[Buddha-l] Are the Pali Sutta's really ancient?

[Bankei]

Hi Bruce

No, am still seeking further information. I feel that the suttas as we have
them have been heavily edited and am seeking proof.

Re Buddhagosha, I cannot personally attest to this, but Professor K.R.
Norman, former president of the Pali Text Society says this:

"There are, in fact, indications that the Pali canon is not complete.
References in the canon itself speak of nine angas, and some texts included
in that classification do not seem to be in the canon as it has been handed
down."



and

"Furthermore, in the non-canonical texts and Commentaries there are
quotations given from canonical texts which are lacking in the texts as we
have them and the same texts include a number of verses ascribed to the
Buddha or to prominent elders, which do not appear in the canon, although
they might have been epxected to find a place in the Dhammapada, Udana or
Theragatha."



in "The Value of the Pali Tradition", in Jagajjyoti, Buddha Jayanti Annual,
1984, p.5. Reproduced in K.R. Norman, Collected Papers Volume III, Pali Text
Society, 1992, p. 39-40.

Regards

Bankei

On 26 February 2010 13:27, Bruce Burrill <brburl at charter.net> wrote:

> At 05:57 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
> >I was just reading some of Gregory Schopen which has got me thinking.
> >
> >How do we know that the Pali Sutta that we have today is the same as the
> >Sutta back in Buddhaghosa's time, or at the time they were committed to
> >writing back in the 1st century?
>
>
> So, none of the answers here
>
> http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3297
>
> addressed your question. Can you point to a sutta reference in
> Buddhaghosa that cannot be found in the suttas as we have them today?
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>