Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining a Meṇḍaka Question in the Questions of Milinda and Its Commentarial Texts

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The word meṇḍaka, a derivative of meṇḍa (“ram”), is generally translated as “made of the ram” or “about the ram” or “horned.” However, in the Pāli Milindapañha (Questions of Milinda), the word meṇḍakapañha, literally, a question about the ram, is also rendered as a logical conclusion that refutes an imaginary dilemma. Hence, in this treatise, the word meṇḍaka is a special logical term which means an imaginary dilemma that can be logically refuted. This raises the question as to why the word meṇḍaka has come to be associated with this logical technique. To answer this question, this paper examines various aspects of the word and its possible connections to a dilemma and its refutation. The discussion ranges from the meaning of this word in a tale in the Jātaka (Birth Stories), within the contextual usage in a meṇḍaka question, to a relatively recent commentarial text (aṭṭhakathā) which gives a different perspective on the etymology of the word. The Milindapañha is explicit in defining a meṇḍaka question as knotty, hard to penetrate, and difficult to resolve, some of which an opponent puts forth to undermine certain aspects of the Buddhist system. However, the way certain meṇḍaka questions are framed, though not directly stated, seem to utilize the principles of logic in a dilemmatic form of argument. With that, a meṇḍaka question, at least in the Milindapañha, could also mean “a dilemmatic expression put forth by a challenger to undermine an opponent, but which can be logically refuted.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, in the Piṭaka Samuiṅ written in 1888. See Hinüber (1996, §156).

  2. Mil, starting from page 90 to 328 out of a total 420 pages.

  3. For the discussion on the disparities in the number of dialogues among printed editions and manuscript recensions, see Ooi (2022).

  4. Cf. Dhtm stanza no. 156: vattate meḍi koṭille (meḍi is when crookedness happens), see Andersen & Smith, (ed.) (1921, p. 31). The PED also renders it as “a groom” or “an elephant-driver.”

  5. Aṅga is one of the sixteen Mahājanapada (countries) which existed in the time of the Buddha in North India, cf. A I 212–213; The city of Bhaddiya in Sanskrit could be Bhadraṃkara, given in the similar story, Meṇḍḥakāvadāna, found in the Divyāvadāna, see Cowell & Neil. (ed.) (1886, pp. 123–135); and Ch’en (1953, p. 376) and n.1.

  6. āvelitasiṅgiko hi meṇḍo

  7. meṇḍo ti kuṭilasiṅgo eḷako

  8. For further discussion on the translation of the name “meṇḍaka” by these two translators, see Hodge (2010 and 2012, pp. 76–77).

  9. A bodhisatta, in Pāli (the language of Theravāda Buddhism) canon and commentaries, refers to the previous lives of Prince Siddhattha before he became the Gotama Buddha.

  10. Note that the words eḷaka and meṇḍa are used interchangeably in this episode of the Jātaka text.

  11. The story has it that the cook will not suspect a goat would steal meat, or the mahout will not think that a dog would run off with his grass meant for his elephants. Thus, both animals are able to bring food for one another and avoid being beaten up by either the cook or the mahout.

  12. The basic assumption is as follows: all the buddhavacanas (words of the Buddha) should be correct. Let A be a buddhavacana, and B also be a buddhavacana. But A and B together seem to be inconsistent. So therefore, there arises a problem.

  13. Syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises. The standard features of syllogism comes in 3 lines i.e. (1) No heroes are cowards, (2) Some soldiers are cowards. (3) Therefore some soldiers are not heroes. See Copi et al. (2014, p. 211).

  14. It should be noted that this is not a false dilemma of logical fallacies. It’s something else. According to the Stoics, any dilemma is impossible in principle. Each dilemma is, as it were, imaginary. A similar understanding of the dilemma is also found in the Milindapañha. We do not use the term “false dilemma”, because this term assumes that there are true dilemmas, but in the Milindapañha it is assumed that there are no true dilemmas at all. Hence, we name them imaginary ones.

