Re: about Sayadaw U Thittila

Dear Ven. Pandita,

>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)

Well, you might be right now. At least most of us would take that
view today. But that was a very different time and such was not the
practice. Transcribing of course would have been considered
secretarial rather than scholarly work.

>
>>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 assume she didn't mention it. But that of course is not at all the
same as concealing.

>
>>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.

We don't know who he was. Perhaps she thought his work very poor and
not deserving of credit.


>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.

You mean Leibnitz, I think. But he was not English.

>And you seem to imply that the people of Buddhist countries doing good
>deeds are all for the limelight and publicity.

No, I neither implied this nor intended to imply this nor wrote
anything which could suggest this.

>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.

That is exactly what I was referring to.

>
>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.

Well this is just English understatement. I'm really pretty sure that
I'm right, in fact.

Lance Cousins