Ole Pind's article on Kaccayana in Bizot's _Saddavimala_...

Justin & Ole,

> It is not in a festschrift, I am referring to the "Purete..."
> one on the Saddavimala.

Thank you --I found the text and the article, and read it immediately.

It seems that Ole Pind is the only scholar on earth whom I agree with
on some fundamental questions about Kaccyana, e.g., that it is "the
work of many hands" (not a single author) and has clear signs that it
has been changed in form and content over time (viz., not simultaneous
authorship).  This seems so abundantly obvious to me, that I rather
shudder at the thought of extending my "introduction" even further to
argue the point in detail, but Vidyabhusana, etc., seem to ignore
these very obvious indications, e.g., the change in chapter divisions,
organization, etc., being something parallel to the changes to the Th.
Vinaya.  Indeed, the type of changes observed in Pali "layered" texts
(be it Kacc. or Vinaya) have some common features across genres.

One step that has not been taken (to my knowledge?) in Kacc. is to
find a few examples where the Vutti mis-interprets the Sutta; this has
been fundamental in proving that the layers of the Vinaya are
separated by a significant passage of time.  I rather "assume" that I
will find evidence of this kind as I continue to work on Kacc.

I continue to be delighted by Wijesekera's observations on Kaccayana
(in his _Syntax..._); I still have not had time to scan Tha Do Oung's
work.

E.M.