Skip to content
Kaccāyana

Introduction

Pāli grammatical literature

Section titled “Pāli grammatical literature”

The Pāli expression Pāli-bhāsā means “the language (bhāsā) of the texts for recitation (Pāli)”. Those texts belong to the earliest stratum of Buddhist scriptures as they are preserved by the Theravāda Buddhists. They are collectively referred to as the Tipiṭaka (the Pāli Canon) in that tradition, and they are supposed to be Buddha-vacana (the word of the Buddha). Therefore Pāli is the language of the earliest Buddhist scriptures as preserved in a Buddhist tradition and also has been used as spoken language and a means of communication. According to the tradition Pāli also is known as Māgadhī (the language of Magadha).1 Theravāda Buddhists have produced a number of Pāli grammatical texts for the study of their Canon. The grammatical literature of the Pāli starts from Mahākaccāyana’s Niruttipiṭaka,2 Yamakamahāthera’s Cullanirutti,3 Bodhisatta-vyākaraṇa4 and Sabbaguṇākara-vyākaraṇa.5 Unfortunately these grammatical texts are now lost, but references to them occurring in the Saddanīti and the Padasādhana-ṭīkā indicate that they must have been in existence during the time of Aggavaṃsa, the author of the Saddanīti, who belongs to the 12th century A.D. and Rāhula, the author of the Padasādhana-ṭīkā, who belongs to the 15th century A.D. Perhaps they might have quoted them from some fragments or from some other sources without acknowledging the sources. It is said that Buddhaghosa, the greatest commentator of Pāli literature refers to the lost Pāli grammatical texts in his works indirectly. K.R. Norman observes: “The grammatical terminology used by Buddhaghosa and Dhammapāla indicates that there was already before their time a fixed grammatical system, although there is not enough evidence to decide whether they were referring to an actual grammar, now lost”.6 H. Scharfe says: “It is possible that Buddhaghosa (5th century A.D.), the Buddhist commentator of Pāli texts, refers to a lost Pāli grammar when he discusses grammatical questions”.7 The lost Pāli grammar mentioned by K.R. Norman and H. Scharfe is the same as Niruttipiṭaka, Cullanirutti, Bodhisatta-vyākaraṇa and Sabbaguṇākara-vyākaraṇa or not; whether there is a full-fledged system of Pāli grammar before Kaccāyana or not, these problems are still disputed,8 because we don’t have enough evidences to arrive at the exact conclusion. However the first Pāli grammar, we have, is Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa which exists and is considered as the oldest Pāli grammar.

Vyākaraṇa is one of the important art among 18 arts9 and it is also one of the six Vedaṅga-s (auxiliary Vedic sciences).10 Among Vedaṅga-s Vyākaraṇa is the most important and beneficial aṅga for the study of Veda-s and other sciences.11 This word is derived as: vi+ā+kara+yu suffix = vyākaraṇaṃ.12 It is analysed as:

“yathāsarūpaṃ saddā vyākarīyanti etenā ti vyākaraṇaṃ”13 which means “the function of which is to make words explicit or clear according to their forms”. The literal meaning would be: “separation, distinction”.14 PED gives three meanings of it as: (1) answer, explanation, exposition (2) grammar (3) prediction.15 Moreover Veyyākaraṇa belongs to the Navaṅgasatthusāsana (the master’s nine-fold teaching)16 and it indicates the entire Abhidhamma, sutta-s without verses and the other Buddha-vacana-s which are not included in the other 8 Aṅga-s (divisions).17 It also means “answer, explanation, exposition; one who is an expert in explanation or answer, a grammarian”.18 However, in the canonical literature we find that the term nirutti is used to denote “explanation of words, grammatical analysis, etymological interpretation, pronunciation, dialect, way of speaking, expression”19 and it is one of the six Vedaṅga-s.20 The term nirutti is used in close relation to grammar and its importance is emphasised in Dhammapada21 as:

“vītataṇho anādāno niruttipadakovido
akkharānaṃ sannipātaṃ jaññā pubbāparāni ca
sa ve antimasārīro mahāpañño mahāpuriso ti vuccati”.

However, the term Vyākaraṇa does not occur to refer directly to the grammatical rules of the language used by the Buddha or by his disciples. This does not indicate in any way that the language used by the Buddha or His disciples did not follow any grammar or grammatical rules.22 It seems that the term Vyākaraṇa in the canonical literature may refer to some grammatical texts existing during that time. As H.O. Pind observes: “It is not known when and under what circumstances a distinct Buddhist grammatical literature devoted to the description of the language of the Pāli canon originated. It is reasonable to assume that, throughout the development of the Buddhist tradition, basic knowledge of the morphology and vocabulary of the canonical language was handed down in some form or another, even though it may never have been based upon any distinct grammatical tradition. The Niddesa, with its strings of glosses and morphological substitute forms may be considered an early instance of the level of sophistication of such basic knowledge”.23

Moreover, the references to the grammar of language started from the time of Buddhaghosa onwards. In several instances, he clearly refers his readers to grammar (saddasattha) or grammarians (saddalakkhaṇavidū, saddavidū, akkharacintā) for information about the point of view of grammar.24 B.C. Law, however, observes: “We may venture to suggest that there was no Pāli book of Pāli grammar in existence till the time of the three great Pāli commentators, Buddhadatta Buddhaghosa and Dhammapāla”.25

Linguistical studies of Pāli and Sanskrit may prove to be complementary to each other. W. Subhūti remarks: “Those who know these two languages (Sanskrit and Pāli) are aware of the fact, that the study of Sanskrit grammar, to some extent at least, is indispensably necessary before one can acquire a thorough knowledge of Pāli grammar”.26 However, the development of Pāli grammatical literature has been furthered in many countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand. Grammarians therein have produced many texts. Especially Myanmar is well-known in the field of Pāli grammar. Most of Pāli grammatical texts are available in the Burmese script. R. Gombrich observes: “…. for the practical purpose of describing the language, then, the development of Pāli is generally considered to end with the Burmese grammarians”.27

Generally the Pāli grammars are classified under three schools, namely, (1) Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa (2) Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa (3) Saddanīti. According to Burmese tradition there are four schools by adding the Saddasaṅgaha as the fourth one. However Saddasaṅgaha is well-known in Myanmar and hardly known in other countries like Sri Lanka and Thailand as far as the Pāli study is concerned. As a proper introduction to the present attempt, let us have, in the following pages, an outline of the schools of Pāli grammar.

Saddasaṅgaha: This text has its own sutta-s, vutti and udāharaṇa-s. It was composed during the reign of the king Min-don-min (1852-1877 A.D.)28 by the learned Yo ūbholai of Mandalay in Myanmar. Due to the limited number of scholars who studied it, it is still in manuscript form.29

Saddanīti: This text was composed by the Burmese monk named Aggavaṃsa of Pagan30 who was a tutor to the king Narapatisithu (1167-1202 A.D.)31 The date of its composition is still in controversy, because the author does not give the date of composition either at the beginning or in the colophon of his work. However, according to Sāsanavaṃsa he wrote his work in 1670 B.E. (= 1127 A.D.).32 There is a variant reading sattanavasādhike (97) recorded in the foot-note. The editors of Saddanīti Be have accepted the reading sattanavutādhike and have quoted the Sāsanālaṅkāra and Sāsanavaṃsappadīpikā as the sources. If it is so, the year of its composition would be 1697 B.E. (=1154 A.D.) which belongs to the reign of the king Alongasithu (Burmese Era 454-529 = 1092-1167 A.D.).33 M.H. Bode and W. Geiger also give 1154 A.D. as the date of the Saddanīti’s composition.34 If we accept 1154 A.D. as the date, perhaps the Saddanīti might have been composed before the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa as W. Geiger remarks: “The work of Moggallāna could have been hardly known to him (Aggavaṃsa); it was composed probably after the Saddanīti”.35 However, before we accept the statement of Geiger we have to compare Moggallāna and Saddanīti throughout. According to Piṭakat-samuiṅ, Aggavaṃsa composed his work during the reign of king Kya-cvā of Pagan dynasty (Burmese Era - 596-612 = 1234-1250 A.D.).36 It seems probable, because the king also was a grammarian; he himself composed two Pāli grammars, namely, the Saddabindu and Paramatthabindu. During this time Pāli grammar was a popular subject of study even among women. At the king’s court there were grammarians too. The works produced under his patronage were chiefly grammatical.37 The Saddanīti, as pointed out by M.H. Bode, was “the first return-gift of Burma to Ceylon”. She further says: “A few years after its completion the thera (‘elder’) Uttarājīva left Pagan and crossed the sea to visit the celebrated Mahāvihāra taking with him a copy of the Saddanīti, which was received with enthusiastic admiration, and declared superior to any work of the kind written by Sinhalese scholars”.38 This text is still regarded as a classic in Myanmar.39 The work consists of 28 chapters,40 the first nineteen are called Mahāsaddanīti and the last nine are called Cullasaddanīti. It has three main parts: the Padamālā (the chapters 1-14), the Dhātumālā (the chapters 15-19); the Suttamālā (the chapters 20-28). Aggavaṃsa largely follows Kaccāyana and improves upon the latter. From the point of view of contents it is hardly justifiable to separate the Saddanīti from the school of Kaccāyana. He makes use of the Sanskrit grammars such as those of Pāṇini, etc. It is said that it was based on the writing of the teachers as well as canonical material.41 There is a commentary on it called the Saddanīti-ṭīkā composed by Paññāsāmī of Mandalay.42 M.H. Bode gives the Sāsanavaṃsa43 as the source for this, and states: “At the request of ‘many of his hearers’, he (Paññāsāmī) wrote a Pāli commentary on the first Pāli work that had brought to Burmese scholarship, the Saddanīti”.44

Another grammatical work Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa is also called Saddalakkhaṇa. This grammatical text belongs to a new school of Pāli grammar and is considered as the up-to-date treatise on Pāli grammar. The author was Moggallāna45 a disciple of Mahākassapa of Udumbaragiri, who lived in the Thūpārāma Vihāra at Anurādhapura and wrote his work during the reign of Parakkamabahu I (1153-1186 A.D.). The king had purged the Saṅgha of all heretical bhikkhu-s, the event which took place in 1165 A.D.46 Therefore it is most probable that he had completed his work at least a few years after 1165 A.D.47

Saddalakkhaṇa consists of six chapters, namely, (1) terminology and euphonic combination (2) declension and syntax (3) compound and feminine terminations (4) nominal derivatives (5) verbal derivatives (6) verb or conjugation.48 There are several points of difference between the Moggallāna and Kaccāyana; e.g. Moggallāna says that there are forty three sounds not forty-one as given in Kaccāyana and ten vowels (adding short ê and ô) not eight as given in Kaccāyana etc. It’s arrangement and grouping of the rules as well as terminology are different from that of Kaccāyana. In his work, besides the older Pāli grammar, he made use of the Pāṇini, Kātantra and especially Candragomin and quoted numerous examples from Tipiṭaka to support his argument.49 He also wrote the Pañcikā or commentary on his own vutti called the Moggallāna-pañcikā or the vutti-vaṇṇanā-pañcikā.50 He, therefore, unlike other grammarians, wrote not only the sutta-s (rules) but also the vutti (explanations) and the Pañcikā (comments) to elucidate his system.

Moggallāna tradition

Section titled “Moggallāna tradition”

There are several commentaries on Saddalakkhaṇa. They are:-

(1) Padasādhana: This is the first subsidiary work written on the Moggallāna grammar. It forms an abridged version of Moggallāna grammar. According to De Zoysa, the relation between the Padasādhana and Moggallāna is the same as that of the Bālāvatāra and Kaccāyana.51 It was written during the latter part of the twelfth century by Piyadassī of Sri Lanka.52 The work consists of eight chapters, namely, (1) Saññā (terminology) (2) Sandhi (euphonic combination) (3) Nāma (nouns) (4) Ekattha (compounds) (5) Itthi-paccaya (feminine suffixes) (6) Ṇādayo or Taddhita (nominal derivatives) (7) Tabbādaya or Kita (verbal derivatives) (8) Tyādayo (verbs).53

There is a ṭīkā on Padasādhana called the Buddhippakāsinī. It is also called the Padasādhana-ṭīkā or the Padasādhana-vaṇṇanā which was written in 1472 A.D. by Vācissara Saṅgharājā of Sri Lanka.54 However, in Sinhalese his name is often spelt as Toṭagamuve Śrī Rāhula.55

(2) Payogasiddhi: This is considered to be one of the best and comprehensive Pāli commentary written on Moggallāna grammar. It has been said that the relation between the Payogasiddhi and Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa is the same as that of the Rūpasiddhi and the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. It was written during the reign of Bhuvanekabāhu I (1273-1284 A.D.) by Medhaṅkara Vanaratana of Sri Lanka.56 Therefore he seems to have lived from about the latter part of the thirteenth century to about the early fourteenth century.57 The work consists of seven chapters, namely, (1) Saññā (terminology) and Sandhi (euphonic combination) (2) Nāma (nouns) (3) Kāraka (cases) (4) Samāsa (compounds) (5) Taddhita (nominal derivatives) (6) Kiriyā (verbs) (7) Kitaka (verbal derivatives).58

(3) Sambandhacintā: This also is based on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa. It was composed by Saṅgharakkhita of Sri Lanka.59 This text probably belongs to the twelfth century.60 It deals with the relation of the Pāli verb and its use in syntax and also presents a description of the six kāraka-s (kammakāraka, kattukāraka, karaṇakāraka, sampadānakāraka, apādānakāraka and ādhārakāraka) used with the verb in a sentence.61 It may be noted here that according to W. Geiger, the Sambandhacintā belongs to Kaccāyana tradition.62

There are two ṭīkā-s on Sambandhacintā namely, 3.1 Sambandhacintā-ṭīkā: This was composed by Vācissara of Sri Lanka.63 3.2 Sambandhacintā-ṭīkā: This was composed by Abhaya of Pagan in Myanmar64 who belongs to the fourteenth century.65 But G.E. Fryer gives the probable date of Abhaya as 1227 A.D.66

(4) Susaddasiddhi: This was a subsidiary work on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa. It was written by Saṅgharakkhita of Sri Lanka. This work is not available at present. The Kārakapupphamañjarī of eighteenth century refers to it.67 According to G.P. Malalasekera, the Susaddasiddhi or the Sāratthavilāsinī was a ṭīkā on the Moggallāna-pañcikā.68 However, it has been said that Saṅgharakkhita wrote three books in Pāli grammar belonging to the Moggallāna tradition, namely, (1) the Sāratthavilāsinī on the Moggallāna-pañcikā (2) the Susaddasiddhi and (3) the Sambandhacintā, both on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa.69 Thus it seems that the Susaddasiddhi and the Sāratthavilāsinī are not one and the same book.

