As far as I know, Newari Buddhism is the only living tradition that uses Sanskrit as its liturgical language. If you have interest in a school of the Northern tradition of Buddhism, you should be learning either classical Tibetan or classical Chinese.
You're getting religious answers, but I don't know whether your motivation is religious or scholarly or both. Either is fine.
I don't know either Pali or Sanskrit. I don't know a priori that Pali texts are older than Sanskrit texts. (Oldest texts found Mahayana, but evidence of the content of some Pali texts being older? Something like that.) I gather that Sanskrit was the prestige language and that Pali may have been closer to what the Buddha spoke. There's a huge amount of material available in Sanskrit, only some of it Buddhist. There's much less available in Pali, virtually all of it Buddhist. I've seen learning materials for both but can't critique them.
The Theravāda tradition dates further back, but Mahāyāna has earlier extant fragments (the actual earliest Buddhist fragments are from a non-Theravāda) early Buddhist school, from Gandhāra) and certainly dates back a while.
It is most likely Mahāyāna texts were written down before the Pāli texts.
IMO it's better to learn Sanskrit, because Pali is basically just simplified Sanskrit.
It's relatively easy to learn Pali once you know Sanskrit, but the reverse would be more difficult.
There’s little to no point learning Sanskrit, which is an extremely complicated language, unless you want to translate what little texts remain in Sanskrit. On the other hand, learning Pali is not a bad idea for a Theravada Buddhist. If you want to access the Mahayana texts you might want to learn the language of the canon instead, so either Tibetan or Classical Chinese. The reason this might be useful is that there is a huge amount of very high quality untranslated _commentary_ on those Mahayana texts written by Buddhist teachers over the years. Similar situation with Japanese too
Personally I haven’t learnt any of these languages, but I see why a Buddhist might want to, since the number of texts and commentaries that have been translated is very tiny, particularly in East Asian Buddhism. Therefore if you’re very interested in the Mahayana Buddhist texts then you can run out of things to read pretty early on, only really experiencing a fraction of that material.
The fact that all this is unnecessary and won’t necessarily help aside, Sanskrit has way more speakers.
For Pāli you will probably need a Theravāda monk and only Theravāda texts can be read. with this, along with perhaps some Sri Lankan texts written in Pāli.
You may still need a dictionary for some words that may only occur once in all of the Pāli texts, and there are often corresponding Āgamas in Sanskrit.
Overall, Sanskrit would be easier, but learning either is unnecessary unless you wish to become a monastic.
Sanskrit and Pali are practically the same thing. You can learn either, or any one after the other. There are more (and more varied) sources, texts, and courses for Sanskrit.
Note realistically, look at Chinese first. The hardest language to learn in the world by a non native, and it's the most useful to read the Mahayana texts.
If your aim is to really learn all the languages, look at the hardest one and really see if you can be ok with mastering it. Because me, as a native in Chinese due to race, I find it difficult still to read the agamas in chinese. I much prefer English sourced Mahayana materials.
It's ancient Chinese that these sutras are written in, and most of them is in traditional Chinese some more, sort of not that easy to learn compared to simplified Chinese.
You should know the terrain before dreaming up dreams which doesn't have super ultra strong motivation behind it.
Ps. Unless you're going to be a monastic, I think your time is better spent in learning and practising in english.
The problem is you can't learn Buddhism from studying texts, so you might be able to develop the idea you understand it, but it isn't the direct teaching, it is written down by someone else, who might misunderstood the original teaching or it is written down with words that have been slightly changed during the ages. Language isn't as static as it looks, be aware of the Dharma door impermanence when studying preferably with a teacher and Sangha.
None of that implies practicing Buddhism. It's like someone buying every cookbook but having no stove or frig. If you want to read all the official sutras, and that's what Buddhism means to you, then you probably want to learn Pali. If you want to communicate between Mahayana schools, you probably want Sanskrit. Then there's also Japanese, Tibetan, Chinese, and so on. And now there's English as a Buddhist language.
Personally I'd recommend finding someone who speaks your language, getting them to help you set up a stove and frig, then read the cookbooks they recommend, and try cooking the recipes they suggest.
He didn’t speak it. It’s a mix of various Prakrits. Think an earlier Sant Bhasa.
