Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

Understanding Mgadh:
The Pure Speech of the Buddha
Mahesh A. Deokar
The Buddha consciously chose to teach his doctrine in the language of
the masses. The area of his discourses roughly corresponds to the area
of the then newly emerging empires of Magadha and Kosala. Hence,
the language is popularly known as Mgadh the language of the
Magadha region. According to the Theravdins, this was the language
in which they preserved their canon. In the modern age, the same is
called Pli: the language of the Buddhist Canon.
1. The Theravda Approach Towards Mgadh
The issue of language purity has been important in the overall
Indian discourse on language. The ramaic tradition in general and
Buddhist tradition in particular challenged the Brahmanic idea of the
pure language by consciously choosing to teach their doctrine in the
language of the masses. The Buddha redefined the concept of pure or
good speech by giving prominence to the intention and contents of the
language over its outer form. According to him, the language endowed
with four qualities of being beneficial (subhsita or attha), being
righteous (dhamma), being pleasant (piya), and being true (sacca) is
a well-spoken speech.1 Commenting on this, Buddhaghosa remarked:
The speech endowed with these four qualities should be known
as a good speech even if it is a language of the mlecchas, or the
language of the songs of the maid-servants. On the basis of its
being an excellent speech alone, it is regarded to be faultless and
free from blame by learned noble men who are seeking wellbeing relying on meaning and not on letters.2

The Buddha also rejected adherence to any particular language or

expression. He opposed the idea of a single sacred language and
asked his followers to give up insistence on the provincial dialect and

JCBSSL VOL. X

divergence from the general linguistic usage. Explaining this further,

the Buddha said:
One should not insist on local language, and one should not
override normal usage. This is the summary of the exposition
of non-conflict. 3

For the Buddha, learning or repeating his doctrine in ones own language
did not amount to corruption of his teaching.4
However, it was very difficult for the Buddhas disciples to maintain
the same attitude towards the language of his teaching i.e. Mgadh
or Pli once it assumed the form of a standard sacred language. As
it is well-known, the Buddha is declared to be the best speaker.5 His
teaching is said to be accomplished not only in meaning but also in
expression.6 Whatever words he spoke are declared to be well-spoken.7
This resulted in giving sacred status not only to the thoughts but also to
the words of the Buddha.
Eventually, after the passing away of the Buddha, when the Buddhas
teaching was collected in the form of the Buddhist Canon, utmost care
seems to have been taken to preserve the words of the Buddha in thier
pristine purity. The Arhats who were chosen for this particular purpose
were all said to be endowed with four paisabhids analytical
insights (however, more correctly, pratisavid special knowledge
in Sanskrit).8 The four analytical insights include attha analysis of
meanings in extension; dhamma of reasons, conditions, or causal
relations; nirutti of [meanings in intension as given in] definitions;
paibhna of intellect to which things knowable by the foregoing
processes are presented.9 It is noteworthy that the commentary of the
Itivuttaka explains niruttipaisabhid in the following terms:
The flawless communication with respect to these meanings and
Dhamma is called genuine linguistic usage. The knowledge as to
what is genuine speech and what is not with respect to Mgadh,
which is the genuine linguistic usage and the root language of all
beings, is called analytical knowledge into the linguistic usage.10

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

This exactly has been the stand of the Nirutti and the grammatical
tradition in Pli.
As is well-known, the Tipiaka was then handed down orally through
the generations of teachers called bhakas. The monks specialized
in the retention of the Canon are also called dhammarakkhas i.e. the
guardians of the Dhamma. Among various other essential qualities of
such a monk, the quality of remembering the teachings in its correct
linguistic form assumed great significance during the time of the
composition of the Milindapaha.11
The Theravda tradition in line with the Vedic tradition also attached
significance to the correct and unfaultered speech especially during
religious performances and monastic legal matters. According to the
Ahakath tradition, while performing the paritta ceremony, the reciter
of a paritta should be endowed with the following three qualities:
1. He should have learnt the text fully without omitting a word or
a letter.
2. He should be reciting in an accomplished manner without
causing disaccord between the letters and the meaning.
3. He should be reciting with loving kindness without desire for
earning profit.
The paritta chanted without these qualities is said to be ineffective
and cannot yield the expected result.12 Similarly, the procedure of
admission into the Sagha (pabbajj) is not said to be accomplished
if the formula of taking refuge in the triple gem (tisaraagamana)
is not uttered correctly.13 Any monastic legal procedure is said to be
corrupt if the formula of legal procedure (kammavc) is uttered
incorrectly. However, it is interesting to note that out of the ten types
of possible mispronunciation, the mispronunciation as to aspirates
(dhanita) and non-aspirates (sithila) and nasalized (niggahita) and
unnasalised (vimutta) letters amounts to violation of the kammavc
whereas the mispronunciation with respect to long (dgha) and short
(rassa) vowels, metrically long (garu) and short (lahu) vowels and
euphony (sabaddha) or non-euphony (vavatthita) do not amount to
the violation.14 It seems that here the basic concern of the Ahakath is
whether the mispronunciation affects the meaning of the word or not.
3