(5) Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa-ṭīkā: This is a commentary on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa. It was composed by Vācissara of Sri Lanka. The work is assigned to thirteenth century.70

(6) Moggallāna-pañcikā-pradīpaya (or -padīpa) or the pañcikā-pradīpaya: This is a commentary on the Moggallāna-pañcikā. It was written partly in Sinhalese and partly in Pāli, and it is one of the most comprehensive works on Pāli grammar extant in Sri Lanka. It was composed in 1457 A.D. by Toṭagamuve Śrī Rāhula.71 It consists of six chapters, namely, (1) Saññā (terminology) (2) Nāma (nouns) (3) Samāsa (compound) (4) Ṇādi (nominal derivatives) (5) Khādi (verbal derivatives) (6) Tyādi (verb).72

(7) Niruttidīpanī: This also is a commentary on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa. It was written by Ledi Hsyadaw of Myanmar. He also wrote a (Burmese) Nissaya on his own work entitled Niruttidīpanī-nissaya.73

(8) Ṇvādi-moggallāna: This is based on the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa and deals with gender.74 It was written by Saṅgharakkhita of Sri Lanka who lived at the Mahāvihāra monastery in Anurādhapura.75

(9) Moggallāna-byañjikā: This also was composed by the same Saṅgharakkhita.76

(10) Dhātupāṭha: This also belongs to Moggallāna’s school. It follows the Moggallāna order of the root classes, and is shorter than that of Kaccāyana-mañjūsā. It was written in prose. It probably was written prior to the Dhātumañjūsā of Kaccāyana’s school. Neither its compiler nor its date is known.77

Place of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa

Section titled “Place of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa”

Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa belongs to the oldest school of Pāli grammatical tradition. It is so called, because it owes its origin to the teacher Kaccāyana or Mahākaccāyana. It is called variously as: Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa, Kaccāyana-pakaraṇa, Kaccāyana-yoga, Kaccāyana-gandha, Susandhi-kappa, Kaccāyanamūlappakaraṇa or Mūlakaccāyanappakaraṇa. Let us consider the significance of these titles:

(1) Kaccāyana-pakaraṇa: The word Kaccāyana is used here as a mark of honour to its author. The word pakaraṇa means “performance, undertaking, paragraph (of the law), occasion, exposition, arrangement, literary work, composition, book”.78 If it is used as the title, it indicates literary work, composition or book e.g. Abhidhamma-pakaraṇa, Kathāvatthu-pakaraṇa, Netti-pakaraṇa.79 Therefore the meaning would be: “Kaccāyana’s composition” or “the book on Kaccāyana”.

(2) Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa : The word Vyākaraṇa used here means grammar.80 Therefore this title means: “Kaccāyana’s grammar” or “the grammar written by Kaccāyana”.

(3) Kaccāyana-yoga81 : The word Yoga here means aphorisms.82 Therefore this title means:- “Kaccāyana’s aphorisms” or “aphorism written by Kaccāyana”.

(4) Kaccāyana-gandha: The words gandha and gantha are synonyms in Pāli.83 This is one of the six books ascribed to Mahākaccāyana.84 It probably refers to the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa.85 The title Kaccāyana-gandha may be translated as: “the Kaccāyana’s text” or “the text written by Kaccāyana”.

(5) Susandhi - kappa: This title occurs in the introductory verses of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. It is so called because the text starts with the Sandhi-kappa as its first chapter to give much emphasis on the importance of the rules of sandhi. Thus: su + sandhi + kappa = Susandhikappa (su means well, nice, sandhi means joint, accord, agreement, combination etc.; kappa means time, part, chapter etc. Here it stands for chapter).86 The meaning would be: “the chapter on sandhi”. If the title Susandhi-kappa stands for the chapter on the sandhi only, then it does not convey the purpose of the author, because sandhi is not enough in understanding the meaning of Buddha-vacana. Bhikkhu Satyapāla rightly observes: “Thus, it seems, the term, Susandhikappa here does not only refer to the contents of the Sandhikappa, but it refers to the contents of all the chapters including those of the Sandhikappa”.87 The title is also spelt as Sandhi-kappa.88

(6) Kaccāyana-mūlappakaraṇa or Mūlakaccāyana-pakaraṇa: The word mūla means “root, foot, bottom, ground for, reason, cause, condition, origin, source, foundation, beginning, base”.89

The word here stands for beginning or base. The book is so called, because it was the beginning or basic text to enter into Pāli study. It was a manual, belonging to the compulsory subjects for monks and novices in the ancient times. They had to master it as a basic text.90

Let us now turn to the discussion about the authorship of the present grammar. First, reference may be made to the view that the author was Mahākaccāyana, a disciple of Lord Buddha. He was born at Ujjenī in the family of the chaplain of king Caṇḍappajjota, and was called Kaccāyana both because of his golden complexion and because Kaccāyana was the name of his gotta. He studied the Veda-s, and on the death of his father, succeeded him as chaplain. With seven others he visited the Buddha, at the request of Caṇḍappajjota, to invite him to come to Ujjenī. Kaccāyana and his friends listened to the Buddha’s sermon, and having attained arahantship, joined the order. He then conveyed the king’s invitation to the Buddha, who pointed out that it would now suffice if Kaccāyana himself returned to Ujjenī. Kaccāyana accordingly set out for Ujjenī with his seven companions. After having made the king devoted (to the Buddha) and having duly established the Sāsana in Avantī, he returned once more to the Buddha.91

According to the Apadāna, Kaccāyana’s father was called Tīriṭivaccha (or Tidivavaccha) and his mother Candapadumā.92 And he was one of the most eminent disciples of the Buddha. He is considered as the chief among the expounders of the brief sayings of the Buddha.93 According to the tradition Kaccāyana not only composed the Pāli grammar bearing his name but also the Netti-pakaraṇa and the Peṭakopadesa. It is probable that these works were the compilations of a school which traced its descent to Mahākaccāyana.94

According to Gandhavaṃsa, he composed six books, namely, (1) Kaccāyana-gandha (2) Mahānirutti-gandha (3) Cūlanirutti-gandha (4) Netti-gandha (5) Peṭakopadesa (6) Vaṇṇanīti-gandha.95 Reference to Mahākaccāyana who composed the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa occurs first in the Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā.96 Later, the commentators belonging to the Kaccāyana tradition e.g. Vimalabuddhi, the author of the Nyāsapāṭha,97 and Buddhappiya, the author of the Rūpasiddhi-ṭīkā98 have followed that passage. Further, interesting stories occur in the Suttaniddesa and the Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā. In the former we have the following story as follows:- “A certain aged monk having taken kammaṭṭhāna (subject of meditation) from the Blessed One (and) sitting at the root of a Sāla tree on the bank of the lake Anotatta meditated on the kammaṭṭhāna, repeating the word udaya - vaya. Observing a crane (baka) moving on the water (udaka), he began to utter the words udaka-baka. The Blessed One, sent for the old monk, and uttered the phrase “Attho akkharasaññāto (the meaning is known by the sound)”. They say that the Elder Kaccāyana having perceived the Blessed One’s intention, placed the phrase “Attho akkharasaññāto” as the first of his aphorisms, (and later on) composed this text. It is also said that the above phrase was composed by the Elder Kaccāyana himself”.99

Another version of the story goes as follows:- “Two Brāhmins, Yama and Uppala, having learned the kammaṭṭhāna, repeating the words khaya-vaya went away (and) meditated on (the kammaṭṭhāna) repeating khaya-vaya on the banks of a river. One of them saw a crane proceeding to catch a fish in the water, and began muttering udaka-bako (water-crane). The other, seeing a cloth in a pot began muttering ghaṭa-paṭo. At this time the Blessed One having issued light declared the phrase ’Attho akkharasaññāto”. Thus the aphorism was declared by the Blessed One. Having known this, Mahākaccāyana with the Blessed One’s permission proceeded to the Himalaya-s. Reclining in the Manosilā region with his head towards the South, and turning his face to the East he composed the Kaccāyana-pakaraṇa consisting of the phrase ‘Attho akkharasaññāto’ etc.100 It is also held that the whole work (sutta-s, vutti and udāharaṇa-s) was composed by one and the same person i.e. Mahākaccāyana.101

(2) Let us turn to another view about the authorship. According to it, the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa was composed by three authors and the commentary by still another. The aphorisms were composed by Kaccāyana, the vutti by Saṅghanandi, the payoga by Brahmadatta and the Nyāsa by Vimalabuddhi. This information occurs in the Kaccāyanabheda-abhinava-ṭīkā.102 It is also said that Mahākaccāyana is identical with Saṅghanandi.103 J. D’Alwis rejects this view and remarks: “It will be observed, that the writer’s statement, that Saṅghanandi was identical with Mahākachchāyana is not borne out by the authority quoted. From the distinct mention of different names for the authors of different parts, viz., the Grammar, its supplements, its notes, and its principal comment, the Nyāsa; it would seem that Saṅghanandi (also called Saṅkhanandi) was a person different from Mahākachchāyana”.104 G.P. Malalasekera shares the view with him and remarks: “From distinct mention of different names for the authors of the different parts, it would seem that Saṅghanandi was different from Kaccāyana. In the ṭīkā to his work, written by Mahāyasa himself, he tries to justify the tradition that both rules and supplements were written by Kaccāyana, on the hypothesis that Kaccāyana may also have been called Saṅghanandi”.105 It is quite possible that Elder Mahākaccāyana himself who was the head of a school at Avantī compiled a set of grammatical rules in the language in which the Canon was handed down and later on they were developed apparently in India, probably by members (Saṅghanandi, Brahmadatta, and lastly by Vimalabuddhi) of the Avantī school.106

(3) According to the third view about authorship, the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa was not composed by Mahākaccāyana, a disciple of Lord Buddha, but it was composed by later Kaccāyana107 who was either Sri Lankan or a South Indian (of Coḷa region) who had the same name.108 In this regard, following facts are put forth -

(1) The Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa in the rule “Parasamaññā payoge”109 refers to the technical terms belonging to the Sanskrit grammar.110

(2) The aphorisms and the terminology of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa are similar to those of Pāṇini and Kātantra. J. D’Alwis points out the similarity between Pāṇini and Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa as follows:-
2.1 Apādāne pañcamī Pā II. 3.28
Apādāne pañcamī Kacc III. 25
2.2 Bhūvādayo dhātavaḥ Pā I. 3.1
Bhūvādayo dhātavo Kacc VI. 2.26
2.3 Kālādhvanor atyantasaṃyoge Pā II. 3.5
Kāladdhānam accantasaṃyoge Kacc III. 28
2.4 Kartari kṛt Pā III. 4.67
Kattari kiṭ Kacc VIII. 1
2.5 Asmady uttamaḥ Pā I. 4. 107
Amhe uttamo Kacc VI. 1.7
2.6 Tīñas trīṇi trīṇi prathamamadhyamottamāḥ Pā I.4.101
Dve dve pathamamajjhimuttamapurisā Kacc VI. 1.3.111

Scholars have pointed out the similarity of terminology and aphorisms also between the Kātantra and the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. Some examples may be given here as follows:-

similarity in aphorisms
2.1. Nāmnāṃ samāso yuktārthaḥ Kt II. 5.1
Nāmānaṃ samāso yuttattho Kacc IV. 1
2.2. Tatsthā lopyā vibhaktayaḥ Kt II. 5.2
Tesaṃ vibhattiyo lopo ca Kacc IV. 2
2.3. Prakṛtis ca svarāntasya Kt II. 5.3
Pakati c’assa sarantassa Kacc IV. 3

similarity in terminology
2.1. Yato’paiti bhayam ādatte vā tad apādānaṃ Kt II. 4.8
Yasmādapeti bhayamādatte vā tad apādānaṃ Kacc III.1
2.2. Yaḥ karoti sa kartā Kt II. 4.14
Yo karoti sa kattā Kacc III. 11
2.3. Te kṛtyāḥ Kt IV. 2.46
Te kiccā Kacc VII 1.22112 etc.

(2) The Moggallāna and the Saddanīti rejected some rules of Kaccāyana not keeping with the Buddha-vacana e.g.

2.1. According to Kaccāyana there are 41 sounds consisting of 33 consonants and 8 vowels.113 But Moggallāna disagrees with him and says that there are 43 sounds consisting of 33 consonants and 10 vowels including short ê and ô e.g. seyyo and sotthi.114 Moggallāna has criticized Kaccāyana’s view.115

2.2. With reference to Kaccāyana’s aphorism ‘Tayo n’eva ca sabbanāmehi’116 Moggallāna states that there substitutions do take place117 and disagrees with Kaccāyana.118

2.3 With reference to Kaccāyana’s aphorism “Tad ass’atthī ti vī ca”119 Saddanīti says that the word ca in the Kaccāyana stands for so suffix. This is not keeping with the Buddha-vacana to which the suffix sa is applicable.120

2.4 Saddanīti says that Kaccāyana121 gives the order of the numbers not keeping with the Pāli (i.e. Tipiṭaka) laid down by the Lord Buddha.122

(3) Some examples of Kaccāyana belong to the modern times e.g.

3.1 “Kva gato’si tvaṃ Devānampiyatissa”:123 That king of Sri Lanka lived during 247-207 B.C. He was a contemporary of Dhammāsoka (Asoka) of India.124

3.2 “Upaguttena māro bandho”:125 This event took place during the time of king Asoka.126

3.3 “Āyasmato Upālittherassa upasampadāpekkho Upatisso āyasmantaṃ”:127 This example is not keeping with Pāli, because Elder Upāli was not older than Elder Upatissa (Sāriputta).128

(4) The traditionalists quote the Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā, Nyāsapāṭha and Rūpasiddhi-ṭīkā as the sources and state that Mahākaccāyana, a disciple of Lord Buddha, is the author of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. But this is not traced out in canonical literature. Non-canonical literature as well as the commentaries on the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa are composed in the later period and are not enough to support the traditionalists’ views.

