--- Ong Yong Peng <pali.smith@...> skrev:

> Thanks also for the quote from Horner, I can see a
> slight flavour of
> sectarian views in it. I have no doubt about the
> objectives of the
> commentaries, the very reasons that they are being
> composed and
> written. However, I believe that the suttas, even
> with their age, can
> inspire better. We should also note that the
> commentaries themselves
> are not very recent too.

On the other side, the composition of the Tipitaka was
- as I've learnt after joining this group - modified
as late as 1956, when the Milindapañha was added to it
by the Sixth Council, after being regarded as
post-canonical for more than two thousand years.

And am I wrong, or didn't the Ven. Buddhaghosa confess
himself to be a puthujjana? Did he ever claim to be
perfect?

I think Buddhism is fundamentally
anti-fundamentalistic. Having views, and knowing them
to be views, is all right; having views, and believing
them to be objective facts, is not.

And that includes the view that certain texts are
infallible.

Gunnar







_________________________________________________________
Flyger tiden iväg? Fånga dagen med Yahoo! Mails inbyggda
kalender. Dessutom 250 MB gratis, virusscanning och antispam. Få den på: http://se.mail.yahoo.com