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

[Bruce Burrill]

=== At 11:39 PM 2/26/2010, Bankei wrote:

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. ===

Heavily edited? In what way? To reflect Theravada doctrine? If that 
is what you mean, probably not, given that it is not difficult to 
look at the suttas and see that they are not always in line with the 
commentaries, which is what reflect the Theravadin doctrinal stance. 
Though any number of scholars have pointed to this in varying 
degrees, Kaluphana is the first name to come to mind, but read 
Bhikkho Bodhi's translation of the Nikayas. In his footnotes, not 
infrequently, Ven Bodhi points to differences between what the suttas 
and the commentaries, which is to say - differences between the 
suttas and the traditional Theravada position. Take a look at the 
standard Theravada commentarial position concerning the nature of the 
Buddha's bodhi and the bodhi of the arahant and compare it with that 
with the position of the suttas. Peter Harvey in his THE SELFLESS 
MIND points to a number of instances of differences between the 
official Theravada position and that of the suttas. Editing of the 
suttas it fit Theravada doctrine may have happened, but it certainly 
does not seem to be wholesale.

  === 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." ===

What the nine Angas might actually mean is hardly a settled. There is 
no evidence that this classification was adopted by the Mainstream 
(non-Mahayana) schools of Indian Buddhism. In as much as it might be 
a "problem" for the Pali Canon, it also remains so for Mainstream 
canon preserved in Chinese. But if the Canon(s) was (were) heavily 
edited, you would think they - whomever those naughty editors may 
have been - would have edited out the reference to the nine angas.

  === "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." ===

Which is quite interesting, but take a look at the Chinese Mainstream 
canon concerning these works.

To jump back to the early missive by you: === 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? ===

A good way to start would be to see if the suttas quotations in the 
Visuddhimagga match what we have now. As for what was written down in 
the 1st century, one needs to keep in mind that the various schools 
were keeping their own canons long before that. From the great 
buddhologist Msgr. Etienne Lamotte, SJ in his exhaustive HISTORY OF 
INDIAN BUDDHISM (Peeters Press, 1988, page 156):

     "However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in 
the _Ekottara_ [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali 
Canon's  _Anguttara_], which are easily discernable, the variations 
in question affect hardly anything save the method of expression or 
arrangement of the subjects. The doctrinal basis common to the agamas 
[preserved in Chinese and partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] is 
remarkably uniform. Preserved and transmitted by the schools, the 
sutras [discourses] do not however constitute scholastic
documents, but are the common heritage of all the sects."

David Kalupahana, the one time chair of the philosophy dept at the U
of Hawaii states in his book, BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY: A Historical
Analysis (U of H Press),

"Doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the Pali 
Nikaya, especially because they were preserved by the Theravada sect 
of Buddhism and hence were taken to represent the ideas of that 
school. But a comparative study of the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese 
Agamas shows that the Pali Nikayas do not represent the Theravada 
standpoint. In fact, there is nothing in the Nikayas that can be 
called Theravada. The Nikayas and the Agamas agree so well with 
regard to the doctrines they embody...one can be very optimistic 
about the attempt to determine the nature of pre-Abhidharmic 
Buddhism. ... Therefore, one is fully justified in depending on the 
Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas for the study of early or 
primitive Buddhism." pages xi-xiii.

In BUDDHIST STUDIES: Ancient and Modern Lance Cousins states in
his essay, _Pali Oral Literature_:

"These divergences are typically in matters of little importance -- 
such items as locations off suttas, the names of  individual speakers 
or the precise order of occurrences of events. Only rarely are they 
founded on doctrinal or sectarian differences."

The Ven. Minh Chau is in his THE CHINESE MADHYAMA AGAMA AND THE PALI 
MAJJHIMA NIKAYA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY takes a very detailed look at 
these two bodies of texts. There are differences in the numbers of 
discourses that each has, but what he finds is essentially what 
Cousins points out. In some cases the one is clearer than the other 
in particular passages, but far more often there is a very marked 
correspondence to the point of identity between the two groups of 
texts -- a remarkable thing to consider given that the Chinese texts 
have been translated from the Magadhi of the Buddha into a prakrit 
then into Sanskrit and then into Chinese.

So, the point is that what we find in the discourse collection of the 
Pali Canon is common property of all the Buddhist schools and was 
material that was settled quite early. No reason to believe that we 
are not seeing the Buddha's teachings in these texts. Sectarian 
differences within that grouping of texts are minimal. As has been 
said, the significant differences are found in the commentarial and 
exegetical literature.

As we can see there is very good reason to believe that the content 
of sutras was settled quite early, long before they were committed to 
writing. There is good reason and good scholarly evidence to push the 
suttas and their content toward the Buddha. These texts were 
carefully preserved and there is good reason to believe that the 
preservation started with the Buddha himself.

===The commentaries are said to have been composed from the 5th century onwards
and these contain quotes etc from the Suttas - but apparently they do not
always match up and some quotes are unable to be found in todays Tipitaka.===

This is not quite correct. Buddhaghosa translated the older Sinhalese 
commentaries in Pali in the fifth century.

===Then there are the constant councils held throughout history, the last one
being in Burma in 1956. These were held partially to fix errors in the canon
and commentaries.===

And we still have the texts that precede that council, so you can 
check them against what came out of that council.

===There are also variations in existing old manuscripts, considerable
variations I believe. eg a Sutta in manuscript form in Thailand may not be
exactly the same as one found in Sri Lanka. Often these are minor, but they
are still discrepancies.===

For example?