From: Ven. Pandita
Message: 7529
Date: 2005-05-14
> But isn't the bedrock of that school a collection of suttas? Am II don't think you are naive, but the real problem is that whether a
> 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 thePlease forgive me for the "later post" that is still pending.
> 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.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 >>Here we have to clear up the term "contradiction" first. What I mean by
> . 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).
>
> 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.
> >Then how should they be understood by those of posterity like us?HereAcutally, we look at the Abhidhamma Pitaka, we can't say that its form
> 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?
> << snip >> ...since we have lost all ancient Sinhala commentaries, onAs far as I know, there is no such a chance at present.
> 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,<<If you are able to grasp the whole framework of doctrine, you can take
> 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 see I've gone on far longer than I intended but your reply raised soYou are welcome, Nich.
> 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