| Translations of Thus have I heard | |
|---|---|
| Sanskrit | Evaṃ mayā śrutam |
| Pali | Evaṃ me sutaṃ |
| Chinese | 如是我聞 (Pinyin:rúshìwǒwén) |
| Japanese | 如是我聞 (Rōmaji:nyozegamon) |
| Korean | 여시아문 (RR:yeosiamun) |
| Tibetan | འདི་སྐད་བདག་གིས་ཐོས་པ་དུས་གཅིག་ན ('di skad bdag gis thos pa dus gcig na) |
| Tagalog | Ganito ang narinig ko |
| Vietnamese | như thị ngã văn / ta nghe như vầy |
| Taiwanese | lemangeda aken a maitucu |
| Glossary of Buddhism | |
| Part ofa series on | ||||||||
| Theravāda Buddhism | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| Buddhism | ||||||||
Key figures
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Thus have I heard (Pali:Evaṃ me sutaṃ;Sanskrit:Evaṃ mayā śrūtam) is the common translation of the first line of the standard introduction (Pāli and Sanskrit:nidāna) ofBuddhist discourses. This phrase serves to confirm that the discourse is coming from the Buddha himself, as a "seal of authenticity".[1][2] Buddhist tradition maintains that the discipleĀnanda used the formula for the first time, as a form of personal testimony, but this is disputed by some scholars. It is also disputed how the phrase relates to the words that follow, and several theories have been developed with regard to how the text was originally intended to be read. The formula has also been used in laterMahāyāna andVajrayāna discourses.
_MET_DP170269.jpg)
According to Buddhist tradition—based on thecommentary to theDīgha Nikāya—the formula was first used by the discipleĀnanda during theFirst Buddhist Council held at Rājagṛha (present-dayRajgir).[3][4] At this gathering, theBuddhist Canon was established,[4] and Ānanda was given the role ofrapporteur (Sanskrit:saṃgītakāra) of the Buddha's teachings, being the personal attendant of the Buddha.[5]
The formula is usually followed by the place where the discourse is given, as well as the names and numbers of those it is given to.[6] In the Chineseexegetical tradition, the formula is known as thegeneric preface (Chinese:通序;pinyin:tōngxù), as opposed to the subsequent part that differs between discourses, introducing the specifics, known as thespecific preface (Chinese:別序;pinyin:biéxù).[7] In someEarly Buddhist Texts, other similar constructions are used, such as 'This was said by the Blessed One' (Pali:Vutaṃ hetaṃ bhagavatā) in theItivuttaka.[8][9]
The formula is glossed by the 5th-century Indian commentatorBuddhaghosa as "received in the Buddha's presence".[10] IndologistJean Filliozat (1906–82) disagreed with the traditional explanation that Ānanda was the one who invented the formula, arguing that the formula is an odd way to describe a first-hand witness account, as it sounds as though what follows is hearsay. He argued instead that it was a later compiler who added it.[11] However, comparing Buddhist withJain texts, Sanskrit scholar John Brough (1917–84) concluded the formula indicates personal testimony as opposed to hearsay.[2][12]
IndologistJean Przyluski (1885–1944) argued that the formula originally may also have meant that the Buddhist discourses were presented as part of sacred revelation (śruti). This was intended to prove that the Buddhist texts were on the same level with, or superior than, theVedas in theBrahmanical tradition.[10] Brough concurred with Przyluski that this may have played some role in the development of the phrase, but concluded that the motivation of declaring oneself a witness of the Buddha's teaching "could by itself quite adequately explain it".[13] Brough relates a traditional account in which theBuddha's disciples weep when they hear Ānanda say the wordsThus have I heard for the first time, "marvelling that they should hear again the very words of their dead master".[13] IndologistKonrad Klaus [de] disagrees with Brough, however, citing two discourses from the Dīgha Nikāya andMajjhima Nikāya in which the formula refers to what "... was acquired through communication by others", as opposed to personal experience.[14] Klaus also points at another expression whichdoes mean that a discourse has been directly received from someone, that issamukkhā me taṃ ... samukkhā paṭiggahitaṃ, meaning 'I heard and learned thisfrom ...'s own lips': an expression often used with regard to the Buddha.[15] He proposes that the formulaThus have I heard does mark a discourse as theBuddha's word, but not because the discourse has been heard from the Buddha's own lips by the speaker. He does admit that the early Sanskrit texts contain a later interpretation of the formula, which does refer to personal experience.[16]
IndologistÉtienne Lamotte (1903–83) argued it was the Buddha who had the formula placed at the beginning of the Buddhist discourses, conveying this through Ānanda.[17]
