Dear Pali-L-ers,
I should like to thank all of you for your responses to my
proposal. They were all well-considered and apposite, with
only one exception. In this reply I have taken the liberty
of pasting those I wish to respond to into a single post.
Rett:
> Now that you've explained your name and background, I
> believe you were one of the people who originally encouraged
> me to take up Pali many years ago. For that, I am thankful,
> even if you've forgotten the exchange.
Really? I'm afraid I've completely forgotten about it, but I'm
glad my badgering did some good.
> My worry is that it would be a shame to lose members who
> might leave in disappointment if certain topics were banned.
> But it would also be a shame to lose members who are
> saddened by the harsh, dogmatic accusations which have
> appeared here recently.
My own concern would be more about the loss of posters whose
competence in Pali renders their contributions valuable. We
appear to have lost quite a few of these, either through
their leaving or going inactive. Where are the Peter
Masefields of yesteryear? Where is Gabriel Bittar? Ricardo
Sasaki? Robert Didham? Miroslav Rozehnal? Lennart Zieger?
Flavio Costa?
> Demands for sectarian conformity belong on some other list,
> but not this one, at least in my experience of the usual
> open and friendly climate here.
I agree, but would add that the same might be said of
paravaadiis' attempts to persuade us to embrace their pet
heterodoxy, or progressives using the list as a platform to
propagate their pansy left social agendas. In nearly all the
acrimonious exchanges it is *this* that has come first, the
heresy charges from Theravaadin traditionalists came after.
___________________
Frank:
> All 3 views expressed so far have their merits, but I have
> to say I'm skeptical that narrowing the range of topics
> would solve the real problem, since some pali issues are
> inherently linked with very heated and passionate clinging.
> For example, on a thread discussing the etymology and usage
> of jhana, we could stay completely on topic and within the
> charter of pali list and have a repeat of the recent
> scenario.
Yes, that might happen even if my proposal were to be
adopted, but it could easily be avoided. How a translator
renders some passage will often be determined by his prior
doctrinal commitments and his stance with regard to the
commentaries. But there is no need for a prolonged
discussion of this. Suppose, for example, one were posting a
passage containing the word akaaliko, a footnote-length
comment to the effect, "Buddhaghosa explains akaaliko as
blah blah blah, but some some modern scholars suggest blah
blah blah," is all that's needed. A discussion of the merits
of the two readings could then be taken to Buddha-l or some
other list since this isn't the sort of controversy that you
can settle by appealing to Pali philology.
Or to take the case of antaraabhava: suppose one were
translating the Kutuuhalasaalaa Sutta, when coming to the
passage "yasmi.m kho, vaccha, samaye ima~nca kaaya.m
nikkhipati, satto ca a~n~natara.m kaaya.m anupapanno hoti
...", here too a footnote-length remark might be added:
"Buddhaghosa takes "ima~nca kaaya.m nikkhipati" to mean
"cuticittena nikkhipati", and glosses "anupapanno hoti" as
"cutikkha.neyeva pa.tisandhicittassa anuppannattaa
anupapanno". Some non-Theravaadin schools took this passage
as supporting their view of an interval beween death and
rebirth. For a critique of this view see the Kathaavatthu
and its Atthakathaa; for a defence of it from a
Puggalavaadin perspective see K. Venkataramanan's
back-translation of the Sa.mmitiyanikaaya`saastra; for a
defence of it from a Vaibhaa.sika perspective see ch. 3 of
Vasubandhu's bhaa.sya to the Abhidharmako`sa."
That's about all that could usefully be said on a Pali list
operating under the new posting guidelines I have proposed.
Note that it contains nothing that could offend anyone, and
so adherence to a protocol of this sort would ensure that
discussions remained cool, austere and Pali-centred.
> Designing a bullet proof charter and narrowing the topic
> range would be like Bush's "no child left behind act" which
> is ostensibly to protect rights of all kids but in practice
> cators to kids with disciplinary problems at the cost of
> slowing down and boring the rest of the class.
Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Bush's act and don't
understand the comparison.
___________________
Nich:
> Although Ven. Dhammanando's suggestions for a tightening of
> the charter are attractive in some respects as there are
> plenty of places where doctrinal arguments happily rage, I
> rather agree with Frank that this wouldn't necessarily solve
> the problem.
