Bhattkale Upatthite Example Of A Mistranslation In Pali Canon

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text:

The article "Bhattakāle Upatthite: An Example of a 'Mistranslation' in the Pāli Canon" by Yajima Michihiko examines a specific phrase from the Pāli Jātakas, "bhattakāle upatthite," which translates to "when mealtime has arrived." This phrase was central to a debate concerning H. Oldenberg's "Ākhyāna theory" regarding the composition of the Jātakas, particularly the relationship between their verse and prose sections.

The Debate:

• H. Oldenberg's Ākhyāna Theory: Oldenberg posited that the Pāli Jātakas preserve ancient Indian prosimetric literature (stories told in both prose and verse) in an early form. He believed the prose sections were older, while the verse sections were later additions or modifications.
• R.O. Francke's Counterargument: Francke disagreed with the temporal gap proposed by Oldenberg. He argued for a closer relationship between the verse and prose, citing two Jātakas (J 539 and J 507) that contained the phrase "bhattakāle upatthite."
  • In J 539, the phrase appeared in a verse as "in the house of an arrow-maker when mealtime had arrived (bhattakāle upatthite)," which seemed incomplete as a standalone sentence without a main clause.
  • In J 507, the same phrase, when combined with preceding words, formed a complete sentence: "When mealtime had arrived, he entered his house."
  • Francke concluded that the incomplete line in J 539 indicated that its main clause was actually in the preceding prose. He saw this as evidence that Jātaka verses were influenced by existing prose, suggesting elements were "wrongly placed" into the verse.

Oldenberg's Rebuttal:

• Oldenberg countered that the "incompleteness" in J 539 was natural. He argued that an ascetic arriving at a house to beg for food "when mealtime has arrived" was culturally appropriate.
• He also noted that the Suttanipāta (Sn 130) contains a similar expression, suggesting the Jātaka phrase might have been borrowed from the well-known "Vasala-sutta" within the Suttanipāta, where it was used in a similar context.

Yajima Michihiko's New Perspective:

Yajima finds both Francke's and Oldenberg's arguments somewhat unconvincing. While acknowledging Francke's point about the potential influence of prose on verse, he questions whether it applies in this specific case. He also finds Oldenberg's explanation of the incompleteness due to borrowing less than entirely persuasive.

Yajima's crucial insight lies in questioning the standard Pāli interpretation of the phrase. He proposes that the apparent incompleteness of "bhattakāle upatthite" might be due to a "mistranslation" from an eastern language into Pāli.

• The Grammatical Issue: Grammatically, "bhattakāle upatthite" consists of two words in the locative case, forming a locative absolute construction. However, Yajima suggests that the final "-e" in "upatthite" might have originally been a nominative singular ending in an eastern language, which was then misinterpreted as a locative in Pāli.
• The "Mistranslation" Hypothesis: If "upatthite" was originally a nominative singular, the phrase would translate as "he arrived at the house of an arrow-maker at mealtime." This would make it a complete sentence, resolving the perceived incompleteness.
• Evidence from Commentary and Chinese Translations: Yajima points to a variant reading in the Paramatthajotikā commentary on Sn 130, which gives "upatthitam" (accusative/neuter nominative) instead of "upatthite." This reading is grammatically more sound and supported by Chinese translations, suggesting that the original expression might have been in the accusative or a nominative form ending in "-am".
• Direction of Borrowing: Yajima suggests that the direction of borrowing might have been the opposite of what Oldenberg proposed. It's possible that the Pāli form "-e" in the Suttanipāta was influenced or "rewritten" from a similar expression in the Jātakas or another source.

Jaina Scriptures Connection:

Yajima notes that similar expressions, describing a mendicant "arriving" at mealtime, are found in Jaina scriptures. The metre and position of these phrases in Jaina texts coincide with the Pāli context, suggesting the antiquity and widespread use of this expression.

Conclusion:

If Yajima's hypothesis about a mistranslation from an eastern language is correct, then the evidence used in the debate about the Ākhyāna theory was misapplied. However, paradoxically, this might even further support Oldenberg's core theory about the Jātakas preserving ancient Indian literary forms, as it suggests a deeper layer of linguistic and compositional history at play. The core issue is that the phrase's apparent "incompleteness" might not be a structural flaw but a result of a linguistic misunderstanding during the transmission of ancient texts into Pāli.