and °vo, thus contradicting itself and Sv and Ps; and both °ve and °vo are recorded in the exegesis at Manorathapūraṇī (henceforth Mp). There is therefore no cogent reason to assume that the explanations of Sv and Ps are trustworthy and reflect old usage. Aggavaṃsa’s conclusion that the mode of address of any sāvaka when speaking to the monks is āvuso bhikkhave is clearly not justified. It is evident that Burmese scribes substituted bhikkhave for bhikkhavo as a linguistic device for distinguishing between the socio-religious status of Buddha and sāvakas*.* The evidence would suggest their editorial practice is based on extrapolation from a false reading occurring in the sāvaka formula as recorded in the exegesis of the aṭṭhakathās.

§ 13. V. Trenckner thought that the reading bhikkhave at Ps I 100,7-12 was incorrect and emended it to bhikkhavo in his annotated transcript of the Sinhalese ms he used when editing the Majjhimanikāya. Whatever trenckner’s motivation for rejecting bhikkhave may have been, it is justified by the evidence: the Pāli canon and the aṭṭhakathās use the vocative bhikkhavo in the bhagavat formula. elsewhere the aṭṭhakathās explain that the bhagavat addresses the monks as bhikkhavo.15 therefore, it is difficult to understand why their explanations of the corresponding sāvaka formula portray the Buddhas as addressing them as bhikkhave because this reduces the contrast between the two formulas to the opposition between bhikkhave and āvuso bhikkhave, thus contradicting both the sinhalese and Burmese versions of the Pāli canon as well as the aṭṭhakathās. Formally, it depends on the bhagavat formula that undoubtedly copies it. Characteristically, it rarely introduces a suttanta, as it is the case with the bhagavat formula:16 it usually occurs in the middle of a suttanta introduced by the similar bhagavat formula. It is difficult to understand why this obvious dependence on the bhagavat formula would not include the use of bhikkhavo since the sāvaka’s use of āvuso and the monks’ answering the sāvaka by āvuso in itself marks it as a sāvaka formula.

§ 14. It is therefore obvious that we should correct the reading bhikkhave to bhikkhavo. The uniform distribution of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave in the bhagavat and sāvaka formulas found in the Burmese tradition shows that at some point the received readings that did not make the socio-linguistic distinction between the modes of address of the bhagavat and the sāvakas were deliberately changed. The Sinhalese tradition, however, remained faithful to the original ms. readings. Since the aṭṭhakathās appear to share the same error, it may well be old.

§ 15. the reason why Aggavaṃsa classifies the bhagavat or sāvaka formula as belonging to the domain of sandhi is no doubt that whenever bhikkhave occurs in the sāvaka formula it is invariably followed by ti. The same pattern also characterises the examples of the use of bhikkhavo in canonical prose, when the speaker, according to Aggavaṃsa’s analysis, is bhagavat. the classification is based on the mere fact that bhikkhavo ti is analysed as °vo + iti > °vo + ti, the elision of /i/ being considered a sandhi feature, cf. bhikkhavo ti ca sandhivasena ikāralopo daṭṭhabbo bhikkhavo itī ti (Ps-pṭ I 51,22-23 = spk-pṭ II 4,24-25 ≠ Mpṭ I 45,8-9). the claim that bhikkhave when it is used by the Buddha occurs with or without junctional features is puzzling. It is a well-known fact that the Buddha in the canonical speeches constantly addresses the monks as bhikkhave, but never initially, and iti never follows the vocative. Aggavaṃsa quotes as evidence the following example, which he attributes to the Pāli, thus indicating that he considers it as canonical: bhikkhū āmantesi: sotukām’ attha bhikkhave ti. The attribution of this quotation to the Pāli canon turns out to be incorrect: the clause occurs only in two of Buddhaghosa’s aṭṭhakathās (viz. sv 676,5 = spk I 71,23). The introductory phrase bhikkhū āmantesi imitates well-known canonical usage of the bhagavat formula in which the phrase bhikkhavo ti invariably follows it. It is impossible to decide, however, if the reading bhikkhave in this particular case is original or the result of a scribal mistake. Buddhaghosa and pre-Buddhaghosa scholars were ignorant about what determines the distribution of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in the Pāli canon.

§ 16. The occurrence of the vocative bhikkhavo in canonical verses is restricted to merely twenty-five instances, of which seven alone–about one third–occur in the comparatively late Apadāna, evidently imitating the usage that the Suttanipāta and the nikāyas had already established:

1. yaṃ evarūpaṃ janātha bhikkhavo gehanissitaṃ, sn 280b;

2. suṇātha me bhikkhavo, sn 385a;

3. nimmalā hotha bhikkhavo, Dhp 243d;

4. nibbanā hotha bhikkhavo, Dhp 283d;

5. vippamuñcetha bhikkhavo, Dhp 377d;

6. susīlā hotha bhikkhavo, D II 120,21*;

7–9. te vijānātha bhikkhavo, D II 256,3d*,11d* = D II 262,10*;

