Robert K wrote:

> The Buddha did not teach the Dhamma for scholars to wrangle over or
> as an object of academic interest.

No, but that has not stopped Buddhist scholars, including Theravadin ones
(eg Kathavatthu etc) from engaging in wrangling and polemics for as far back
as we can ascertain, sometimes usefully and constructively and sometimes
not. Additionally, regardless of what the Buddha's own intentions were, all
aspects of Buddhism that are accessible to scholars are a quite legitimate
object of academic interest. Are you suggesting that the Dharma should be
placed off-limits to academic study ? Indeed, to use your own words, "we
should have the utmost gratitude" for the insights into the development of
Buddhism and textual studies that some scholars have provided.

> The Theravada Bhikkhus over the 2600 years of this Buddhasasana have
> faithfully preserved the Dhamma for us to learn from. And we should
> have the utmost gratitude that they were not swayed to alter it or
> add to it.

The situation is probably a little more complex than you suggest and such
claims cannot be supported objectively. One can accept as a given that the
Theravadin school is the only surviving form of Buddhism that has preserved
and uses an archaic canon of the Buddha's words in an original Indic
language but it is surely rather difficult to determine how faithfully or
accurately the Pali canon preserves the actual teachings of the Buddha. And
like you, I am grateful to the Theravadin monks for preserving what they
have preserved but what are your grounds for believing that the Pali canon
does not contain alterations and additions -- and omissions and corruptions
? How then would you account for the missing portions of the Pali Vinaya,
the discrepancies in content between it and the various surviving canonical
materials from other schools to which we have access, or the innovations
found in the Theravadin Abhidharma which are unknown to any other school of
Buddhism ? Regarding the latter, if one looks at the Sarvastivadin
Abhidharma, the Sautrantika Abhidharma-kosha, the Yogacarin
Abhidharma-samuccaya etc, it quickly becomes obvious that the Theravadin
Abhidharma is the odd one out -- though that, of course, does not detract
from its value. I am not writing this to undermine the faith of you or
others in the Dharma but, as a scholar, a Dharma teacher (and an ex-monk), I
find the insularity exhibited by the adherents of different forms of
Buddhism to be rather sad and divisive since it seems to me to be akin to a
form of Buddhism fundamentalism. I could write more but perhaps this is not
the ideal forum.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge