Dear Jim and Mahinda,

thank you. We are definitely not trying to cook up a controversy here. It is, as Jim suggests, also possible that 'muulabhaasaa' has a more gentle definition. By the time of Aggavamsa (12th century CE), Pali should already be in decline in India. However, the glorious days of Pali are still evident in Ashoka's inscriptions, for example. The idea of Pali as the 'muulabhaasaa' should have developed at a time much earlier than Aggavamsa, and probably, as Mahinda suggests, for good intentions. However, we should not discount the possibility of a Pali (or Prakrit) supremacy ideology at one time in India. This, of course, may be the result of popular secular beliefs, and not entirely Buddhist. Let's leave the "hard work" of further analysis and study to the historians, and just focus on Pali. ;-)

We are privileged to inherit the excellent works of the classical Pali grammarians, and we conduct our study on the shoulders of giants. It is from the study of these works that we can further our understanding of Pali. We should also keep in perspective the historical development of Buddhism and the Pali language in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere, and take a balanced approach to certain cultural elements which may have persisted in these works.

As for vikara.na, I like Jim's suggestion to retain its Pali, or adopt it into our English translations, even though I have no doubt our understanding of the term will increase as we progress through the classic.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Mahinda Palihawadana wrote:

Personally, I am (now) inclined to think it is the ideological factor that has been predominant. It had become a religious belief, a di.t.hi., so not really Buddhistic.(There is somewhere the idea that a child kept isolated from socity would start to speak Maagadhii.) But we know such things happen, with the best of intentions. Hindus called Sanskrit the language of gods. I entirely agree with Jim that the traditional grammars are valuable and absolutely deserve to be studied.They are indispensable.The only point I have been making is that for a 'scientific' (as opposed to a 'practical') understanding of the Pali language, the historical perspective is important. Comparison with Sanskrit often (though not always) provides that perspecive. This is because all other ancient Prakrits have vanished.