Re: Who was Kacc?yana, or, who wrote the Vy?karana?

Dear Jim,

> It sounds like E.J. Thomas is referring to the canonical
> Niddesa (two volumes) included in the Khuddakanikaaya. This
> is an old commentary on portions of the Suttanipaata but I
> have never heard it called the Sutta-Niddesa before.

_Suttaniddesa_ is the name by which the two Niddesas are
referred to at the end of the Mahaaniddesa.

Von Hinueber states that the name Suttaniddesa is used at
the end of both Niddesas (_Handbook of Pali Literature_,
p.58), but the CSCD version doesn't have it at the end of
the Cullaniddesa.

I also noticed an error in von Hinueber's account. He
states, "An interesting remark on the history of Nidd. is
found in the Vinaya commentary, where it is reported that it
was nearly lost, for at a certain time only a single monk
named Mahaarakkhita knew it by heart still."

In fact the VinA. does not name the sole-surviving
Niddesa-reciter. It states that the elder Mahaatipi.taka
ordered his pupil Mahaarakkhita to go to the monk and learn
it, but the latter was unwilling because the Niddesa-reciter
had an evil reputation. Mahaarakkhita finally agreed to go,
on condition that Mahaatipi.taka sat with him:

tatrida.m vatthu -- mahaabhaye kira ekasseva bhikkhuno
mahaaniddeso pagu.no ahosi. atha catunikaayikatissattherassa
upajjhaayo mahaatipi.takatthero naama mahaarakkhitatthera.m
aaha -- "aavuso mahaarakkhita, etassa santike mahaaniddesa.m
ga.nhaahii" ti. "paapo kiraaya.m, bhante, na ga.nhaamii" ti.
"ga.nhaavuso, aha.m te santike nisiidissaamii" ti. "saadhu,
bhante, tumhesu nisinnesu ga.nhissaamii" ti pa.t.thapetvaa
rattindiva.m nirantara.m pariyaapu.nanto osaanadivase
he.t.thaama~nce itthi.m disvaa "bhante, suta.myeva me pubbe,
sacaaha.m eva.m jaaneyya.m, na iidisassa santike dhamma.m
pariyaapu.neyyan"  ti aaha. tassa pana santike bahuu
mahaatheraa ugga.nhitvaa mahaaniddesa.m pati.t.thaapesu.m.
(VinA. iii. 695-6)

Mahasi Sayadaw discusses this episode in his lecture on the
Tuva.taka Sutta. On the question of whether the last line of
the sutta was spoken by the Buddha himself or by his
mind-created nimitta the sayadaw notes that the Niddesa
claims that it was the Buddha, but he himself prefers to
think it was the nimitta:

"Instead of 'tenaaha bhagavaa' if it is 'tenaaha nimmito', it
can be explained as 'recommended by the created self-image'.
It will be more appropriate. It is possible to be so in the
original Paali text. The reason is at the time of crisis in
Sri Lanka, this Mahaaniddesa text was learnt verbatim by one
impious monk only. The Vinaya Atthakathaa–Dutiyasikkhaa
Commentary states that at the orders of Mahaatipi.taka
Thera, Mahaarakkhita Thera had learned it from the impious
monk. Considering this statement it is plausible that there
might be some errors in the young monk's learning such as
'bhagavaa' instead of 'nimmito'."

Besides this the sayadaw does offer some rather good
arguments in defence of his reading, but the above one seems
a bit dodgy to me. If there's anything you don't like in the
Niddesa, just claim that the "impious monk" must have got it
wrong!

Best wishes,

Dhammanando

P.S. btw., this weekend I am being given a new pair of
glasses, so I will then be able to continue with the
transcribing of the Diipanii. Sorry about the delay with
this.