Two important claims about language follow from
the claim that linguistic interpretation is a species of
inference. First, it follows that since all inference is fal-
lible, any knowledge communicated through any lan-
guage is also fallible. Second, it follows that since the
knowledge gained through inference is much more
vague and imprecise than knowledge gained through
direct experience, linguistically communicated knowl-
edge is much less precise and of lower practical value
than knowledge gained through direct experience. This
means that any body of scripture, whether the Veda or
the canonical literature of Buddhism, is of limited
value. Only personal experience can be fully trusted.
DHARMAKIRTI(ca. 600–ca. 660) and other Buddhists
who followed Dignaga argued that what made Bud-
dhist canonical literature valuable was that it contained
advice that, when followed properly, would help peo-
ple reduce the amount of suffering that they experi-
ence in the world. Buddhist canonical sources, in other
words, were seen as valuable not because they tell the
truth, as the Brahmans claimed the Vedas do, but be-
cause they suggest methods by which people may dis-
cover the truth for themselves.
Although Indian Buddhist apologists were critical
of many Brahmanical views concerning language, one
belief that was never questioned was that MANTRAShad
the power to heal and achieve various other results in
the physical world. The Buddha forbade monks utter-
ing mantras for material gain, but he also forbade
monks the practice of MEDICINEfor profit. The warn-
ing against mantras was therefore only against the
Brahmanical practice of reciting them for material re-
ward. Philosophers such as Dharmakrti and his fol-
lowers, while being opposed to the recitation of
mantras for personal rewards, expressed their convic-
tion that mantras have the power to alter conditions
in the material world and thus must be used with dis-
cretion and compassion.
See also: Buddhavacana (Word of the Buddha);
Dharanl; Languages; Logic
Bibliography
Ganeri, Jonardon. Philosophy in Classical India.London: Rout-
ledge, 2001.
Hayes, Richard P. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs.Boston
and Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1988.
Tillemans, Tom J. F. Scripture, Logic, and Language: Essays on
Dharmaklrti and His Tibetan Successors.Boston: Wisdom,
1999.
RICHARDP. HAYES
LANGUAGESAs it spread throughout Asia, Buddhism succeeded in
crossing a remarkable number of linguistic bound-
aries, in some cases being transposed into languages
very different from those spoken in India. Its doctrines
came to be presented orally in numerous languages
and dialects, and its canonical literature, once written
down, was translated into over a dozen languages even
in premodern times. Since the historical sources do
not permit scholars to identify all the languages used
for oral presentations of the teaching, the following
entry will focus on written expressions, considering
oral transmission during only the early period of In-
dian Buddhism.
Whether any words of the Buddha are preserved in
his own tongue is a matter of dispute. The THERAVADA
claims that Pali, the Middle Indian language used by
that school for its scriptures, was the language of the
Buddha. Modern research, however, has convincingly
shown Pali to be a western, or rather a west-central,
dialect of Middle Indian, while the Buddha himself
must have spoken an eastern dialect, most probably
Old Magadh, the local language of the area in which
he wandered, or perhaps some form of “Gangetic
koine.” Not a single utterance of the Buddha is pre-
served in that language, but certain words and forms
in the Pali canon reveal traces of a transposition from
the eastern into the western dialect. Therefore it is
safe to assume that during the early phases of its
transmission, the word of the Buddha was transposed
into local dialects wherever Buddhist monks traveled
and taught.
The Buddha himself is said to have regulated the
use of languages or dialects for the spread of his teach-
ing. According to a difficult passage preserved in var-
ious vinayas, two monks, both former brahmins, asked
the Buddha for permission to redact the teaching in a
form corresponding to (Vedic) Sanskrit in order to
avoid corruptions. The Buddha, however, declined the
request and apparently ordered that everybody should
transmit his teaching in their own (spoken) language.
This passage is generally understood as permitting the
use of the various vernaculars for the spread of the doc-
trine; it is consistent with the exoteric nature of Bud-
dhism and its basic intention of making its doctrines
accessible to everybody, in deliberate contrast to brah-
minical restrictions.
It is questionable whether any kind of Urkanon took
shape during the lifetime of the Buddha or soon after.LANGUAGES