I do not think anyone can answer this question unless he has some divine
eye to ask those earth deva .One important thing too-If pali are also not
buddha teaching(theravada is just a sect like sarvativada etc),then gotama
buddha teaching sasana in fact are ended by now.

>From: Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@...>
>Reply-To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Pali] Does the Mahayana Vinaya text contain the Maha- and
>Cullavagga?
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:21:00 +0800
>
>At 07:20 PM 17-10-02, Ong Teng Kee wrote:
> >you can read in Taiping buddhist society daily from 8.oo pm to 10.00
>
>Thank you for the information.
>
> >pm.sakayanirutiya is about which language should be used to teach buddha
> >teaching-your own language or sanskrit.I think you should know where it
>is.
>
>I see now. You must be referring to sakaaya niruttiyaa. If this could be
>found among the Chinese scriptures, then we can be sure that there are at
>least fragments of equivalence to the Maha- and Cuu.lavagga of the Pali
>Vinaya Pi.taka.
>
>Incidentally, this matter came up in our class earlier. Perhaps the story
>may interest the members here.
>
>Two bhikkhus of brahman birth approached the Buddha and said that all sorts
>of monks were ruining the Buddha's words "sakaaya niruttiyaa". They then
>offered to render the Buddha's words in metrical verse. The Buddha rebuked
>for them for saying that and rejected it. He further imposed a dukka.ta for
>whoever or renders it so, and gave formal allowance "to master"
>(pariyaapu.nitu.m) Buddha's words "sakaaya niruttiyaa".
>
>Now here's the controversy:
>As you can see I left "sakaaya niruttiyaa" untranslated. Literally, it
>means "with own language/dialect". Modern translators translates it as
>"with *one's* own language/dialect", rendering the passage to mean that the
>monks were ruining the Buddha's words with *one's* own language, and the
>Buddha allowed monks to master the Buddha's words with *one's* own
>language.
>
>However, my teacher, basing on the commentarial gloss, says that it means
>"with *their* own language/dialect", rendering the passage to mean that the
>monks were ruining the Buddha's words with *their* own language, and the
>Buddha allowed monks to master the Buddha's words with *their* own
>language, which the commentary gloss as Magadhi, which is believed to be
>what we now call Pali.
>
>Can anyone throw more light to this?
>
>peace
>
>Ven Kum�ra
>

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp