> > Certainly, I am
> >happy to admit that there are respectible authors outside of
> this group
> >of texts, but I think they fit into another category, as
> they are not
> >so universally accepted as "The Paa.li".
>
> That would include the respectable author Buddhaghosa as I
> understand it. Isn't 'the Pali' equivalent to 'the Canon'
> i.e. tipitaka, as opposed to commentaries?
>
> For example in Saddaniti Aggavamsa observes that aorist is
> most prevalent with 'maa' prohibitives in 'the pali' while
> the imperative is used in the athakatha's etc. (sutta 889 in
> suttamala). The examples of non-pali he gives are from the
> narrative (commentarial) portions of the jatakas. So
> commentarial literature seems not to be considered Pali in
> the original sense you are using.
>
> So I wouldn't try to argue Buddhaghosa's special status vis a
> vis Asanga etc on the basis of his belong to the 'pali'.

Oh, I thought I was on to something... thanks for the correction.

Well, then how do you propose I try to argue Buddhaghosa's special status
vis a vis Asanga, etc? I don't even know much about latter, except that one
monk I knew who used to read Asanga and Najarguna's stuff cut his wrists and
tried to light himself on fire... he's disrobed now. Maybe I could say
this: "No one I know has ever tried to light themselves on fire who just
stuck to reading Buddhaghosa's commentaries!"

I think I'll stick to Buddhaghosa for now... better to be little-learned and
well-practiced than well-learned and unpracticed.... For the record, I
don't think I ever said anything on this newsgroup disrespectful towards
teachers like Asanga.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo