Dear Gdbell,

I stand by my point.

In general, including local script is important for
people who want to do more accurate work and that
includes Pali-Burmese local script.

Local script inclusion doesn't make a work "useless"
as can be seen from the examples below.

Local script facsimile versions are even more
important in light of Veidlinger's "medium is the
message" thesis in Spreading the Dharma (2006).

Transliterating and the editing that goes with it
loses information (is lossy).

Example 1: In 1999 Grabowsky included the original Tai
script in his wonderful BEFEO article:

http://www.persee.fr/showPage.do?urn=befeo_0336-1519_1999_num_86_1_3413

Example 2: In the case of Shan Sao Saimong Mangrai's
1981 Wat Padaeng Chronicle the inclusion of facsimile
images with his translation is extremely valuable
because the manuscript was lost after his death
shortly thereafter.

A good example of the confusing proliferation of
different encodings that transliterations produce over
time, because everyone has their idea of the "most
accurate" transliteration, is DuPont's edited version
and translation of the Mon Narada Jataka which
introduces yet another Mon transliteration. Almost as
many as transliterations as there are published Mon
texts. Mon script would have been more appropriate.

Most scripts can be learned fairly quickly. Language
pedagogy itself has gone from transliteration to doing
things in the script from the start.

GDBell: "If so, I would think that this is grounds to
replace them with a more accurate script, rather than
cling to them."

This is the real difference between our approaches.

You assume that there **could be** one, most accurate
and universal script and text. I would not assume
that. and I would suspect the motive behind any such
legitimising claim.

Some things get edited out of texts for various
reasons. Like Upagupta's fight with Mara and Asoka's
self-immolation in U Kala's Mahayazwingyi which came
from the Pali Lokapa~n~natti. More often the editing
only occurs at sermon preparation time by Bhikku
textual gatekeepers or rather bookchest keepers.

More likely, is a historical multiplicity of localised
texts and textual practices that are continually
changing, sometimes because of power relations within
the Sangha like when the Mahavihara eliminated the
Abhaya-giri Vihara. Parts of the Abhaya-giri texts can
only be found in the Mahavamsa Tika. Aggavamsa's
Saddaniti supposedly misquotes the Tipitaka but this
could actually be from lost recensions (or perhaps a
faulty memory while quoting). The Sangha had a
remarkably efficient mechanism for maintaining textual
integrity over long periods of time though, a
mechanism worth studying.

The norm is for a Sangha reform or purification to
claim to be a return to the most accurate, universal
etc, including the changes that the advent of the Pali
Text Society, "protestant Buddhism," and the
transliteration that you believe to be most "accurate"
brought about.

Southeast Asian sovereigns made a big step from the
local to more universal religion when they adopted
Buddhism, either voluntarily or through force, but the
local has always remained, and local scripts are an
important part of that worth preserving.

[BTW: The Sima Qian reference to "Burma" is
to the Burma area which is easier than Irrawaddy River
basin. I'll have to dig up the reference. It's at the
Chinese Historical Forum where we translated it.]

With metta,
Jon



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