JCBSSL VOL. X

The Theravda tradition declared Mgadh i.e. Pli as the Buddhas

own language (sak nirutti). Commenting on the expression sakya
niruttiy, Buddhaghosa says:
Here ones own language means the type of speech used by the
Enlightened One i.e. the Mgadh speech.15

It also claimed special status for the Mgadh by declaring it to be

the root language16 (mlabhs), natural language (sabhvanirutti)17
and the official language of Buddhism (dhammanirutti). It has also
been claimed that Mgadh is the mother of all languages including
Sanskrit.18 Ascribing such a special and sacred status to Pli seems to
be for challenging the supremacy of Brahmanism on the one hand, and
the authenticity of the non-Theravdin Buddhist sects on the other.
Here it is noteworthy that, Vedas and other sciences, which formed the
Brahmanic learning, were composed in Sanskrit language. The same
was also the case of the canons of the northern schools of Buddhism
such as Sarvstivda and Mlasarvstivda.
However, this in no way means that the Theravda tradition was against
Sanskrit. It is rather described as the language created by the holy men
or the language to be revered by those men desirous of well-being.19
In fact, it is quite well-known that the study of Sanskrit formed an
important part of the monastic education over the years in Sri Lanka
and Myanmar. However, in some of the later sub-commentaries, we
do see harder stand against Sanskrit. Commenting on the issue of sak
nirutti, Vinayasagahak says that it is not proper to put the words of
the Buddha in Sanskrit in line with the Vedas.20 On the same issue, the
Vinayavinicchayak describes Sanskrit as the faultered speech, just
as the Sanskrit grammarians did in the case of languages other than
Sanskrit.21
Thus, the traditional approach of the Theravdins to the issue of the
language purity or the correctness of the speech seems to have three
aspects. Firstly, the language of the Canon is pure and sacred because,
it is uttered by none other than the Buddha and therefore, it is to be
preserved in its pristine purity. Hence, the principle of taking refuge
in the meaning and not in the letters, which holds good outside the
canon, does not apply to the words of the Buddha. Secondly, the use
4

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

of correct speech in the religious and the official monastic affairs is

necessary for the communication of the desired meaning. Even though
the tradition acknowledges the special power of paritta, it is mainly
because of the purity of intention than the purity of speech. Thirdly,
Mgadh, which was a provincial language, was given a sacred status
in order to challenge the hegemony of Sanskrit.
2. What is Genuine Mgadh: Grammarians Approach
During the period of Pli renaissance starting from the fourth century
the indigenous tradition of Pli grammar developed basically to satisfy
the pedagogic needs of the monastic community. The indigenous Pli
grammarians upheld the view-point of the commentarial tradition with
sincerity. The Pli grammatical tradition propagated that Mgadh is
the root language through which human beings of the first eon, Brahm
gods, children who have not heard any language and the enlightened
ones speak.22 Sri Rhula in his Padasdhanak quotes two verses
from the Niruttisavaan (= Majs?), of which the first one is also
quoted by Aggavasa in his Saddanti (p. 924) stating that Jina has not
propounded the Dhamma except in Magadha language.23 They referred
to it as ariyavohra the language of communication of the noble ones
(Sadd 617).
The Pli grammarians emphasized the knowledge of the correct form
of Mgadh and considered it to be the purpose of their grammar.
According to the Kaccyana grammar:
The meaning of all utterances is expressed by letters, for when
there is deficiency in letters, the meaning is led astray. Therefore,
knowledge of letters is very beneficial with respect to the
discourses (suttantas).24

Thus, according to the Kaccyana-Vutti, the purpose of grammar is to

lead one to the correct speech, which is responsible for understanding
correct meaning of the canonical text.
Although Kaccyanas grammar describes broad features of Pli,
it does not talk about the other significant linguistic issues such as
distinction between the genuine and pseudo-Mgadh forms etc.
5

