Dear Bankei,

I still have to thank you for your participation in this discussion. ;-)

Your last question about authentic Buddhism is very interesting. I propose it been discussed separately in another thread, and perhaps at a later date. However, I like to point out that many modern teachers and students now base their understanding and writings at least partially on the original texts.

During Buddha's time, he was the authority. After the Buddha, authenticity changed over time and place. Today, in the modern era, and given the ever-pervasive communication web, almost just anyone can claim authenticity in Buddhism: a farmer in some remote countryside, a neurologist from some big city, an engineer in some obscure town, or even your neighbourhood Sunday school teacher. This is why we have to focus on Pali and on sutta reading/translation exercises.

In recent years, I notice an increased interest in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan, and even Japanese, Korean, Burmese, Thai, Sinhalese, Khmer, Lao, and Mongolian among Buddhism students. The steady increase in our group's membership is also an indication of increased interest in Pali. (Thanks to everyone.)

In JPTS (Journal of the Pali Text Society) 2009, there is an article by K R Norman, "On Translating Literally", which I hope to read. In this list, we encourage understanding the Pali passages in its context. Not just what the Buddha said, but also where and when, why and to whom he addressed. And also in the wider context, such as the cultural and social factors, the political environment, the religious beliefs and practices, etc.

Again, the discussion of "authentic Buddhism" will give rise to all sorts of questions and views, which should be given a new thread of it own.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Bankei wrote:

I don't know of any textual references from the Pali Tipitaka, other than from the vinaya, that indicates gender bias in Buddhism. There is a belief that only men can become Buddha's, but I am not sure if this is from the Tipitaka or later commentaries.

Your comment about textual references to the Tipitaka also poses another question (to which I have no answer).

Is authentic Buddhism only that which can be found in the Tipitaka?