In addition, the formula may have been used by editors to standardize the discourses, as it is even used in discourses given by Ānanda himself.[11]
There has been considerable debate as to how the first sentences of the preface of Buddhist discourses should be translated, especially with regard to punctuation. There are three main opinions.[18] The first possible and most common translation isThus have I heard. At one time theBlessed One was at ... in ...[18][19] Buddhist studies scholar Mark Allon has defended this translation based on metrical and rhyme patterns.[20] The words of the Pāli formula indicate the oral tradition through which the discourses were passed down. As with many parts of the discourses, the preface consist of rhymes to help memorization of the text, such as repetition of initial consonant sounds (alliteration;evaṃ,ekaṃ) and final sounds (homoioteleuton;evaṃ,suttaṃ,ekaṃ andsamayaṃ).[21][22] These rhyme patterns show that the two phrases, the first phrase starting with 'thus' (evaṃ me suttaṃ) and the second phrase,ekaṃ samayaṃ (Pāli; Sanskrit:ekasmin samaye), 'at one time', were seen as two separate units.[22] On a similar note, the first phrase has avedha type metrical pattern, which is repeated by the second phrase,ekaṃ samayaṃ, 'at one time'.[23] Buddhist studies scholars Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti have also argued for this translation with a three-word pre-amble (the three words beingevaṃ me suttaṃ), on the grounds that it gives the best meaning to the context.[24]
However, numerous scholars read the words 'at one time' (Pali:ekaṃ samayaṃ; Sanskrit:ekasmin samaye) as combined with the first phrase, making for a five-word preamble. In their opinion, the first lines should be translated toThus have I heard at one time. The Blessed One was staying at ... in ...[19][18] This translation is often attributed to Brough, but was first proposed by OrientalistAlexander von Staël-Holstein (1877–1937).[25] Von Staël-Holstein preferred this translation, basing himself on Indian commentaries,[26] and Brough based himself on Tibetan translations, common usage inAvadānas and Early Buddhist Texts, as well asPāli and Sanskrit commentators.[27][28] IndologistOskar von Hinüber rejects Von Staël-Holstein's and Brough's interpretation, however. He argues that although in Sanskrit it may be possible to connect the two phrases in one sentence, in Pāli this is highly unusual. Von Hinüber further states that in the early Pāli texts, as well as the Pāli commentaries, separating the two phrases is actually quite common.[29] Konrad Klaus agrees with von Hinüber's arguments.[30] Buddhist studies scholar Brian Galloway further states that many Tibetan and Indian commentators such asVimalamitra (8th century) did not support a five-word but rather a three-word pre-amble, readingat one time with the text following it.[31][32] Religious Studies scholar Mark Tatz disagrees with Galloway's interpretation, however, providing several reasons.[33] In response, Galloway rejects most of Tatz' arguments.[34]
A third group of scholars believe that the details of the place should also be mentioned within the same sentence, with no punctuation:Thus have I heard at the one time when the Blessed one was staying at ... in ... This type of translation, called the "double-jointed construction", has been proposed by Religious Studies scholarPaul Harrison and BuddhologistTilmann Vetter [nl].[35][20] Harrison bases himself on Tibetan translations and discussion in Sanskrit commentaries.[36]
Prior to the 5th century, Chinese translations of Buddhist texts would often translate the standard formula asHeard like this (Chinese:聞如是), leaving out theI for stylistic reasons. During the 5th century, translatorKumārajīva (344–413 CE) started rendering the formula asRushi wowen (Chinese:如是我聞;lit. 'Like this I hear'), which became the standard Chinese translation, despite its unnatural construction.[37][note 1]
Mahāyāna andVajrayāna traditions considered many later discourses the Buddha's word, and also included the formula at the beginning of those.[39] Indeed, the 5th-century Chinese commentaryDazhidulun recommends editors to do so.[40] Often, Mahāyāna commentaries state that the formula can not only refer to Ānanda, but also to certainbodhisattvas, such asMañjuśrī.[19] Modern scholarship has drawn into question the historical value of most of these introductions of Mahāyāna discourses, though some scholars do not exclude the possibility that some of the content of the discourses themselves goes back to the Buddha.[41]
.svg)