  15. It is worth noting that we can understand dilemma “Either A or B” as an exclusive disjunction “A ⊕ B” or an inclusive disjunction “A ∨ B”. Meanwhile, the second understanding is more general: “(A ⊕ B) ⇒ (A ∨ B)” (“If the exclusive disjunction holds true, then the inclusive disjunction also holds true, but not vice versa”). From this it follows that “If the inclusive disjunction is false, then the exclusive disjunction is false, too.” Let us remind that the exclusive disjunction is true if and only if one of its two members is true, while another is false, and it is false in all other cases. The inclusive disjunction is false if and only if its two members are simultaneously false, and it is true in all other cases.

  16. Cf. DoP: parinibbuta means one who dies without the possibility of rebirth. In other words, one is liberated from the suffering-laden cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) with no further existence.

  17. Mil 95.10–13: yadi Buddho pūjaṃ sādiyati na parinibbuto buddho, saṃyutto lokena antobhaviko lokasmiṃ lokasādhāraṇo, tasmā tassa kato adhikāro vañjho bhavati aphalo;

  18. Mil 95.13–16: yadi parinibbuto, visaṃyutto lokena nissaṭo sabbabhavehi, tassa pūjā na uppajjati, parinibbuto na kiñci sādiyati, asādiyantassa kato adhikāro vañjho bhavati aphalo ti.

  19. Cf. The Shorter Discourse to Māluṅkyāputta (M Sutta No. 63). In this sutta, the elder insists that the Buddha answers his speculative views, for example, “is the world eternal” or “is the world not eternal.” If the Buddha does not answer him, he will abandon his training as a monk, see M I 426–432.

  20. ācariyamuṭṭhi (teacher’s fist).

  21. For further discussion on whether the Buddha is omniscient or not, see Mil 75 and 102–103; Horner (1963, pp. 102–103), and 142–158. Also see M I 482.

  22. Si 199.11–15: yadi bhante nāgasena bhāsitaṃ bhagavatā natthi tathāgatassa dhammesu ācariyamuṭṭhīti tena hi therassa māluṅkyaputtassa ajānantena na byākataṃ yadi therassa māluṅkyaputtassa jānantena na byākataṃ tena hi atthi tathāgatassa dhamme ācariyamuṭṭhi.

  23. For further discussion of refuting a conclusion of a dilemma, see Copi (2014, pp. 290–291).

  24. bhassappavedī vetaṇḍī atibuddhi vicakkhaṇo

  25. For further discussion of this term vitaṇḍavādin (one who practices sophistry), see Mori (1989 [1975], pp. 207–226); and also Silk (2002, pp. 129–183) and n.1.

  26. Cf. Mil-ṭ 20.6–7: ataṇḍī ti (Mil vetaṇḍī) theravādena saddhiṃ viruddhavacanavadanasīlo (ataṇḍī means one whose character, sayings and speeches are opposed to the Theravada tradition.) It is noteworthy that this commentarial text was probably written in the fifteenth century, much later than the Milindapañha, as such, the Theravāda here probably means the Theravāda of the Mahāvihāra lineage of Ceylon. At the time when the Milindapañha was first thought to be written down around the beginning of the Christian Era, the opponents could be that of non-Theravaṃsa schools, or non-Buddhist traditions; Mil-a 152: vetaṇḍī ti paṇḍitānaṃ hadayaṃ vitudituṃ kārakasīlo (vetaṇḍī means one who has the habit to attack the heart of the wise.)

  27. Especially manuscripts of Chabap Krung Thep (Bangkok recension), for example, NL333, which is preserved in the National Library of Thailand (NL).

  28. Khom-script manuscripts NL2018 and NL1955. For more information of these manuscripts, See Ooi (2021, pp. 169–210).

  29. Tham Lanna-script manuscript preserved at Wat Lai Hin, Lampang, Thailand; code number: PNTMP 030102024_00 (http://lannamanuscripts.net/en). Retrieved November 21, 2020. For more information on this manuscript see von Hinüber (1987, pp. 111–119), (1988, pp. 173–174), (2013, pp. 112–113); Hundius (1990, pp. 63–64).

  30. For further discussion on the history of the Milindapañha and its possible Greek and Indian influences, see Fussman (1993).

