Re: Sadd: some responses to Jim's comments

Dear Lance,

Thanks for the additional information and for your point of view.

> For me this kind of early date for the grammar of Kaccaayana is just
> not believable. Buddhaghosa and the other early commentators seem to
> have no knowledge of Kaccaayana, although they do occasionally refer
> to Panini. How would one account for that if he is earlier ?

The Apadaana commentary (ascribed to Buddhaghosa) states that
Mahaakaccaana expounded three treatises, including the grammar, in the
midst of the Sangha (see Ap-a 491). Later Pali grammarians also
consider him to be the author of the grammar. I'm not sure if one
could say that Buddhaghosa and the early commentators had no knowledge
of Kaccaayana's grammar, although Ole Pind seems to have come to that
conclusion in his JPTS article. It's clear to me, however, that the
commentators knew a great deal about the traditional Indian
grammatical system but it's hard to tell whether it's Kaccaayana's or
an adaptation from Sanskrit grammar, or otherwise. I think more study
is needed. I've come to the conclusion that a knowledge of traditional
Indian grammar is essential for a good understanding of the
innumerable linguistic analyses found in the commentaries.

With Buddhaghosa, I've long assumed that it was just the commentaries
that he translated from Siiha.labhaasaa to Maagadhabhaasaa. But from
the little reading I've done of the Buddhaghosuppatti so far, I get
the impression that he also did the same thing for the Tipi.taka. Is
that your understanding? It makes me wonder how Buddhaghosa came to
know the Maagadhabhaasaa so well before his translation work had
begun. And was this the old dialect spoken in the Buddha's time or one
spoken in Magadha at a much later time? He is said to have been born
in the Magadha country not far from Bodh Gaya.

> >Maagadhabhaasaa hi muulabhaasaati ca ariyabhaasaati ca
> >maagadhabhaasaati ca paa.libhaasaati ca dhammaniruttiiti ca
> >sabhaavaniruttiiti ca vuccati. -- p. 13
> >
>
> Here at least paa.libhaasaa must mean 'language of the texts', not
> Pali language.

Yes, I agree. That would be a cha.t.thitappurisa.

Best wishes,
Jim