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

[Bruce Burrill]

>
>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.

Okay? And your point is?



>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.

Odd that that was not edited out, would you not say?

I, however, do not see what your point is here. Again, there is a lot 
of evidence that the Pali suttas did not edit out stuff did not 
support the official Theravada position.

Are you arguing that it is only the Pali Canon that shows editing and 
is therefore not complete? Maybe the Buddha really did teach the 
Mahayana after all; that some other canon, now lost had everything 
the Buddha ever taught. What is your point. You keep jumping around 
with this and that -- editing, editing -- but nothing really 
definite. So, please explain what you are exactly trying to get at here.