4.1. The phrase “Attho akkharasaññāto”, the first rule of Pāli grammar was uttered by the Lord Buddha according to the stories mentioned above. After having heard the Buddha’s utterance Mahākaccāyana, composed his Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. These incidents occur in the Suttaniddesa (15th century A.D.) and the Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā (17th century A.D.). However, they are not supported by any canonical text. They also do not quote the sources from where they have got this information.129

4.2 Buddhaghosa,130 who belonged to 5th century A.D.131 was the greatest commentator in Pāli literature. He was not acquainted with the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. If in the Buddhaghosa’s time Kaccāyana’s work was well-known and accepted as the authority on Pāli grammar, he certainly would have used Kaccāyana’s terminology. However, we find differences in terminology used by Buddhaghosa and Kaccāyana as follows:-132

Buddhaghosa Kaccāyana
Paccattaṃ Paṭhamaṃ
Upayogaṃ Dutiyā
Karaṇaṃ Tatiyā
Sampadāna Catutthī
Nissaka Pañcamī
Sāmī Chaṭṭhī
Bhumma Sattamī.

It is maintained that Kaccāyana must be later than Buddhaghosa, since the latter does not refer to him. Buddhaghosa was acquainted with Pāṇini’s grammar and quoted it as an authority.133 Thus according to the third view the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa was composed either by a Sri Lankan or a South Indian author and not by Mahākaccāyana. Further, it is also maintained that he composed not only the sutta-s, but also vutti and udāharaṇa-s.

Subsequently the date of Kaccāyana’s composition also is disputed. Let us summarize the different opinions in this regard:-

(1) J. D’Alwis believes that Kaccāyana was one of the eighty eminent disciples of Lord Buddha. He must have flourished in the latter half of the sixth century before Christ.134

(2) According to G.E. Fryer, Kaccāyana lived in or about the twelfth century of the Christian era.135

(3) S.C. Vidyabhusana quotes two examples from Kaccāyana136 as the source and states that Kaccāyana flourished after 250 B.C. He also refers to Kātyāyanāvavāda sūtra mentioned in the Mādhyamika vṛtti of Candrakīrti. He, therefore, concludes that Kaccāyana lived before the 3rd century A.D. He thinks that Madhurā was the place of residence of Kaccāyana137 and he quotes “Ito madhurāya catūsu yojanesu Saṅkassaṃ nāma nagaraṃ atthi, tattha bahū janā vasanti”138 as the source for this.

(4) According to Windisch, Kaccāyana’s work must at all events be later than the 4th century A.D.139

(5) According to A.A. Macdonell, Kaccāyana’s work seems to date between 500 and 1000 A.D.140

(6) G.P. Malalasekera refers to the ṭīkā-s written during and soon after the reign of Parākramabāhu I (1164 A.D.) and finds that their terminology tallies with that of Kaccāyana. Therefore he concludes that the Kaccāyana came to be put into its present form and recognized in Sri Lanka as an authority on Pāli grammar sometime between the century after Buddhaghosa and the eleventh century.141

(7) According to H. Scharfe, the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa was written between the 5th and the 11th century A.D.142

(8) According K.R. Norman, Kaccāyana might have used the Kāsikā (7th A.D.). In that case he is later than the seventh century.143 But the evidence for this is disputed.144

(9) According to O.H. Pind, perhaps Kaccāyana dates from the 7th -8th century A.D. since his work is not referred to in any of the aṭṭhakathās except Ap-a, a fairly late commentary.145

Thus the authorship and the date of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa are still disputed. It is difficult to solve these problems satisfactorily. However, I incline to share the view that the author of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa, might be either a Sri Lankan or a South Indian monk whose name was similar to Mahākaccāyana, a disciple of Lord Buddha. If we accept Buddhaghosa as belonging to 5th century A.D., Kaccāyana must be later than him as mentioned above. Sharing the view of Malalasekera and Scharfe, it may be said Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa might have been written between 5th (or 6th) and 11th century A.D. In spite of some differences regarding the authorship and the date, most of the Pāli scholars accept that Kaccāyana’s is the oldest Pāli grammar which exists so far. It is very useful for one who would like to study Pāli language and Theravāda Buddhism. As W. Subhūti remarks: “Nevertheless, we can affirm without hesitation that the grammar of Kachchāyana is the most ancient of Pāli grammar; that it was composed by the first rate scholar, and that it is a very useful and valuable work for acquiring a knowledge of the Pāli language”.146

Contents of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa

Section titled “Contents of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa”

The Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa is divided into four broad chapters known as kappa, namely, (1) Sandhi-kappa having five kaṇḍa-s (2) Nāma-kappa having eight kaṇḍa-s (including Kāraka, Samāsa and Taddhita) (3) Ākhyāta-kappa having four kaṇḍa-s (4) Kitaka-kappa having six kaṇḍa-s (including Uṇādi). For the convenience of study, it is also divided into eight chapters as follows:-

(1) Sandhi-kappa: the chapter on combination. It contains five sections (kaṇḍa-s). The total number of the sutta-s is 51.

(2) Nāma-kappa: the chapter on nouns. It contains five sections. The total number of the sutta-s is 221.

(3) Kāraka-kappa: the chapter on syntax. The total number of the sutta-s is 45.

(4) Samāsa-kappa: the chapter on compounds. The total number of the sutta-s is 28.

(5) Taddhita - kappa: the chapter on the nominal derivatives. The total number of the sutta-s is 62.

(6) Ākhyāta-kappa: the chapter on verbs. It contains five sections. The total number of the sutta-s is 118.

(7) Kitaka-kappa: the chapter on the verbal derivatives. It contains five sections. The total number of the sutta-s is 100.

(8) Uṇādi-kappa: the chapter on the particles. The total number of the sutta-s is 50.

Each chapter contains the sutta-s, vutti and udāharaṇa-s. The number of the sutta-s mentioned above is according to Se. They in total are 675. The different numbers of sutta-s according to different versions are as follows:-

  • According to T the total number of sutta-s is 677.
  • According to B1 and S1 “ “ “ “ “ 673.

But S2 and KV De have the same number as Se. The Suttaniddesa and Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā [Burmese edition] have the same number as B1 and S1. But the Nyāsapāṭha [Burmese edition] contains 708 sutta-s i.e. 35 sutta-s more than Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. There are 32 additional sutta-s in Kāraka-kappa, 2 in Nāma-kappa, and 1 in Samāsa-kappa. In the Nyāsapāṭha edition, the additional sutta-s are shown by the device of sub-divisions so that the total number is made consistent with that of the original version e.g. in the Kāraka-kappa the sutta 315, is subdivided as follows:- 315 Ka, 315 Kha, 315 Ga, 315 Gha, 315 Na etc. Ka indicates the original sutta, whereas Kha onwards indicate the extra sutta-s so that the total number is keeping with B1 and S1. Three texts i.e. Nyāsapāṭha, Suttaniddesa and Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā took the sutta-s from Kaccāyana and explained them accordingly unlike the Rūpasiddhi which has taken sutta-s from Kaccāyana and re-arranged them to suit its method.

Kaccāyana tradition

Section titled “Kaccāyana tradition”

There are several commentaries on the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. They are:-

(1) Mukhamattadīpanī or Kaccāyana-nyāsa referred to as Nyāsa: This is supposed to be the oldest and best commentary on Kaccāyana. According to the Gandhavaṃsa and others, the author was Vimalabuddhi of Pagan147 but according to some other authorities he belonged to Sri Lanka.148 He also wrote a ṭīkā on his own work.149 According to the Saddanīti and the Piṭakat-samuiṅ the author was Vajirabuddhi who lived in Mahāvihāra monastery at Anurādhapura of Sri Lanka.150 This work was probably composed in the eleventh century.151 It explains the rules of Kaccāyana (with some additional rules) with copious examples followed by detailed examination. Its method of treatment is very exhaustive, because every word of each rule is discussed by referring to its context, meaning, analysis, question and answer.152 There are two commentaries on it, namely,

1.1 Nyāsappadīpa-ṭīkā: This is the earliest commentary on the Nyāsa composed during the reign of the king Narapatisithu (1174 A.D.) by a minister of that king.153 Therefore the work must have been composed towards the end of the twelfth century.154 The work is known by a Burmese title Thanbyin (rajjuggāhāmacca) which was a title given to revenue officers by the king.155 According to W. Geiger, it was written by Chappada towards the end of twelfth century.156

1.2 Niruttisāramañjūsā: This is the most extensive commentary on the Nyāsa composed by the royal teacher called Dāṭhānāga or Dāṭhānāga Rājaguru of Sagiang during the reign of the king Sirinandadhammapavarādhipati (1648 A.D.).157 Therefore the work must have been composed in the middle of the seventeenth century.158

(2) Mukhamatasāra: This is an abridged form of the Mukhamattadīpanī into verses. It was composed by Sāgara or Guṇasāgara of Pagan.159 He also composed a commentary on his own work at the request of the Saṅgharājā (Head of the order) who was a preceptor of the king Kya-cvā (1234-50 A.D.).160 This work may, therefore, be assigned to the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. However, G.E. Fryer gives the probable date as 1298 A.D.161

(3) Rūpasiddhi or Padarūpasiddhi: This is a re-arrangement of Kaccāyana’s grammar. The author was Buddhappiya, or Dīpaṅkara who was a pupil of the eminent preceptor named Ānanda and a native of the Coḷa in the Damiḷa region. He also was the head of Bālādicca-vihāra.162 The text belongs to the second half of the thirteenth century.163 It consists of seven chapters, namely (1) Sandhi-kaṇḍa (the chapter on euphonic combination) (2) Nāma-kaṇḍa (the chapter on nouns) (3) Kāraka-kaṇḍa (the chapter on syntax) (4) Samāsa-kaṇḍa (the chapter on compounds) (5) Taddhita-kaṇḍa (the chapter on nominal derivatives) (6) Ākhyāta-kaṇḍa (the chapter on verbs) (7) Kibbidhāna-kaṇḍa (the chapter on verbal derivatives) which also includes Uṇādi (verbal particles).164 He also wrote a ṭīkā on his own work.165

(4) Bālāvatāra: This is also a re-arrangement of Kaccāyana’s aphorisms which has been treated in a more systematic and concise form intended for the beginners.166 According to W. Geiger, the author was Dhammakitti who also composed the Saddhammasaṅgaha towards the end of the fourteenth century.167 According to G.P. Malalasekera, the author was Dhammakitti Devarakkhita Jayabāhu, the author of the Nikāyasaṅgraha.168 According to W. Pemaratana, the author was Dhammakitti Rājaguru, the author of the Dāṭhāvaṃsa.169 According to Gandhavaṃsa, the author was Vācissara.170 On this K.R. Norman remarks: “If Vācissara is the author, then the work is datable to the thirteenth century”.171 However, it is possible that Dhammakitti composed only Mahāsannaya upon the Bālāvatāra.172 The work consists of seven chapters, namely, (1) Sandhi (euphonic combination) (2) Nāma (noun) (3) Samāsa (compound) (4) Taddhita (nominal derivatives) (5) Ākhyāta (verb) (6) Kitaka (verbal derivatives) (7) Kāraka (syntax).173 There are two ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 4.1 Porāṇaṭīkā called Sāratthasaṅgaha composed by Uttamamaṅgala of Myanmar. G.E. Fryer gives its probable date as 1279 A.D.174 4.2. Abhinavaṭīkā called Subodhikā composed by H. Sumaṅgala chief Nāyaka Thera, principal, Vidyodaya of Colombo in 1892.175

(5) Kaccāyanasuttaniddesa or Suttaniddesa: This is a commentary explaining the Sutta-s of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. It was written in the fifteenth century by Chappada or Chappaṭa of Pagan. He is also known as Saddhammajotipāla176 and wrote it at the request of his pupil Dhammacārī.177 It may be noted here that there were two Burmese monks who had the same name and went to Sri Lanka in different periods. There is much confusion therefore in identifying the author of the Suttaniddesa. According to M.H. Bode and W. Geiger, the former chappada was the author of the Suttaniddesa which was composed in the twelfth century.178 However, in this regard Somapala Jayawardhana observes: “There seems to be a confusion between two Burmese monks named Chapaṭa and Chappaṭa or Chappaḍa. The earlier, the pupil of the Elder Uttarajīva, accompanied his teacher to Ceylon in the twelfth century and received ordination from the Ceylon Saṅgha. He returned to Burma with four other bhikkhus, where he established a new ordination lineage. The second chappaṭa was a Burmese monk who came to Ceylon during the reign of king Parākrama-bāhu VI (1412-1467), who had his capital at Jayawardhanapura. This latter chappaṭa was also known by the name Saddhammajotipāla”.179 According to him, the latter only was the author of the Suttaniddesa as mentioned above.

(6) Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā: This is a commentary on the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa composed by Mahāvijitāvī or Vijitāvī of Pagan.180 According to the colophon of his work he had completed it in the year 988 Burmese era (=1626 A.D.).181 Therefore, he seems to have lived at about the beginning of the seventeenth century.182 It is a grammar intended for the use of beginners in Pāli. The important earlier works e.g. the Nyāsa, the Rūpasiddhi and the Saddanīti are quoted extensively. It elucidates the difficult rules for the benefit of its users.183 There was an earlier work of the same name, composed by another author, a reference to which is found in the introductory verses of the Rūpasiddhi.184 He also wrote another grammatical text called the Vācakopadesa.185 As pointed out by H. Oldenberg, “It treats the grammatical categories from a logical point of view”.186 There is a ṭīkā on Vācakopadesa composed by Mahāvijitāvī in 1606 A.D.187 There is another Mahāvijitāvī.188

It may be noted here that this author is not the same person as that of the Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā and the Vācakopadesa as remarked above. Thus, there are two authors who bear the same name.