JCBSSL VOL. X

Though Kaccyana seems to be acquainted with Sanskrit, as is clear

from his rule parasama payoge (Kaccyana I.1.9), he does not talk
of Sanskritisms in Pli or the tendency of Sanskritisation of Pli. It is
noteworthy that Kaccyana II.1.18 dito o ca describes the form do,
which occurs for the first time in the Vinayavaan (Pind 1997: 34)
without treating it as Sanskritism.
The elder Moggallna of the Thprma monastery of Anuradhapura
who composed a new grammar of Pli called mgadha saddalakkhaa
the grammar of the Magadha language perhaps in 1165 CE was an
erudite scholar of Sanskrit as well. However, he has also not discussed
these issues in his grammar.
Aggavasa, (= Agg) the twelfth century (?) Myanmese Pli
grammarian, for the first time discussed these issues in his grammar, the
Saddanti (= Sadd). Sadd is written in the tradition of the Ahakaths.
Though its basic purpose is to make listeners equipped with the
linguistic understanding essential for grasping the true meaning of the
Canon as well as commentaries, it also provides important guidelines
for contemporary writers. According to Agg, his Sadd is more than a
grammar as it is composed with the purpose of bringing out correct and
incorrect words and meanings by churning Pli in a variety of ways.25
Agg in his writing showed great concern for the correct form of
Mgadh. His Sadd exhibits much deeper understanding of Mgadh
and the literature thereof. He distinguished different levels and varieties
of Mgadh and dealt with them in different ways. Thus he talked about
fourfold nayas viz. pinaya peculiarities of the canonical usage,
ahakathnaya peculiarities of the commentarial usage, knaya
peculiarities of the sub-commentarial usage and pakaraantaranaya
the usage of the other texts.26 He also discusses about the language
of the prose (gajja), poetry (pajja), metrical (gth), explanatory
(pvacana) etc. He taught the correct form of Mgadh in two ways:
(1) by regulating the correct pronunciation and by describing the
grammatically correct forms with the help of phonetic rules called
sikkhvidhna and others (2) by pointing out pseudo-Mgadh forms
or Sanskritism in Pli.

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

Agg pointed out and rejected Sanskritism that was creeping in to

Mgadh as a result of the tendency of some teachers who were trained
in Sanskrit to use pseudo-Pli forms analogous to Sanskrit, without
comparing them with the Pli usage,27 for example, sandhi forms like
lat + iva = lateva,28 patin + iva = patineva (Sadd, rule 40, p. 614);
forms like tejass instead of tejas (Sadd rule 789, p. 793), candam
instead of candim (Sadd rule 794, p. 793), laghim instead of lahim
(Sadd rule 1277, p. 867), compounds like sakkadatta and brahmadatta
instead of sakkadattiya and brahmadattiya, (Sadd rule 749, p. 78182) participles and verbal forms like uttam, uccate, uccante instead
of vuttam, vuccate, vuccante. (Sadd p. 336) According to Agg, such
forms neither occur in the dispensation nor are they accepted by the
commentators. However, according to him, this does not mean that
only those forms occurring in the Tipiaka are accepted as genuine Pli
forms. The forms like vacati, vacanti though not found either in the
dispensation or in the commentary on any other stra, they should
be accepted as proper Mgadh forms as their other paradigms such
as the non-causal forms avaca, avacisu, and causal forms like vceti,
vcenti are available in the dispensation.29
On a number of occasions, Agg underlined peculiarities of Mgadh
by comparing the Pli and the Sanskrit forms, for example, the forms
candbh and candarbh, wherein the former is analogous to the
Sanskrit form candrbh, whereas the latter is a genuine Pli form with
svarabhakti disjunction of a conjunct by inserting a vowel. (Sadd rule
532) The phenomenon of svarabhakti is responsible for quite a few
peculiar Mgadh forms diverse from Sanskrit, for example, sattva
/ sattava, padma / paduma, svmin / suvmin, agni / aggini. (Sadd,
Padaml, p. 186) Another interesting example is that of the form
datta, which is common to both the languages. However, in Pli, the
form always occurs in a compound but never as an uncompounded
participle as in the case of Sanskrit. (Sadd rule 748, p. 781) In Pli,
the indeclinable iti always loses its initial i when ti does not change to
cca as a result of sandhi. Hence, the sandhi form ity atra as in case of
Sanskrit is never used either in the Tipiaka or in the Ahakaths (Sadd,
rule 48, p. 616).

