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

[Guest guest]

in response to my comment:

 

><< ...[it is] 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... >>

 

Troy Harris wrote:

 

>In other words, the supposed words of an assumed founder did not

>exist in any written form until as late as 8 or 9 hundred years after

>their alleged pronouncement.

 

Quite apart from the fact that this does not at all correspond to

what I wrote above, it is in any case plain wrong. There are extant

fragmentary portions of non-Theravaadin canonical works written on

birch bark manuscripts dating from the first century A.D. or earlier.

These are clearly parts of a literature containing works parallel to

those found in Pali. This would be 4 or 5 hundred years after their

pronouncement at most.

 

>Question: What concrete historical evidence might we have to tie this

>body of literature to any oral primogenitor(s) at all, irrespective

>of identity?

 

We can be quite sure that this was originally an oral literature.

Therefore every statement in it must originally have been said by

somebody.

 

Beyond that, if by 'concrete historical evidence' you mean 'in

written literature', there can be none in the period prior to the use

of writing. But this is trivial. 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.

And that is much better than 'concrete historical evidence' which can

just as well be wrong.

 

Lance Cousins