(7) Kārikā: This was composed on the basis of Kaccāyana’s grammar. It consists of 568 verses composed during the reign of Kyansittha (1064 A.D.) by Dhammasenāpati of Pagan189 at the request of the monk named Ñāṇagambhīra190 and he composed also a ṭīkā on his own work.191 G.E. Fryer gives the probable date as 1127 A.D.192 He also composed a text entitled Etimāsamidīpikā (or Etimāsamidīpanī).193 There is a ṭīkā on it composed by an unknown author.194

(8) Saddatthabhedacintā: This is based partly on Kaccāyana’s Pāli aphorisms and partly on Sanskrit authorities.195 It was written by Saddhammasiri of Pagan during the reign of Narapatisithu (1174 A.D.).196

Therefore he probably belongs to the twelfth century.197 But G.E. Fryer gives the probable date as 1227 A.D.198 and Forchhammer places him in the fourteenth century.199 There are three commentaries on it, namely, 8.1 Saddatthabheda-porāṇaṭīkā: This was composed by Abhaya Mahāthera of Pagan.200 He probably belongs to the thirteenth century.201 G.E. Fryer gives the probable date as 1227 A.D.202 But Forchhammer places him in the fourteenth century.203 8.2. Saddatthabhedacintā-majjhimaṭīkā: This was composed by an unknown author.204 8.3. Saddatthabhedacintā-abhinavaṭīkā: This was composed by an unknown author of Pagan.205

(9) Saddasāratthajālinī: This is based on Kaccāyana’s grammar. It consists of 516 verses composed by Nāgita also known as Khaṇṭakakhipa under the patronage of the king Kittisīhasura (1351 A.D.).206 This work was composed in 1356 A.D.207 It has nine chapters namely (1) Saddasāra (on phonetics) (2) Atthasāra (on different shades of meanings) (3) Akkhara and Sandhi (letters and euphonic combination) (4) Nāma (nouns) (5) Kāraka (syntax) (6) Samāsa (compound) (7) Taddhita (nominal derivatives) (8) Ākhyāta (verb) (9) Kitaka (verbal derivatives). The chapters 3-9 of it correspond to 1-7 of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa.208 There is a ṭīkā on it called the Sāramañjūsā (Saddasāratthajālinī-ṭīkā) composed by a teacher named Vimalabuddhi who wrote it at Panya at the request of the king’s teacher, Saṅgharājā.209 According to G.E. Fryer, Nāgita not only composed the Saddasāratthajālinī but also the ṭīkā on it. He gives the probable date as 1342 A.D.210

(10) Kaccāyanasāra: This consists of 72 verses. According to Gandhavaṃsa, it was written by Dhammānanda,211 while according to others it was written by Mahāyasa of Thaton.212 He is supposed to have lived in the second half of the fourteenth century.213 It has six chapters, namely, (1) Samaññā (2) Ākhyāta (verb) (3) Kitaka (verbal derivatives) (4) Kāraka (syntax) (5) Samāsa (compound) (6) Taddhita (nominal derivatives).214 There are four ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 10.1 Kaccāyanasāra-ṭīkā: This is composed by Mahāyasa himself.215 10.2 Sammohavināsinī (Kaccāyanasāra-purāṇaṭīkā): This was composed by Siri-Saddhammavilāsa of Pagan.216 According to G.E. Fryer, he is of Ava and Fryer gives the probable date as 1426 A.D.217 10.3 Kaccāyanasāra-abhinavaṭīkā: This was composed by an unknown author of Panya.218 10.4 Kaccāyanasāra-yojanā: This was composed by an unknown author of Panya.219 Mahāyasa also wrote the Kaccāyanabheda220 (also called the Kaccāyanabedadīpikā) which deals with the grammatical terminology of Kaccāyana consisting of 180 verses. It has seven chapters, namely, (1) Sandhi (euphonic combination) (2) Nāma (nouns) (3) Kāraka (syntax) (4) Samāsa (compound) (5) Taddhita (nominal derivatives) (6) Ākhyāta (verb) (7) Kitaka (verbal derivatives).221 There are two ṭīkā-s on it, namely, (1) Sāratthavikāsinī (Kaccāyanabheda-porāṇaṭīkā): This was composed by Ariyālaṅkāra of Ava at about the year 1608 A.D.222 (2) Kaccāyanabheda-abhinavaṭīkā:

This was composed by an unknown author of Panya.223

(11) Saddabindu: This is a short subsidiary text based on the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. It was composed by king Kya-cvā (1234-50 A.D.) of Pagan and he also wrote another grammatical text called Paramatthabindu.224 According to W. Geiger, the work probably belongs to the second half of the fifteenth century.225 However, Subhūti assigns for it the year 2025 after Buddha (=1481 A.D.).226 The work consists of 20 verses. It gives a mere glimpse of the traditional subjects in Kaccāyana’s grammar: euphony (sandhi), nouns (nāma), case (kāraka), compounds (samāsa), noun derivatives (taddhita), verbs (ākhyāta), and radical suffixes (kita).227 There are two ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 11.1 Saddabindu-ṭīkā: This was composed by king Kya-cvā.228 11.2 Ganthasāra: This was composed by Saddhammakitti Mahāphussadeva, a native of Haripuñja (Lampang in Northern Thailand) in the late 15 century A.D.229 There is also a ṭīkā on Paramatthabindu composed at Pagan by Thera Mahākassapa.230

(12) Bālappabodhana: This was composed by an unknown author231 of Panya.232 According to R. Sudhammālaṅkāra, the editor of the text, it was probably written in 1556 A.D.233 It deals with the syntax, compound, secondary derivatives and the verb. It has been pointed out that this work is later than the Kaccāyanabheda and the Saddatthabhedacintā.234 There is a ṭīkā on it composed by an unknown author.235 It quotes examples from the Rūpasiddhi.236

(13) Cullanirutti or Abhinava-cullanirutti: This is a short grammatical work on the formation of Pāli words and deals with the exceptions to the rules of Kaccāyana. It was composed by (Siri-) Saddhammālaṅkāra.237

(14) Mūlakaccāyana-yojanā: This is a commentary on the Mūlakaccāyana-pakaraṇa. It was written by Ñāṇakitti of Chiangmai in Northern Thailand between 1503-1504 A.D.238

(15) Mūlakaccāyana-gaṇṭhī: This is a commentary on the Mūlakaccāyana-pakaraṇa. The work is composed in prose. It was composed towards the end of the seventeenth century by Phramahā Devkavī of Ayudhyā in Thailand.239

(16) Kaccāyanadhātumañjūsā or Dhātumañjūsā. According to its colophon, the author was Sīlavaṃsa of Yakkhaddiḷena monastery.240 The roots contained in it are arranged on the lines of the Kaccāyana, consisting of 150 verses. It contains only the lists of roots. The author makes use of the Pāṇini Dhātupāṭha and also the Dhātupāṭha belonging to the Moggallāna school.241 According to Subhūti, the work is planned on the lines of the Vopadeva’s Kavikalpadruma.242 The work was compiled in the fourteenth century.243

(17) Vibhattyattha: This deals mainly with the use of cases and consists of 37 verses. According to Sāsanavaṃsa it was composed by the king Kya-cvā’s daughter.244 Subhūti gives its date of composition as 2025 after Buddha (= 1481 A.D.).245 According to other sources, the author was Saddhammañāṇa who wrote it probably at Pagan in the early part of the fourteenth century.246 There are two ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 17.1 Vibhattyatthadīpanī: This was composed by an unknown author of Pagan.247 17.2 Vibhattyattha-ṭīkā.248

(18) Vāccavācaka: This deals with the six cases of syntax and the meanings. It consists of 59 verses composed by Dhammadassī of Pagan, when he was a Sāmaṇera (novice).249 The text probably belongs to the end of the fourteenth century.250 There are three ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 18.1 Vāccavācaka-ṭīkā: This was composed by Saddhammanandi of Myanmar in 1768 A.D.251 18.2 Vccavācaka-dīpanī: This was composed by an unknown author of Ava.252 18.3 Vāccavācaka-ṭīkā: This was composed by an unknown author.253

(19) Ganthaṭṭhi-pakaraṇa: This deals with the Pāli particles and consists of 110 items. It was written probably in the fourteenth century A.D. by Maṅgala of Pagan.254

(20) Ganthābharaṇa also called the Gandhābharaṇa or Gaṇḍābharaṇa: This text deals with particles and consists of 97 verses. It was composed at about 1436 A.D. by Ariyavaṃsa Dhammasenāpati of Pagan.255 There are four ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 20.1 Ganthābharaṇa-ṭīkā: This was composed by Jāgarācariya.256 20.2. Ganthābharaṇa-ṭīkā: This was composed by Suvaṇṇaraṃsī of Chiangmai in Northern Thailand in 1585 A.D.257 20.3 Ganthābharaṇayojanā: This was composed by an unknown author of Panya.258 20.4 Ganthābharaṇa-sāra: This was composed by an unknown author.259 It probably is identical with the text entitled the Ganthābharaṇasaṅkhepa-ṭīkā as L. Likhitānand remarks: “There is another small treatise on the Ganthābharaṇa known as the Ganthābharaṇasaṅkhepa-ṭīkā whose author and the date of composition are not known”. He does not quote the source from where he had got this information.260

(21) Saddavutti also called the Saddavuttipakāsaka: This deals with the five-fold division of nouns and their different shades of meanings relating to gender, number, syntax and case and consists of 115 verses. According to Sāsanavaṃsa the author was Saddhammaguru who wrote it at Panya.261 However, Gandhavaṃsa says that Saddhammaguru wrote it at Pagan at the request of a certain monk.262 According to others, the author was Saddhammapāla of Pagan.263 According to Forchhammer, the work probably belongs to the fourteenth century.264 While W. Geiger places it in 1656 A.D.265 But G.E. Fryer gives the probable date as 1279 A.D.266 There are four ṭīkā-s on it, namely, 21.1 Saddavutti-ṭīkā: This was composed by Jāgarācariya.267 21.2 Saddavutti-purāṇaṭīkā: This was composed by Sāriputta of Pagan.268 G.E. Fryer gives the probable date for this as 1279 A.D.269 21.3 Saddavutti-(abhi-)navaṭīkā: This was composed by the teacher of the Dakkhiṇārāma in Myanmar.270 21.4 Saddavutti-vivaraṇa: This was composed by an unknown teacher who wrote it in Sri Lanka.271

(22) Saṃvaṇṇanānayadīpanī: This was composed by Jambudhaja (or Jambudīpadhaja, as the king called him) of Pagan in 1651 A.D.272 The text has three chapters, namely, (1) Ulliṅga (characteristics) (2) Pada (words) (3) Nītattha (primary sense).273 He also wrote another two texts entitled Niruttisaṅgaha (grammar) and Sarvajñānyāyadīpanī (grammar and philology).274 It may be noted here that V. Fausböll mentions Jambudhaja as the author of the Rūpabhedapakāsanī.275

(23) Nayalakkhaṇavibhāvinī: This was composed by Vicittāra of Myanmar who belonged to the second half of the eighteenth century.276 It is a short manual and explains naya (method or sense) in 116 ways with examples.277

(24) Kārakapupphamañjarī: This deals with Pāli syntax. It was written during the reign of Kīrtisiri Rājasiṃha (1747-1780 A.D.) by Attaragama Baṇḍāra Rājaguru, a pupil of Saraṇaṅkara.278 It, therefore, may be assigned to the latter part of the eighteenth century.279 He also wrote a Sinhalese paraphrase on it280 and two another grammatical works entitled Sudhīra-mukha-maṇḍana and Saddamālā.281

We may follow the classification of Kaccāyana tradition given by W. Geiger in PLL. He gives the nos. 17-24 for the texts as discussed above.282 It is, however, not easy to say whether these grammatical texts belong to Kaccāyana, Moggallāna or they are independent works. But one thing is certain that among the three schools of Pāli grammar the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa is the oldest and well-known on which there are many commentaries. Further detailed research would prove the extensive influence of Kaccāyana tradition. Such a research may fix up to which school a particular text belongs. There are still many grammatical texts recorded in Gv, Sās, Nām, Gramm (PGL), Piṭ-sm, PLB, PLC, CPD etc; for examples, Rūpamālā, Saddamedhanī, Akkharavisodhanī, Akkharakosalla, Sambandhamālinī, Liṅgavivaraṇa, Niruttisāramañjūsā, Akkharamālā, Padacintā, Niruttibheda, Kaccāyanarūpadīpanī, Niruttiyojanā etc. Many of them still lie buried in manuscript form. Some are reported to have been lost.283 Some of them are published in Burmese script; some in Sinhalese, few in Thai, Roman, Devanāgarī, and Bengalī scripts.

Outline of the present attempt

Section titled “Outline of the present attempt”

In the field of Pāli grammatical literature the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa is considered as the oldest and important text and has become a constant subject of study in the monasteries where the Theravāda Buddhists lived. The present attempt is to study and interpret the entire work of Kaccāyana. The present researcher desires to explore the precise method of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa in the light of concerned Pāli literature. The thesis consists of four parts. they are:-

(1) Text: The Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa has eight chapters. An attempt is being made here to study the entire work of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa. The text of this thesis is presented in the Roman script. The Kaccāyanappakaraṇaṃ by M.E. Senart was published in Journal Asiatique (pp. 193-540) Paris, 1871 which is used for the present study and in the same year it was published separately in the book form (pp. 1-338) also. In some cases Senart made corrections in the book form. The printing mistakes are corrected herein in the present research. Senart edited the work long ago and his edition was to be improved upon. It is clear from the different versions of Kaccāyana that several readings chosen by Senart in his edition are questionable or even erroneous. In his edition the sutta-s are printed in the Devanāgarī script, whereas the remaining work is printed in Roman script. In the present thesis sutta-s are transliterated in Roman script. It may be noted here that the system of Romanisation adopted by Senart is obsolete. The system of Romanisation laid down by PTS is followed in the present thesis. In the light of different versions the critical remarks are made in the notes. The said versions are:-

1.1 B1: Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa (Burmese script) by Visodhakasamiti, Buddhasāsanasamiti, Rangoon, 11th repr. 1988.

B2 ms is quoted in the B1’s foot-notes.

1.2 S1: Kaccāyana Vutti (Sinhalese script) by the Venerable Dharmakirti Srī Dharmarama, Fredrick Perera Abayasinha Appuhamy, Colombo, 1904.

1.3 S2: Kaccāyana (Sinhalese script) by Gunaratna Thera, Venerable M., M.U. Subaseris Perera and B.L. Perera, Colombo 1913.

1.4 T: Kaccāyanamūlaṃ nāma pakaraṇaṃ (Thai script) by Phravisuddhisambodhi, Mahāmakuṭarājavidyālaya, Bangkok, 1931.

Se’s edition is presented as basic one. Variant readings are recorded in the notes. It may be noted here that A, Cd, K, Sa, Sb, Sc, Sf, Sg, Sh versions recorded in the Se’s foot-notes also occasionally are used. However, as far as the Kaccāyana’s versions are concerned, B1 is the best text and it is considered as the standard text. Because its editors make use of the concerned grammatical Pāli texts e.g. Nyāsa, Rūpasiddhi, Suttaniddesa and Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā etc. and trace out all the quotations available in the foot-notes. It is clear that new critical edition of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa in the place of Se is needed. Senart did not have much materials at his disposal. His edition was the first one in Roman script. These limitations must be taken into account while evaluating Se’s work.

