Dear Ven. Pandita & Nina,

Many thanks for your stimulating responses to my questions. Sorry for not
acknowledging them sooner but I wasn't able to access my computer for a
couple of days.

There are many aspects of what you wrote that I would like to consider
carefully but I thought I'd better comment quickly on a couple of things...

<< snip >> not all suttas, or parts of suttas are equally as old, or have
the

> > same degree of authenticity.
> 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.

But isn't the bedrock of that school a collection of suttas? Am I overly
naive to think that the ultimate arbiter of what is genuinely Theravadan is
how much it accords with the Tipi.tika? (Which I suppose goes full circle to
my original question about authenticity...)

> > (I wonder what might be the state of Paali studies now if the great
> > machine of the Western universities << snip >> had put their efforts

into Paali.)

> Actually, this is an off-topic subject (That is why you have chosen to
> put it into brackets, I presume) But an interesting one still. So I
> would give my view at length in a later post.

I was musing rather self indulgently, but not too far off topic, I hope 8-)
It does bear on the issue of the state of Pali scholarship. I'd be very
eager to hear your views on this.

>
> > I was interested to hear Prof. Gombrich saying in a talk to << snip >> .
> > suttas, .... were full of contradictions.

<< snip >>

> Prof. Gombrich has failed to mention another part of Pali literature
> 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).

I hope I didn't misrepresent Prof. Gombrich by quoting him out of context. I
would have to listen to the talk again to be certain of not bending his
points but it was within the context of difficulties and the editors maxim
difficile lectior potior, that in having two variants where one was more
difficult, one should prefer that one as being more likely.

He also made the point you do further on about the length & variety of the
Buddha's ministry & how this would lead one to expect variation but also how
where there is evidence of "tidying up" of accounts to make them consistent
(such as the interpolation of large chunks of material) that when one finds
contradictory material it can often be evidence of authenticity, i.e. a part
that failed to be "tidied up".

How this sits with Mrs. Iggleden's comment is rather difficult, in that the
consistency she's admiring might lead one, according to Prof. Gombrich's
method, to feel it less likely to be authentically the word of the Buddha.

> But why has Prof. Gombrich failed to mention it? Probably because he
> cannot say it from his experience.

I have a horrible feeling I may have given an entirely unjustified
impression of Prof. G by my own selective usage of his comments to my own
purpose.

<< big snip >>

> There are various reasons for the neglect of Abhidhamma Pi.taka, and one
> is the seeming lack of historical evidence as regards its authenticity.

As I understand it, the technical nature of it makes it quite difficult
reading which must affect the interest in the West where students grounding
in Pali is probably less thorough.

>
> Now about suttas full of contradictions. I would like to remind you that

<< mega snip >>

> In my opinion, all these contradictions are valid evidence of the
> authenticity of suttas, of the fact that they have been little affected
> by the tweaking of the posterity

Very well put & this accords with my memory of Prof. G's arguments & I
hadn't meant to imply the opposite in my earlier mail. It does, of course,
also leave Pali scholars fertile material for discussion 8-)

> Then how should they be understood by those of posterity like us?
>
> 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.

Without being steeped in Abhidhamma but looking at it very much from the
outside couldn't this point to the Abhidhamma being an essentially
commentarial development, i.e. it's very form is determined by the necessity
to explain difficulties?

I know I'm playing devil's (Mara's?) advocate a little here, but these are
interesting questions and whichever way happened to be true, neither would
invalidate the accuracy of Abhidhamma, of course. And this is something we
must ascertain for ourselves in our own practice

<< snip >> ...since we have lost all ancient Sinhala commentaries, on which

> Buddhaghosa and other commentators' works are based.

Does anyone know if there is a realistic chance of any of this material
being discovered?

> 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.
> 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.

That is an interesting analogy. It does rather assume that the
interpolations aren't destructive of the whole.

(i.e. if, in certain material, the degree of interpolation, tidying up, or
interpretation is such that the original matter is entirely obscured or
distorted by the well intentioned but unwise, then we could be led away from
the ariyamagga.)

>

<< snip >> , how

> > likely is it to an embellishment by a scribe with an overactive
> > 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.

I'm sorry that I ended on a slightly flippant note, I was trying not to
sound too pompous but probably just succeeded in sounding stupid. I will
have to read up on Mt Meru, but, of course, one could take an example where
there surely must be thousands of references like "deva" which it would be
very tempting to the western mind to gloss over.

I see I've gone on far longer than I intended but your reply raised so many
important and interesting issues -- My intention in the points I made was
very much in the hope that I might learn more about these by stimulating
some discussion without, I hoped, being overly provocative 8-)

Thanks, nich