Re: Sadd: some responses to Jim's comments

Dear Jim,

>In the CPD bibliography there is listed a .tiikaa on Ap-a (Pi.t-sm
>226). But it reads like it's no longer extant. If it were, information
>on the authorship of Ap-a might be found therein. The authorship of
>Ap-a is given in CPD as (: Buddhaghosa !). The exclamation mark
>suggests the compiler doesn't accept it though. The writer of the
>Gandhava.msa might have had a source(s) that is no longer available on
>which he could state that Buddhaghosa was the author.

I would not be surprised if the .tiikaa attributed it to Buddhaghosa
and may be the source of the attribution in the Gandhava.msa. But
that would not convince me at all. Have a careful look at the
introduction and conclusion to Ap-a in the Burmese or VRI edition. I
think if you do, you will see why I am sceptical.

>As you know, I'm not one for disputing the traditional authorships or
>dates of early texts even though there is no way I can be sure of
>them. But at least I can accept them until I'm absolutely convinced
>otherwise.

This is a methodological issue. There are good reasons for doubting
traditional attributions when they are not attested until much later.
There are many, many examples of famous names being attached to
pseudonymous works at a later date from the literature of many
societies.

>  One advanatage of believing that the great Kaccayana is the
>source of the grammar is that one is more likely to take the study of
>traditional Pali grammar more seriously and with greater respect. If
>you take it as a work of a later Kaccayana from no earlier than the
>7th century, then that could leave the impression that it might be
>just some mediocre grammar by a third-rate author not so deserving of
>study.

Yes, I can see why you feel that and it did occur to me that I should
not say anything for fear of discouraging people from studying Kacc.
But on the whole it seems better to have an open discussion of the
matter and then agree to differ, if appropriate. For myself I hope to
decide whether or not Kacc is mediocre after studying it. I can see
reasons why Buddhists might take a different view of it to
specialists in Sanskrit grammar.

>  > I think we have to discard all the post-ninth century information
>>  about Buddhaghosa. It is clearly legendary. Four centuries is quite
>>  long enough for all sorts of legends to develop. (In fact, I myself
>>  would date Buddhaghosa to the fourth century A.D.)
>
>I'd be interested in knowing what you base a 4th cent. dating on. The
>mid-5th cent. (when he worked on the texts) is what I'm more familiar
>with.

Two things:

1. My own view that his writings fit better in the fourth century in
terms of the overall development of Indian Buddhist thought.

2. Petra Kieffer-Pulz has shown that a fourth century dating is
likely for the Vinaya commentary.

Lance Cousins