The present study improves also on the work entitled The Pāli Text of Kachchāyana’s Grammar with English Annotations (=PKG) (1870) by F. Mason. That editor has brought out the entire text of Kaccāyana in Burmese script. Therein he has summarised each kappa and has given some notes and variant readings of some rules. This book is also useful in some cases even if it is not always free from mistakes. In the present work reference is also made to that book when necessary. The present researcher has also studied the critical edition in Devanāgarī script entitled Kaccāyana vyākaraṇa (= KV De) (1989) by L.N. Tiwary and B. Sharma. The editors make use of Se, S1, S2, as the basis of their edition. The present researcher has consulted also those versions in their original forms. It is found that the editors have not presented the versions correctly at several places, while giving the variant readings. Even in the enlarged and revised edition the mistakes are not corrected. Let us point out some errors: KV De p. 157 records daṃso and makaso belonging to Senart in the foot-notes 11 and 12, but in fact Se p. 366 reads daṃsaṃ and masakaṃ, KV De p. 190 fn. 5 records: ‘Se does not have saṅkhyāpūraṇatthe’, but Se p. 402 has it. KV De p. 265 fn. 1 records: ‘Se reads pūrita’, but Se p. 479 reads pūrati. Similar many cases are found in this edition. The book consists of an exhaustive Introduction, text, translation and useful notes in Hindī. It is very useful for the Hindī readers. The Dhātumañjūsā of Sīlavaṃsa is added at the end of this edition (pp. 321-327). Other versions of Kaccāyana do not record it. Having seen the versions in original form, the KV De edition is in a way improved upon in the present study.

(2) Translation: the sutta-s, vutti, and udāharaṇa-s are translated into English. Translation of udāharaṇa-s is appearing first time in English at several places. The Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa was translated first into an European language. M.E. Senart brought out a critical edition and translation along with notes in French in 1871. English translation was made by S.C. Vidyabhusana under the title Kaccāyana’s Pāli grammar (=KG) (1901). He made use of Se’s edition as the basis and translated the entire work into English first time. He, however, translated the sutta-s and vutti mixing together. So it is difficult to distinguish between sutta-s and vutti. And there are no notes (except few remarks). The examples also are not translated. S.K. Chatterji (KV De For. p. I) remarks on this edition: “This was not a very successful edition”. As Se contains many corrupt readings, KG translation is not always free from mistakes. It was the first attempt to translate Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa in English. To some extent this work was useful for the present translation even if its translation is not always accepted, because it is based on a corrupt text.

Reference is also made to the book by J. D’Alwis entitled An Introduction to Kachchāyana’s Grammar of the Pāli Language (=IKP) (1883) J. D’Alwis has translated first ten sutta’s of the Sandhi-kappa (p. XVII) only. He has also brought out on edition of the Ākhyāta-kappa in Sinhalese script (pp. I - XVI at the end of the text). He translated along with useful notes (pp. 1-52). He quotes from some grammatical texts either in Introduction or in appendix. So far as we know, he was the first person who had studied the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa systematically to write an exhaustive Introduction. He, however, did not give the details about Kaccāyana’s commentaries, but only referred to the texts occurring in his work. He did his work long ago and much new material appeared later on. Reference is made to some shortcomings in his work. However, it is the best book written in English so far for one who would like to study Kaccāyana system. After his work no such work appeared. This work also was used for the present study.

Apart from the European translations there are many translations in Burmese, Thai, Sinhalese, Hindī and other languages. As far as the Pāli grammatical texts are concerned, the (Burmese) Nissaya is considered as the most useful one. And Burmese Pāli grammarians have brought out many versions of Nissaya. Unfortunately due to the linguistic limitation these Nissaya-s could not be used in the present work, otherwise it would have been enriched more than its present form.

(3) Notes: The notes consist of four parts:

3.1 a summery of each kappa.

3.2 the critical comments on the arrangement of the rules in each kappa.

3.3 variant readings of different versions along with the critical comments wherever they are necessary and important. Apart from the said versions reference is also made to Kaccāyana’s commentaries e.g. Nyāsa, Rūpasiddhi, Suttaniddesa, Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā etc. to support the critical comments. However, reference is made often to the Nyāsa as the final authority.

3.4 Quotations: among all the versions of Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa there is only B1 having referred to the quotations at the foot-notes. Few of them are recorded in T. Some of them are not recorded even in B1 also. Se recorded few of them in the notes to support his view occasionally. But S1, S2 do not record them at all. The present attempt is to study quotations based upon B1. However, this attempt is different from B1. The present work refers not just to title or a word, but to the entire passage concerned. In this context, following observations may be noted-

3.4.1 B1 does not follow a particular system of reference such as Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma; aṭṭhakathā-s ṭīkā-s and anuṭkā-s etc. B1’s treatment of quotations seems to be rather arbitrary. It does not follow any particular system to present citations.

3.4.2 Some well known quotations do not appear at all, e.g. Sāvittī chandaso mukhaṃ, evaṃ mahiddhikā esā etc. but they are recorded in T, see Notes I.3 under the rule 4 cf. Sadd 619 fn. 8 and Notes I. 4 under the rule 6.

3.4.3 Occasionally B1 quotes wrongly e.g. sa sīlavā, sa paññavā etc. B1 refers to Dhp 84, where we find only sa sīlavā; but sa paññavā is not recorded, however, we find it occurring in Ja V 148 and refer to it, see Notes I.3 under the rule 5. For cattāro’me bhikkhave dhammā B1 quotes A II 5, 10-11 as follows:- “cattāro’me bhikkhave puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ” which is not exact to the passage expected above. But we find the exact passage occurring in A II 147, 18-19 see Notes I.2. under the rule 2.

3.4.4 sometimes B1 quotes the whole prose-sentence e.g. tiṇṇo pāraṅgato ahu as an example occurring in Dhp 414, but Dhp reads jhāyī for ahu and does not have the full prose-sentence referred to by B1. [see Notes I.3 under the rule 1] In this case, however, H. Smith (Sadd 619 fn. 18) considers it as untraced quotation with “cf. Dhp 414; S VI 157, 9”.

And sometimes if B1 cannot trace out the prose-sentence in the full form, it refers to the concerned word only e.g. yatha-ri-va vasudhātalañ ca sabbaṃ: as this cannot be traced in the full form, B1 refers to yatha-ri-va only. See Notes I.2 under the rule 11. Pag’eva vutyassa: here only pag’eva is recorded as full citation could not be traced out. See Notes I.5 under the rule 2. It may be noted here that in this case, Saddanīti has changed vutyassa into itarā pajā so that pag’eva itarā pajā: can be traced out in the canon, see Sadd 681 fn.11, Ja III 111, 20, V 222, 24 and A II 75, 36. Aggavaṃsa, while treating Kaccāyana’s citations, seems to adopt the same method. He might have changed some words in order to suit the canonical references.

3.4.5 Sometimes B1 quotes the citations having just an apparent verbal similarity e.g. haṇu: occurs in Kacc VIII. 48, B1 quotes D II 18, 16 as: “ayaṃ hi deva kumāro sīhahaṇu”, dhātu: occurs in Kacc VIII. 48, B1 quotes M I 57, 36-37 as: “atthi imasmiṃ kāye paṭhavīdhātu apodhātu tejodhātu”. Thus, the words to be proved are not keeping with the examples referred to. Similar are the words like gopphimo, subharo, jenadatti, ghaṭīyati etc.; concerned citations are left out in the present study. Sometimes B1 quotes a citation. But it is not traceable in the literature available today e.g. taṃ sādhū ti paṭissuṇitvā: occurs in Kacc I. 4.1. Such citations are left out.

3.4.6. If a particular form occurs exactly as it is proved, B1 should quote example for the same. However, it appears that B1 quotes another quotation having the form similar to the proved form and not exactly the same form e.g. vedhavero, but quotation gives the form vedhaverā; sārīrikā for sārīrikānaṃ; gandhiko for gandhikā see Notes V under the rules 6, 7 and 8 etc. The similar cases also are found often in B1’s quotations.

3.4.7 Sometimes B1 quotes many sources as examples. In such cases, only one example is studied. But if the same has occurred earlier the repetition is avoided by just mentioning the source.

Critical study of those citations along with the Burmese traditional literature on Saddanīti and Rūpasiddhi would be desirable, which, however is a formidable task beyond the scope of present attempt. The study of the citations occurring in the present versions of Kaccāyana as well as in Saddanīti and Rūpasiddhi is left for future research. Rūpasiddhi and Saddanīti have mostly borrowed the examples from Kaccāyana with slight modifications in some cases.

(4) Bibliography: The thesis uses not only English sources, but also the editions available in Thai, Sinhalese, Burmese and Devanāgarī. The bibliography covers detailed description of the sources.

Thus, the objective of this thesis is to study Kaccāyana’s treatment of the whole Pāli grammar. It is hoped that this study would render inspiration for the study of other schools of Pāli grammar e.g. Moggallāna and Saddanīti which is still neglected by the scholars. References may be made to a recent publication entitled the Saddabindu and its ‘New’ Subcommentary by F. Lottermoser which appeared in JPTS vol. XI 1987 pp. 79-109. However we have not a critical edition of the Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa in Roman script, as we have Kaccāyanappakaraṇa by M.E. Senart and Saddanīti by H. Smith.

Roman editions of Pāli grammatical commentaries is still a dream! Similar topic for further study would be the comparative approach to the three schools of Pāli grammar.

Reference should be made here to some devices used while presenting the text in a present thesis. As usual, the figures preceding the sutta-s refer to the sections and sutta-s, however, the figures following the sutta-s indicate the serial numbers of sutta-s throughout the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa.

The system of Kaccāyana’s quotation is as Chapter/Section/Rule’s number e.g. II. 3.1 indicates Chapter II (Nāma-kappa)/Section (Kaṇḍa) 3/Rule no. 1. If a chapter does not contain the sections, the system would be: Chapter/Rule’s number e.g. III.3 indicates Chapter 3 (Kāraka-kappa)/Rule no. 3. It may be noted here that the rules quoted include the vutti and udāharaṇa-s also except where otherwise stated. The system of abbreviations of the titles of Pāli texts laid down in the Epilegomena to CPD I is followed, on which the other abbreviations also are based. References to Pāli texts indicate the PTS editions except stated otherwise.

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. PGR Introd., p. XXIII, see also PL pp. 1-2, cf. APL pp. 5-7. ↩

  2. “Niruttipiṭake hi pabhinnapaṭisambhido so āyasmā Mahākaccāyano “purisassa dīyate” ti āyādesarohitāni yeva rūpāni dassesi” Sadd 135, 1-3. ↩

  3. “ayaṃ Yamakamahātherena katāya Cūḷaniruttiyā āgato nayo” ibid., 137, 30. ↩

  4. “Bhadantabodhisattamahāthero ‘naravaravacanopakārāni cattālīsakkharānī’ ti āha” Pds-ṭ 38, 9-11. ↩

  5. “Sabbaguṇākaramahāthero ‘siddhakkamādādayo vaṇṇākkharā titālīsā’ ti āha” ibid., 38, 12-13, see also Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. cha); Pay pre. p. 2. ↩

  6. PL p. 163, cf. PLL p. 37. ↩

  7. GE p. 194. ↩

  8. Cf. SPG I Introd., p. 34. ↩

  9. “aṭṭhārasa mahāsippāni: suti sūramati vyākaraṇaṃ chandoviciti nirutti jotisatthaṃ sikkhā mokkhanāṇaṃ kiriyāvidhi dhanubbedo hatthisikkhā kāmatantaṃ assalakkhaṇaṃ purāṇaṃ itihāso nīti takko vejjakaṃ” Sadd 504, 16-19. ↩

  10. “kappo vyākaraṇaṃ jotisatthaṃ sikkhā nirutti ca chandoviciti c’etāni vedaṅgāni vadanti cha” Abh 110. ↩

  11. “vuttañ ca ’padhānaṃ ca chaḷaṅgesu byākaraṇaṃ, padhāne ca kato yatano phalavā bhavatī’ti” Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. kha) see also GE p. 83 fn. 32. ↩

  12. “vi-ābubbo kara karaṇe yu” Abh-sūci s.v. vyākaraṇa. ↩

  13. Ibid. ↩

  14. GE p. 83 fn. 32. ↩

  15. PED s.v. vyākaraṇa. ↩

  16. “suttaṃ geyyaṃ veyyākaraṇaṃ gāthaṃ udānaṃ itivuttakaṃ jātakaṃ abbhutadhammaṃ vedallaṃ” A II 103, 9-10. ↩

  17. “sakalaṃ pi Abhidhammapiṭakaṃ niggāthakasuttaṃ yañ ca c’aññaṃ pi aṭṭhahi aṅgehi asaṅgahītaṃ Buddha-vacanaṃ taṃ Veyyākaraṇan ti veditabbaṃ” Sv I 24, 2-4. ↩

  18. PED s.v. veyyākaraṇa. ↩

  19. Ibid., s.v. nirutti, cf. GE p. 83. ↩

  20. See fn. 10. ↩

  21. Dhp 352, see also HPL II p. 631. ↩

  22. Kn I Introd., pp. 18-19. ↩

  23. SPG I Introd., p. 33. ↩

  24. Ibid., p. 37. ↩

  25. HPL II p. 632. ↩

  26. Nām pre. p. 7, see also IP p. 145. ↩

  27. PGR Introd., p. XXIX. ↩

  28. PLB p. 92. ↩

  29. Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. tha), see also B1 Nidānakathā (p. ki). ↩

  30. Sadd 928, 12-13 and 18-19, Svd 1238, Piṭ-sm 383-5. ↩

  31. PLB p. 16, PLL p. 55. ↩

  32. “Arimaddananagare Jinacakke sattatādhike (so read: sattanavasādhike) cha sate sahasse ca sampatte tiṇṇaṃ piṭakānaṃ mūlabhūtesu saddanayesu sotarānaṃ chekatāya mahāsamudde viya Ānando nāma mahāmaccho tīsu piṭakesu sāṭṭhakathesu viḷoletvā Aggavaṃso nāma thero Saddanītipakaraṇaṃ akāsi” Sās 73, 34-74, 1-5. ↩

  33. “Sāsanālaṅkāre c’eva Sāsanavaṃsappadīpikāyañ ca sattanavutādhike chasatasahasse Buddhavasse Aggavaṃsatthero Saddanītippakaraṇaṃ akāsi, Arimaddananagare ca Uttarājīvamahātheravarassa Sīhaḷadīpagamanato pubbey’eva yathāvuttā tayo therā ahesun ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ sati Saddanītippakaraṇam idaṃ Alongasithu-rañño (Maramma- 454-529) kāle racitan ti viññāyati” Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. da). ↩

