about Sayadaw U Thittila

Dear Mr. Cousins

Thank you for your explanation, but I am sorry to say that it is still
not convincing enough.

>You must remember that at this time Ven. U Thittila (if it is him) would have been a fairly junior monk. (I don't have his date of birth to hand.)
> 
>
May be but irrelevant. The social status of a contributor doesn't
justify the failure to give due credit to him --- this is what I know
about the western academic tradition (please correct me if I am wrong)

>Prof. Joshi probably doesn't give his name because he didn't know it.
>The transcript would have been organized and sent by Mrs Rhys Davids,
>the then President of the PTS.
> 
>
Prof. Joshi did know that that Burmese monk was in London *to learn
English, but was left penniless by his patron, and** employed by PTS*.
How did he get these facts? Presumably from Mrs. Rhys Davids. But he
didn't know even his name!  It is rather odd.  I think there are two
alternative explanations: either Prof. Joshi did know his name but had
no wish to acknowledge him, or Mrs. Rhys David had concealed the monk's
identity from him.

>I presume that in fact she will have herself paid for this, most
>probably out of her own pocket. In part this will no doubt have been
>in order to help the monk in question. She would not have wished to
>mention this.
>
Irrelevant again! She might pay out of her own pocket for the
transcription, but it surely does not justify sending a contributor's
identity into oblivion unless you maintain that the penniless monk does
not deserve any acknowledgement except monetary payment.

>(The English tradition is of doing good in secret or in
>a low key manner - different to the general tradition of the Buddhist
>countries.)
>
>
> 
>
Surely English people don't have a low key manner as far as intellectual
matters are concerned --- we should remember the infamous quarrel
between Newton and Bishop Berkeley(?) over the credit of inventing
Calculus.

And you seem to imply that the people of Buddhist countries doing good
deeds are all for the limelight and publicity. This is , to adapt E.M's
phrase,  "the study of Theravada Buddhism divorced from its milieu
(i.e., social context)" Proclaiming and sharing one's good deed has been
an integral part of Theravada Buddhism; it is based on the concept of
pattaanumodana (See Abhiammatthasa¬ngaha, Viithimuttasa¬ngaha) Even a
lone meditator in the forest would proclaim his efforts to meditate to
all beings, seen and unseen, and invite them to share the merit with him.

Of course, when an act, well-meant in itself, becomes part of the common
culture, it may become the basis of different attitudes. Some would
proclaim their good deeds on account of a genuine wish to share while
some others, for the sake of world fame.Different persons must be judged
differently; the act cannot be evaluated by itself.

Of course, this is only my interpretation, but it is based upon some knowledge of how things were done in those days.


Yes, I agree. We are arguing over something that no concrete evidence is
available except the fact that a poor contributor went without due
acknowledgement in the history of modern Pali studies.

with metta

Ven. Pandita


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]