Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 << This would be 4 or 5 hundred years after their pronouncement...>> Lance, Your idiom throws me. Please state it clearly: pronounced by whom? Troy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Troy Harris wrote > But Stephen, I would very sincerely like to ask you, or anyone who > has a view on the matter: Is there to anybody's knowledge a single > thread of evidence that even one word of the Pali Cannon is > attributable to anyone whom-so-ever? I am aware of your hypothesis in this regard, but one might also ask you the converse -- is there any evidence that *none* of the Pali etc canon whatsoever is attributable to any named person ? For various reasons, it suits me to accept, if only as a matter of convenience, that there was a historical individual -- Gautama -- who uttered at least some of the words attributed to him in the Pali and other canons. Yet I suppose the truth of either position cannot be established with absolute certainty. For that matter, if one follows scepticism to its logical conclusion, how can one be certain of anything ? Conversely, if one is not a thorough sceptic, then on what evidential grounds (is any evidence indubitable ?) does one accept the actual or veridical existence of some things and not others ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 In response to my question: <<What concrete historical evidence might we have to tie this body of literature to any oral primogenitor(s) at all, irrespective of identity?>> Lance Cousins wrote: <<We can be quite sure that this was originally an oral literature. Therefore every statement in it must originally have been said by somebody.>> This is clear. However, it tells us nothing about those who may have said it. <<Beyond that, if by 'concrete historical evidence' you mean 'in written literature'... It is clear that techniques of memorization and oral preservation were quite sophisticated in the pre-literate period. This for me can be valid historical evidence.>> I did not specify any type of evidence, valid or otherwise. <<And that is much better than 'concrete historical evidence' which can just as well be wrong.>> Be it right, or be it wrong, be it of known or of unknown provenance, humans have the power to memorize and repeat. Does the credence you confer these anonymous statements rest on no stronger grounds than the presupposition that they have been carefully memorized and endlessly repeated? Troy Harris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 In response to my question: >...I would very sincerely like to ask you, or anyone who has a view on the matter: Is there to anybody's knowledge a single thread of evidence that even one word of the Pali Cannon is attributable to anyone whom-so-ever?< Stephen Hodge kindly wrote (message/2416): <<one might also ask you the converse -- is there any evidence that *none* of the Pali etc canon whatsoever is attributable to any named person ?>> That's a dodge now, innit? – And a very maladroit one at that. The point is this, Stephen: _I do not *hold* the position you allude to_. I have never claimed that "*none* of the...canon whatsoever is attributable to any named person." I am merely probing the position that you and so many other professional academics *hold*; and which I vigorously contend to be academically groundless. <<For various reasons, it suits me to accept, if only as a matter of convenience, that there was a historical individual -- Gautama -- who uttered at least some of the words attributed to him in the Pali and other canons.>> The "various reasons" are what we're still waiting for; but, "a matter of *convenience*"? Now this I find this interesting. Could you kindly elucidate your feelings? <<Yet I suppose the truth of either position cannot be established with absolute certainty. >> I have assumed this all along. <<For that matter, if one follows scepticism to its logical conclusion, how can one be certain of anything ?>> Precisely: _whether one follows it through or not_. Nevertheless, it could well prove helpful at this delicate juncture to tersely clarify the meaning of "skepticism." The history: In 326 BCE the Greek philosopher Anaxarchus of Abdera together with his protégé Pyrrho of Elis, traveled to India in the train of Alexander's overland invasion of the region of present-day Northwest Pakistan. There they mixed with a menagerie of odd appearing ascetics known locally as yogins. More curious still is that, upon their return, they founded not a school of meditative mysticism, as one might think, but the first Greek school of Skepticism. Etymology: Skeptic is derived from the Ancient Greek _skeptikos_, connoting "neutral observation and inquiry." It does not mean "doubt" and has nothing to do with "cynicism." However, it is vital to point out that skepticism is the enduring basis of the scientific method as it always refrains from drawing conclusions. Therefore, indeed, as you rightly mention, skepticism goes to the radical point of questioning the validity of any affirmation. <<Conversely, if one is not a thorough sceptic, then on what evidential grounds (is any evidence indubitable ?) does one accept the actual or veridical existence of some things and not others ?>> I accept that you wrote the above quoted words: not that these words are necessarily your own; you may have gotten them from somebody else. That is not my concern. I am only concerned that it is *you* who sent the email. But this is only an assumption. In attempt to confirm what is only an assumption, I ask you plainly: Did you or did you not send the email? Should you answer in the affirmative, I could seek to establish veridical testimony and other forms of extant evidential materials in order to further substantiate your claim. BUT BACK TO "THE QUESTION": *Who are the authors of the early Pali texts?* This has been my elemental question all along. I am only asking; I am not denying. What is more, I am asking this question in the well-defined context of an academic discussion forum designed for working scholars and others with a serious interest in the field of classical Indian studies. This is not a church, Stephen. Do you have the guts to slaughter your holy cow or not? Best regards, Troy Harris _________ PS. If my recent contributions lack a requisite "seriousness," kindly bring it to my attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 Lance Cousins wrote: > I do believe you are trying to get me into trouble with Richard :-) No, I am trying to get you both into trouble. But it's obviously me who's getting into...[watch it!]. > But the important point to note here is that Buddhaghosa was translating the commentaries, not inventing them. Then the question remains. Who was inventing them? And what was their 'agenda'? ________ Troy Dean Harris New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.