  34. PLB p. 16, PLL p. 55. It may be noted here that Bode gives 1154 A.D. as the date for the Saddanīti without referring to the source. If she uses the Sāsanavaṃsa edited by her as the source mentioned in the foot-note 32, it means she accepts the variant reading sattanavasādhike not sattatādhike occurring in the body of the text. W. Geiger also does the same. G.P. Malalasekera (PLC p. 185) H. Scharfe (GE p. 194) K.R. Norman (PL p. 116) follow either Bode or Geiger. E.G. Kahrs (ES p. 2 fn. 2) quotes some sources and comments: “M.C. Duroiselle (1905: 147, note 1) informs us that Forchhammer gives the year as 1156 but claims that Aggavaṃsa himself gives the date as 1154. Recently Tin Lwin (1991 ?) has questioned this, claiming that nowhere in the Saddanīti is given its dates and that the introductory gāthas are missing in all manuscripts available to us (p. 124). He concludes, somewhat confusingly, that the Saddanīti should be placed towards the end of the reign of Cañsū II (1173-1210) or during the first half of the thirteenth century (p. 126). Intriguing though it is, this claim would require a more detailed argumentation to be conclusive”. G.E. Fryer (NPK p. 124) gives the probable date as 1279 A.D. ↩

  35. PLL p. 55. ↩

  36. Piṭ-sm 383-5. ↩

  37. PLB p. 25 and ibid., fn. 3. ↩

  38. Ibid., p. 17, see also PLC p. 185, cf. PLL p. 55. ↩

  39. PLB p. 16, HPL II p. 636. ↩

  40. K.R. Norman (PL p. 164). According to M.H. Bode (PLB p. 16), it consists of 25 chapters, according to W. Geiger, (PLL p. 55) there are 27 chapters. ↩

  41. PLL p. 55, GE pp. 194-5, PL p. 164. ↩

  42. Piṭ-sm 386. ↩

  43. “tathā bahūhi sotujanehi yācito so yev āhaṃ Saddanītiyā saṃvaṇṇanaṃ Pāḷibhāsāya akāsiṃ” Sās 154, 33-34. ↩

  44. PLB p. 93 on which E.G. Kahrs (ES p. 3 fn. 1) remarks: “Nowhere else have I seen any reference to such a commentary and, in fact, I doubt whether such a work ever existed since Paññāsāmī wrote as late as the latter half of the 19th century. It seems rather unlikely that so late a work should have vanished without trace”. ↩

  45. Gv 61, 13-14 and 70, 26-27, Svd 1251, Piṭ-sm 387-8. ↩

  46. DSC p. 183, PLL p. 53, PLC p. 186, GE p. 195, HOP pp. 94-5. ↩

  47. HOP p. 95. ↩

  48. DSC pp. 184-185, PLC p. 187, GE p. 195, HOP p.95. ↩

  49. PLL p. 53, PLC pp. 186-7, GE p. 195, HOP p. 96. ↩

  50. Ibid., p. 53, ibid., p. 187. ↩

  51. Quoted in PLL p. 54. ↩

  52. Ibid., p. 54, PLC p. 205, HOP pp. 103, 119-20. ↩

  53. Ibid., p. 205, ibid., p. 103. ↩

  54. PLL p. 54, PLC pp. 205, 252-3, HOP pp. 34-5, 120. ↩

  55. HOP p. 121. ↩

  56. PLL p. 54, PLC pp. 230-33, Pay pre. p. 5, HOP pp. 92-3, 117. ↩

  57. HOP p. 93. ↩

  58. Ibid., p. 117. ↩

  59. Gv 61, 17-18, PLC p. 199, HOP pp. 135, 139. ↩

  60. PLB p. 22 fn. 9. ↩

  61. PLC p. 199, HOP p.136. ↩

  62. PLL p.50, KV De Introd., p. 69 follows him. ↩

  63. Gv 62, 5-8, PLC p. 204, HOP pp. 170-1, 198. ↩

  64. NPK p. 124, Mand p. 50, Piṭ-sm 392. ↩

  65. PLB pp. 22-23. ↩

  66. NPK p. 124. ↩

  67. HOP p. 200. ↩

  68. PLC p. 200, DPPN II pp. 1106, 1265. ↩

  69. “Moggallāna-vyākaraṇassa parivārabhūtā pana ganthā bahū honti. Tesu Saṅgharakkhitamahāsāmittherena viracitā Sāratthavilāsinīnāmikā pañcikāṭīkā ca, ten’eva racitā Susaddasiddhi ca Sambandhacintā ca…” Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. tha), see also Mogg-v pre. p. 1. ↩

  70. HOP pp. 170-1, 192. But Piṭ-sm 390 says: “It was written by an unknown author of Sri Lanka who lived in the Mahāvihāra monastery at Anurādhapura”. ↩

  71. PLL p. 54, PLC pp. 251-2, HOP pp. 109-10. ↩

  72. HOP p. 110. ↩

  73. PLB p. 97. ↩

  74. Ibid., p. 106 fn. 5. ↩

  75. Ibid., Piṭ-sm 389. ↩

  76. Piṭ-sm 443. ↩

  77. PLL p. 56, PL p. 166. ↩

  78. PED s.v. pakaraṇa. ↩

  79. Ibid. ↩

  80. See fn. 15. ↩

  81. PLB p. 21. ↩

  82. “Kaccāyanena kato yogo vutti ca Saṅghanandino payogo Brahmadattena Nyāso Vimalabuddhinā” Kaccāyanabheda-abhinavaṭīkā quoted from Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. ja), see also IKP Introd., p. 104, Nām pre. p. 12, PLC p. 180 cf. Saddhamma-s 63, 3-4 as follows:- “Kaccāyano kato yogo Saṅghanandi pavuttikā ṭīkā Vimalabodhī ca Brahmaputto ca kārakā”. ↩

  83. Cf. Note I. 1 pp. 96-7. ↩

  84. “Kaccāyana-gandho Mahānirutti-gandho Cullanirutti-gandho Netti-gandho Peṭakopadesa-gandho Vaṇṇanīti-gandho ti ime cha gandhā Mahākaccāyanena katā” Gv 59, 11-14. ↩

  85. DPPN I p. 478. However W. Geiger (PLL p. 37) gives the both titles to the same text, but Kaccāyana was different from Mahākaccāyana, a disciple of Lord Buddha. ↩

  86. PED s. vv. su, sandhi and kappa; Kn I Introd., pp. 81-82. ↩

  87. Kn I Introd., p. 82. ↩

  88. IKP Introd., p. XXX, KG Introd., p. XXVI, PLC p. 180, HPL II p. 635. ↩

  89. PED s.v. mūla. ↩

  90. See FMG pp. 11-13. ↩

  91. “Tato yāvajīvaṃ kusalaṃ katvā ekaṃ buddhantaraṃ devamanussesu saṃsaritvā imasmiṃ buddhuppāde Ujjeniyaṃ rañño Caṇḍappajjotassa purohitassa gehe nibbatto tassa nāmaggahaṇadivase mātāpitaro: amhākaṃ putto suvaṇṇavaṇṇo va attano nāmaṃ gahetvā āgato ti Kaccāyanamāṇavo tv’eva nāmaṃ kariṃsu. So vuḍḍhim anvāya tayo vede uggaṇhitvā pitu accayena purohitaṭṭhānaṃ labhi. Gottavasena Kaccāno ti paññāyittha. Rājā Caṇḍappajjoto buddhuppādaṃ sutvā; ācariya tvaṃ tattha gantvā Satthāraṃ idh’ānehī ti pesesi. So att’aṭṭhamo Satthu santikaṃ upagato, tassa Satthā dhammaṃ desesi, desanāpariyosāne so sattahi janehi saddhiṃ sahapaṭisambhidāhi arahatte patiṭṭhāsi. Atha Satthā: etha bhikkhavo ti hatthaṃ pasārehi. Te tāvad eva dvaṅgulamattakesamassukā iddhimayapattacīvaradharā saṭṭhivassikattherā viya ahesuṃ. Evaṃ thero sadatthaṃ nipphādetvā: bhante, rājā pajjoto tumhākaṃ pāde vandi. So dhammañ ca sotuṃ icchatī ti Satthu ārocesi. Satthā tvaṃ yeva bhikkhu tattha gaccha, sopi rājā pasīdissatī ti āha. Thero att’aṭṭhamo tattha gantvā rājānaṃ pasādetvā Avantīsu sāsanaṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā puna Satthu santikam eva gato” Ap-a 357, 10-28, see also ibid., 490, 27-30-491, 1-19. ↩

  92. “Putto Tīriṭivacchassa nipuṇo vedapāragū mātā ca Candapadumā Kaccāno’haṃ varattaco” Ap 465, 3-4. ↩

  93. “saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ vibhajantānaṃ yad idaṃ Mahākaccāyano” A I 23, 27-29. For more details of his life and works, DPPN II pp. 468-470. ↩

  94. DPPN II p. 470. ↩

  95. See fn. 83. ↩

  96. “attano pubbapatthanāvasena Kaccāyanappakaraṇaṃ Mahāniruttippakaraṇaṃ Nettippakaraṇan ti pakaraṇattayaṃ saṅghamajjhe byākāsi” Ap-a 491, 19-21. ↩

  97. “kattā nāma ’etad aggaṃ bhikkhave mama sāvakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ vibhajantānaṃ yad idaṃ Mahākaccāyanoti bhagavatā etad agge ṭhapito āyasmā Mahākaccāyano. Taṃ vakkhāmī ti dasseti” Nyp 6, 2-5. ↩

  98. “Kaccāyanañ cā ti bhagavato saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ vibhajantānaṃ sāvakānaṃ etad agge ṭhapitaṃ mahāsāvakānaṃ niruttilakkhaṇācariyabhūtaṃ Mahākaccāyanatherañ ca namitvā namassitvā…” Rūp-ṭ 3, 25-28. ↩

  99. “eko vuḍḍhapabbajito bhikkhu bhagavato santike kammaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvā Anotattatīre Sālarukkhamūle nisinno udaya-vayakammaṭṭhānaṃ karoti. So udake carantaṃ bakaṃ disvā ’udakaṃ bakan ti” kammaṭṭhānaṃ karoti. Bhagavā taṃ vitathabhāvaṃ disvā vuḍḍhapabbajitaṃ pakkosāpetvā ’Attho akkharasaññāto’ti vākyam āha. Kaccāyanatherena pi bhagavato adhippāyaṃ jānitvā ’Attho akkharasaññāto’ti vākyaṃ pubbe ṭhapetvā idaṃ pakaraṇaṃ katan ti”. Kaccāyanena katasuttan ti pi vadanti” Sdp 4, 9-16, see also Nām pre. pp. 12-13. ↩

  100. “Yama-Uppalanāmakā dve brāhmaṇā khaya-vayakammaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvā gacchantā nadītīre khayavayanti kammaṭṭhāne kayiramāne eko udake macchaṃ gaṇhituṃ carantaṃ bakaṃ disvā ’udaka-bako’ti virajjhanti. Eko ghaṭe paṭaṃ disvā ‘ghaṭa-paṭo’ ti virajjhati. Tadā bhagavā obhāsaṃ muñcitvā ’Attho bhikkhave akkharasaññāto’ti vākyaṃ ṭhapeti. Tesañ ca kammaṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhati. Tasmā bhagavatā vuttan ti vuccati. Taṃ ñatvā Mahākaccāyano bhagavantaṃ yācitvā Himavantaṃ gantvā Manosilātale dakkhiṇadisābhāgaṃ sīsaṃ katvā puratthimadisābhimukho hutvā ‘Attho akkharasaññāto’ ty ādikaṃ Kaccāyanapakaraṇaṃ racitaṃ (virocayi?)” Kvn 7, 25-30-8, 1-3, see also IKP Introd., pp. XXI-XXII and DSC p. 46 wherein this passage is ascribed to the Suttaniddesa. ↩

  101. IKP Introd., p. XXII, DSC p. 47, Nām pre. p. 12. ↩

  102. See fn. 82. PLC p. 180, DPPN I p. 479 and HOP p. 68 ascribe the verse to the Kaccāyanabheda of Mahāyasa. S.C. Vidyabhusana (KG Introd., p. XXVI) remarks : “I am inclined to believe that the entire work was written by Kātyāyana (Kaccāyana) himself. At any rate the sutta etc. were written simultaneously”. ↩

  103. “iminā suttāni Mahākaccāyanena katāni, vutti ca Saṅghanandisaṅkhātena Mahākaccāyanena katā; payogo Brahmadattena kato” Kaccāyanabheda-ṭīkā quoted from IKP p. 104, see also DSC p. 52, NPK p. 126, PLC p. 180. ↩

  104. Ibid., p. 105 and DSC p. 53. ↩

  105. PLC p. 180; He also assumes that Mahāyasa also composed the Kaccāyanabheda- (abhinava) ṭīkā. However, as the evidences show, he composed only the Kaccāyanasāra-ṭīkā. ↩

  106. Ibid., pp. 181-2. ↩

  107. S.C. Vidyabhusana (KG Introd., pp. XXVII-XXVIII) assumes that Kātyāyana (belonging to Kātantra) and Kaccāyana are the same person and so he remarks: “Kātyāyana who added the chapter on Kṛt and Uṇādi to the Kātantra grammar of Sarvavarman is, I believe, the same person who compiled the first Pāli grammar. It is, however, doubtful whether he is the same Kātyāyana who wrote vārttika on the Sanskrit grammar of Pāṇini”. Cf. IP p. 145. As J. D’Alwis (IKP Introd., p. XXXVIII) remarks: “Identity of names does not prove identity of persons”. ↩

  108. “ādhunikā pana parikkhaṇasīlā vicakkhaṇā ’Kaccāyanapakaraṇam idaṃ na etad aggaṭṭhānantaralābhinā Mahākaccāyanattherena racitaṃ. Atha kho pacchimikena Sīhaḷadīpikena Coraṭṭhikena vā tammahāsāvakena samānanāmadheyyena aññatarena therena viracitan ti vadanti. Kāraṇañ ca tattha tattha bahudhā papañcenti. So ca vādo yutto viya dissati” Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. Ja), see also Mmd Introd., p. X, PLL p. 37, HPL II p. 633, DPPN I pp. 477-478, PL p. 163, ES Introd., p. 1. ↩

