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

[Bankei]

On 2 March 2010 11:02, Bruce Burrill <brburl at charter.net> wrote:

>
> >
> >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?


The Pali suttas have been edited and may not have as ancient as is generally
accepted. This editing could have been the result of mistakes, such as
scribal errors, or it could have been more deliberate such as one reading
being favoured over another because of doctrinal implications.




>
>
> >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?
>

Yes, it is odd and interesting because of that.


>
> 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?


No, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that the Pali Canon may not
be as close to what the Buddha taught as is generally thought.
Whether the canon is complete or not is a different matter.

It is not only the Pali Canon that shows this, but the Chinese and Tibetan
as well. All transmitted manuscripts would show developments.

Some fundamentalist Theravadins (mainly Abhidhammists) would say the
tipitaka is the exact word of the Buddha, but this can't be the case.


> 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.
>

The Mahayana is clearly a later development.

Bankei