JCBSSL VOL. X

In the case of some alternative forms where one certainly looks like
Pli but the other is close to Sanskrit, the forms that are not attested in
the pvacana are labeled as borrowings from Sanskrit, for example, the
form garu is Pli but the form guru is Sanskrit, rhi, nirha, rha are
Pli, whereas rhi, nirha, rha are Sanskrit, kiriy is Pli but kriy
is Sanskrit. 30 However, all those forms, which look like Sanskrit, but are
attested in the Canon are accepted as genuine Pli forms, for example,
krubbati, gryati, klesa, saklesa, kliha, sakliha, padma, svm,
sneha, asnti, ratna etc. 31 Even the form kriy though not attested in the
Canon, is accepted as it is accepted by the commentators (Dhtuml
section XVII, p. 516).
Thus, the canonical forms that are close to Sanskrit are not rejected
as obvious cases of Sanskritism, because, according to Agg, these are
genuine Pli forms as the Master, who is well-versed in the designation
of all the dhammas, does not utter his speech by adopting the usage of
Sanskrit language. He simply utters the speech and teaches the Dhamma
resorting to Mgadh, the language of the Dhamma. 32 Agg believes
that, grammar or linguistics does not always help in understanding the
Buddhas speech fully, it only helps partially. 33 For, although the popular
usage (lokavohra, lokikapayoga, lokanti), in most of the cases agrees
with the usage of the noble ones (ariyavohra), there are occasions
in terms of particular words, meanings and implications where they
disagree causing confusion in the understanding of the grammarians.
Therefore, in order to understand the linguistic usage of the Canon
correctly, one has to turn to the Canon and the exegetical tradition
thereupon. Thus it is said:
In spite of knowing the entire science of grammar, (scholars) are
confused with respect to the arrangement of text for in the text,
there are found usages that are contrary to the popular usage.
Therefore, a wise man having abandoned scholarship of other
traditions should train himself just here in this excellent ocean
of Dhamma leading to liberation. 34

This advice also holds good for some peculiar Pli forms, which can
cause confusion due to the phonetic similarity, for example, the forms
like vanappagumbe, ble, and paite, bearing the phonetic similarity
with the accusative plural and locative singular form are in fact pure
8

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

nominatives as per the usage of the Canon (Padaml section V, p.

128).
Moreover, Pli and Sanskrit usages not only disagree on the point of
word-form but also in the case of gender and number, for instance,
the word mano is neuter in Sanskrit whereas it is masculine in Pli
(Padaml Section V, p. 103). The word pa is feminine plural
in Sanskrit whereas it is used in neuter singular in the Ahaslin
(Padaml section V, p. 108). The word dr is masculine plural in
Sanskrit whereas in Pli, it is masculine and singular as well as plural.
The word dhtu is masculine in Sanskrit whereas feminine in Pli
(Sadd, rule 553, p. 700), jjavam (Skt. rjavam) is neuter in Sanskrit
whereas ajjavo is masculine in Pli with the shortening of the initial
(Sadd, rule 857, p. 807).
Similar diversity in the usage is also found in the area of syntax, for
instance, in Sanskrit, the dative relation is accepted in case of the
agent of the preceding action with respect to the verbal root pai +
s. However, according to experts of the canon, in the expression
bhagavato paccassosum, bhagavato should be treated as the genitive
form. In the example rajakassa vattha dadti He gives clothes to a
washer-man, rajaka is a dative relation (sapadna) on account of
being the recipient with respect to the act of giving even though the
clothes are to be returned later and are not given respectfully (Sadd,
rule 553, p. 700). It may be noted that according to some Sanskrit
grammarians, the dative relation is accepted only if the act of giving is
done with respect and the thing given is not to be returned back. In case
of a dative relation, the dative case ending is substituted by ya in case
of nominal stems ending in the letter a for example abhirpya dadti.
However, in Pli, such a substitution does not take place and the dative
suffix -ssa is added, for example abhirpassa dadti (Sadd, Padaml
section V, p. 130).
To the adherents of the science of grammar, Agg said that the Buddha
himself is a great grammarian, skilled in the verbal usage to whom
even the Brahmins, knowers of the Vedic words and grammar, and the
nigahas could not overcome in debate (Padaml Section V, p. 103).
He is not ready to accept any irregular form or usage in the canon as a
mistake while preaching. As he said, the Tathgata does not preach the
9

JCBSSL VOL. X

Dhamma without mindfulness and understanding (Padaml section

II, p. 18). Hence teachers who explain forms like sandhvissam or
upavasissam as a future tense used in the sense of past are rejected by
Agg accepting those forms as genuine forms of past tense:
As it is impossible that the Omniscient, All Knowing, Blessed
One who is extremely skilled in the popular usage would utter
future form instead of the past expressing the past tense. 35

