There is no evidence to my knowledge that such an association was restricted only to sanskrit grammatical sources (to the exclusion of all other literature).
Monier Williams says it is used with the meanings:
- incantation-hymn - in RigVeda. AtharvaVeda ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇa, MahāBhārata, Raghuvaṁśa
- the sacred text of the Vedic hymns - in ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇa, ĀśvalāyanaGṛhyasūtra , KauśikaSūtra , GobhilaŚrāddhaKalpa , VājasaneyiPrātiśākhya, Pāṇini, Manusmṛti etc.
So we see the usage is not restricted to grammatical literature within Sanskrit. There are several other sources that MW doesnt mention, it is however common knowledge in Sanskrit that chandas (when denoting a language) refers to the language of the Vedic mantras.
Even within the Pāli tradition, there is evidence proving that it meant metrical early-Vedic from both the canon and the commentary:
In the Sutta Nipāta Snp3.7 (the sutta is repeated in MN92 verbatim) the Buddha is quoted as saying that the Sāvitrī mantra (Ṛgveda 3.62.10 - composed by Viśvāmitra Gāthina) is the foremost of the Vedic mantras (here the word used by the Buddha for Vedic is chandaso) and that the agnihotra is the foremost among yajñas - and he is saying that to a Vedic brahmin ascetic sitting in his āśrama (hermitage) after having a lunch with him.
“aggihuttamukhā yaññā, sāvittī chandaso mukhaṃ”
It is a well-known fact that the Sāvitrī mantra (Ṛgveda 3.62.10) is the most prominent among all Vedic mantras - out of 10600+ mantras of the Ṛgveda, it is one of the few with its own Wikipedia page - Gayatri Mantra - Wikipedia , it is extolled throughout the Vedic literature, and orthoprax Brahmins to this day chant it 108 times thrice every day. The Mahākaṇhajātaka has a verse that shows that it was common knowledge among early Buddhists that the sāvitrī is a prominent vedic mantra: “adhicca vede sāvittiṃ, yaññatantrañca brāhmaṇā, bhatikāya yajissanti, tadā kaṇho pamokkhati”
If we take Horner’s interpretation of chandas as metric poetry, then the Buddha’s above comment would ostensibly mean “The Sāvitrī is foremost among all metric verses” (a nonsensical statement) – rather than saying that it is the foremost among the vedic hymns (which is a commonly held view within the vedic tradition that would be readily accepted by a vedic ascetic performing agnihotras and other yajñas and living in an āśrama). The commentary for this says “tattha aggiparicariyaṃ vinā brāhmaṇānaṃ yaññābhāvato “aggihuttamukhā yaññā”ti vuttaṃ. aggihuttaseṭṭhā aggijuhanappadhānāti attho. vede sajjhāyantehi paṭhamaṃ sajjhāyitabbato, sāvittī, “chandaso mukhan”ti vutto.”
The commentary definition you’ve yourself quoted above (vedaṃ viya sakkatabhāsāya vācanāmaggaṃ āropema) explicitly starts with “vedaṃ viya” so even a thousand years after the Buddha, the Pāli commentator had no doubt about the word referring to Vedic i.e. the vedas and its language are what he immediately thinks of when he comes across the word chandas, and to give greater clarity, he says sakkatabhāsāya (to the Saṃskṛta-bhāṣā i.e. not in any kind of prākṛta/pāli).
There is more from the commentaries (both from aṭṭhakathā & ṭīka sources) that show the Pāli commentators are unanimous about it:
- chandasoti vedassa (Source: vinayapiṭake bhikkhunīvibhaṅgavaṇṇanā mahāvaggavaṇṇanā keṇiyajaṭilavatthukathāvaṇṇanā)
- chandasoti vedassa. sāvittī mukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ sajjhāyitabbāti attho. tapatanti vijotantānaṃ. (Source: vinayapiṭake vimativinodanī-ṭīkā (dutiyo bhāgo) 6. bhesajjakkhandhako keṇiyajaṭilavatthukathāvaṇṇanā)
- chandāropanakathāyaṃ chandasoti sakkaṭabhāsāya. na āropetabbanti vācanāmaggaṃ na āropetabbaṃ. sakāya niruttiyāti māgadhabhāsāya. tattha santehi katāti sakkaṭā, aṭṭhakavāmakādīhi samitapāpehi isīhi katāti attho. (Source: vinayapiṭake vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā (paṭhamo bhāgo) 34. pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathā chandāropanakathā)
So I don’t think Ms. Horner’s interpretations are valid here.