  31. NL376: niti nāma rājasatthāni

  32. Cf. DoP; For a brief description of the word nīti, see Ujjwal Kumar (2016).

  33. This question is referring to the Vessantara-Jātaka (No. 547), see Ja VI 479 onwards.

  34. See https://tipitaka.app/ (accessed on 18 February 2022); For the discrepancies in the number of dialogues in different parts of the text among different printed editions and manuscript recensions, see Ooi (2022).

  35. appattamānasānaṃ, Mil-ṭ: appattamānasānanti apapattaarahattaphalānaṃ (of those who are yet to attain the fruit of arahantship).

  36. Horner translates ekaṃse as ‘one side.’ See Horner (1963, p. 133).

  37. jinaputta (disciples of a buddha). Cf. Bv-a 99.3: jinaputtā ti Dīpaṅkarassa satthuno sāvākā (jinaputta means hearers of the Teacher, Dīpaṅkara [Buddha].)

  38. Mil 95: ubhato koṭiko eso pañho, neso visayo appattamānasānaṃ, mahantānaṃ yeveso visayo, bhindetaṃ diṭṭhijālaṃ, ekaṃse ṭhapaya, taveso pañho anuppatto, anāgatānaṃ jinaputtānaṃ cakkhuṃ dehi paravādaniggahāyāti

  39. Mil 113–114: ayampi ubhatokoṭiko pañho sukhumo dunniveṭhiyo andhakaraṇo ca gambhīro ca, so tavānuppatto, neso aññena ittarapaññena sakkā vissajjetuṃ aññatra tavādisena buddhimatā ti.

  40. Mil 119: ayaṃ pi ubhato koṭiko pañho gaṇṭhitopi idaṃ [Si] gaṇṭhitaro veṭṭhito [NL6133; vedhato Mil] pi idaṃ veṭṭhataro gahanatopi idaṃ gahanataro tavānuppatto tattha tvaṃ chandamatijanehi [Si; -abhijenehi Mil] parappavādānaṃ niggahaṇāyā [Si; niggahāyā Mil] ti.

  41. Mil 90: addakkhi meṇḍake pañhe dunniveṭhe saniggahe, pariyāyabhāsitaṃ atthi, atthi sandhāya bhāsitaṃ, sabhāvabhāsitaṃ atthi, dhammarājassa sāsane, tesaṃ atthaṃ aviññāya meṇḍake jinabhāsite anāgatamhi addhāne viggaho tattha hessati.

  42. ‘vantattā. Cf. Vibh-a 370.5: ‘vantattā ti idaṃ puna anādiyanabhāvadassanavasena (vantattā means: this again is on the account of unable to grasp and discern the nature [of things]).

  43. Mil-ṭ 20.14–18: addakkhi meṇḍake pañhe’ti ñāṇacakkhunā meṇḍake gambhīre pañhe addakkhi. athavā senakādibhāsitabbaṃ anekapariyāyabhāvena c’eva abhūtabhāvena ca meṇḍakapañhasadise. athavā dvivacanavantattā tassa pañhassa dvimeṇḍakayuddhasadise ti pi vuttaṃ vaṭṭati.

  44. sādhu bhante nāgasena, evam-etaṃ, tathā sampaṭicchāmīti

  45. Cf. Si 148–149; Mil 101–102; suviññāpito bhante nāgasena pañho gambhīro uttānakato (uttānikato NL6133 ] uttānakato Si; tānikato Mil), guyhaṃ vidaṃsitaṃ (vidaṃsitaṃ Mil ] vidhaṃsitaṃ Si, NL6133; viddhaṃsitaṃ conj.), gaṇṭhi bhinnā, gahanaṃ agahanaṃ kataṃ, naṭṭhā paravādā, bhaggā kudiṭṭhi, nippabhā jātā kutitthiyā, tvaṃ gaṇivarapavaram-āsajjāti.

  46. Cf. Si 199; Mil 144; ciranikkhittaṃ bhante nāgasena jinarahassaṃ ajjetarahi loke vivaṭaṃ pākaṭaṃ katan-ti.

  47. Cf. DoP.

  48. Cf. Bv-a 191.14–29: Sārakappa means one fully enlightened Buddha will appear; in a maṇḍakappa two Buddhas will appear; in a varakappa, three Buddhas will appear; in a sāramaṇḍakappa, four Buddhas will appear; and in a bhaddakappa, five Buddhas will appear.