There are certain usages in the canon, which exhibit the flavor
of popular speech (lokavohra), for example, na maharajanam
purisaknam purisaknam dyanti (Sadd rule 820, p. 796) where there
is no ekasesa single remainder as prescribed in the grammatical text
or forms like pabbatto instead of pabbatamh, jambudpto instead
of jambudpamh (Sadd, rule 858, p. 808). The Buddha skilled in
popular usage seems to have maintained these usages in the view of
the larger interest of the masses, said Agg and therefore, these are not
to be questioned. According to Agg, the Buddha out of his concern for
worthy audience avoided such usages, which would cause confusion
and consciously laid down the lineage in to the root language Mgadh,
which is a natural language. The noble disciples of the Buddha also
laid down the lineage exactly in accordance with it. They removed
whatever was worth removing in the speech of the gods etc. and fixed
in its place the pure letters. 36 This statement of Agg shows his high
respect for the Buddha and his disciples as well as towards the Mgadh
on the one hand and his strong emotions against the so called pollution
of Mgadh. It also suggests that during the Sagtis the compilers of
the canon might have done the exercise of replacing the so-called nonMgadh forms with the Mgadh ones.
Agg has given us a method of the so-called purification of Mgadh
from the non-Mgadh forms. This is in fact the parameter which he
has used to differentiate between Mgadh and non-Mgadh usages.
According to him,
1. Usages found in the Canon are genuine Mgadh usages.
2. Usages that are not available in the Canon but can be treated as
probable Mgadh forms on the basis of their other available
paradigms are genuine Mgadh forms.
10

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

3. The forms that are neither available in the canon nor probable
are non-Mgadh forms.
According to Agg, this knowledge is very subtle and is only available
in the Arhats having analytical insight (paisabhid) and not in the
common man (puthujjana). However, with the careful study of the
canonical usage, it is possible even for a common man to get some
idea of it. 37 It is, however, interesting to note that Agg does not talk of
borrowings from any other language especially the local languages.
One can find a reference to such a phenomenon in the Sratthadpan,
which states that some people have written some things on some topics
in Mgadh mixed with another language. 38
3. Concluding Remarks
To conclude, it is quite clear that the issue of language purity in the
Theravda tradition is post-canonical. It has resulted from the attitude
of the fifth century Theravdins, who tried to glorify Pli as a sacred
language. According to them, discrepancies in the pronunciation are
not tolerable because (1) It is the speech of the Buddha, and (2) It
distorts the meaning of the text. Since grammarians upheld the standpoint of the commentarial tradition, they whole-heartedly supported
the cause of language purity. On one hand, they regulated the correct
pronunciation of Pli and on the other tried to remove Sanskritisms to
ensure the use of genuine Pli. It is noteworthy that after a careful study
of the canonical and non-canonical Pli, a mechanism for differentiating
genuine Mgadh forms from the rest was developed. These insights
can prove quite useful for the students and scholars of Pli.

11

JCBSSL VOL. X

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Abhidhammvatra-abhinava-k.
Dhammagiri
Pli
Ganthamala
(Devanagari), Vol. 135, Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri
1998.
Kaccyanavykaraa. Ed. L. N. Tiwari and Birbal Sharma, Tara Publications.
Varanasi 1962.
Kaccyanavutti. See above.
Majjhima Nikya, Ed. R. Chalmers. Vol. III. PTS 1994. (First ed. 1899).
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Translated by Bhikkhu
amoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. PTS 2002.
Milindapaho with Milinda-k. Ed. V. Trenckner. PTS 1997. (First ed.
1880, Reprint Royal Asiatic Society Vol. V. 1928, reprint 1962,
reprint with Milinda-k, 1986).
Moggallna Vykaraa. Ed. Bhadanta Ananda Kausalyayana.
Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute. Hoshiarpur 1965.
Mohavicchedin. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari), Vol. 136,
Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Paramatthadpan (Itivuttaka-ahakath). Ed. M. M. Bose. PTS Reprint in
one volume 1977. (First ed. Vol. I 1934, Vol. II 1936).
Paramatthadpan (Udna-ahakath). Ed. F. L. Woodward, PTS 1977.
(First ed. 1926).
Paramatthajotik (Suttanipta-ahakath). Vol. I & II. Ed. H. Smith, PTS
1989. (First ed. 1916-1917. Reprint 1966.)
Paisabhidmagga-ahakath. Ed. C.V. Joshi. Vol. I. PTS Reprint 1979.
(First ed. 1933). Vol. II-III. Reprint in one volume 1979. (Vol. II.
First ed. 1941, Vol. III First ed. 1947).
Saddanti. La grammaire Palie dAggavasa. Texte tablie par Helmer
Smith. I. Padaml (Pariccheda I-XIV). Lund usw. 1928. II.
Dhtuml (Pariccheda XV-XIX). 1929. III. Suttaml (Pariccheda
XX-XXVIII). 1930. IV. Tables. 1e Partie. Textes cits, stras, racines,
morphmes, systme grammatical et mtrique. 1949. V: 1. 2. Tables.
2me Partie. Vocabulaire, additions, corrections. 1954 und
1966.
(Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund.
XII.1. 2. 3. 4. 5,1. 5,2.)
Samantapsdik (Vinaya-ahakath). Vol. I . Ed. J. Takakusu, and M.
Nagai. PTS Reprint 1975. (First ed. 1924). Vol. V. Ed. J. Takakusu,
M. Nagai, K. Mizuno. PTS Reprint 1998. (First ed. 1936, reprint
1966). Vol. VI. Ed. J. Takakusu, M. Nagai. PTS Reprint 1982. (First
ed. 1947). Vol. VII. Ed. J. Takakusu, M. Nagai, K. Mizuno. PTS
Reprint 1981. (First ed. 1947).
Sayuttanikya. Vol. I. Ed. M. Leonfer. Reprint Lancaster 2006. (First ed.
1884).
Sratthadpan-k. Part 1. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari), Vol.
96, Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Sumagalavilsin (Dghanikya-ahakath). Vol. III. Ed. W. Stede, PTS
1971. (First ed. 1932).

