Buddhist Semantic Derivation in Early Buddhism: A Case Study

Semantic derivation (Sanskrit nirukta/nirvacana, Pali nirutti) is an important exegetical method that Buddhists in early India used to explain the linguistic formations of nominal words in their canonical texts and commentaries. While the method probably emerged first as a Vedic form of knowledge, Buddhists exerted much effort in reconfiguring the explanations as evidence in support of their religious theory and practice. Therefore, semantic derivation in Buddhist texts not only shows their creative participation in the broad Indian intellectual tradition but also reflects a serious attitude toward the relationship between sound and meaning in early Buddhist understanding of language.

The Vedic knowledge form of semantic derivation is an indigenous commentarial method widely adopted across the Buddhist and Brahmanical traditions. The method of semantic derivation, represented by Yāska’s lexicon of the Vedas Nighaṇṭu and its commentary Nirukta, is named after the title of the latter work and constitutes one of the eight Vedic auxiliary knowledges. Similarly, semantic derivation, as a way of explaining the origin of nominals, can be traced to the Buddhist canonical sūtra/suttas. In the Discourse on What is Primary (Aggañña Sutta), the Buddha expounded on the origins of a group of terms, such as the words of the four varṇas, the name of the first human king in this cosmic age, and so on. Richard Gombrich considered the Buddhist adoption of semantic derivation to be a parody of the Vedic tradition.

However, my research surveyed semantic derivation of three terms in canonical, Pali aṭṭhakathās, and the recently edited Gandhari commentaries from the British Library scrolls. By reading selections from the canonical and commentarial literature from a period before the fifth century CE, I find the Buddhist semantic derivation consistently Buddhicise the religious implications of these terms. The Buddhist semantic derivation is often explicitly based on the shared Middle Indic substratum of the canonical texts and is perpetuated by incorporating the linguistic components of the terms into an interpretation that attunes to Buddhist ideology and conveys Buddhist doctrines.

The semantic derivation of brāhmaṇa in the Buddhist literature demonstrates the Buddhists have grounded their interpretation of this word based on its Middle Indic form and stably passed down the canonical interpretation across time and places. I first trace the semantic derivation of brahman and its derivative brāhmaṇa in the Buddhist literature. While Yāska’s nirukta interprets brahman by suggesting its verbal root br̥ṃh, “to expand, to increase,” the Buddhist authors did not follow this tradition of interpretation. The term brāhmaṇa is explained on the basis of its Middle Indic form *bāhana in the canonical and Pali commentaries. The Buddhist texts in north India also inherited this interpretation, which connects the noun with the verbal action bāheti “to remove.”

The MIA substratum is more evident in the semantic derivation of mahesi, where the Buddhist commentators totally disregarded the connection between its Sanskrit form mahārṣi and its purported verbal stem √dr̥ś to see. In the Gandhari commentary, maheṣi is explained as “the great (mahata-) place is searched for (esida-).” Similarly, the term is explained as “he who seeks for, searches after, and strives for the great (mahatam) group of morality, etc.” in the Pali lexicon Niddesa. The list of “the great things” (mahatam) are exclusively Buddhist soteriological stages, which range from the great groups of morality, concentration, liberation to the great highest ideal, nirvana. This case proves that, rather than a simplistic parodic imitation of Vedic knowledge, Buddhist semantic derivation is an effective means to attribute Buddhological meanings to the general terms shared by various religious traditions.

The Gandhari commentary provides the term, marisa as either “no searching” (eṣaṇa nāsti) or “no suffering” (reṣaṇa nāsti). The latter alternative shows a possible influence from the Vedic prayer mā riṣat “may he come to no harm” (R̥g Veda 10.62.11a). The Pali commentators did not confine themselves to tracing its related verbal action. Buddhaghosa elaborated in his commentary extensively on M I 337. He had to reconcile an interpretive dilemma that the Buddha addressed a hellish being as “roasted in hell for a thousand years” “marisa,” a term used for people without suffering. Buddhaghosa solved this issue by claiming that all sentient beings were once without suffering or endowed with happiness and were still addressed in this way as custom (rūḷhi). Buddhaghosa’s serious treatment of the semantic derivation of marisa and effort in reconciling the interpretive difficulty testified to the truth value of semantic derivation in the eyes of the early Pali commentators.

It would certainly be exaggerating to call the Buddhist semantic derivation an independent exegetical method with a systematic theory. However, to reduce this method to parody alone, especially when considering the consistency and continuity of the tradition, is to overlook the seriousness and creativity of the Buddhist authors and commentators in their argumentative works.