  49. Cf. DoP: the verbs that are derived from the root √i are either eti meaning to go or eti (ā√i) meaning to come.

  50. Source untraced.

  51. Cf. Kacc No. 604. 684. akkharehi kāra (1208). i.e. a eva akāro (‘a’ is just the letter ‘a’).

  52. Cf. DoP: the verb derived from the root √i is eti meaning either to go or to come.

  53. Cf. DoP, kappa means, an aeon, or a cycle of the world’s evolution and dissolution. Sārakappa means in a particular world cycle one fully enlightened buddha will appear. In maṇḍakappa, two buddhas will appear; in orakappa, here read as varakappa, three buddhas will appear; in sāramaṇḍakappa, four buddhas will appear; and lastly, bhaddakappa, in which five buddhas will appear. See Bv-a 191.14–29.

  54. Referring to the opponent.

  55. Cf. Mil 90.

  56. See Kacc: No. 354. 379.: 206

  57. ekāro em. ] ekaro Mil-a.

  58. orakappo Mil-a ] varakappo Bv-a 191.15.

  59. bhaddakappo em. ] saddakappo Mil-a. Cf. Bv-a 191.14–15.

Abbreviations

A:

Aṅguttara Nikāya (Warder, ed.)

Bv-a:

Madhuratthavilāsinī (Buddhavaṃsa-aṭṭhakathā) (Horner, ed.)

Dhp-a:

Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (Norman, ed.)

DoP:

A Dictionary of Pāli, Parts I–III (Cone, ed. PTS)

DPPN:

Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names (Malalasekera, ed.)

Kacc:

Kaccāyana Byākaraṇaṃ (Nandisena, ed.)

M:

Majjhima Nikāya (Trenckner and Chalmers, ed.)

Mil:

Milindapañha (Trenckner, ed.)

Mil-a:

Milindapañha-aṭṭhakathā (Deshpande, ed.)

Mil-ṭ:

Milindapañha-ṭīkā (Jaini, ed.)

NL:

Prefix to the code of Khom-script palm-leaf manuscripts preserved at the National Library of Thailand

NL-376:

Milindapañha Saṅkhepa, Khom-script manuscript preserved at the National Library of Thailand. Code number: 376. A 'Royal Edition' or Chabab Thong Noi.

Paṭis-a:

Saddhammappakāsinī (Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā) (Joshi, ed.)

PED:

Pali–English Dictionary (PTS)

PTS:

Pali Text Society

Sadd:

Saddanīti (Smith, ed.)

Si:

Milindapañhā (Siamese-script) (Cattasalla Thera, ed.)

Th-a:

Paramatthadīpanī (Theragāthā-aṭṭhakathā) (Woodward, ed.)

Vibh-a:

Sammohavinodanī (Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā) (Buddhadatta, ed.)

References

  • Andersen, D. (1908). Critical and Philological Notes to the First Chapter (Bāhirakathā) of the Milinda-pañha by V. Trenckner. Journal of the Pali Text Society, VI, 102–151.

  • Anderson D. & Smith, H. (1921). The Pāli Dhātupaṭha and the Dhātumañjusā. København.

  • Appleton, N., & Shaw, S. (2015). Ten Great Birth Stories of the Buddha, The Mahānipāta of the Jātakatthavaṇṇanā (Vol. II). Silkworm Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baums, S. (2018). Greek or Indian? The Questions of Menander and onomastic patterns in early Gandhāra. In H. P. Ray (Ed.), Buddhism and Gandhara: An Archaeology of Museum Collections (pp. 33–46). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, M. S. (rev. and ed.) (1972). Milindapañho / मिलिन्दपञ्हो. (2nd ed., first edition Vadekar, R. D. (Ed.)). Mumbai University.

  • Buddhadatta, A. P. (1923). Sammohavinodanī (Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā). The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattasalla Thera et al. Ed. (1923). Milindapañhā. Mahāmakuṭarājavidyālaya (Mahāmakuṭa University) / มิลินฺทปญฺหา: จตฺตสลฺลเถเรน ธมฺมปาโมกฺเขน มกุฏขตฺติยารามวาสินา โสธิตา, ๒๔๖๖. สฺยามรฏฺฐสฺส ราชธานิยํ: มหามกุฏราชวิทฺยาลเยน ปกาสตา.

