User talk:Dwatson888

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Status of Pali Canon

Donald Lopez (Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at University of Michigan) in his 2004 volume Buddhist Scriptures describes the 1894 Sacred Books of the East series as "[r]eflecting the opinion of the day that Pali texts of the Theravada tradition of Southesast Asia represented the most accurate record of what the Buddha taught (an opinion since rejected)...." (p. xv). Later he declares: "Scholars no longer regard Pali Buddhism as 'original Buddhism'...." (p. xxii).

In response to my email inquiry about the scholarship referred to, Dr. Lopez was kind enough to provide the following comments:

"The best source on the issue is in fact an article by Steven Collins of the University of Chicago. It is entitled 'On the Very Idea of the Pali Canon,' published in the Journal of the Pali Text Society in 1990. In brief, however, what we consider today to be the Pali canon is a group of texts edited and compiled by the fifth-century monk Buddhaghosa (also author of the Visuddhimagga). Collins argues that he was seeking to promote the view of his particular lineage in Sri Lanka, called the Mahavihara. The particular set of texts that he identified only came to be widely accepted as 'the canon' elsewhere in the Theravada world (such as Thailand and Burma) much later, in some cases as late at the nineteenth century. Although some persist, most scholars have given up as futile the task of identifying with any precision 'what the Buddha taught.' "

I have so far been unable to locate a copy of Dr. Collins' article. (I would appreciate any suggestions about the best way to do this.) If his argument has merit, it seems that it might be appropriate for his view to be represented in the articles on the Pali Canon, on Buddhaghosa, and/or on Mahavihara, if not in the main articles on Theravada or Buddhism.

I would be grateful for comments from anyone familiar with Dr. Collins' research. David Watson 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe these statements have little merit. The Pali Canon goes back a long time, it's been used in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Burma since the Theravada lineage arrived in those countries, it's not like that the lineage came first and then later the Pali Canon came humping along. Also the commonality between the Pali Canon and the Agamas (from the Chinese Mahayana scriptures) is striking, and in the 1990s also a Gandharan version has been found in Afghanistan, dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD. Again these texts are very similar to the Agamas and the Pali Canon. So saying that these texts have been compiled and edited by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century AD is not correct. I have found good refutations of these theories, but no good defenses when put besides the refutations. You know, sometimes scholars need to reinvestigate the basic assumptios of their work, so it's good that they try to look critically at how old these scriptures are. It's just that these (few) scholars have no evidence for it, and their methods, motivations and arguments are a bit dubious. Dr. Lopez presents his still doubtful theories and claims as facts, a dubious way to speak. I would be interested to see the article by Collins he's referring to, but I have little hope it amounts to anything. Maybe you could email me some stuff if you find it?

I would like to refer you to the article How old is the Sutta Pitaka, from Alexander Wynn at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. I read some of the articles by a Buddhist monk involved in historical (textual) research. He has a citique of these kinds of theories also, which can be found in an appendix of this book (pdf).

But some of his statement are correct, for example hat the Pali Canon is not pre-sectarian (original) buddhism, because things were added to it by the sects. Luckily we have different versions from different sects. So it's not like we are without defenses. When they differ, it's possible to qualify the differences. If you find something which can be found in all those recensions, you have a strong case that it's probably older than any of those individual sects, and an accurate reflection of the original philosophy behind the texts. And there is a lot that conforms to this. But in the end, you canot be very precise any more about the 'definate version' of the precise words of the Buddha (Buddhavacana), but then again these were not taken to be very literal representations anyway.

The statement by Lopez that "have given up as futile the task of identifying with any precision 'what the Buddha taught.'", is very negative, like we know nothing, cannot know anything about Buddha. I am very skeptical about this. Some people might also have an agenda when saying or quoting these kinds of things.

Greetings, Sacca 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Thailand coup d'etat

Hi David I copy here my answer to Patiwat FYI

I have clarified the dipute here Public disapproval and protest of the 2006 Thailand coup d'état. Like David Watson I think there is a lot of small words being inserted and that POV many pieces of informationand sometimes, just the title of a section can lead to POV. This is why I have often asked for contextual info to balance the insert. Note that I did not ask to put the justification of the coup in context someone else did. We had to add a context to the restriction of freedom of speech because of editors wanting to misrepresent access to information in Thailand. I really think we should stick to the facts. Regarding my position on the coup, I can assure the two of you that it is very clear: I am a non-judgemental pragmatic. I would not have predicted thsi coup. Now that it has happened, it's our duty to report it has it has happened withou ttrying to qualify each piece of info.Roger jg 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)