>
> I was subjected to personal attacks, or flaming, on this
> list for suggesting that there might be corruption &
> interpolation in the canon, which is a subject well within
> the new remit.
Point taken. And I agree with your solution that decisive
moderation is called for in such cases.
___________________
Gunnar:
> I am preliminarily positive to the proposal. Especially the
> change from "Tipitaka translation theory and practice" to
> "Translation theory and practice as applicable to Pali
> texts" - I don't see any principal reason why post-canonical
> texts should be excluded.
Quite so. Though as the moderator has not discouraged
postings of translations from the Atthakathaas etc., I
assume the present wording merely results from an oversight
and not a policy of excluding post-canonical texts.
> Especially since you don't necessarily have to be a Buddhist
> to study Pali; some might be interested for purely scholarly
> reasons, and they must also be welcome to a list of this
> kind.
Indeed.
___________________
Ven. Sujato:
> The topics of discussion on this list have, by and large, in
> fact been concerned with issues and subjects to do with Pali
> and Buddhism;
Which nobody has disputed. The subject of this thread,
bhante, is whether it would be better to keep the
Pali-list's primary focus on Pali, rather than on "issues
and subjects to do with Buddhism".
> the problem is not the content, but the manner of the
> discussion.
In practice the content is a major determinant of the manner
in which the discussion is likely to proceed. The
discussions on linguistics lists are as a rule fairly cool
and sober. Those on religious or political lists are seldom
so, even on the better ones.
> We come to this list for interesting discussions on dhamma,
> pali, and related issues,
I would have to exclude myself from your "we". I came to the
Pali list to discuss Pali. For Dhamma I read e-mail lists on
Dhamma.
> and many of us know how difficult it is to find a community
> of people who understand and care about these issues.
That is not the case, bhante. It is only the issue of Pali
for which it is difficult to find a community of interested
people. Dhamma communities are ten a penny. As I have noted
already, there are 2236 of them on Yahoo alone. And that was
last week; by now there are probably a dozen more either
born or in gestation.
Joni Mitchell:
> We should cherish what we have, because we might not know
> how much it means until it's gone.
Yes, Big Yellow Taxi, 1970. I'm just old enough to remember
the song.
[snip flummery]
___________________
Dmytro:
> In my opinion this list, due to the high-quality moderation
> and organization, has gained good reputation and popularity.
> However this popularity has led to the overload of the list,
> and the quality has markedly fallen.
>
> Due to this overload I unsubscribed from receiving messages
> to my mailbox, and just read selected messages on-line.
Privet! Glad to hear from you again, I had missed your
contributions.
> As I see, there are several distinctly different areas of
> discussion, which should receive appropriate attention at
> different mailing lists, interaction of which will provide
> dynamically developing Pali environment:
>
> 1. Yahoo group for primary learning of Pali language, with
> regular postings from Pali textbooks.
>
> 2. Yahoo group for advanced study of Pali language and
> literature, with voluminous quotations from Pali Canon.
Yes, it could well be that a panoply of Pali lists catering
to specialist interests is the best solution. In addition to
those you have outlined, I would add a list for Pali
translators. My idea is of a forum to which aspiring
translators can post their efforts for review and criticism
by both traditionally (monastically) and academically
trained Pali scholars, and the more capable autodidacts.
Last week I did in fact celebrate my 40th jaatadivasa by
setting up just such a list. It is not yet operational as I
need to round up a few more scholars to make it workable,
and I'm presently a bit bogged down with proof-reading an
Icelandic sutta anthology. When it officially begins I
should welcome your presence.
> 3. Topical forum for the discussion of Pali terms. At the
> mailing list like this the insightful postings about the
> meaning of important terms tend to get lost in the archives.
> However at the well-moderated forum the opinions about the
> meaning of particular term can be accurately accumulated and
> preserved in topical thread for many years, forming a unique
> spectrum of qualified opinions.
> I have an experience of maintaining such Russian forum
> dedicated to Pali terms. It proved to be quite useful.
> Topical threads are very easy to find and refer to, and the
> new opinions are easily added.
I intend that to be a sub-topic on my translators' list. In
particular, a re-evaluation of Nyanatiloka's legacy in
this area is long overdue.
Best wishes,
Dhammanando