10. khemaṃ pattattha bhikkhavo, M I 227,13*;

11. araññe rukkhamūle vā, suññāgare vā bhikkhavo, S I 220,21b*;17

12. cha eva phassāyatanāni bhikkhavo, s IV 70,25*;

13. te rāgadose abhibhuyya bhikkhavo, s IV 71,23*;

14. mettaṃ cittaṃ vibhāvetvā satta vassāni bhikkhavo (ee °ve v.l. °vo), A IV 59,23*;

15. māraṃ sasenaṃ abhibhuyya bhikkhavo, It 41,2c*;

16. ahaṃ vo tena kālena ahosiṃ tattha bhikkhavo, Ja V 56,7*;

17. suṇotha bhikkhavo mayham yaṃ kammaṃ pakatam mayā, Ap 299,6;

18-20. evaṃ dhāretha bhikkhavo, Ap 464,10 = 498,18 = 569,13;

21. lābhīnaṃ Sīvalī aggo mama sissesu bhikkhavo, Ap 495,13;

22. samāgacchantu bhikkhavo, Ap 541,4;

23. suṇantu bhāsitam mayhaṃ bhikkhavo sugatorasā, Ap 541,6;

24. na buddho buddhanibbāne no padissati bhikkhavo, Ap 542,15;

25. evaṃ jānātha bhikkhavo, Ap 543,8.

In all of these examples, bhikkhavo occurs at the end of a pāda where the metre requires – ˘ –. the question is why there are no examples of the use of bhikkhave in canonical verses because from a purely metrical point of view bhikkhave should be equivalent to bhikkhavo and thus suitable for verse. however, in spite of the rythmical equivalence of the two vocatives, bhikkhave is never found in verse—with the only exception of Ap 470,20 mentioned above § 5—a fact that requires a more sophisticated explanation than the rather simplistic assumption that they have been introduced randomly. The distribution of the vocative bhikkhavo would thus indicate that its use was restricted to verses and to two types of suttanta introductions as well as to the well-known formula for the initiation of monks. When the Milindapañha was compiled, its author or authors were evidently aware that outside the domain of the prose formulas the use of the vocative bhikkhavo was restricted to verses because it occurs four times:

Mil 335,5: etaṃ pivatha bhikkhavo = Mil 335,24;

Mil 336,9: amataṃ ādetha bhikkhavo;

Mil 341,25: samiddhā hotha bhikkhavo.

Interestingly, these verses purport to reproduce the words of the Buddha.

§ 17. The pādas of s IV 70,25* and 71,23* are particularly illuminating examples of the exclusion of the use of bhikkhave from verses. The text portrays the Buddha addressing the monks in prose explaining: cha yime bhikkhave phassāyātanā adantā aguttā arakkhitā saṃvuttā dukkhādhivāhā honti. The content of this prose section corresponds exactly to pādas ab) of 70,25* in which he is described addressing the monks as bhikkhavo: cha eva phassāyatanāni bhikkhavo || asaṃvuto yattha dukkhaṃ nigacchati ||. The distribution of the two forms is striking, and it contradicts the assumption that the occurrence of bhikkhave in this suttanta represents a trace of its original language or of the monk’s recollection of the Buddha’s diction because the introductory prose section evidently imitates the verses whose content it paraphrases. In contrast to the vocative bhikkhave of the prose introduction, the corresponding vocative of the verse is bhikkhavo. Thus this particular example alone would indicate that the opposition between the two forms is structural rather than historical; the use of bhikkhavo is not a random substitute for bhikkhave but, rather, the language of canonical verse excluded the use of bhikkhave and favoured that of bhikkhavo.

§ 18. As noticed by Aggavaṃsa bhikkhavo occurs in prose passages where the implicit or explicit speaker is bhagavat, in which case the particle ti follows bhikkhavo. Thus, it constitutes an example of what he regards as the domain of sandhi. these prose passages comprise:

  1. nine instances of the well-known ordination formula etha bhikkhavo ti, etc.,18 that Aggavaṃsa apparently overlooked; and
  2. 130 instances of the bhagavat formula: tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi.19 bhikkhavo ti, bhad(d)ante20 ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṃ,21 which the compilers used as an introduction to suttantas whenever the bhagavat addressed the monks before talking to them.

Thus, Aggavaṃsa’s survey of the distribution of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave would seem to presuppose an exhaustive collection of examples from the Pāli canon, although he apparently missed the solemn initiation formulas ehi bhikkhū ti and etha bhikkhavo ti whose occurrence is restricted to the Vinaya. however, he correctly concluded that the occurrence of the vocative bhikkhavo is restricted to verses and the bhagavat and sāvaka formulas, although his attempt at explaining either form in terms of junctional features of the Pāli has no value.

