Dear Nich, Suan, Dmytro, Rett, Robert and friends,

thanks for the interesting discussion. I see the discussion has made
pseudoscientists (not pseudobuddhists, I hope) out of us. Nich has
kindly expressed his wish to end this part of the discussion. I have
suggested to him off-list that he put it forward to the group as a
form of good will. And, I think we should respect it, and not press
him further.

Nich, I like what you quote from Prof. Gombrich. His suggestion of
accidental or intentional tampering with the Buddha's teachings seems
probable to me. I believe most Buddhist scholars would accept the
fact that the probability of the Buddhist scriptures been void of
such tampering is zero. However, we do not and will not simply tear
pages away and call them apocryphal.

It is quite puzzling why you have the idea Mt. Meru is a possible
corruption. I am wondering if Prof. Gombrich also names the passages
which appear corrupt to him. We need to be aware that there are times
when a fellow Buddhist may not comprehend or explain certain matters
well, or worse he may misinterpret it. And this may lead another to
think this part of the Tipitaka may be corrupt. So, I guess it is all
very tricky.


metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nich wrote:

As this thread has now mutated into something quite different where I
feel a little flamed for doubting that a single syllable of the
Tipi.taka might be corrupted, interpolated, misplaced or not a direct
transmission I'm going to bow out by pointing out that the Tipi.taka
is a conditioned dhamma and according to the core teachings of
Buddhism is anicca.

To quote Professor Gombrich:

"During centuries of transmission both oral and written they were
inevitably subject to corruption. And I think that anyone who reads
the texts while keeping this simple fact in mind rapidly becomes
aware that plenty of passages do indeed appear to be corrupt." (How
Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings p10.)