Kacc.: Date & Origin

Just thought I'd write a brief note on Kacc., as I've only recently read
L.C.'s comments on Kacc. (posted to the list before I'd joined it) --as a
result of Jim's recent posting of the accumulated past messages concatenated
into a text file.

In the past, I've posted my own "working hypothesis" on Kacc. to this list
  --and I am slightly more prolix in the introduction to my own book.

Very briefly:

  (1) There remains fundamental and widespread confusion as to what a
Prakritic language is, and what the relationship between "Pali", "Prakrit",
and "Magadhi" could have been --or could not have been.  On this subject, I
will simply point my finger at M. Deshpande's opus, and lament that Pali
studies remains haunted by (very Anglo-Saxon) preconceptions that
philosophers of classical India (like the modern English equivalent) would
(or: could) only write poetry in their mother tongue.  Pali was not (and
never has been) a spoken/mother tongue in Magadha --nor anywhere in India.
      Nor did King Henry the fifth really speak in Iambic pentameter as
Shakespear's history might suggest.
      Many of the inferences that modern scholars have drawn about Pali's
origins rest on socio-linguistic preconceptions that are quite alien to
ancient India.

  (2) Assigning a date based on examples in the "payoga" tends to ignore the
(very obvious) layering of the text --and I do not see how the date of
subsequent layers serves to identify the timeline of the earlier ones.  I
will say further that it is surprising that this is such a knotted issue in
scholarship on Kacc., where the layers are very obvious (sutta vs. vivarana
vs. payoga) --whereas the very complex and difficult "layers" that are
suggested by the "borrowed texts" of (e.g.) A.N. showing up in the Vinaya is
a much more difficult issue (and one that seems to have received more
careful and considered attention, re: fixing a hypothetical date).

  (3) All of the "regional" inferences drawn from the study of the Ashokan
inscriptions need to be re-examined, or dispensed with.  Almost every
academic invocation of the inscriptions as a proof of "Eastern" or "Western"
elements of Pali (and other Prakrits) that I've seen is seriously flawed
  --and I recall V. Bubenik remarking to the same effect (the latter is quoted
in my appendix, I believe).
     In as much as the assigned dates of Kacc. have relied on drawing up a
timeline from supposed "regional" influences in the development of Pali we
must recognise that we really know nothing at all --except that some
scholars have made something out of nothing in this respect.

  (4) The fact that Buddhaghosa does not quote/name Kacc. is *not* evidence
that Kacc. post-dates B.G. --that is an _argumentum ex silentio_ at best.
      Although I remain "open minded" as to a late origin, there seems to be
an inexplicable consensus that Kacc. can be assigned to the 7th century "in
the absence of any evidence to the contrary" --but it would indeed seem to
me an extraordinary leap to assign Kacc. to the 7th century (or any other
century A.D.), given what (little) we know about Pali compositions at that
time.
      If we were to genuinely follow the hypothesis that everything B.G.
doesn't mention post-dates him, we would have to carve a huge hole out of
the canon --besides which, this type of thinking ignores the *positive*
evidence that B.G. had his own strong views on grammar.
      Given the B.G. has (to a large extent) "his own" set of grammatical
terminology (i.e., not seen/extant before him) and his own sort of verve in
treating grammatical issues (a point duly emphasised by Malalasekera) it
would be unreasonable to expect him to slavishly follow any prior
grammatical authority.  He was either an innovator in grammatics, or drew
from a tradition that is no longer extant (likely: both).
      It also seems to be the case that the Sinhalese had no particular
esteem for Kacc. until after the Burmese became so enthusiastic about it
  --the Burmese "revival" of grammar, and the sudden push for vernacular
glosses (etc.) on sources incl. Kacc is a contrast to the earlier evolution
in Sri Lanka, where various grammarians seem to have been quite unimpressed
by Kacc., and were content to develop grammatical science each in their own
direction, and to dissent from Kacc. and improve on his methods (again, the
aspect of "dissent" is emphasised by Malalasekera in comparing Sinhalese
grammarians).
      Thus, it seems to me that Kacc. becomes an olympian figure quite late
  --probably with the rise of Burmese commentaries on his text.  Thus, I don't
see why the silence of B.G. should imply the non-existence of Kacc. any more
than it should imply the non-existence of the texts that awaited
Dhammapaala's commentaries.

I would be very interested to read Dr. Pind's comments on these matters --I
have not been able to (yet) read his published opinions on the subject
  --although I think I may soon receive a package thereof in the mail,

E.M.



--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
Those who feel shame when they ought not to, and do not feel shame when they
ought to, such men due to their wrong views go to woeful states.
Random Dhammapada Verse 316