§ 19. If the claim that the nominative, accusative and vocative plural bhikkhavo in some cases has been substituted for bhikkhave were correct, it is incomprehensible why the compilers of the Pāli canon would have introduced bhikkhavo in a few verse passages and two introductory formulas and left thousands of instances of bhikkhave untouched*.* It is also difficult to explain the few instances of the nominative and accusative plural bhikkhavo, which one would assume are introduced randomly too. however, sometimes bhikkhave is introduced immediately after bhikkhavo as in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasuttanta (Dīghanikāya II 290,2ff):

ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā kurūsu viharati. Kammāsadhammaṃ nāma kurūnaṃ nigamo. tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmaṇtesi: bhikkhavo ti. bhad(d)ante ti te bhikkū bhagavato paccassosuṃ … ekayāno ayaṃ bhikkhave maggo.

It is thus evident that the distribution of the two vocatives is complementary: bhikkhavo only occurs in verses and in initial position in prose, whereas bhikkhave never occurs in such environments, and any valid analysis must address the linguistic implications of their complementary distribution*.*

§ 20. The bhagavat formula is especially interesting because it makes it possible to determine what distinguishes the syntactical constraints on the use of bhikkhavo from those of bhikkhave with greater precision. Buddhaghosa comments on the use of bhikkhavo in an interesting passage (Ps I 14,28 foll. = spk II 3,1 foll. = Mp I 18,18 foll.):

bhad(d)ante ti gāravavacanam etaṃ satthu (Spk °uno) paṭivacanadānaṃ vā. api c’ettha bhikkhavo ti vadamāno bhagavā te bhikkhū ālapati bhad(d)ante ti vadamānā te bhagavantaṃ paccālapanti. tathā bhikkhavo ti bhagavā ādimhi bhāsati bhad(d)ante ti te paccābhāsanti, bhikkhavo ti paṭivacanaṃ dāpeti bhad(d)ante ti paṭivadanaṃ denti:

“The word bhad(d)ante is an expression of respect for the Teacher or (rather) it is an answer (to *bhagavat’*s greeting). Moreover, when bhagavat addresses the monks by saying bhikkhavo, the monks answer bhagavat by saying bhad(d)ante. Thus bhagavat at first greets (the monks) as bhikkhavo and they answer the greeting by the vocative bhad(d)ante. The vocative bhikkhavo invites (the monks) to answer to the greeting, the vocative bhad(d)ante answers the greeting.”22

The analysis is part of a comprehensive grammatical explanation of the meaning and derivation of bhikkhavo. In contrast to the analysis of the sāvaka formula with which it shares certain features, bhikkhavo is described as āmantaṇākāradīpanaṃ, and the monks’ reply bhad(d)ante. In contrast to his analysis of the sāvaka formula, Buddhaghosa interprets bhad(d)ante and bhikkhavo in terms of a respectful exchange of greetings between bhagavat and the monks. bhagavat greets the monks as bhikkhavo, and the monks answer respectfully bhad(d)ante.

§ 21. There is considerable uncertainty about the spelling of bhad(d)ante in this formula: the readings of the manuscripts vacillate. they read bhadante or the geminated form bhaddante (< Sanskrit bhadram + enclitic te),23 the latter often being recorded as v.l. the anonymous compiler of the Pāli grammar attributed to kaccāyana was aware of the geminated and non-geminated spellings, and stated in sutta 245: bhadantassa bhaddanta bhante, “bhaddanta and bhante are substituted for bhadanta.” The reference to bhadanta is peculiar because this vocative has become the norm in Buddhist sanskrit literature.24 however, the geminated vocatives bhaddanta (sg.) and bhaddantā (plural) commonly address the monks in the Vinaya, and they evidently represent a thematised version of bhaddante. editors generally ignore the significance of the geminated form. Trenckner, for instance, considered it an error,25 perhaps under the influence of the spellings of the aṭṭhakathās, although the Sinhalese ms he used for his edition of Majjhimanikāya invariably spells bhaddante.26 even if one cannot exclude the possibility that bhaddante was de-geminated, thus changing the syllabic quantity from - - - to ˇ - -, there is no general tendency in the language of the Pāli canon to reduce /-cc-/ to /-c-/. It is perhaps due to de-gemination of /-dd-/ between vowels27 and writers may have introduced it at a time when they no longer perceived the gemination as distinctive. In the oldest post-canonical literature the non-geminated form bhadanta is recorded in Mil (cf. e.g. Mil 23,4: ~assa; 29,8,10: ~o), and, as already mentioned, the de-geminated vocative bhadanta became the normative spelling in Bhs and Buddhist sanskrit literature.

§ 22. Burmese manuscripts maintain almost invariably the geminated form in prose as well as in the derivatives ehibhaddantika and tiṭṭhabhaddantika in contrast to the readings ehibhadantika and tiṭṭhabhadantika of the Sinhalese tradition. the same contrast between the sinhalese and Burmese readings recurs in the analyses of the derivation of the two terms in the aṭṭhakathās attributed to Buddhaghosa. thus his explanation at Ps II 43,32-34 (ehi bhadante ti vutto na etī ti na ehibhadantiko. tena hi tiṭṭha bhadante ti vutto na tiṭṭhatī ti na tiṭṭhabhadantiko) is everywhere reproduced with the corresponding geminated forms in the Burmese tradition. there is, therefore, no cogent reason for assuming that the reading bhaddante does not reflect the original form.

