From: Nich
Message: 7396
Date: 2005-05-04
> > same degree of authenticity.But isn't the bedrock of that school a collection of suttas? Am I overly
> No need to argue against this. But it should be noted that we are
> discussing the doctrinal framework of the whole Theravada school --- not
> a particular manuscript or sutta.
> > (I wonder what might be the state of Paali studies now if the greatinto Paali.)
> > machine of the Western universities << snip >> had put their efforts
> Actually, this is an off-topic subject (That is why you have chosen toI was musing rather self indulgently, but not too far off topic, I hope 8-)
> put it into brackets, I presume) But an interesting one still. So I
> would give my view at length in a later post.
><< snip >>
> > I was interested to hear Prof. Gombrich saying in a talk to << snip >> .
> > suttas, .... were full of contradictions.
> Prof. Gombrich has failed to mention another part of Pali literatureI hope I didn't misrepresent Prof. Gombrich by quoting him out of context. I
> that is the "consistency supreme". It is Abhidhamma Pitaka. I don't
> remember the exact words but Mrs. Iggleden, the late President of PTS,
> has remarked in one of her books that such a big work without a single
> contradiction inside should be the work of the Buddha himself (excepting
> Kathaavatthu, of course).
> But why has Prof. Gombrich failed to mention it? Probably because heI have a horrible feeling I may have given an entirely unjustified
> cannot say it from his experience.
> There are various reasons for the neglect of Abhidhamma Pi.taka, and oneAs I understand it, the technical nature of it makes it quite difficult
> is the seeming lack of historical evidence as regards its authenticity.
><< mega snip >>
> Now about suttas full of contradictions. I would like to remind you that
> In my opinion, all these contradictions are valid evidence of theVery well put & this accords with my memory of Prof. G's arguments & I
> authenticity of suttas, of the fact that they have been little affected
> by the tweaking of the posterity
> Then how should they be understood by those of posterity like us?Without being steeped in Abhidhamma but looking at it very much from the
>
> Here comes in the role of Abhidhamma. If you look at the commentaries,
> whether of Vinaya or Suttanta, you would find that the commentators
> would call in Abhidhammic concepts whenever really subtle points are to
> be expounded. Moreover, Abhidhamma is the ultimate arbiter as regards
> all seeming contradictions in suttas; you would find them explained away
> by the commentators using Abhidhamma.
> Buddhaghosa and other commentators' works are based.Does anyone know if there is a realistic chance of any of this material
> Here I must note on the different attitudes of western scholars,<< snip >> in our case, anything in suttas is authentic unless
> definitely proved to the contrary. The reason is the same as in law.That is an interesting analogy. It does rather assume that the
> Just as law cannot afford to let one innocent person suffer even if ten
> rogues walk free on account of its laxity, we cannot afford to reject
> one authentic idea even if we have to live with ten interpolations.
><< snip >> , how
> > likely is it to an embellishment by a scribe with an overactiveI'm sorry that I ended on a slightly flippant note, I was trying not to
> > imagination sweating over his palm leave.
>
> If you look for the string "*meru*" on CSCD, you would find that it
> occurs 10 times in the canon, notably once each in Suttanipaata and
> Mijjhimanikaaya. It means that you just cannot reject it out of hand, or
> blame a poor scribe, whether you like it or not.