Re: Kacc.: Date & Origin

Ole Pind wrote:

>The Kaccayanavutti seems to presuppose the A.t.thakathas, and appears to be
>a compilation by different hands. It is almost impossible to assign a date
>to Kacc which often reads like a compilation of grammatical notes strung
>together with no obvious logical pattern to it. Apart from the Katantra the
>compilors used Panini's grammar. The suttas contain errors due to scribal
>errors. Some of the rules are very strange and virtually inexplicable. I
>have a feeling that some of them may actually reflect that part of the lost
>Kaumaralata that is supposed to deal with Buddhist Sanskrit. This is just a
>guess. To Buddhaghosa and post-Buddhaghosa scholars grammar is Paninian
>grammar, and Kacc that does not address many of the features of the
>canonical language that the early commentators wanted to explain was not
>even considered as worthy of interest. Kacc is, for instance, only mentioned
>a few times in commentarial lit., in which all references to grammar is
>invariably Paninian grammar.

I think the earlier discussion was mainly occasioned by my objection
to the idea that Kacc is the work of the Buddha's disciple,
Mahaakaccaana. Your remarks above would equally seem to rule that out.

You suggest that the vutti seems to presuppose the A.t.thakathaa.
Since the A.t.thakathaa seem to have been written over a period of
time (including works such as Ap-a), this suggests that you do indeed
date the vutti to around the seventh century, or am I
misunderstanding you ?

You state that Kacc is referred to only a few times in commentarial
literature. I have been under the impression that it is never
mentioned by Buddhaghosa, but only in such works as Ap-a. Or, do you
know an earlier mention ?

Lance Cousins