§ 23. the interesting thing about this apparently insignificant question of spelling is that the use of bhaddante is confined to verse, to the bhagavat formula, and two prose passages in which the isi kaṇha is respectfully addressed as follows: sotthi bhad(d)ante hotu rañño, D I 93,13 fol., sotthi bhad(d)ante bhavissa rañño, 93,15 foll. In both cases, however, Be and the ṭīkās read bhaddante which, as indicated above, must be the correct spelling. This is corroborated not only by the derivative bhaddanta but also by the expression evaṃ bhaddantavā ti at D II 180,27 (cf. § 24), for which there are no recorded variants. evidently, this term is derived from the geminated form bhaddante. In verses the reading bhaddante is invariably supported by metrical constraints ( | – – – ||), e.g., paṭipadaṃ vadehi bhaddante (sn 921); samayo dāni bhaddante (D II 259,13*); abhidhāvatha bhaddante (s I 209,14*); ahaṃ naṭo ’smi bhaddante (Ja II 169,5*); velaṃ karotha bhaddante (th 762); taṃ taṃ vadāmi bhaddante (Vv 697a); taṃ vo vadāmi bhaddante (Ap 30,23); sabbaṃ harassu bhaddante (Ap 562,16); (– – – – | · · · ·) kiṃ bhaddante karitvāna (th 721).28 In some cases the reading bhadante is m.c., cf. aṅgārino dāni dumā bhadante (th 527a, triṣṭubh).29 Thus, it is possible to conclude that the original reading is bhaddante and that the degeminated form bhadante is secondary and functionally equivalent to bhaddante.

§ 24. As noticed by trenckner in 1879,30 bhaddante is the emphatic speech form contrasting with the syncopated equivalent bhante. Whereas bhaddante only occurs in verse and initially in a sentence in canonical prose, bhante, on the other hand, never occurs in these environments, but invariably cliticizes on the preceding syntactical word.31 It is interesting in the context of the use of emphatic and non-emphatic speech forms that the Pāli canon records a hyper- emphatic form of bhaddante viz. bhaddantava derived from bhaddaṃ + tava, genitive of the non-enclitic pronoun tvaṃ: evam bhaddantavā ti (D II 180,27 = 264,6 = 265,7 = 269,11 = M II 80,1,26 = s I 216,12,17,22ff).32 This form contrasts with the correspondng non-emphatic usage evam bhante (e.g. at D II 81,16). the hyper-emphatic form is clearly a reflex of respectful language: the gandhabba Pañcasikkha uses it as a respectful reply to the God Indra’s request. It is highly likely that bhaddantavā ti imitates the use of pluti—protraction of the last vowel of a vocative in sentence-final position. this usage indicates the speaker’s respect for the addressee. occasionally, it occurs in early sanskrit literature,33 and although it is not a pervasive feature of Pāli canonical discourse, there are nonetheless a few examples in the canon.34

§ 25. The evidence thus shows that the occurrence of bha(d)dante and bhikkhavo is restricted to verse and prose initially in a sentence, in contrast to bhante and bhikkhave, which, as a rule, never occur in such environments. Because of the syntactical parallelism between the use of bhaddante/bhante and bhikkhavo/bhikkhave, it is possible to conclude that the use of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave must be subject to the same syntactical constraints as bhaddante and bhante: bhikkhavo representing the emphatic form corresponding to bhaddante and bhikkhave, the non-emphatic one, corresponding to bhante. It is possible to delimit the syntactical features that define the usage of emphatic bhikkhavo and non-emphatic bhikkhave by focusing on the prose passages in which the two terms occur since verse passages are subject to metrical constraints. Most of the relatively few examples of bhikkhavo that occur in verse are characteristically restricted to its occurrence in cadences and therefore do not convey information about syntactical patterns such as word order. Pāli prose, however, displays a marked difference in the syntactical properties of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave. A systematic investigation of all instances of bhikkhave in the Dīghanikāya, for instance, shows that it never occurs in initial position in a sentence and that it cliticizes on a verb, nominal, pronoun*,* or particle. It is thus clear that the distribution of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave parallels that of bhaddante and bhante.