12

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

Suttanipta. Ed. D. Andersen, and H. Smith. PTS 1997. (1st published 1913).
Vibhaga-mlak. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari), Vol. 131,
Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Vinaylakrak, Part 2. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari), Vol.
105, Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Vinayapiaka, Vol. II Ed. H. Oldenberg. PTS 1995 (1st published 1880).
Vinayasagaha-Ahakath. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari),
Vol. 100, Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Vinayavinicchaya-k. Dhammagiri Pli Ganthamala (Devanagari), Vol.
109, Vipayan Viodhana Vinysa. Igatpuri 1998.
Visuddhimagga. Ed. C. A. F. Rhys Davids. PTS Reprint in one volume 1975.
(First ed. Vol. I 1920, Vol. II 1921).

Secondary Sources
Pind, O. H. (1997).
Pli Grammar and Grammarians From Buddhaghosa to Vajirabuddhi.
Bukkyo Kenkyu, Vol. XXVI, 23-88.
Rhys Davids and William Stede (1997).
Pli-English Dictionary. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
*****

13

JCBSSL VOL. X

Notes
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10

11

12

13

subhsitam uttamam hu santo, dhamma bhae ndhamma ta dutiyam /

piya bhae nppiya ta tatiya, sacca bhae nlika ta catutthan ti //
(Sn verse 450)
imehi cathi agehi samanngat vc sacepi milakkhubhspariypann,
ghaaceikgtikapariypann v hoti, tathpi subhsitti veditabb /
subhsitatt eva ca anavajj ca ananuvajj ca vina atthatthikna
kulaputtna atthapaisaranam, no byajanapaisaranan ti / (Pj II p.
398,8)
Bhikkhu amoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2002: 1080, 1084-85. Also cf. M III
p. 234,30: janapadanirutti nbhiniveseyya, samaa ntidhveyyti - ayam
uddeso araavibhagassa /
Cf. Vin II p. 139,14: na bhikkhave buddhavacana chandaso ropetabbam |
anujnmi bhikkhave sakya niruttiy buddhavacana pariypuitum |
na me diho ito pubbe, na suto uda kassaci | eva vagguvado satth, tusit gaim
gato // (Sn verse 961)
Cf. Sn p. 103,14: sttha sabbyajanam |
ya buddho bhsate vca, khema nibbnapattiy | dukkhassantakiriyya, s
ve vcnam uttam (S I p. 189,24)
thero
sakalanavagasatthussanapariyattidhare
puthujjana-sotpannasakadgmi-angmi-sukkhavipassaka-khsavabhikkh
anekasate
anekasahasse ca vajjetv tipiakasabbapariyattippabhedadhare paisa
bhidppatte mahnubhve yebhuyyena bhagavat etadaggam ropite
tevijjdibhede khnasavabhikkhyeva eknapacasate pariggahesi / (Sp p. 6,8)
Pli-English Dictionary, p. 400
tasmi atthe ca dhamme ca sabhvanirutti abyabhicravohro abhilpo,
tasmi sabhvaniruttbhilpe mgadhikya sabbasattna mlabhsya
aya sabhvanirutti, aya na sabhvaniruttti pabhedagata a
niruttipaisambhid (It-a p. 126,13; Ud-a p. 138,10 ditto). The same is also
elaborated at the Vism p. 441,29 and at the Pais-a p. 5,3.
ye pana te, mahrja, bhikkh bahussut gatgam dhammadhar vinayadhar
mtikdhar
sithiladhanitadgharassagarukalahukakkharaparicchedakusal
navagassanadhar, evarp kho, mahrja, bhikkh bhagavato dhammanagare
dhammarakkhti vuccanti / (Mil p. 343,29)
samatt pariyputti padabyajanni ahpetv paripua uggahit / atthampi
pimpi visavdetv sabbaso v pana appagua katv bhaantassa hi
paritta tejavanta na hoti, sabbaso pagua katv bhaantasseva tejavanta
hoti / lbhahetu uggahetv bhaantasspi attha na sdheti, nissaraapakkhe
hatv metta purecrika katv bhaantasseva atthya hotti dasseti / (Sv p.
968,18)
sace hi ekapadampi ekakkharampi uppaipiy deti, buddha saraayeva v
tikkhattu datv puna itaresu ekeka tikkhattu deti, adinnni honti sarani
/ tasm upasampadya sace cariyo attidosaceva kammavcdosaca
vajjetv kamma karoti, sukata hoti / pabbajjya pana imni ti sarani
bukradhakrdna byajanna hnakaraasampadam ahpenteneva

