Dear Nich

I have missed many mails on this thread owing to networking problems.
But I hope my message here is still relevant.

You wrote:

> 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 don't think you are naive, but the real problem is that whether a
given contradiction is genuine or seeming. To solve such a problem, we
cannot avoid considering the whole framework of the doctrine.

> > > (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.It does bear on the issue of the state of Pali scholarship. I'd
> be very eager to hear your views on this.

Please forgive me for the "later post" that is still pending.

> 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).
>
> 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.

Here we have to clear up the term "contradiction" first. What I mean by
the term "contradiction", seeming or not, is what exists between
different suttas, not within a single discourse. You see, even an
ordinary public speaker cannot afford to be inconsistent within a single
discourse delivered to the same audience; it is out of the question for
the Buddha. But he may change his presentation with changing listeners,
and thereby allow "seeming" contradictions to creep in. His primary
objective is to enlighten the person(s) before him, not to satisfy the
logical tendency of later historians of Buddhist literature.

And Abhidhamma is a single discourse with consistency reigning supreme
throughout. It is not possible for ordinary human beings to follow it
within a single sitting, and commentaries say it was originally
delivered to gods in the heaven of Taavati.msaa. This statement has
raised the shadow of doubt over Abhidhamma in the West.Why? because of
the hidden assumption of westerners that the heaven of Taavati.msaa, or
gods residing therein, cannot be scientifically proved to be real, and
consequently, must be false. Then this statement cannot be a first-hand
account but only a legend made up by the posterity to cover up the real
origin of Abhidhamma.

In other words, the West is suspicious of Abhidhamma because its origin
cannot be validated by virtue of common sense or science.

However, we have a very different attitude. If you wish to refute this
account, you must prove first the falsity of Taavati.msaa, or of gods
themselves. Even if common sense may revolt against these things,
science hasn't been able to prove their falsity to date. As long as this
proof is unavailable, this story and, Abhidhamma itself, has the right
to enjoy the benefit of doubt. (Remember the analogy of law)

> >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?

Acutally, we look at the Abhidhamma Pitaka, we can't say that its form
is determined by the necessity to explain difficulties, very far from
it, in fact. It is much more difficult than any given sutta since it is
a kind of science to be studied step by step, not a sort of literature
that is meant to be read (heard) and appreciated.

However, its systematic structure and comprehensive presentation make it
the "ultimate reference" for any doctrinal question (of non-Vinaya
nature, of course).

> << 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?

As far as I know, there is no such a chance at present.

> > 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.

If you are able to grasp the whole framework of doctrine, you can take
care of interpolations even if they really exist.

> 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

You are welcome, Nich.

with metta

Ven. Pandita