§ 26. The phrase that introduces the ordination formula etha bhikkhavo in the Vinaya indicates that syntactically bhikkhavo does not cliticize on etha but has the full force of the emphatic form, which in view of its syntactical properties as constituting a syntactically independent utterance and its solemn enunciation is hardly surprising. Pāṇini devotes a few sūtras in his Aṣṭādhyāyī to the description of the use of pluti in connection with cultured exchange of greetings. If we take into consideration that the Pāli canon imitates sanskrit usage as recorded by Pāṇini,35 one cannot exclude the possibility that the Pāli canon in the case of exchange of greetings also reflects sanskrit usage. At least in the case of the ordination formula one might compare Pāṇini VIII 2:84: dūrād dhūte ca: “and [the final vowel of a sentence becomes protracted (pluta) and acute (udātta)] when used in calling [somebody] from a distance.” The distinction between emphatic and non-emphatic vocatives in Pāli is analogous to the use of enclitic and non-enclitic vocatives in Sanskrit, the non-enclitic form carrying the accent.36 there is no reason to believe that Pāli imitates the use of the sanskrit accent.37 on the other hand, if the syntactical features of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave do not imply the presence and absence of accent, respectively, as in Sanskrit, it is difficult to explain the opposition between the two forms, unless we assume that the opposition between bhikkhavo and bhikkhave imitates the opposition between not enclitic and enclitic vocatives of Sanskrit*.*

§ 27. since the Pāli canon represents the codification of an oral tradition, it is natural to assume that the opposition between bhikkhavo and bhikkhave is a reflex of the mode of recitation of the suttantas. The complementary distribution of the two terms no doubt reflects the difference of enunciation of emphatic and enclitic non-emphatic forms. It is thus understandable that bhikkhave never occurs in initial position since the compilers of the Pāli canon used it as a non- emphatic vocative. on this interpretation, it is understandable that the verse pādas read bhikkhavo to the exclusion of bhikkhave. In the first place, it is hardly likely that the authors of Pāli poetry would use a non-emphatic form of a noun in a canonical verse text if a corresponding emphatic form were available, because non-emphatic terms syntactically belong to prose. Thus, for instance, the emphatic form bhaddante is, like bhikkhavo, primarily found in verses, whereas bhante is not recorded except in comparatively late texts like Vv and Pv, where its usage is clearly due to metrical constraints.38 Thus, the use of bhikkhavo in Pāli poetry indirectly supports the interpretation of bhikkhave as a non-emphatic version of bhikkhavo. the distribution of the two forms reflects their syntactical properties.

§ 28. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the compilers added the prose formulas containing bhikkhavo later in contrast to the common use of bhikkhave in the sermons. This assumption is dubious because bhikkhavo occurs in early strata of the canon like the Suttanipāta. Moreover, there are examples of nominative accusative plural bhikkhavo in prose passages that are not formulas. Assuming ex hypothesi that the bhagavat formula with bhikkhavo was a default introduction to some suttantas, one has to explain why the compilers introduced it immediately after the identification of the place where the bhagavat gave a talk to the monks. In each instance, tatra introduces the formula, referring anaphorically to the previously mentioned place where the bhagavat or the sāvaka gave his talk. For instance, the bhagavat and sāvaka formulas at D III 58,4-6 and 272,5-8, respectively, start by identifying the places where bhagavat and sāriputta addressed the monks at Mātulā and Campā, respectively. since the variety of places that these suttantas identify in the introduction—Mātulā, for instance, only occurs once as a place name in the canon—one must conclude that the formula was not a kind of default introduction added at random to the preceding identification of the place where the bhagavat or the sāvaka gave his talk. Any other suggestion would be irrational. Although approximately two thirds of the formulas identify the place as sāvatthī, the topographical information contained in other introductions shows that the use of the formula was not restricted to talks given in sāvatthī. For instance, the bhagavat propounded the Mūlapariyāyasuttanta, M I 1, to the monks in subhagavana at ukkaṭṭhā that is hardly ever mentioned in the canon.39 In every case where the bhagavat or sāvaka formula occurs, the addressees are the monks. Thus, the conclusion is inevitable: the use of the formula is restricted to talks given to the monks. It would seem odd that the tradition would keep the vocative bhikkhave in the text itself but alter the introduction, as if the compilers of the canon were ignorant of the prosodical distinction between bhikkhavo and bhikkhave.

§ 29. The evidence thus shows that the bhagavat fomula syntactically is an integral part of the suttanta in which it occurs. The sāvaka version not only introduces talks that emminent sāvakas gave to the monks, but occasionally the compilers also introduced it in the middle of a suttanta, when describing how the Buddha lets an emminent sāvaka take on the responsibility to develop his own discourse. Thus, there is no cogent reason for assuming that the bhagavat and sāvaka formulas are in any way later than other suttanta introductions. The formulas as such are an indication of the text category to which the suttanta they introduce belong: they record talks that the Buddha or eminent sāvakas gave specifically to the monks at a well-known place, without any additional information about the circumstances that caused the Buddha or the sāvaka to address them. It is therefore understandable that the Majjhimanikāya, which appears to be a text collection primarily meant for the use of monks, contains a substantial number of examples of the bhagavat formula. Thus, the formal features of the bhagavat formula are structural from a literary point of view, contrasting with other types of canonical discourse directed to people other than the monks.

§ 30. In the Vinaya, there is only one example of the solemn initiation formula ehi bhikkhū ti. It occurs in the Mahāvagga narrative about the conversion of Aññātakoṇḍañña who was the first convert. his story is related at Vin I 12,23-24. However, the use of the formula ehi bhikkhū ti is not confined to the Vinaya, it is also attested in the narrative about the conversion of the robber Aṅgulimāla recorded at M II 100,11*: tam “ehi bhikkhū” ti tadā avoca. th 625 records a similar phrase: “ehi bhikkhū” ti maṃ āha.40 There is, therefore, no reason to assume that it represents a recent addition to the canonical language because it is also reflected in the way the Buddha is described as addressing Māluṅkyāputta at M I 428,16-18: ehi tvaṃ Māluṅkyāputta mayi brahmacariyaṃ cara ff., which may well have served as a literary model for the initiation formula. The use of ehi underlines the solemnity of the utterance, which has an analogous brahmanical counterpart in the solemn haviṣkṛt expression“ehi” that is described as vācaṃ śantatamaṃ “the most solemn (form) of speech”41 at Śatapathabrāhmaṇa I.1.4.2.42 The version in the plural “etha bhikkhavo ti” that is used in situations describing the joint initiation of monks only occurs in the Vinaya. The compilers most likely composed it on the analogy of the version in the singular. The fact that it is limited to the Vinaya, however, is not a valid reason for concluding that the formula “etha bhikkhavo” ti is a later addition to the canon because the use of bhikkhavo ti is syntactically analogous to the other canonical examples of its use initially in a sentence. In the case of both formulas, one cannot exclude the possibility that bhikkhū ti and bhikkhavo ti are instances of the use of pluti, as suggested in the case of bhaddantavā ti quoted above. Consequently, the use of bhikkhavo ti in the ordination formula has no chronological implications, its usage being intrinsic to the prosodical structure of the language of the Pāli canon.

§ 31. the evidence thus justifies the conclusion that the use of bhikkhavo and bhikkhave in the Pāli canon reflects contemporary verse and prose structures. Thus, it is linguistically irrelevant to speculate whether bhikkhave historically originated in another linguistic context than bhikkhavo: their usage presupposes syntactical features and prosodies that are intrinsic to the language of the Pāli canon. Therefore, the assumption that the occurrence of bhikkhave in Pācittiya 71 and Nissaggiya Pācittiya 10 of the Pātimokkha is a reflex of its early “eastern” redaction is baseless, as the syntax of the two passages in which the vocative occurs is similar to the general syntactical constraints on the use of bhikkhave as shown above.[^43]

§ 32. The failure to understand the prosodical function of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo in the context of the language of the Pāli canon stems from addressing linguistic problems ad hoc, without considering whether the distributional pattern of the two forms would corroborate the suggested interpretations. In the final analysis, the failure to suggest a plausible linguistic analysis of the distributional pattern of bhikkhave and bhikkhavo is a matter of a flawed methodology; and a flawed methodology leads invariably to wrong conclusions. The present study shows, I believe, that it is necessary to study the language of the tipiṭaka as a language sui generis and not as a random patchwork of borrowings from other linguistic environments, inter alia “eastern” ones. It puts the immanent structure of the language of the Pāli canon at the centre of analysis and illustrates the futility of addressing linguistic problems atomistically, without consideration as to whether or not the suggested analyses are compatible with the evidence recorded in the canon itself. To conclude in tweedledee’s sense of logic: if the vocative bhikkhave linguistically were a Māgadhism it would be justified to infer that it is a vestige of another linguistic environment, “but as it isn’t, so it ain’t.”

References

Bechert, h. 1980. ‘Allgemeine Bemerkungen zum thema “Die sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung”.’ In Die Sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung, ed. by h. Bechert. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Phil.-hist. klasse. Dritte Folge, nr. 117. Göttingen.

Bode, Mabel haynes. 1909. The Pali Literature of Burma. royal Asiatic society. Dutt, sukumar. 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India. London.

Geiger, Wilhelm. 1916. Pāli Litteratur und Sprache (Grundriss der Indoarischen Philologie und Altertumskunde. Bd. 1. h. 7). strassburg.

v. hinüber, oskar. 2001. Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

43 Cf. e.g. Dutt (1962: 68, note 6 with references).

Lüders, h. 1954. Beobachungen über die Sprache des buddhistischen Urkanons. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst. Jahrgang 1952 nr. 10. Berlin.

Pind, o.h. 1997. ‘Pāli Grammar and Grammarians from Buddhaghosa to

Vajirabuddhi. A Survey’. Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo kenkyu) XXVI. Pischel, r. 1900. Grammatik der Prakrit-sprachen. strassburg, karl J. trübner.

renou, Louis. 1916. Grammaire Sanskrite Élémentaire. Paris, Librairie D’Amérique et D’orient.

trenckner, V. 1879. Pāli Miscellany, Part I. London, Williams and norgate. Wangle, n. 1962. Society at the time of the Buddha. Bombay.