14

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

14

15
16
17

18

19
20

21

cariyenapi antevsikenapi vattabbni / sace cariyo vattu sakkoti, antevsiko

na sakkoti; antevsiko v sakkoti, cariyo na sakkoti; ubhopi v na sakkonti, na
vaati / sace pana ubhopi sakkonti, vaati / (Sp p. 969,13)
iti sithile kattabbe dhanita, dhanite kattabbe sithila, vimutte kattabbe
niggahita, niggahite kattabbe vimuttanti imni cattri byajanni
antokammavcya kamma dsenti / eva vadanto hi aasmi akkhare
vattabbe aa vadati, durutta karotti vuccati / itaresu pana dgharassdsu
chasu byajanesu dghahne dghameva, rassahne ca rassam evti eva
yathhne ta tadeva akkhara bhsantena anukkamgata pavei
avinsentena kammavc ktabb / sace pana eva akatv dghe vattabbe
rassa, rasse v vattabbe dgha vadati; tath garuke vattabbe lahuka, lahuke
v vattabbe garuka vadati; sambandhe v pana vattabbe vavatthita, vavatthite
v vattabbe sambandha vadati; eva vuttepi kammavc na kuppati / imni hi
cha byajanni kamma na kopenti / (Sp p. 1400,12)
sakya niruttiyti ettha sak nirutti nma sammsambuddhena vuttappakro
mgadhiko vohro / (Sp p. 1214,18)
sabhvaniruttti mgadhabhs adhippetti tato aa sakkaanmdisadda
sandhya (Vibhaga-mla-k, p. 193,17)
It is said to be natural as it has an unalienable relation with meaning and it
does not change as other languages. Cf. sabhvaniruttti avipartanirutti,
avipartaniruttti tassa tassa atthassa bodhane sabbakla painiyata
sabandho abyabhicravohro mgadhabhsti vutta hoti | s hi
sabbakla painiyatasambandho, itar bhs pana klantarena parivattanti
| (Abhidhammvatra-abhinava-k, Part 2, p. 224,12). However, according
to the Vibhagamlak, sometimes it does undergo a little change but it is
never lost absolutely. mgadh pana katthaci kadci parivattantpi na sabbattha
sabbad sabbath ca parivattati, kappavinsepi tihatiyevti (Vibhaga-mlak, p. 194,2)
sabhvaniruttti ca mgadhik bhs, yya sammsambuddh tepiaka
buddhavacana tanti ropenti, brahmno ca agmake arae kici
vacana asutv vahitadrak ca attano dhammatya bhsanti, y ca
apyesu manusse devaloke ceva mgadhabhs ussann, pacch ca tato
andhakayonakadamididesabhs ceva sakkatdiahrasamahbhs ca
nibbatt | (Mohavicchedin, p. 198,17)
santehi katti sakka, ahakavmakdhi samitappehi ishi katti attho | atha v
sakkaritabb pjitabbti sakka manussna hitasukhvahanato, tadatthikehi
manussehi pjitabbti attho | (Vinaylakrak, Part 2, p. 265,14)
anujnmi, bhikkhave, sakya niruttiy buddhavacana pariypuitunti
vacanato veda viya buddhavacana sakkaabhsya vcanmagga rocetu
na vaati (Vinayasagaha-Ahakath, p. 416,17)
aathti sakkadikhalitavacanamaya vcanmagga na ropetabba,
tath na hapetabbanti vutta hoti | (Vinayavinicchayak, p. 230,2).
Similar feelings about Sanskrit are also found in the Subodhlakrak.
Cf. rmasammdyalakr, santi santo purtan; tathpi tu vaajenti,
suddhamgadhik na te. suddhamgadhikti magadhesu bhav, tattha vidit
v magadh, sadd. te etesa santi, tesu v niyuttti mgadhik. suddh ca

