--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett <rett@...> wrote:

> >

>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Thank you for your expression of gratitude. I also feel gratitude

to

> the Bikkhusangha for maintaining the vinaya unbroken for two and

half

> millenia, and for transmitting the teachings to our day.
>
> I agree (and I suspect Stephen does as well) that the Dharma is

above

> all meant to be practiced. However we also can see that there are
> variant readings of many sections in the Tipitaka in different
> manuscript traditions. So one way or another, the texts have been
> altered, added to, taken away from. And as Stephen mentioned,

there

> are versions of Tipitaka texts preserved in Sanksrit, Gandhari and
> other languages. These also can differ. Somewhere along the line
> things have been altered or added. No amount of pious wishing can
> alter that basic fact.
>
> Even within just the Pali tradition, the canonical status of some
> books is disputed. In Burma the Nettipakarana is considered part

of

> the Tipitaka. Not so in Sri Lanka. So again, at some point,

someone

> has altered or added.

Dear Rett,
Whether the Netti-pakarana should be considered part of the Tipitaka
was discussed at the 6th council by the Burmese monks. They decided
it should be because it was made by Mahakaccana and had its own
commentary by Dhammapala. Thus it didn't fit in with the category of
commentary. In Sri lanka the Milinda-panha and Netti are in a
special section (not commentary or Tipitaka) and probably this is
the best way. I wouldn't say this means that the Burmese monks have
altered the tradition - it is all made open, nothing underhanded.

Of course there are some copyist errors in various manuscripts. And
Buddhaghosa on several occasions will say that The Majjhima reciters
says that... while the Digha reciters say that... These are always
on minor matters.


Stephen Hodge: "I am working on a text by Asanga which is a
thematic commentary o the Samyukta-agama. Given that approx 90% of
the
contents of the SA correspond closely in all essentials to the SN,
it is
surprising the huge gulf that separates Asanga's understanding of
the texts
and that of his almost contemporary Buddhaghosa -- ... Unless one is
a Theravadin, why especially privilege
that tradition if alternative interpretations are also occasionally
available ?""

Rett:

>>spare some gratitude for the scholars
> who have worked to make it easier for people like us to read the

Pali

> Canon and its ancillary works. They have done great merit and we

are

> reaping the rewards of their work here and now

Rett, I do privilege what I read in the Pali texts and
commentaries. I believe the ancient monks of Theravada did strive to
preserve the teachings accurately, and what is more succeeded. I
don't feel the same about the Mahayana tradition, including Asanga,
and their writings in Sanskrit, even if this seems wrong to
scholars such as Stephen.
RobertK

>