Hello,

Yes, I have kind have sensed this Norman problem over the past couple of
weeks. Why is this exactly? I read a lot by him and Gombrich too. Is
there some fundamental problem with their reasoning concerning Paali, one or
the other of them? Is it the fact that they aren't Buddhist themselves? I
am really asking here, because before, I thought Norman and Gombrich were
quite well respeced, even if not perfect. Afterall, I don't want to be
absorbing all kinds of problematic information if it is indeed problematic.
In this case, who should I read for non-problematic information? Thanks in
advance for all perspectives.


As a side, and barely related, note:

Ole, have you been able to find pricing info. on the CPD volumes? Is $335
about what to expect? Is there a site where I can read more about each of
the volumes and what it contains? Finally, are you familiar with a site
online that sells them new?

Thanks for the help.

Metta,

Alan

> Frankly, I enjoy this new Pindaric "war" against Norman (if only he would
> deign to
> reply here), as long as it is as respectable scholars. For, as regular
> here know we
> have had quite a bit of online fisticuffs lately. I can almost begin to
> understand
> why schooling was limited to clerics and nobles in the European Dark Ages.
>
> Ole Holten Pind wrote:
>
>> KR Norman has something interesting (philologically) to say. Please see
>> his
>> "The Dhaniya-sutta of the Suttai-nipaata" (Collected Works IV:148).
>>
>> He thinks that samaana,vaaso should read samaasa,vaaso both meaning
>> "staying
>> together" but "samaasa" he says could also mean "six months" etc.
>>
>> I regard this as a next to impossible suggestion. Sa in the sense of six
>> only occurs in post-canonical literature, a backformation from Sanskrit
>> .sa.s In the canon six is invariably cha.
>
> On the last para: This raises an interesing question, as we very well know
> that the
> 12-link formula throughout the Pali Canon has sa.laayatana for the six
> sense-bases (V
> 1:1; D 2:32; M 1:51; A 1:176; S 2:3): see CSCD for numerous more. Should
> this be
> "chalaayatana" as in "cha.labhi~n~naa"?
>