15

JCBSSL VOL. X

22
23
24
25
26

27

28
29

30
31
32
33
34

35
36

sakkadibhsitaklusiybhvena visuddh, asammiss v aparicitatt te

mgadhik cti suddhamgadhik, yatipot | (Subodhlakrak BUR 8)
s mgadh mlabhs nar yydikappik | brahmno cassutlp sambuddh
cpi bhsare || (Rpasiddhi 60). Also Cf. Sadd (p. 208,22; 221,23; 632,4), which
refers to it as mlabhs or sabhvanirutti.
dhammo jinena magadhena vin na vutto | neruttik ca magadha vibhajanti tasm
|| neruttam eva munino vacannuklam || iccdaram matimat karayametthti ||
(Padasdhanak 401, 13-17)
sabbavacannam attho akkhareheva sayate | akkharavipattiya hi sati
atthassa dunnayat hoti, tasm akkharakosalla bahpakra suttantesu |
(Kaccyanavutti I.1.1)
yasm aya saddanti nma saddnam atthna ca yuttyuttippaksanattha
katrambhatt nnappakrena sabba magadhavohra sakhobhetv kathit
yeva sobhati na itarath (Sadd, p. 144,26)
tattha plinayo ahakathnayo knayo pakaraantaranayo ti cattro nay
adhippet | tatra pinayo ti tepiake buddhavacane pigati | ahakathnayo
ti ahakathsu gat saddagati | knayo ti ksu gat saddagati |
pakaraantaranayo ti aesu pakaraesu gat saddagati | (Sadd, Suttaml, p.
906,25)
keci pana sakkaabhsya kataparicay sakkaabhsya savahassanik
pinaya anoloketv brahmadatta cvaram; devadatto patto ti saddaracana
kubbisu, ta ssana patv na yujjati tdisassa guasaddassa ssane abhvato
ahakathcariyehi ca chaanato | (Sadd rule 749, p. 782,22)
Note that the sandhi form lateva has been illustrated by Moggallna under the
rule Moggallna Vykaraa I.28: na dve v |
ettha pan eke vadanti: vacati vacant ti dni kiriypadarpni buddhavacane
ahakath-ksu satthesu ca angatatt chaetabbn ti | tan na; yasm ssane
avaca avacis ti suddhakattupadni ca vceti vcent ti dni hetukattupadni
ca dissanti, tasm buddhavacandisu angatni pi vacate vacant ti dni rpni
gahetabbni | (Sadd p. 336,20)
Cf. Sadd excursus to section XXVIII, p. 923.
Cf. Sadd excursus to section XXVIII, p. 923.
na hi sabbadhammna paattikusalo sabba satth sakkaabhsto naya
gahetv vca bhsati, mgadhikya eva pana dhammaniruttiy vca bhsati
dhamma deseti (Sadd excursus to section XXVIII, p. 924,1)
saddasattha ca nma na sabbath buddhavacanassopakrakam, ekadesena
pana hoti | (Sadd, p. 110,1)
jnant saddasattham akhila muyanti phakkame | yebhuyyena hi
lokantividhur phe nay vijjare || paicca pi pahya bhiragatam ettheva
tasm budho | sikkheymaladhammasgaratare nibbnatitthpage || (Sadd,
Padaml section V, p. 129,2)
na hi lokavohresu stisaya kusalo sabbau sabbadass bhagav atte atthe
vattabbe taddpakam angatavacanam vadeyya | (Sadd rule 894, p. 819,21)
dhammisarena bhagavat dve sakantiyo vajjetv sabbasaddna
mlabhsbhtya mgadhikya sabhvaniruttiy tanti hapit | bhagavato
svakehi ariyehi tadanulomen eva tanti hapit | devatdna bhsitesu yam

16

Deokar: Understanding Mgadh: the Pure Speech of the Buddha

kici apanetabba hoti, tam apanayisu, suddha pana vacana ropayimsu |

(Sadd rule 149, p. 632,3)
37 Suttaml section XXVIII, p. 923
38 mgadhikya bhsya, rabhitvpi kenaci | bhsantarehi sammissa, likhita
kicideva ca || (Sratthadpan-k, Part 1, p. 2)

17