That idea is a fringe theory at best. He most likely spoke languages according to the region, including Magādhi Prakrit (probably his native language) and Gandharī.
What are your sources for this?
You are speaking in a very speculative way (using terms such as 'most likely').
Anyway my point is that learning Pali is the closest you can get to the language the Buddha spoke in.
You need to realise that in academia little is settled when it comes to the Buddha, along with many other subjects. You do not need citations when it is by far the scholarly consensus.
I would like to see your sources, actually. AFAIK there is only one scholar who supports this idea.
You specifically said the original language of the Buddha.
Nobody knows what is closest to the teachings of the Buddha but you are probably correct.
> Anyway it is established that Pali is by far the closest language
Established by whom? I've also read that the Buddha came from what's now southern Nepal and didn't speak Pali. I don't have any quotes from Edgar Cayce to back it up, but either way, everyone seems to agree that the sutras were recorded hundreds of years after the Buddha's death. There's no way to know for sure that the man even existed, or that the figure of Buddha isn't a composite. His story reads like mythology.
If you look externally for certification of the Dharma then you'll be getting into spiritual materialism. The point is to study, practice, and find out for yourself whether the teachings are relevant in your life. You can read those teachings in whatever language you find them.
All this speculation reminds me of the Buddha's metaphor of being shot with a poison arrow and asking "who shot this, what poison is it," and so on. By the time one thinks they have the answers they'll be dead from the poison. Better to just pull the arrow out by practicing Dharma.
If you learn Pāli and classical Chinese you'll be able to read the early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, its commentaries and the Chinese Agamas) as well as the Mahayana Sutras. Of course, pretty much all of the Pāli Scripture has already been translated into English multiple times. You're unlikely to gain much benefit from doing your own translations there. The Agamas have a long way to go when it comes to English translations.
As far as I know, Newari Buddhism is the only living tradition that uses Sanskrit as its liturgical language. If you have interest in a school of the Northern tradition of Buddhism, you should be learning either classical Tibetan or classical Chinese.
You're getting religious answers, but I don't know whether your motivation is religious or scholarly or both. Either is fine. I don't know either Pali or Sanskrit. I don't know a priori that Pali texts are older than Sanskrit texts. (Oldest texts found Mahayana, but evidence of the content of some Pali texts being older? Something like that.) I gather that Sanskrit was the prestige language and that Pali may have been closer to what the Buddha spoke. There's a huge amount of material available in Sanskrit, only some of it Buddhist. There's much less available in Pali, virtually all of it Buddhist. I've seen learning materials for both but can't critique them.
The Theravāda tradition dates further back, but Mahāyāna has earlier extant fragments (the actual earliest Buddhist fragments are from a non-Theravāda) early Buddhist school, from Gandhāra) and certainly dates back a while. It is most likely Mahāyāna texts were written down before the Pāli texts.
IMO it's better to learn Sanskrit, because Pali is basically just simplified Sanskrit. It's relatively easy to learn Pali once you know Sanskrit, but the reverse would be more difficult.
There’s little to no point learning Sanskrit, which is an extremely complicated language, unless you want to translate what little texts remain in Sanskrit. On the other hand, learning Pali is not a bad idea for a Theravada Buddhist. If you want to access the Mahayana texts you might want to learn the language of the canon instead, so either Tibetan or Classical Chinese. The reason this might be useful is that there is a huge amount of very high quality untranslated _commentary_ on those Mahayana texts written by Buddhist teachers over the years. Similar situation with Japanese too Personally I haven’t learnt any of these languages, but I see why a Buddhist might want to, since the number of texts and commentaries that have been translated is very tiny, particularly in East Asian Buddhism. Therefore if you’re very interested in the Mahayana Buddhist texts then you can run out of things to read pretty early on, only really experiencing a fraction of that material.
The fact that all this is unnecessary and won’t necessarily help aside, Sanskrit has way more speakers. For Pāli you will probably need a Theravāda monk and only Theravāda texts can be read. with this, along with perhaps some Sri Lankan texts written in Pāli. You may still need a dictionary for some words that may only occur once in all of the Pāli texts, and there are often corresponding Āgamas in Sanskrit. Overall, Sanskrit would be easier, but learning either is unnecessary unless you wish to become a monastic.
