[Buddha-l] Sanskrit speaking Buddha

[Joy Vriens]

Dear Jim,

> Please do not misquote me.  I DID NOT SAY that there is no reason to 
> believe the Buddha knew Sanskrit.  I wrote,

> "I think it would be more accurate to say there is every reason to 
> believe the Buddha did NOT teach in Sanskrit."

Yes, that is clearer to me, since the message that sparked off the 
discussion said "There is every reason to beleive that the Buddha spoke 
Sanskrit, and was educated in Sanskrit". Malcolm himself didn't mention 
*teaching* in Sanskrit. I like and appreciate the life story of the 
Buddha and find it inspiring, but think his role in what finally evolved 
into the Buddhist canon is considerably smaller then I was initially 
taught.

> It is well know that the Buddha taught in local vernacular languages so 
> as to increase accessibility of the teachings and not limit his audience 
> to male Brahmins, the only people who knew Sanskrit in "India" at the 
> time.

Yes that is very plausible, although I am not sure about the intent ("as 
to"). It probably simply happened that way naturally.

   Whether or not the Buddha KNEW Sanskrit is another question, but
> I do not see what it has to do with plagiarizing.  Maybe you can help me 
> out on this one.

I don't know understand why the question whether the Buddha knew 
Sanskrit or not is of any importance, or what that proves or disproves. 
But it is clear to me that he or the authors of his utterances were 
educated men, with access to texts of other traditions. Some of the 
words, notions, analogies attributed to the Buddha were very likely 
allusions to or quotations or caricatures of e.g. Brahmanist texts. In 
those happy times plagiarism didn't exist and was rightly considered as 
a mark of respect and consideration and not as an attempt to steal 
revenu, so I was exaggerating a bit by calling it plagiarizing.

Best wishes,

Joy