  109. Kacc I. 1.11. ↩

  110. IKP Introd., p. XXV, KG Introd., p. XXXVIII, see also Notes I.1 under the rule 11. ↩

  111. IKP Introd., p. XVIII, DSC p. 43 and he also (ibid., p. XLI) remarks: “I cannot refrain from the conviction that Kachchāyana had Pāṇini before him when he composed the Sandhikappa”. But A.C. Burnell (ASG p. 61) disagrees with him and remarks: “I cannot accept this view. That some details may be borrowed from Pāṇini by a subsequent redactor of the work, is possible, but the six sutras which are identical in both grammars appear to me to be rather an older source than either Pāṇini or Kaccāyana; they contain nothing that is peculiar to Pāṇini, and generally agree with what has been shown to be the peculiar feature of the Aindra system. There is nothing in the sutras to throw doubt on their antiquity, except an anubandha or so, which must have been taken from Pāṇini…”. ↩

  112. The close connection between Kaccāyana’s Pāli grammar and the Kātantra was noticed first by J. D’Alwis and E Kuhn ‘Kaccāyanappakaranae specimen’ pp. 19-21 quoted in ASG p. 9 fn. 1. [J. D’Alwis at IKP Introd., p. XL, regrettably says that he is not able to procure a copy of the Kātantra for the purpose of comparison, but in DSC pp. 61-66 he had translated E. Kuhn’s work as mentioned above]. In it E. Kuhn not only compared the Kaccāyana and the Kātantra but also Pāṇini and Kaccāyana. A.C. Burnell (ASG pp. 9-10) compares the arrangement of the Kaccāyana and the Kātantra. He (ibid., p. 16) is of the opinion that both Kaccāyana and the author of the Kātantra have mostly taken their technical terms and many of their sutta-s from the Aindra grammar. M.E. Senart also in his work, on which the present attempt is based, gives some comparisons between Pāṇini, Kātantra and Kaccāyana occasionally. There is a very interesting article by L. Renou entitled “Kaccāyana et le Kātantra” in Études védiques et pāṇinéennes 3, Paris, 1957, pp. 127-33. In it he compared terminology and aphorisms of the Kaccāyana, the Kātantra, Aṣṭādhyāyī and other grammatical Sanskrit texts. For the similar comparison see also NPK pp. 120-121, Mmd Introd., p. X, PLC p. 183, PLL p. 37, HPL II p. 635, IP p. 145, GE p. 194, PL p. 163. ↩

  113. Kacc I. 1.2. ↩

  114. “Ādayo titālīsa vaṇṇā” Mogg I,1 see also CPD p. 11, EPG p. 2, IKP Introd., p. XVII fn. ↩

  115. “Kaccāyanena hi ‘Akkharāpādayo ekacattālīsan ti’ suttitaṃ. Tañ ca na yuttaṃ, tecattālīsakkharānaṃ māgadhikāya bhāsāya sambhavato rassae-okārehi. Dissanti hi te ’seyyo sotthī’ti evamādippayoge. Kaccāyanena pana Sakkatānusārena ’e-o dīghāyevā’ti gahetvā tathā suttitan ti veditabbaṃ” Mogg-p 6, 18-23. ↩

  116. Kacc II. 1.59. ↩

  117. “sabbāditopi smā-smiṃ - sānaṃ ṭā-ṭe - āyā hont’eva” Mogg II. 46. ↩

  118. “hont’evā ti iminā Kaccāyanassa paṭisedhavacanaṃ nirākaroti” Mogg-p 82, 17-18, see also DSC p. 184. ↩

  119. Kacc V. 21. ↩

  120. “Sumedhāsaddato ca sapaccayo hoti tad ass’atthi icc etasmiṃ atthe:…Ācariyā pana sopaccayaṃ katvā sumedhaso ti padanipphattim icchanti, “pañca-pañcaso” ti etthāpi ’pañca pañca akkharā etesaṃ atthī ti pañca pañcaso ti icchanti. Taṃ na yuttaṃ, imasmiṃ hi garūnaṃ mate ‘sumedhaso ti ekavacanantaṃ hoti, pañca-pañcaso ti bahuvacanantaṃ’ iti so ti ayaṃ paccayo ekatthabavhatthavācako hoti, ayañ ca nayo navaṅge sāṭṭhakakathe tepiṭake Buddha-vacane na sutapubbo” Sadd 792, 17-26. ↩

  121. Kacc V. 52. ↩

  122. “Kamo Kaccāyane eso, pāḷiyā so virujjhati, pāḷiyan tu kamo evaṃ veditabbo: nirabbudā ababaṃ aṭaṭaṃ ahahaṃ kumudañ ca sugandhikaṃ uppalaṃ puṇḍarīkañ ca paduman ti Jino bravi” Sadd 802, 17-20, see also Note V under the rule 52. ↩

  123. Kacc II. 5.5. ↩

  124. Nām pre. p. 13, DSC p. 57, KPG Introd., p. II., KG Introd., p. XXVIII, DPPN I pp. 216-219, Kn I Introd., p. 36. ↩

  125. Kacc III. 11. ↩

  126. B1 Nidānakathā (p. Ke), KG Introd., p. XXVIII, Kn I Introd., p. 36. ↩

  127. Kacc VII. 7. ↩

  128. B1 Nidānakathā (pp. kū and ke). ↩

  129. Cf. Kn I Introd., pp. 38-39. ↩

  130. It is believed that Kaccāyana’s grammar was brought to Myanmar in 387 A.D. by Buddhaghosa (KPG Introd., p. V). ↩

  131. PGR Introd., p. XXIV, cf. PL p. 130, APL pp. 102-3. ↩

  132. DSC pp. 68-69, PLC pp. 183-184, SPG I Introd., p. 34 cf. Rūp 164, 3-4, Sadd 60, 32-33. ↩

  133. PLL p. 37, HPL II p. 632, PL p. 163, PGR Introd., p. XXX; for details cf. SPG I and SPG II. 1. O.H. Pind has shown clearly how did Buddhaghosa make use of Pāṇini’s grammar in solving the grammatical points in his works e.g. Visuddhimagga, Samantapāsādikā and Sumaṅgalavilāsinī etc. ↩

  134. IKP Introd., pp. XXX, LXXII. ↩

  135. NPK p. 121. If we accept the Mukhamattadīpanī, the oldest and first commentary on the Kaccāyana as belonging to 11th century, the date assumed by Fryer is certainly unacceptable. Dr. Hoernle (ibid., pp. 125-127) disagrees with him. ↩

  136. See fn. 123, 125. ↩

  137. KG Introd., p. XXVIII. ↩

  138. Kacc III. 5. ↩

  139. Quoted from PLL p. 37 fn. 6. ↩

  140. IP p. 145. ↩

  141. PLC p. 184. He elsewhere (DPPN I p. 478) says that Kaccāyana probably belongs to the fifth or sixth century A.D. ↩

  142. GE p. 194. ↩

  143. PL p. 163, he quotes Franke, Gramm, pp. 17-19 as the source for this, cf. PLL p. 37. ↩

  144. H. Scharfe (GE p. 194 fn. 8) says that R.O. Franke’s attempts to show influence of the Kāsikā on Kaccāyana are not convincing”. ↩

  145. SPG I Introd., p. 33 cf. PL pp. 146-7 and APL pp. 147, 149 about Ap-a. ↩

  146. Nām pre. p. 13. ↩

  147. Gv 60, 23-24 and 70, 6-7, Sās 75, 3-4 has Mahāvimalabuddhi to distinguish him from Navavimalabuddhi, see also PLB p. 21 fn. 2, Svd 1223, 1236, NPK p. 119, PLB p. 21, PLL p. 38, PLC pp. 179-180, HOP p. 98. ↩

  148. PLB p. 21, NPK p. 123. ↩

  149. Gv 63, 14-15 and 72, 34-35. ↩

  150. Sadd 210, 3-5, Piṭ-sm 374. ↩

  151. PLL p. 38, GE p. 194, PL p. 164. According to HOP p. 98, it may be assigned to the tenth century. ↩

  152. HOP pp. 98-99. ↩

  153. Svd 1240, Piṭ-sm 375, Mmd Introd., p. XIII, Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. cha), HOP p. 194, Mand p. 48 Nyāsappadīpa is referred to, but the author’s name is missing, see PLB p. 21 fn. 5. ↩

  154. HOP p. 194. ↩

  155. PLB p. 21 and fn. 6; Sāsanavaṃsa 75, 20-21 gives the Palised Burmese title as Saṃbyañ or Saṃ-pyaṃ, otherwise as Saṃ-pyaṅ-ṭīkā see CPD 5.1,112. ↩

  156. PLL p. 38, he does not quote the source from where he had got this information. He, however, seems to think that the Nyāsapradīpa is the same as the Suttaniddesa and by the same author cf. ibid., p. 50. K.R. Norman (PL p. 164) shares the same view with Geiger and refers to Bode, PLB pp. 17-18 and Franke, Gramm, p. 33 as the sources. He states: “… For it (Mukhamattadīpanī) was itself commented upon by Chapaṭa at the end of the twelfth century in a work entitled Suttaniddesa or Nyāsapradīpa”. However, these two texts are composed by different authors and in different periods. The Nyāsappadīpa-ṭīkā is a commentary on the Nyāsa composed by a minister of king Narapatisithu at the end of the twelfth century. But the Suttaniddesa is the commentary on the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa composed by Chappada in the fifteenth century. ↩

  157. Sās 111, 5-6, Svd 1241, Piṭ-sm 376, PLB p.55, PLL p. 38 fn. 3, HOP p. 194. According to Mmd, Introd., p. XII he was from Ava. See also Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. ja). ↩

  158. PLL p. 38 fn. 3 and HOP p. 194. ↩

  159. Gv 63, 16 and 73, 1, Sās 76, 10, Piṭ-sm 377, PLB p. 25, Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. ch). ↩

  160. Gv 73, 2-4, see also Piṭ-sm 378, PLB p. 25. ↩

  161. NPK p. 124. ↩

  162. Rūp 393, 10-13, see also Gv 60, 27-29, DSC p. 180, Svd 1239-40, Piṭ-sm 379, PLL pp. 50-1, PLC pp. 220-21, HOP p. 123. ↩

  163. PLL p. 51, PL p. 104, HOP p. 124. ↩

  164. Ibid., p. 51, DSC p. 182, PLC p. 221, HOP p. 124. ↩

  165. Rūp-ṭ 228, 21-22, see also Gv 70, 10-11, Piṭ-sm 380, HOP p. 124. ↩

  166. DSC p. 78. ↩

  167. PLL p. 51, see also PL p. 164. According to Piṭ-sm 467 it was composed by Saddhammakitti of Pagan. ↩

  168. PLC p. 243. ↩

  169. Quoted in HOP p. 21. ↩

  170. Gv 62, 9 and 71, 26, see also Mand p.45, PLB p.22. ↩

  171. PL p. 164. ↩

  172. See Godakumbura, cat, p. 69 quoted in PL p.164 fn. 308 in which Somapala Jayawardhana (Supplement: corrections and comments on PLC p. 325) shares the same view and states: “This Dhammakitti was the author of the Bālāvatārasanne, a paraphrase in Sinhala of the Bālāvatāra. The actual author of the Bālāvatāra is not known and some confusion in the editing of manuscripts has led to the unsupported assumption among several scholars that Dhammakitti was also the author of the Bālāvatāra. See also HOP p.20 for the comments upon the views of some scholars as mentioned above, cf. DSC pp. 78-9. ↩

  173. DSC p. 78, PLC p. 243, HOP p. 21. ↩

  174. NPK p. 124. ↩

  175. Sadd Be Nidānakathā (p. ḍha), see also Gv 63, 26 and 73, 13, Piṭ-sm 408, PLB p.22, CPD 5.1, 51 and 5.1, 52 cf. PLL p. 51. ↩

  176. Gv 64, 22-24, Piṭ-sm 381, Svd 1247-8, Sdp 290, 24-27 - 291, 1-12. ↩

  177. Ibid., 74, 17-19. ↩

  178. PLB pp. 17-8, PLL pp. 40, 50. They give the Sāsanavaṃsa as the source for this. But G.E. Fryer (NPK p. 124) gives the probable date as 1279 A.D. ↩

  179. Supplement: corrections and comments of PLC (p. 185, lines 21-24) ibidem p. 323. A.P. Buddhadatta (Corr pp. 198-209) and D.T. Devendra (EB IV s.v. Chappaṭa) hold the same view; see also Sadd Be Nidānakathā (pp. ta and ṭha) APL p. 164 fn. 569. It may be suggested here that the former should be spelt as Chapada or Chapaṭa, the latter as Chappada (or -ḍa) or Chappaṭa, which was the name of the village where the author was born. ↩

  180. Sās 90, 6-7, Svd 1242, Piṭ-sm 382, PLB p. 46, PLL p. 52, PLC p. 180, HOP p. 67. ↩

  181. “navasate Sakkarāje aṭṭhahisītiyā pi ca / patte kattikamāsassa sukkapakkhaṭṭhame dine / nātisaṅkhepavitthārena siddhā Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā” Kvn 429, 7-9. G.E. Fryer (NPK p. 124) gives the probable date as 1342 A.D. This assumption is not keeping with the colophon mentioned above. ↩

  182. PLL p. 52, HOP p. 191. But G.P. Malalasekera (PLC p. 180) gives Bode (PLB p. 46) as the source and states: “He lived at about the sixteenth century”. ↩

  183. PLL p. 53, HOP p. 68. ↩

  184. “Kaccāyanañ ca c’ācariyaṃ namitvā / nissāya Kaccāyanavaṇṇanādiṃ / bālappabodhatthaṃ karissaṃ / byattaṃ sukaṇḍaṃ Padarūpasiddhiṃ” Rūp 1, 9-12, see also ibid., p. 53. ↩

  185. Sās 90, 6-8, PLB p. 46, PLL p. 53. ↩

  186. Oldenb p. 103. ↩

  187. Ibid., p. 104. If the year 1606 A.D. as the date of the ṭīkā is correct, the Vācakopadesa would have been composed before Kaccāyana-vaṇṇanā. Therefore its author must have lived at about the sixteenth century as pointed out by Malalasekera. The period between the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century may be fixed even if the author of the Vācakopadesa and the ṭīkā is the same person or not. H. Oldenberg (ibid., p. 104) remarks: “… The commentator then gives his own name, which is identical with that of the author”. As remarked by him, the authors of the Vācakopadesa and the ṭīkā seem to be different persons. In this regard M.H. Bode (PLB p. 46 fn. 4) gives P.TH. p. 71 (= Piṭ-sm 414-5) as the source and states: “The commentary on Vācakopadesa, by another Vijitāvī, was written at Sagiang”. However, according to Piṭ-sm 414-5 Mahāvijitāvī not only composed the Vācakopadesa, but also the Vācakopadesa-ṭīkā at Sagiang in the thirteenth century. As the evidences show, the author of the Vācakopadesa-ṭīkā is a different person belonging to a different period. ↩

