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

[Bankei]

On 2 March 2010 11:26, Bruce Burrill <brburl at charter.net> wrote:

> 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?
>
>

It seems like we are in agreement then.

Going back to my original question, how do we really know the Pali Suttas as
we have them today are substantially the same as, say, in the 1st century?

There are a lack of Pali inscriptions from this period and the oldest
manuscripts are a few hundred years old.

Some possible answers:
1) We can compare the Pali Suttas to the early Chinese translations of
Suttas. Lots of work is being done in this area at the moment.

2) Now we have the early Gandhari manuscripts being analysed by Richard
Salomon and others. Lots of work being done here too, but it is still early
days.

Bankei