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

[Bankei]

On 2 March 2010 10:21, Bruce Burrill <brburl at charter.net> wrote:

>
> >
> >
> >Even one word can have a huge effect on the interpretation of doctrine.
> >See Wynne's book for some examples, and Norman's papers for some more.
> >
> >Bankei
>
> The question, was it a deliberate conspiracy to alter the suttas to
> conform to a doctrinaire position. As I pointed out there is also a
> considerable amount of textual stuff within the sutta collection that
> does not correspond to the doctrinaire Theravada position, but no one
> thought to "heavily edit" it.
>
> But if you are going to posit that the suttas were "heavily edited" -
> to use your words - why was the "anga" stuff left in as well as all
> the other stuff?
>
>
>
It may have been deliberate in some cases and not in others. We don't know.
All that we do know is that there are variations and these variations can
have far reaching effect.

Remember the suttas were not managed by a central authority. Small groups of
banakas, or reciters, managed different pieces and may not have had access
to the whole tipitaka. There are many interesting things in there - like the
monk Purana who did not want to endorse the chanting of the first council.

Bankei