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

[Bruce Burrill]

At 06:15 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:
>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.

It is no less old as the Chinese Agamas. The fact of the matter is 
that main corpus of the suttas and Vinaya can be pushed quite far back.



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

Exact word? I certainly do not believe it is the exact, and neither 
does Richard Gombrich when he said:"I have the greatest difficulty in 
accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the work 
of one genius."

One can make a good argument that the monks did a decent job of 
preserving the Buddha's teachings.

So, taking your position that the Pali Canon is not the exact word of 
the Buddha, so?