1 – 5 of 5
Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, August 01, 2008

Anonymous rafa said...

Thank you

Why do you believe did the ancient prefer oral transmission versus a written transmission. Am I assuming wrong? Was it just a matter of written language not being available or was there a real preference to one over the other?

Thank you kindly for sharing of your work and research...

Namaste,

Rafa
OmBliss Tantra Kriya Yoga Workshops and Retreats

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Blogger Jayarava said...

There are some scholars who believe that the Indus script (associated with the civilisation at Harrapa and similar sites) was a fore-runner of Brahmi-lipi, but I tend to side with those , especially Michael Witzel, who say it is not. Just as Asoka himself and his edict were completely forgotten by later generations, the Indus civilisation and its writing (if that is what it was) disappeared from India.

So at the time of the composition of the Ṛgveda I think it is unlikely that writing existed in India. However the Achaemanid Persians who ruled as far as the Indus River (ca 558-380 BC) did use writing. They used a form of Aramaic. Rhys Davids points to references to writing into the Buddhist canon (in Buddhist India) - though it is often said that there are no references to writing in the canon by contemporary scholars - I'm not sure if this means they have refuted RD or disregarded him, or what. I think there was writing in North India at the time of the Buddha, and that it was introduced by Persians.

So at least by about the beginning of the 6th century BC there was writing, but it was not employed by Buddhists until about the 1st century BC in Sri Lanka, and perhaps 1 or 2 centuries later in the North - in Gāndhāra (the former Persian province, which is now the Nth Wst of Pakistan - Taliban country).

So why not use it? Tradition by that point had become very much focused on memory. The 1028 hynms of the RV were memorised, as were the verses of the Sama and Yajur Vedas, and the many auxiliary texts. A lot of time and effort had been invested into the process and it was built into the tradition. Oral learning was an art form then; perhaps never equalled elsewhere.

The system was so successful that even when the Vedic language was no longer fully understood it was accurately transmitted.

Further more as time went on and the system of caste (ie specifically jati rather than varna) developed, the Brahmin castes were concerned to preserve their dominance, and one way to do this was to make sure that the texts could only be learned by other Brahmins. The tradition was taught face to face, from master to disciple over a period of many years, which meant that it was very hard to break their monopoly on ritual, and therefore society. The face to face tradition has other value as well of course.

But why would Buddhists also be resistant? They tended to be dismissive of Vedic traditions on many things - the Buddha forbade monks from rendering his teaching as Sanskrit verse in imitation of the Vedas for instance. The answer is that we don't know. It's not clear from the texts, although it is clear that Buddhists also put a lot of store on the oral learning and memorisation of texts. The Buddha often talks of remembering teachings.

One answer may have been that the Buddha was illiterate. This would not have been uncommon in his world where probably only merchants used writing. Also his early followers were other ascetics who lived without possessions and wandered about. Memory is very portable!

Writing materials which were light and durable took time to develop. By about 1st or 2nd centuries birch bark was being used - we know because several manuscripts from Gāndhāra survive from this period. Prior to that rock carved writing seems to be all that has survived. Perhaps writing was seen either as monumental and therefore not something ascetics could undertake (it involves tools and being employed by others etc); or it was not as reliable and long lasting as memory anyway. Early Karoṣṭhī hand writing, for instance, tends to be quite messy and inconsistent - real calligraphy took a few centuries to come along.

Finally we may say that memorising a text is a good exercise in making the mind do as one wants - it is a good discipline. Perhaps it was seen as having intrinsic value in a milieu that saw training the mind as a key step towards liberation.

A lot of this is speculative and views are disputed by scholars.

Best wishes
Jayarava

Friday, August 08, 2008

Anonymous Alan said...

"The Buddha forbade monks from rendering his teaching as Sanskrit verse in imitation of the Vedas for instance."

Interesting. Do you have a sutta reference?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Blogger Jayarava said...

It's not in the suttas, it's in the Vinaya. Vin 5.33.1. Vol V, p.193 in Horner's translation. The interpretation of the passage is disputed. Two Brahmins ask the Buddha if they can put the Dhamma into "chandaso". The Buddha declares that the Dharma is not to put into chandaso, and makes it a dukkata offence. He says that each should learn the Dhamma in his own dialect.

Different scholars have different takes on this. Mine is that chandaso is a reference to the study of Sanskrit verse, and that at the very least they are asking to versify the Dhamma. Since there is already plenty of verse in the Dhamma it seems daft to forbid making verses; the context supports the idea that the kind of verse they are suggesting is the Vedic verse. This is supported by the commentarial gloss.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot