[Y-Indology] On Mr. Malaiya's comments

[Guest guest]

Troy Harris writes:

 

>Perhaps it is only an insignificant point, but when we speak – as

>Lance Cousins puts it – of "a body of texts that have undergone

>substantial revision a[t] a later date," there seems to be some

>oversimplification here as to the very self-attested "hearsay"

>origins of these texts. Parenthetically, if by "text" our reference

>is limited to words appearing in anything written or printed, how

>does academic discipline specify the inferred pre-textual material?

 

I don't myself have any problem with referring to oral texts. The

same issue of course arises for Homer, Beowulf and large portions of

the Bible, not to mention the Vedic literature.

 

The historical context we were discussing was a later period when the

texts had already been committed to writing for many centuries

 

> Further, when Cousins remarks, "The nature and processes of

>historical evolution over time...," again, I feel there is a

>hazardous assumption that the "finally-written texts" themselves

>appeared straightaway "un-revised."

 

I have no idea how you conclude that such an assumption was made.

 

>This is to say that, the composers of the texts, like all writers,

>must have gone through multiple drafts in the course of finalizing

>their compositions. This furthermore naturally overlooks the

>extremely long process of re-issuing ("recessions") and the tedious

>task of the copyist. And finally, to this point: Is there any

>significance in the published assertion that the vast majority of

>the textual evidence for the Pali Canon comes from manuscripts less

>than three hundred years old?

 

I think it is exceptionally silly.

 

1) It is true in the entirely trivial sense that the great majority

of extant manuscripts were produced relatively recently. This is

rather as if one were to say that the vast majority of textual

evidence for the Bible or the Gita is found in printed editions

published in the twentieth century. This is probably true, but

trivial.

 

2) The lifetime of a palmleaf manuscript in the climate of many or

most parts of South and South-east Asia is normally quite short.

 

3) Nobody knows what manuscripts were used for most of the oriental editions.

 

4) Editions done in Europe in the past had access to relatively few

manuscripts.

 

5) Whenever we do have earlier evidence there is no sign of any

radical difference from more recent manuscripts.

 

6) Major parts of the contents of the texts are confirmed by

commentaries and subcommentaries.

 

7) All of this and much more that could be added makes it certain

that the texts of the Pali Canon itself already existed in a form

closely parallel to that known today by at least the fourth century

A.D. and probably a number of centuries before that. (This does not

of course mean that all details of later orthography, etc. were

necessarily in vogue at this date.)

 

Lance Cousins