  • CBETA 漢文大藏經 online. 難問. 彌蘭王問經 / [Milindapañha]. 漢譯南傳大藏經 (Chinese Translation of the Pāli Tipiṭaka). Chapter 10. Retrieved February, 2022, from http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/N63n0031_010.

  • Chambers, E. (1750). Cyclopædia: or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences; containing the Definitions of the Terms, and Accounts of the Things signify'd thereby, in the several Arts, both Liberal and Mechanical, and the several Sciences, Human and Divine: the Figures, Kinds, Properties, Productions, Preparations, and Uses, of Things Natural and Artificial; the Rise, Progress, and State of Things Ecclesiastical, Civil, Military, and Commercial: with the several Systems, Sects, Opinions, &c. among Philosophers, Divines, Mathematicians, Physicians, Antiquaries, Criticks, &c. The Whole intended as a Course of Antient and Modern Learning. London. Retrieved June, 2022, from https://archive.org/details/gri_33125011113772.

  • Ch’en, K. (1953). Apropos the Mendhaka story. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 16(3/4), 374–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/2718248

  • Childers, R. C. (1875). A Dictionary of the Pali Language. Trübner & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone, M. (2001–2021). A Dictionary of Pāli, Parts I–III. The Pali Text Society.

  • Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, E. B. & Neil, R. A. (Ed.). (1886). The Divyāvadāna, a collection of early Buddhist legends, now first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit Mss. in Cambridge and Paris. The University Press.

  • Deshpande, M. M. (Ed.). (1999). Milindapañha-Aṭṭhakathā: by U Thaton Mingun Zetawun Sayadaw. The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

  • Edgerton, F. (1953 [1985]). Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (Vol. II) Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Fussman, G. (1993). L’indo-grec Ménandre ou Paul Demiéville revisité. Journal Asiatique, 281(1/2), 61–138. https://doi.org/10.2143/JA.281.1.2006132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. (2010 and 2012). The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra, the Text & its Transmission. Corrected and revised version of a paper presented in July 2010 at the Second International Workshop on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Munich University. Retrieved January 21, 2022 from https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/hodge/the-textual-transmisssion-of-the-mpns.pdf

  • Horner, I. B. (transl.). 1963. Milinda’s Questions I. London: Luzac & Co.

  • Horner, I. B. (transl.). 1969. Milinda’s Questions II. London: Luzac & Co.

  • Horner, I. B. (Ed.). (1946). Madhuratthavilāsinī (Buddhavaṃsa Aṭṭhakathā). The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hundius, H. (1990). The Colophons of 30 Pāli manuscripts from Northern Thailand. Journal of the Pali Text Society, XIV: 1–173.

  • Jaini, P. S. (Ed.). (1961). Milinda-Ṭīkā. The Pali Text Society and Mssers. Luzac & Co.

  • Joshi, C. V. (Ed.). (1979). Saddhammappakāsinī (Paṭissambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā) (Vol. II–III) (combined reprint). The Pali Text Society.

  • Kant, I. (1992). Lectures on logic. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, U. (2016). A note on Pāli Nīti literature. International Journal of Sanskrit Research, 2(3), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenagala Siriniwasa, T. (2017). Origin and development of Indian logic and Buddhist logic. International Journal of Science and Research, 6(1), 890–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahāmakuṭarājavidyālaya. (2008). Milindapañhā chabap plae nai Mahāmakuṭarājavidyālaya (Thai Translation) (Mahāmakuṭa University) / มิลินทปัญหา ฉบับแปลในมหามกุฏราชวิทยาลัย. กรุงเทพฯ: มหามกุฏราชวิทยาลัย, ๒๕๕๑.

  • Malalasekera, G. P. (1937–1938). Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names. Vol. I–II. John Murray (for the Government of India).

  • Mendis, N. K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The questions of King Milinda: An abridgement of the Milindapañha. Buddhist Publication Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monier-Williams, M. (1899 [2011]). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Mori, S. (1989 [1975]). The Vitaṇḍavādins (sophist) as seen in the Pāli Aṭṭhakathās. In Studies of the Pāli Commentaries. A Provisional Collection of Articles. Sodo Mori.