Footnotes

  1. Cf. e.g. Geiger (1916, § 82.5). For an overview of the arguments for “Māgadhisms” in the Pāli canon, cf. Bechert (1980: 24-34). ↩

  2. Lüders (1954). Cf. Geiger (1916:§105.2) on seyyathā (“māgadhisierende” se). ↩

  3. Allegedly completed in 1154 A.D.; cf. Mabel haynes Bode (1909: 16). ↩

  4. It is interesting in the present context that the only recorded example of Ardha-Māgadhī vocative plural bhikkhavo also occurs in verse at sūyag verse 157 (text ˚kkhuvo read ˚kkhavo ?); Pischel (1900: §381, in fine). ↩

  5. Qu. sadd 190, 17 with yācanti for tiṭṭhanti, cf. sn 566. ↩

  6. = nidd I 505, 20* reading paṇḍitā for bhikkh°. ↩

  7. the earliest of the extant indigenous Pāli grammars, Kaccāyanabyākaraṇam, does not record the nominative and accusative plural bhikkhavo, which indicates that the infrequent occurrence of these forms in the canon went unnoticed by the early grammarians. ↩

  8. Cf. M I 95,20 (Mahāmoggallāno), A V 94,13 (sāriputta), A V 155,29 (Mahāmoggallāna), A V 164,21 read bhikkhavo ti; similarly A V 41,29 (Mahācundo), 123,8 (sāriputta), 157,23 (Mahācunda), 162,1 (Mahākassapa), and 315,2 (sāriputta), for which the editor recorded the Burmese v.ll. bhikkhave. ↩

  9. except the examples mentioned above, the following list records all remaining instances. As will appear most of these occur in A. the Burmese readings are throughout bhikkhave, the corresponding Sinhalese ones, however, are bhikkhavo; instances of bhikkhave apparently stem from Burmese mss. the names of the respective sāvakas are quoted in brackets: M I 24,14: ee bhikkhavo (sāriputta); 46,18: ee bhikkhavo, om. āvuso (sāriputta); 184,24: ee bhikkhavo (sāriputta); III 249,2: ee bhikkhavo (sāriputta);—s II 274,8: ee bhikkhave (sāriputta); s III 105,6: ee bhikkhavo (Mahānanda); IV 184,16: ee °ve (Mahāmoggallāna); 263,2: ee °vo, v.l. °ve (Mahāmoggallāna);—A II 144,1: ee °ve (sāriputta); 156,36: ee °vo (Mahānanda); 160,20: ee °vo (sāriputta); III 186,14: ee °vo (sāriputta); 190,25: ee °vo (sāriputta); 314,18: ee °vo (Mahākaccāno); 355,4: ee °vo (Mahācundo); IV 426,18: ee °vo (Mahānanda); V 41,29: ee °vo (Mahācundo); 94,13: °vo (sāriputta); 102,23: ee °vo (sāriputta); 123,8: ee °vo v.l. °ve (sāriputta); 126,8: ee °vo (sāriputta); 155,24: ee °vo (Mahāmoggallāna); 157,33: ee °vo (Mahācunda); 162,1: ee °vo v.l. °ve (Mahākassapa); 315,3: ee °vo v.l. °ve (sāriputta). ↩

  10. For occurrences that identify the place where the Buddha gave his talk to the monks, cf. § 28 below. ↩

  11. Cf. sv-pṭ III 354,3: = sāvakānaṃ āmantanavasena ālapanasamudācāro, na kevalaṃ bhikkhave ti, so pana buddhānaṃ ālapanaṃ. ↩

  12. ālapanaṃ is the term that denotes the voc. in the canon. It is used in the same sense by the early Pāli grammarians, e.g., at kacc §57. ↩

  13. For the spelling of this term and its linguistic implications, cf. §20ff below. ↩

  14. For a lucid analysis of the use of respect language in the context of social intercourse as recorded in the Pāli canon, cf. Wangle (1962). ↩

  15. Cf. e.g. Ps I 13,29: bhikkhavo ti āmantanākāradīpanaṁ (ad M I 1,6: bhikkhavo). ↩

  16. one example is found at D III 272,5; another at M I 46,18 (reading bhikkhavo ti om. āvuso [sic]). ↩

  17. Qu. sadd 190,24. ↩

  18. Cf. Vin I 12,37; 13,15; 19,30; 20,28; 33,10,26; 34,3; 43,4; the formula is often quoted by the ct.s, e.g. at Mp I 152, satthā “etha bhikkhavo” ti hatthaṃ pasāresi; cf. e.g. Mp I 160,21; 202,20- 21; 206,18; 222,14-15; 302,5. ↩

  19. Its distribution in terms of the recorded occurrences in the various collections of the canon is 1. D: 3; 2. M: 45; 3. s: 34; 4. A: 33; 5. sn: 1 (Be bhaddante, cf. sn 78 note 2.) = s I 188,25* foll.; 6. ud: 1; 7. Paṭis: 4. ↩