  188. Piṭ-sm 414-5, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn.2. He wrote the Vācakopadesa and a ṭīkā on it at Sagiang in the thirteenth century. ↩

  189. Gv 63, 34-36, Sās 75, 22-23, Svd 1245, Piṭ-sm 393, PLB pp. 15-16, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2,3. ↩

  190. Gv 73, 21-22. ↩

  191. Piṭ-sm 394, PLB p. 16 fn. 1, cf. Gv 64, 1 and 73, 25 states that it was composed by another teacher. ↩

  192. NPK p. 124. ↩

  193. Gv 63, 34-36 and 73, 23-24, PLB p. 16. ↩

  194. Ibid., 64, 2-3 and 73, 26-27. ↩

  195. PLB p. 20. ↩

  196. Gv 63, 1-3 and 72, 22-23, Sās 75, 29-32, Svd 1246, Piṭ-sm 395, PLB p. 20, PLL p.50. ↩

  197. PLB p. 23. ↩

  198. NPK p. 124. ↩

  199. Jardine Prize Essay, p. 36 quoted in PLB p. 23 fn. 1. ↩

  200. NPK p. 124, Piṭ-sm 396 the author calls it the Sāratthasaṅgaha-ṭīkā; Gv 63, 18-19 and 73, 5-6 calls it -mahāṭīkā; Mand p. 50 calls it Saddatthabhedacintādīpanī? cf. CPD 5.4.11, PLB p. 22, PLC p. 199. ↩

  201. Cf. PLB p. 23. ↩

  202. NPK p. 124. ↩

  203. See fn. 199 above. ↩

  204. Gv 63, 24-25 and 73, 11-12. ↩

  205. Ibid., 63, 28-29 and 73, 14-15, Piṭ-sm 397 cf. PLL p. 50, HOP p. 196. According to CPD 5.4.1,1, 5.4.1,2, 5.4.1,3 only three ṭīkā-s are recorded. However, there is one more ṭīkā called the Saddatthabhedacintāpadakkamayojanā composed by Dhammasenāpati of Chiangmai in Thailand in the second half of the fifteenth century, see PLT pp. 260-1. ↩

  206. Gv 74, 27-28, Sās 89, 30-33, Svd 1249, Piṭ-sm 405, PLB p. 27, PLL p. 51, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2, HOP p. 126. ↩

  207. PLL p. 51, HOP p. 126. G.E. Fryer (NPK p. 124) gives the probable date as 1342 A.D. ↩

  208. HOP pp. 126-7, see also PLL p. 51. ↩

  209. Gv 74, 29-30, and 64, 28 name of the author was Vepullabuddhi, see also PLB p. 28. According to Piṭ-sm 406 name of the author is not known cf. HOP p. 127. ↩

  210. NPK p. 124. ↩

  211. Gv 74, 1-3, and 64, 10 the author is mentioned as ‘aññataro ācariyo (certain teacher)’. Cf. Forchhammer, List, pp. xx and xxi where the author is called rasa of Thatone quoted in PLB p. 36 fn. 3, but Mand p. 47 and NPK p. 123 read it as Rassathera. ↩

  212. Svd 1250, PLB pp. 36-7, PLL pp. 51-2, HOP p. 67, according to Piṭ-sm 398 he was of Panya, cf. SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2. ↩

  213. PLL p. 52. According to G.P. Malalasekera (PLC pp. 180, 199) he wrote his work at about thirteenth century, but (p. 221) he wrote it at about the fourteenth century. Malalasekera gives PLB p. 37 as the source for this. Bode (ibid., p. 37) also takes it for granted as such. ↩

  214. HOP p. 67. ↩

  215. PLB p. 36, PLL p.52. Mand p. 48 refers to Kaccāyanasāra-ṭīkā by Siri-Saddhammavilāsa. ↩

  216. Piṭ-sm 399, PLB p. 37 on which W. Geiger (PLL p. 52) remarks: “Mahāyasa is also the author of a Kaccāyanasāra on which the author himself is said to have written a Ṭīkā. This is perhaps the Kaccāyanasāra-Purāṇaṭīkā, of which, however, Subhūti expressly says that the author and the time of origin are unknown”. ↩

  217. NPK p. 124. ↩

  218. Piṭ-sm 400. According to W. Geiger (PLL p.52) the Sammohavināsinī was composed by the Burmese monk Saddhammavilāsa of Pagan. ↩

  219. Piṭ-sm 401. ↩

  220. Ibid., 401, HOP p. 188, see also fn. 211-3. ↩

  221. HOP p. 188. ↩

  222. Piṭ-sm 403, PLB p.55, PLL p. 52, HOP p. 188. But Mand p. 48 gives the title as Kaccāyanabheda-ṭīkā by Ariyavaṃsa, G.E. Fryer (NPK p. 124) does the same and gives the probable date as 1439 A.D. ↩

  223. Piṭ-sm 404. There is another ṭīkā on the Kaccāyanabheda entitled Kaccāyanabheda-mahāṭīkā composed by Uttamasikkha of Myanmar mentioned in PLL p. 52 and HOP pp. 188, 201. ↩

  224. Gv 64, 4-5 and 73, 28-9, Sās 76, 25-7, NPK p. 124, Piṭ-sm 289, 409, PLB p. 25. Saddabindu and Paramatthabindu are ascribed to Kya-cvā’s preceptor by some on which F. Lottermoser (SNS p. 105 fn. 9) remarks: “…. king Kya-cvā’s preceptor is regarded as author by some sources (PGL 55: Rāgaguruthera). This view is apparently based on a faulty reading in Gv 73, 28 (Ee 1886, M: dhammarājassa gurunā aññatarācariyakataṃ); cf. Bode (JPTS 1894-96) p. 79, note 1. Sās 76, 11-77, 6 and Piṭ-sm 289 (s.v. Paramatthabindu) …. “. ↩

  225. PLL p. 52. ↩

  226. Quoted in ibid., p. 52, see also HOP p. 196. ↩

  227. SNS Introd., p. 79. ↩

  228. Piṭ-sm 401. ↩

  229. SNS Introd., pp. 79-80 and 105-6 fn. 11-13, see also PLT pp. 270-1, Mand p. 50 gives the title as the Saddabindu-ṭīkāpakaraṇa composed by Sirisaddhamma-Mahāphussadeva cf. CPD 5.4. 5,2. But M.H. Bode (PLB p. 25 fn. 4) gives the title as Saddabinduvinicchaya. However, the actual name of the ṭīkā is Ganthasāra as mentioned in SNS p. 82 which reads as: Saddabindu-abhinavaṭīkā Ganthasāro nāma Saddabinduvinicchayo. In CPD 5.4.5, 1-2 only two ṭīkā-s are recorded. However, there is one more ṭīkā on the Saddabindu called the Līnatthavisodhanī or Līnatthasūdanī composed by Ñāṇavilāsa of Pagan towards the end of the sixteenth century mentioned in PLB p. 25 fn. 4, PLL p. 52, HOP p. 196. ↩

  230. Piṭ-sm 321, PLB p. 25 fn. 4. ↩

  231. Gv 63, 22-23 and 73, 9-10, PLL p. 52, HOP p. 185. ↩

  232. Piṭ-sm 431. ↩

  233. Quoted in PLL p. 52. ↩

  234. HOP p. 185, see also PLL p. 52. ↩

  235. Gv 65, 17-18 and 75, 15-16, PLL p. 52, HOP p. 185. ↩

  236. HOP p. 185. ↩

  237. PLL p. 52, HOP pp. 185-6. ↩

  238. PLT p. 269. ↩

  239. Ibid., p. 299. ↩

  240. Dhātum 52, 5-10, see also DSC p. 83, PLL p. 56, PLC p. 237, HOP p. 186. ↩

  241. PLL p. 56, PLC p. 237, HOP p. 186, PL p. 166. ↩

  242. Quoted in ibid., p. 56. ↩

  243. PL p. 166. ↩

  244. Sās 77, 7-8, see also PLL p. 57, PLB p. 25. ↩

  245. Quoted in PLL p. 57. ↩

  246. Mand p. 50, PLB p. 26, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2. G.E. Fryer (NPK p.123) gives the probable date as 1227 A.D. However, according to Piṭ-sm 422, it was composed by an unknown author of Panya. ↩

  247. Piṭ-sm 423, Mand p. 50. ↩

  248. CPD 5.4.8, 2 on which W. Geiger (PLL p. 57) remarks: “To it belongs a Vibhattyattha-Ṭīkā, which is perhaps identical with the Vibhattyatthadīpanī mentioned by De Zoysa and Fausböll. At least in the introductory verse the ṭīkā ascribes to itself the same title. De Zoysa mentions also a Vibhattikathā-vaṇṇanā”. If Geiger’s assumption is correct, the Vibhattikathā-vaṇṇanā would be the second ṭīkā in the place of the Vibhattyattha-ṭīkā mentioned by CPD. ↩

  249. Sās 75, 28-29, PLB p. 22, PLL p. 57, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2, HOP p. 201. According to Piṭ-sm 411 the author’s name is not mentioned. ↩

  250. PLL p. 57, HOP p. 202. ↩

  251. Piṭ-sm 412, PLB p. 22 fn. 6, PLL p. 57, Mand p. 50 gives the title Vāccavācaka-vaṇṇanā, HOP pp. 197, 202. ↩

  252. Piṭ-sm 413. ↩

  253. Mand p. 50. We may follow the classification of CPD 5.4.9, 1-3. In it the compiler has mentioned three ṭīkā-s, namely, (1) Vāccavācaka-ṭīkā (Vāccavācaka-vaṇṇanā) (2) Vāccavācaka-dīpanī (3) Vāccavācaka-ṭīkā cf. PLB p. 22 fn. 6. However as mentioned in HOP p. 202 the Vāccavācaka-ṭīkā is also known by its alternative name Vāccavācaka-vaṇṇanā. ↩

  254. PLB p. 26, PLL p. 57, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2. According to Piṭ-sm 425 it was written by an unknown author of Pagan during the reign of the king Kya-cvā (1234-50 A.D.). However, according to HOP p. 187 he was an Indian. There are two versions of this text as pointed out by F. Lottermoser (ibid. Introd., p. 105 fn. 7) “… Then follows Ganthaṭṭhipakaraṇa (CPD 5.4.11) in two versions, both with the serial number 14 but distinguished as Cullaganthaṭṭhipakaraṇa and Mahāganthaṭṭhipakaraṇa in the preface (Icchāsayanidānaṃ p. kha). The editors state that the larger texts (101 prose items) is actually a subcommentary on the shorter text (36 prose items). Apparently CPD 5.4.11 refers to the larger text”. ↩

  255. Gv 75, 6-7, PLB p. 43, PLL p. 57, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2, HOP pp. 184-5. According to Piṭ-sm 419 he was of Panya. ↩

  256. Mand p. 50. According to Piṭ-sm 420 it was written by an unknown author of Ava. ↩

  257. PLT pp. 285-6. According to W. Geiger (PLL p.57) he was a Burmese monk, see also HOP p. 187, the both make use of Subhūti’s Nām as the source. ↩

  258. Piṭ-sm 421. ↩

  259. CPD 5.4.10, 4. ↩

  260. PLT p. 286. ↩

  261. Sās 90, 8-10, see also Mand p. 47, PLL p. 58, SNS Introd., p. 104 fn. 2, HOP p. 197. ↩

  262. Gv 64, 6-7, 67, 18-25 and 73, 30-31. ↩

  263. Piṭ-sm 416, PLB p. 29. ↩

  264. Essay, p. 36 quoted in PLB p. 29. ↩

  265. PLL p. 58. ↩

  266. NPK p. 124. ↩

  267. Mand p.50. ↩

  268. Piṭ-sm 417, PLB p. 29, PLL p. 58, Gv 64, 8-9 and 73, 32-33 gives the title as Saddavuttipakāsaka-ṭīkā. ↩

  269. NPK p. 124. ↩

  270. Piṭ-sm 418. According to Gv 65, 30-33 it was composed by a learned grammarian of Sri Lanka. ↩

  271. Gv 75, 20-28. ↩

  272. PLB p. 55 and fn. 8, PLL p. 57, HOP p. 198. ↩

  273. HOP p. 198. ↩

  274. PLB p. 25, see also PLL p. 58, HOP p. 194. ↩

  275. Mand pp. 50-1 on which M.H. Bode (PLB pp. 55-6) remarks: “Jambudhaja, author of the little grammatical treatise called Rūpabhedapakāsanī, is probably this same Jambudīpadhaja”. ↩

  276. PLL p. 58, HOP p. 193. ↩

  277. HOP p. 193. ↩

  278. PLL p. 58, PLC p. 283, HOP pp. 18, 72. ↩

  279. HOP p. 72. ↩

  280. PLC p. 283. ↩

  281. Ibid., p. 283, see also PLL p. 58, HOP pp. 125-6, 150. ↩

  282. PLL p. 127. ↩

  283. There is a rich bibliography on Pāli grammar entitled “Some works on Pāli grammar, Rhetoric and prosody” by D.L. Barua in IC 15, pp. 194-202. It may be noted here that the compiler has been misled by some sources. Therefore the readers should refer to it with caution. Otherwise the bibliography is useful. Reference may also be made to the “Handbook of Pāli Literature (= HOP)” by Somapala Jayawardhana. He makes use of Subhūti’s Nāmamālā and the other sources in the Pāli grammar’s section. However, he mostly follows Subhūti. This work gives more details than PLL of Geiger. And it seems to improve and replace PLL in some respects. However Jayawardhana did not make use of the latest materials. He committed the same mistakes as Subhūti whom he quotes as his source cf. SNS pp. 79-109 in JPTS XI, 1987. Still HOP has very useful information regarding the Pāli grammar. As far as the grammatical texts of Pāli grammar are concerned, the Nāmamālā is a very exhaustive treatise on Pāli grammar. It is a pioneer work even if it has some defects. It is still considered as the best of grammatical works. It was written in Sinhalese language, but we get some abstracts of it in PLL and HOP. Particularly W. Geiger wrote his works on grammatical sections based on the Nāmamālā. In the present study readers will find some discussions with reference to it. ↩