Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Re: Kacc. 1-1-10

I read _adho.thita.m_ as "in the final position" (literally "in the
bottom position") of a word.  Conversely, Dr Pind's survey proposes
that it indicates "the graphic practice of writing the final consonant
in a conjunct below the line" (§23).  I take it that Dr. Pind's
interpretation is supported by comparative reading of Vararuci's
Prakrit grammar, whereas Senart claims that his reading of
_adho.thita.m_ meaning "final" is supported by the Ruupasiddhi, where,
he claims, it is explained with the word _antika_ (but perhaps Senart
was recalling a commentarial layer on the Ruupasiddhi, rather than the
source text?).

Senart interprets the whole verse as a guide to pronunciation, rather
than spelling ("...en garde contra une prononciation indistincte"),
but Vidyabhusana does not follow his lead, instead reading the verse
(primarily) as describing the fact that the anuswara is sometimes kept
distinct from the initial vowel of the word following.

In other words, following Vidyabhusana, we would regard the purpose of
verse 10 as a mere caveat to verse 11, viz., we do not *always*
subjoin final consonants to the initial vowel of the next word
following.

Yet another interpretation is offered by H.T. DeSilva, who translates
the passage as: "Separate the initial consonant from the vowel by
sub-rule".  I do not consider this a very helpful gloss; apparently
the sub-rule is left up to the imagination.

I would surmise that, originally, the purpose of 1-1-10 made sense in
terms of "softening" the sequence from verses 9 to 11; if you're just
reciting the suttas (not the vutti, which was, of course, added later)
then it would make sense to have a caveat of this kind in the
sequence, just generally reminding the reciter that (notwithstanding
verses 9 and 11) the final consonant paired with an initial vowel can
remain mutually distinct (notwithstanding 9 and 11, etc.).  However, I
do not believe that this should be understood as a prescription for
pronunciation (viz., in all cases to remain phonetically distinct),
nor do I see it as pertaining to a scribal or pictographic quality of
the words.  I simply have no need for the further hypothesis
concerning orthography in this verse.  However, in support of the
general proposition as quite possible, I might note Mason's
description as to how young Burmese monks studying Kacc. were taught
_Sandhi_ by a procedure of writing part of the word below the line,
then changing the vowel, etc., and returning the "lowered" letter into
the word (this is in his introduction, p. iv - v, with a
near-inscrutable table provided in illustration).  Mason thought that
this type of instruction was implicit in at least some verses of Kacc.
as a text, viz., that the examples were intended to be copied out
repeatedly, following a procedure whereby a syllable would be put
below the line to help the student practice the permutation of the
vowels (etc.) --however, this is *not* equivalent to "the graphic
practice of writing the final consonant in a conjunct below the line"
in a finished text.

If the primary example of the rule is (as Vidyabhusana suggests) the
mutation of the ansuwara (viz., the final consonant _par excellence_
in Pali) the supposition that this peculiar final consonant (or its
permutation as "ma", "mu", etc.) is supposed to become a subscript in
the fashion suggested by Dr. Pind seems to an odd match with the
wording and context of the verse in question.  I am not at all
dogmatic: I would be delighted to learn that I am wrong, if this may
be the case.

So, why is the sole example (from the Dhp) of "Tatraayamaadi" provided
at all?  I do not assume that it is especially salient example that
the Vutti has chosen, but it certainly would not make sense as an
example of keeping pronunciation distinct (following Senart's
interpretation).  It might be taken as an example of inconsistent
_nigghaiita sandhi_, showing a form that only appears with the
anuswara permuted because of the poetic metre of the Dhp, but perhaps
would be more commonly (or: prosaically) found written out in a
"viyojaye" form.

E.M.