  20. the correct reading is bhaddante, v. infra. ↩

  21. Cf. D suttantas 22, 26, 30;—M suttantas 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-20, 25, 28, 33, 34, 39, 45-47 49, 64, 65, 101-3, 106, 111-17, 120, 129-31, 137-39, 141, 148-49;—s I 155; 188; 216-18; 220; 222; 224ff; 231; 234-35; 237, 240; II 1; 3; 43; 80; 107; 118; 153; 178; 186-87; 190; 225; 267; III 66; IV 1;—A III 1; 169; IV 1; 208; 216; 248; 302; 316; 320; 328; 351. ↩

  22. Cf. the less explicit interpretation at spk I 29,12ff: bhikkhavo ti tesaṃ āmantanākāradīpanaṃ. bhadante ti paṭivacanadānaṃ. ↩

  23. Cf. Ai.Gr. III § 235 e). ↩

  24. Cf. BhsD s.v. ↩

  25. Cf. his preface to M Vol. I p. 2 line 3. ↩

  26. trenckner drew attention to every example in his handwritten transcript of Majjhimanikāya. ↩

  27. Cf. L. renou (1916: § 8). ↩

  28. the reading bhadante is also possible in the pathyā cadence, cf. eV I: 205 n. ad th 527. ↩

  29. Cf. eV I: 205 ad. loc. (v. eV I § 41). ↩

  30. Cf. trenckner (1879: 69). ↩

  31. It is only in the linguistically hybrid Milindapañha and the aṭṭhakathās that we find bhante in sentence initial position, cf. the recurrent phrase*”bhante Nāgasena”* at Mil 28,29 ff; Mp I 37,9; 126,19. ↩

  32. ee w.r. bhaddanta vā at S loc. cit. ↩

  33. For pluti in sanskrit literature, cf. AiGr. I §255-257. ↩

  34. For pluti in MI, cf. the examples mentioned in von hinüber (2001: §311). ↩

  35. Cf., e.g., the use of atthi nāma, kathaṃ hi nāma and yatra hi nāma in Pāli stereotypes; cf. O.H. Pind, “Pāli Grammar and Grammarians from Buddhaghosa to Vajirabuddhi. A survey”, § 12, in Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo kenkyu) XXVI, 1997. ↩

  36. Ai.Gr. I § 248 b). ↩

  37. For the much debated question of accent in MI (in the Pāṇinian sense or any other sense), cf. von hinüber (2001: § 159). ↩

  38. Cf. idāni bhante, Vv 295 = 806; tuvaṃ ca bhante + 302 = 813; suṇohi bhante, Vv 650; ca adadaṃ bhante, Vv 695, 793, 893, 1146, 1163, sace hi bhante, Vv 1188; Pv 98, 111, 133; naggo kiso pabbajito ’si bhante, 246, 278, 335, 371, mātā pitā ca te bhante duggatā yamalokikā, Pv 412, 419ff, 564 ff. ↩

  39. I list below 55 examples of places mentioned in the context of the use of the bhagavat and sāvaka formulas, excluding those referring to sāvatthī: 1. D III 58,3. 2. D III 272,3. 3. M I 1,4f. 4. M I 95,7. 5. M I 225,2. 6. M I 281,2. 7. M II 214,2f. 8. M II 238,8. 9. M II 262,21. 10. M III 68,2. 1. M III 248,2. 12. s I 105,2. 13. s I 105,19. 14. s I 108,10. 15. s I 108,25. 16 s I 231,23. 17. s II 107,7. 18. s II 153,20. 19 s II 185,7. 20. s II 263,13. 21. s V 144,12. 22. s V 227,12. 23. A I 111,33. 24. A I 274,2. 25. A I 276,11. 26. A I 291,22. 27. A II 1,5. 28. A II 24,29. 29. A II 79,9. 30. A II 156,34. 31. A II 160,19. 32. A II 167,29f. 33 A III 169,10f. 34. A III 303,24f. 35. A III 355,2f. 36. A IV 100,2f. 37. A IV 162,2. 38. A IV 208,18. 39 A IV 212,19f. 40. A IV 216,27. 41. A IV 317,23. 42. A IV 320,2. 43. A IV 402,23 (ee om. formula of greeting, cf. loc. cit. no. 6). 44. A IV 414,25. 45. A IV 426,16. 46. A V 41,27. 47. A V 79,5. 48. A V 157,21. 49. A V 161,29. 50. A V 164,20. 51. A V 315,2. 52. A V 316,11. 53. A V 326,21. 54. A V 354,24. 55. A V 357,16. ↩

  40. the fact that th-a is claiming that the formula at th 625 is due to the saṅgītikāras does not indicate later usage because as already mentioned the use of ehi with the same intention also occurs in Buddha’s talk to Māluṅkyāputta. ↩

  41. It represents the haviṣkṛt proper to a brāhmaṇa; cf. Śatapathabrāhmaṇa loc. cit. and āpastamba Śrautasūtra I.19.9: haviṣkṛd ehīti brāhmaṇasya. ↩

  42. Cf. loc. cit.: etad u ha vai vācaḥ śāntatamaṃ yad ehīti; Abhidh-k-trsl. III p. 61 no. 3: “on a comparé Śatapatha, i.1,4,2.” ↩

Graph View

Backlinks