Re: Phra Maha Nimitr's intro

Dear Bhante Dhammanando

You wrote:

>Phra Maha Nimitr begins his introduction with a brief account of the division of Pali grammars into major and minor ones. His taxonomy is different to the one I am
>familiar with. I had thought that 'major' referred to the Kaccaayana, Moggallaana, and Saddaniiti grammars, and 'minor' to all the rest. In Maha Nimitr's scheme 'major' refers to pioneering grammars written in the form of suttas,and 'minor' to derivative grammars written in verse for the sake of easy memorization. (Grammatical .tiikaas like the Padaruupasiddhi don't appear to fit in either category). In the 'major' category he states that there are four: the Kaccaayana, Moggallaana, Saddaniiti, and (surprisingly) the
>Saddasa`ngaha grammars. As for the minor grammars, he limits these to texts composed in Burma and Thailand, states that they number more than thirty, and gives as examples the
>Sa`nkhyaapakaasaka of ~Naa.navilaasa, the Vajirasaaratthasa`ngaha of Ratanapa~n~na, and the present work, the Saddatthabhedacintaa.
>
That taxonomy of Phra Maha Nimitr is identical with what we in Burma
have known all along.

If a grammarian, pioneer or not, sets out a book in the form of suttas,
he is founding an independent and self-contained system of grammar to
describe the Pali language. He may be heavily influenced by his
predecessors yet he has full liberty to differ from them if he chooses.

Viewed in this way, there are altogether four Pali grammatical systems,
namely, Kaccaayana, Moggallaana, Saddaniiti and Saddasa`ngaha. They are
called "major" grammars. Padaruupasiddhi, and other commentaries don't
have a separate category. They, on the contrary, are viewed as
subservient to the particular system they are commenting upon;
Padaruupasiddhi, for instance, belongs to Kaccaayana system, for it is a
commentary on Kaccaayana suttas using a different order.

On the other hand, those tending to have narrower scopes, that is, those
choosing to explain certain topics or concepts are not presented in
suttas. They usually come in versified form, and viewed as "minor" grammars.

>If I may digress a little, the above-mentioned Saddasa`ngaha was composed shortly before the Fifth Council by King Mindon's Minister, U Bo Hlaing (the Aggasenaapati Wetmasut
>Myoza Wunshindaw Mingyi, 1814-1878). It is not listed in Bode's _Pali Literature of Burma_, but is discussed by Maung Htin, in his biographical preface to Bagshawe's translation of U Bo Hlaing's _Raajadhammasa`ngaha_.
>
"Raajadhammasa`ngaha" is a book on political theory. I have never heard
of "Bagshawe", the translator, but the preface author Maung Htin seems
to be Dr. Htin Aung, the late rector of Rangoon University; he had
doctorates in English and law from Oxford. Anyway, he was not a Pali
scholar. This fact has distorted his translation of technical Burmese
used in religious literature.

>To judge from Htin's account, there seems to be little ground (aside from the author's pretensions) for treating the Saddasa`ngaha as 'major'. Htin's account is a little diffuse but as it is the only information I can find on the text I will quote it in full:
>
I would give my view later.

>"Besides this, in the year 1231 [1869 CE] the Atwinwun [another of U Bo Hlaing's titles] began to write a book that was described as "_Saddasangaha_, like Ashin Buddhaghosa’s
>_Sangaha Athakatha_, eliminating spurious words from various Sanskrit and Magadhi grammars and listing those words that are suitable for use in the Theravada". This was completed
>in 1235 [1873 CE]. The words "listing words suitable for use in the Theravada" that he wrote, fitted in very well with King Mindon's cherished plans for the Fifth Sangayana. It is not known for certain whether or not the Yaw Atwinwun wrote the book with the Sangayana in mind.
>
The quotation you give, "listing those words that are suitable for use
in the Theravada" is questionable. I have never seen the text myself,
but certainly it is not a list of words.

>"In connection with the _Saddasangaha_, in his _Chiddavidhanani_ the Hsayadaw of the Mahavisuddha-yon, U Visuddhacara, made some criticisms. In his critique he says that Yaw Atwinwun approached the first Shweigyin Thathanabaing, the Shweigyin Hsayadaw, Ashin U Jagara, with a request that he should revise and correct it. The Hsayadaw’s opinion was, "This is not a book with any lasting value" and he refused to revise it. Later it was handed over to the Mahavisuddha-yon Hsayadaw, who was to become the second Shweigyin Thathanabaing, and he returned it correcting the text - "in verb formation the order of words should be reversed". In spite of his criticism he gave praise and, when later on the author asked him to correct the treatment of nouns - "If the order of the sentence is
>not right, there will be a restless feeling." - he returned the author’s original script without correction. The Mahavisuddha-yon Hsayadaw's criticism was "The text's true
>meaning is not given." The Hsayadaw and his supporter could discuss their differences candidly.
> 
>
I have heard of, but never read, Chiddavidhanani, but I am almost
certain it is a Burmese book. Still I have doubts over the translated
quotes "in verb formation the order of words should be reversed", and
"If the order of the sentence is not right, there will be a restless
feeling", and "the text's true meaning is not given".

>"When I asked the Mahapanyabala Hsayanyan about this, he replied that the Yaw Atwinwun was a great scholar in Sanskrit, but that in writing this book he had mixed up Pali and Sanskrit. He had not got the Pali _gati_ right and this was the reason for the Mahavisuddha-yon Hsayadaw's criticism. The word _gati_ means the _athwa ala ahta atho_
>(rhythm) of words.
>
>"When a foreigner speaks or writes our own Burmese language,we will notice that the rhythm of the words is not right. In the same way when we speak or write something in a foreign
>language, our usage and arrangement of the words may well be wrong. That is what is meant by getting the _gati_ wrong.
> 
>
The problem is with "pali-gati". I just can't think how in the world
Maung Htin has managed to translate it as "rhythm". It is not how we in
Burma understand the word. It should be rendered instead as "style and
usage". What Hsayanyan means is that the style and usage of Pali
language used in Saddasangaha has been so influenced by Sanskrit that it
has appeared not genuine Pali. (On account of this mistranslation of
"paligati", I have got doubts over the translations of the other quotes
already mentioned)

Now about the treatise itself. It is still extant as a manuscript (I
don't know it exists whether as palm leaves or as a paper manuscript) at
Abhayaaraama Temple (Mandalay, Burma), which belongs to none other than
Sayadaw U Silananda of Dhammananda Vihara, LA, USA. If someone can take
the trouble to contact him, travel to Burma and get it copied, it would
benefit all.

I have never seen the text, but I do know that it is formed of sutta,
vutti and examples, just like Kaccaayana. I come to know it from U Tin
Lwin, my Pali professor in Burma, who did doctorate research on the
Sandhi chapter of that text as an overseas student of SOAS (London). He
managed to finish all but the introduction, which other pressing tasks
didn't allow him to complete.

with metta

Ven. Pandita