Apasannānaṃ in this context can’t mean “pleasing those who are not yet pleased” because
a. that would have nothing at all to do with either the issue at hand (novice bhikkhus accused of “sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacana-dūsanam”), or with its suggested remedy (“buddhavacanam chandaso aropema”)
b. the buddhavacana is nowhere described (either in the canon or in the commentary by anyone) - that its primary existential purpose (or the buddha’s own primary existential purpose for that matter) is to please those who are not yet pleased.
c. the buddha does not say that “sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ dūsenti” is a false accusation, however he says “anujānāmi sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ pariyāpuṇitum” (I allow the learning of the buddhavacanam in the sakā nirutti) - how would that “please those who are not yet pleased” or even solve the issue at hand if the buddhavacanam is already available in poetry from the earliest phases?
d. There is no seeming mutual-contrast between sakā-nirutti and chandas (in your/Horner’s) interpretation - as converting it to metrical form does not get rid of the sakā-nirutti. Sakā nirutti does not mean “unmetrical form” for that matter either. Rather by “chandaso aropema”, the brothers obviously are trying to fix the issue of the corruption that has arisen in/from the sakā nirutti.
e. In ostensibly direct violation of the Buddha’s orders, thousands of metrically versified buddhavacana samples exist all across the Pali canon from the Buddha’s own lifetime (starting with the Aṭṭhakavagga & Pārāyaṇavagga and Dhammapada to say just three of the most widely revered metrical poetic sources of early-Buddhism), and also more poetry from after his passing. Nowhere do we find it being claimed in the canon or commentaries that all those verse suttas have prevented people who are displeased from getting pleased.
But I now (having gone through similar passages elsewhere in the Vinaya) see that “appasannānaṃ vā pasādāya” is a band-aid phrase (canned phrase) that likely would have been copied over verbatim from another vinaya rule - so I guess there is no point arguing over it’s exact significance in this rule.
That pitch accents existed in Pali (at some stage or the other) is not what I have suggested at all. The reason I have not suggested it is because I don’t believe it to be true, and there isn’t the slightest evidence for it. No form of Middle-Indo-Aryan had the svara/intonation-accents historically. Even Classical Sanskrit (in the Buddha’s time) did not have the accents invariably. But there was an option to speak sanskrit with svara intonations or without.
What I have, on the other hand, suggested both there and here above, is that the aṭṭhakavagga must originally have been composed in late-vedic. The fact that Soṇa recites the atthakavagga with the pitch (svara) intonation, while it must have been recited by others without the svaras - is to be noted. This option to speak/recite with or without svaras is a feature of late-vedic (otherwise called classical-sanskrit). Pāṇinian grammar gives several rules relating to the use of accent in both classical sanskrit (late-vedic) and the chandas language (early vedic). Whereas in early-vedic (chandas language), the accent is compulsory - in late-vedic it had become optional. From other literature of the same period, we learn that scholarly Brahmins to show their erudition (and for better semantic clarity, as the pitch-accent affects the meaning) spoke Sanskrit with the pitch accents, while almost everyone could speak Sanskrit without accents. Soṇa here is a brahmin (suggesting he was in familiar territory when he attempts an intoned recitation), and the buddha appreciates the attempt heartily. My suggestion is that the atthakavagga (and other early suttas) were originally composed in such a language where there was an option to recite with or without accents i.e. in late-Vedic. There is lexical evidence as well that it must have been composed in late-vedic, as it preserves Vedic word-forms that have been since pāli-fied in the pali tradition.