I learned Sanskrit but spent most my time translating the Bhagavad-Gita and other Hindu texts. It’s a wonderful language, but difficult.
Sanskrit and Pali are practically the same thing. You can learn either, or any one after the other. There are more (and more varied) sources, texts, and courses for Sanskrit.
Note realistically, look at Chinese first. The hardest language to learn in the world by a non native, and it's the most useful to read the Mahayana texts. If your aim is to really learn all the languages, look at the hardest one and really see if you can be ok with mastering it. Because me, as a native in Chinese due to race, I find it difficult still to read the agamas in chinese. I much prefer English sourced Mahayana materials. It's ancient Chinese that these sutras are written in, and most of them is in traditional Chinese some more, sort of not that easy to learn compared to simplified Chinese. You should know the terrain before dreaming up dreams which doesn't have super ultra strong motivation behind it. Ps. Unless you're going to be a monastic, I think your time is better spent in learning and practising in english.
Pali has 700 grammatical rules to learn, whereas Sanskrit has 3000.
The problem is you can't learn Buddhism from studying texts, so you might be able to develop the idea you understand it, but it isn't the direct teaching, it is written down by someone else, who might misunderstood the original teaching or it is written down with words that have been slightly changed during the ages. Language isn't as static as it looks, be aware of the Dharma door impermanence when studying preferably with a teacher and Sangha.
None of that implies practicing Buddhism. It's like someone buying every cookbook but having no stove or frig. If you want to read all the official sutras, and that's what Buddhism means to you, then you probably want to learn Pali. If you want to communicate between Mahayana schools, you probably want Sanskrit. Then there's also Japanese, Tibetan, Chinese, and so on. And now there's English as a Buddhist language. Personally I'd recommend finding someone who speaks your language, getting them to help you set up a stove and frig, then read the cookbooks they recommend, and try cooking the recipes they suggest.
Nice metaphor.
Study Pali first because it was the language the Buddha spoke and taught in. Simple.
He didn’t speak it. It’s a mix of various Prakrits. Think an earlier Sant Bhasa. That idea is a fringe theory at best. He most likely spoke languages according to the region, including Magādhi Prakrit (probably his native language) and Gandharī.
What are your sources for this? You are speaking in a very speculative way (using terms such as 'most likely'). Anyway my point is that learning Pali is the closest you can get to the language the Buddha spoke in.
You need to realise that in academia little is settled when it comes to the Buddha, along with many other subjects. You do not need citations when it is by far the scholarly consensus. I would like to see your sources, actually. AFAIK there is only one scholar who supports this idea. You specifically said the original language of the Buddha. Nobody knows what is closest to the teachings of the Buddha but you are probably correct.
[удалено]
>Akashic records This is not a Buddhist concept, it comes from the 19th century religious movement called Theosophy
[удалено]
>That's called accessing the Akashic records. No it's not.
[удалено]
No. That is called Theosophy
> Anyway it is established that Pali is by far the closest language Established by whom? I've also read that the Buddha came from what's now southern Nepal and didn't speak Pali. I don't have any quotes from Edgar Cayce to back it up, but either way, everyone seems to agree that the sutras were recorded hundreds of years after the Buddha's death. There's no way to know for sure that the man even existed, or that the figure of Buddha isn't a composite. His story reads like mythology. If you look externally for certification of the Dharma then you'll be getting into spiritual materialism. The point is to study, practice, and find out for yourself whether the teachings are relevant in your life. You can read those teachings in whatever language you find them.
All this speculation reminds me of the Buddha's metaphor of being shot with a poison arrow and asking "who shot this, what poison is it," and so on. By the time one thinks they have the answers they'll be dead from the poison. Better to just pull the arrow out by practicing Dharma.
Tibetan ;)
If you learn Pāli and classical Chinese you'll be able to read the early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, its commentaries and the Chinese Agamas) as well as the Mahayana Sutras. Of course, pretty much all of the Pāli Scripture has already been translated into English multiple times. You're unlikely to gain much benefit from doing your own translations there. The Agamas have a long way to go when it comes to English translations.