[1][2] Buddhist tradition maintains that the disciple Ānanda 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.
[11] However, comparing Buddhist with Jain texts, Sanskrit scholar John Brough (1917–84) concluded the formula indicates personal testimony as opposed to hearsay.
[2][12] Indologist Jean Przyluski (1885–1944) argued that the formula originally may also have meant that the Buddhist discourses were presented as part of sacred revelation (śruti).
[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".
At one time the Blessed One was at ... in ...[18][19] Buddhist studies scholar Mark Allon has defended this translation based on metrical and rhyme patterns.
[23] Buddhist studies scholars Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti have also argued for this translation with a three-word pre-amble (the three words being evaṃ 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.
[30] Buddhist studies scholar Brian Galloway further states that many Tibetan and Indian commentators such as Vimalamitra (8th century) did not support a five-word but rather a three-word pre-amble, reading at one time with the text following it.
This type of translation, called the "double-jointed construction", has been proposed by Religious Studies scholar Paul Harrison and Buddhologist Tilmann Vetter [nl].
During the 5th century, translator Kumārajīva (344–413 CE) started rendering the formula as Rushi wowen (Chinese: 如是我聞; lit.