  • Nandisena, U. (Ed. and transl.). (2017 [2005]). Kaccāyana Byākaraṇaṃ by Bhadanta Kaccāyana Ācariyatthera. Instituto de Estudios Buddhistas Hispana.

  • Norman, H. C. (1970). The commentary on the Dhammapada (Vol. III). The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ooi, E. J. (2021). Survey of the Pāli Milindapañha manuscripts kept at the National Library of Thailand: A brief catalogue. Journal of the Siam Society, 109(1), 169–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ooi, E. J. (2022). Transmission of the Milindapañha. Buddhist Studies Review, 39(1), 67–111. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsrv.18893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (transl.). (1890). The Questions of King Milinda: Translation from Pāli. The Clarendon Press.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W., & Stede, W. (1921–1925 [2009]). The Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary. The Pali Text Society.

  • Salomon, R. (2018). The Buddhist literature of ancient Gandhāra. Wisdom Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulthess, D. (1996). Le ‘cornu’: Notes sur un problème de logique éristico-stoïcienne. Recherches sur la Philosophie et le Language (Grenoble), 18, 201–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A. (2019). On the origin of Indian logic from the viewpoint of the Pāli Canon. Logica Universalis, 13(3), 347–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A. (2021). Nāgārjunian-Yogācārian modal logic versus Aristotelian modal logic. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 49, 467–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A. (2023). Archaeology of Logic. Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Silk, J. A. (2002). Cui bono? or Follow the Money: Identifying the Sophist in a Pāli Commentary. In Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Sodō Mori. Hamamatsu: Kokusai Bukkyoto Kyokai (pp. 129–183). Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/17725

  • Smith, H. (1929). Saddanīti—La Grammaire Palie D’Aggavaṃsa. C. W. K. Gleerup.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenckner, V. (Ed.). (1880). The Milindapañho: Being dialogues between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nāgasena. William and Norgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenckner, V. (Ed.). (1888). Majjhima-Nikāya (Vol. I). The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • U Pu. (2006). Milindapañha Vol. 1. (English Translation). The Sitagu International Buddhist Academy (Myanmar). Selangor Buddhist Vipassana Meditation Society.

  • Vadhanachaiya (Ed.). (1993). milindapañhā. Thammavimok / วัฒนไชย. มิลินทปัญหา. ธัมมวิโมกข์.

  • von Hinüber, O. (1987). “The Oldest Dated Manuscript of the Milindapañha”. Journal of the Pali Text Society, XI: 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hinüber, O. (1988). “An additional note on the oldest dated manuscript of the Milindapañha”. Journal of the Pali Text Society, XII: 173–174

  • von Hinüber, O. (1996). A Handbook of Pāli Literature. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Hinüber, O. (2013). Die Pali-Handschriften des Klosters Lai Hin bei Lampang in Nord-Thailand. [The Pali Manuscripts of Lai Hin Monastery near Lampang in Northern Thailand]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

  • Warder, A. K. (1961). Aṅguttara-Nikāya, Part I, Ekanipāta, Dukanipāta, and Tikanipāta (2nd ed.). The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodword, F. L. (1940–1959). Paramattha-Dīpanī, Theragāthā-Aṭṭhakathā: The Commentary of Dhammapālācariya (Vol I–III). The Pali Text Society.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by Ratchadapisek Somphot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University. We would like to thank Peter Skilling, Giuliano Giustarini, Aleix Ruiz Falqués, Mattia Salvini, and the two reviewers for their valuable inputs and pointers, as well as Rosemarie Oong, and Vijaya Samarawickrama for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Eastern Languages, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Eng Jin Ooi & Natchapol Sirisawad

  2. Department of Cognitive Science and Mathematical Modelling, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Rzeszów, Poland

    Andrew Schumann

Authors
  1. Eng Jin Ooi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Schumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natchapol Sirisawad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eng Jin Ooi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Translation of the Commentary to the Word ‘meṇḍaka’ (Milindapañha-aṭṭhakathā)

