-Dear Yong Peng,
I agree with yoru sentiments. I accept that occasional errors have
crept into the Tipitaka. In fact the commentaries by Buddhaghosa
note rare discrepancies that they cannot resolve. For example the
Dhammapada reciters said that in a past life Moggalana killed his
mother and father, while the Majjhima reciters said that he only
beat them and stopped short of killing them (or vv). No one knows
which version was correct.
In the Mt. Meru debate we had 4 possible conclusions suggested on
this thread, so far. I can think of other possibilities.
The point is we do not have the wisdom to judge which is right so we
should leave it aside and not assume that it must be the Tipitaka
that is at fault.
Robertk

In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:

> 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.)