It surely does mention (in your above quote):
- “intonation”, “accent”
- -bhañña intoning, a particular mode of reciting Vin i.196; ii.108, 316; J ii.109; DhA i.154. -bhāṇa=˚bhañña DhA ii.95 (v. l. ˚bhañña).
- -bhāṇaka an intoner, one who intones or recites the sacred texts in the Sarabhañña manner
I don’t think the other meanings are contextually relevant or make sense here. Reciting with sound , reciting with voice , reciting with vowels etc make no sense at all. There is no option to recite them without sound, voice or vowels, so why would it even be worthy of mention, and why couldnt anybody or everybody do it in that case?
The intoned recitation was not obsolete in the Buddha’s time, it was used widely by Brahmins (maybe by others as well but at least by brahmins). The Rāmāyaṇa has Hanumān (being a monkey) wondering whether to speak to Sītā in the accented language of the twice-born or the unaccented language used by everyone else - he thinks “if I speak in the speech of the dvijātis (i.e. with accents), Sītā would fear me thinking I am Rāvaṇa in disguise, so let me speak to her in the common language (unaccented sanskrit)” - and the rest of the conversation with her is in that unaccented sanskrit. The bulk of the Rāmāyaṇa is from the same era as the Pāli canon, i.e. composed not very long after the Buddha’s time, and this śloka (yadi vācaṃ pradāsyāmi dvijātiriva saṁskṛtām| rāvaṇaṃ manyamānā māṃ sītā bhītā bhaviṣyati ॥) shows that the dvijātis could speak intoned sanskrit on occasion, and such accented speech must have been understood widely - while most people of that period spoke the unaccented version of sanskrit that is spoken today invariably.
Patañjali mentions that common people sometimes spoke intoned sanskrit with mistakes. While commenting on the sūtra vṛddhirādaic he says: “taparastaïti tatkālānāṃ savarṇānāṃ grahaṇaṃ yathā syāt . keṣām . udāttānudāttasvaritānām . kiṃ ca kāraṇaṃ na syāt . … bhedakatvātsvarasya … bhedakā udāttādayaḥ . kathaṃ punarjñāyate bhedakā udāttādaya iti . evaṃ dṛśyate loke ya udātte kartavye’nudāttaṃ karoti” - so it is clear that even in his time (mid 2nd century BCE) common people were trying to speak intoned sanskrit but they sometimes used the wrong accents.
I don’t know about all of the poetry in the Pali canon having tones originally, it is unlikely to have been the case in my understanding. However the historically earliest (foundational) suttas of early-Buddhism, and those that contain evidences of Vedic vocabulary would have originally been in late-Vedic in my understanding. The texts the Divyavadāna mention (see below) all seem to be early texts. I quote the whole of the relevant paragraph from the other thread below:
The Divyāvadāna evidences the intoned recitation that I have postulated – see “athāyuṣmāñ śroṇo bhagavatā kṛtāvakāśaḥ asmāt parāntikayā guptikayā udānāt pārāyaṇāt satyadṛṣṭaḥ śailagāthā munigāthā arthavargīyāṇi ca sūtrāṇi vistareṇa svareṇa svādhyāyaṃ karoti” - here, apart from the word svareṇa, the usage of the word svādhyāya is also significant. Svādhyāya in the vedic tradition refers to chanting the memorized vedic hymns periodically. Each brahmin clan is associated with a specific set of vedic verses handed down in an oral patrilineal tradition that goes back to the original vedic Ṛṣis who composed those verses. So svādhyāya means they periodically recite the memorized set of hymns that they had inherited from their ancestors with an intention to pass it down the line. In the buddhist sense, the above statement in the Divyāvadāna (and in the Pāli canon where too sajjhāya is mentioned as being done both by brahmins and buddhists of the buddha’s lifetime) would mean not an oral transmission across generations (unlike the vedas) but chanting the suttas of the arthavargīyāṇi (aṭṭhakavagga), śailagāthā (sela-sutta), the munigāthā, the satyadṛṣṭa, the verses of the pārāyaṇavarga, udānas etc as these early suttas would have been regarded as foundational texts of the buddhist canon, and memorizing / reciting them with their original accents was evidently considered a form of svādhyāya.