Re: Inquiry on the Survey of Pali Grammatica

Bhante Ashin Pandita,

> In fact, it has been a long-held notion in Burma. There is even a Pali verse
> naming the separate authors of Sutta, Vutti, and Udaahara.na (examples)
> respectively.

I agree that this is a very important passage --in my introduction to
Kacc. I point out that this is the *only* historical information that
we have about the authorship of the book.  Unfortunately, many
scholars ignore this point (following Vidyabhusana's example) and
pretend that the whole book was written by one person, at one time, so
that they can more easily assign a date to the whole book.

Vidyabhusana doesn't even have a reason (or an argument) as to why the
book would be by just one author (it is a layered text, and, as Dr.
Pind agrees, there is enough "mis-understanding" separating the layers
to indicate that a significant period of time passed between the sutta
& vutti being authored) --but Vidyabhusana wanted to make a
"sensation" by drawing attention to Mason's earlier finding that a few
kings and toponyms are named in the course of the Vutti.  These are
only important "anachronisms" if we assume (or: pretend) that the
Vutti and the Sutta are by the same author (as Vidyabhusana insists).

The whole thing seems absurd to me --but, very recently, I received
e-mails from Dr. Bedell supporting Vidyabhusana's position.  This sort
of judgement must rely either on intimate knowledge of the particular
text, or broad awareness in patterns of authorship among layered texts
& commentaries in the genre; given this perspective, Vidyabhusana's
position seems absurd.

However, "that was 100 years ago".  Very little has been written about
Kacc. since then; and Dr. Pind's article is a major step in the right
direction.

E.M.