‘Meṇḍaka’ is understood as a combination of two meanings. [And] how is such a meaning ought to be known? Here, just like in the passage “for the letter ‘e,’Footnote 51 it may have been elided from the root i.”Footnote 52 The letter ‘e’ being “going around” in the sense of ‘moving.’ On the other hand, just like the word ‘maṇḍa,’ in the passage “one Buddha in a world cycle (sārakappa); two Buddhas (maṇḍakappa); three Buddhas (orakappa), four Buddhas (sāramaṇḍakappa); and five Buddhas in a world cycle (bhaddakappa.),”Footnote 53 the word ‘maṇḍa’ oscillates between two meanings. The letter ‘ka’ occurs in the sense of collocation and a combination of them. In this respect, the grammatical rule (saddalakkhaṇa) for the letter ‘e’ does not need to be examined because it is self-evident. Now, as to the grammatical rule (for the derivation) of the word maṇḍa, [it is about]:

Rob his splendour! Plunder his beauty.

With that, he quarrels, like that he rises above.Footnote 54

In the passage “robbing the benefit of others, plundering the benefit of others, quarreling with others, doing bad things like others” is to be examined. Moreover, it is not only up to just this much. Beyond this, it is to be examined when it is said that “the meaning of maṇḍa is also hard to penetrate and vulnerable to refutations.”Footnote 55 In the passage “the sign of the letter ‘ka’ in the word kaṇhaka is in the meaning of collection,” “The grammatical rule of the letter ‘ka’ [in the word meṇḍaka] is taken from kaṇhaka.” It ought to be examined as the suffix (paccaya) -ka in kaṇhaka of the Kaccāyana Sutta.Footnote 56 And the meaning of collection is a method of collocation and combination. In this way too it is sought for the [word] meṇḍaka is involved, the meaning of the word that “goes in a combination of the meaning of the word maṇḍa,” and because the question is understood in a combination of two meanings, therefore, “that is a meṇḍaka question.” In this way, the meaning is to be known—a question regarding meṇḍaka.

Pāli Text

Except for a few cases, we follow here the printed edition edited by Deshpande (Mil-a 152–153). Punctuation or regularization of the spacing are changed silently.

Editorial Symbols and Abbreviations

]   lemma

/    daṇḍa

cf. confer/compare with

em.   emendation

meṇḍake ti dvinnam atthānaṃ missībhāvaṃ gate/ evaṃ attho kathaṃ jānitabbo/ ekāroFootnote 57 hi ettha idhātuvināsamentū ti āgataṭṭhāne ekāro viya gatyatthe pavatto/ maṇḍasaddo pana sārakappo/ maṇḍakappo/ orakappoFootnote 58/ sāramaṇḍakappo/ bhaddakappoFootnote 59 ti āgataṭṭhāne maṇḍasaddo viya dvīsu atthesu pavatto/ kakāro tesaṃ samodhānamissībhāve atthe pavatto/ tattha ekārassa saddalakkhaṇaṃ pākaṭattā gavesitabbameva natthi/ maṇḍasaddassa pana saddalakkhaṇam/

tassa corehi sobhaggam/ tassa kantiṃ vilumpati//

tena saddhiṃ vivadati/ tulyaṃ tenādhirohatī ti//

āgataṭṭhāne parassa atthacoro/ parassa atthavilumpako/ parena saddhim vivadako/ parena tulyapāpako ti gavesitabbo/ na kevalañca ettako eva/ parato vutte dunniveṭhe saniggahe pi maṇḍassa attho ti gavesitabbo/ kakārassa saddalakkhaṇaṃ samūhatthe kaṇhakā ti āgataṭṭhāne kaccāyanasuttante kaṇhapaccayo ti gavesitabbo/ samūhattho pana samodhānamissībhāvassa pariyāyo/ evaṃ gavesito ca pana so meṇḍako ayati maṇḍānaṃ atthānaṃ missībhāvaṃ gacchatī ti vacanattho/ yasmā ca yo pañho dvinnaṃ atthānaṃ missībhāvaṃ gacchati/ tasmā so pañho meṇḍako ti evaṃ attho jānitabbo/ tasmiṃ meṇḍake/

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ooi, E.J., Schumann, A. & Sirisawad, N. Defining a Meṇḍaka Question in the Questions of Milinda and Its Commentarial Texts. J Indian Philos 51, 567–589 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09543-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09543-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation