As you appear to understand this is about early Buddhism you understand that All the Comparitive texts are evidence, not just the convenient texts.WorldTraveller wrote:Running in circles? OP's argument based on Samyukta Agama parallel.Cittasanto wrote:It seams that the majority of comparative texts agree the section in question is there. now there is a strange ordering in the pali, but I would sugest that this ordering lends suport to the section on stream-entry somehow being omitted that is present in one of the chinese renderings. But nothing said so far actually shows this section is not originally part of the text.
This is about Early Buddhism. The majority doesn't mean anything in this case. The majority of the world believing a creator God doesn't make the God alive! Sometimes Ekottara Agama has weird things than Pali, eg. the Ekottara Agama contains variants on such standard teachings as the Noble Eightfold Path. Scholars suggest that much of the Ekottara Agama was not formed until a fairly late date (A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford).
Didn't make any of those claims.Why haven't you done the homework before commenting? Samyukta Agama wasn't translated from Pali. And Pali wasn't the language of Buddha as some Theravadins believe.Cittasanto wrote:And this makes Chinese texts a translation of a translation, of a translation.
I typed c instead of v and didn't notice. they are next to each other.It's "ca," not "va." Interesting mistake isn't it, missing it 11 times per jhana? They didn't use Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V eitherCittasanto wrote:There are known translation errors with the Chinese, and some curious quirks/errors in the pali. hence Gombrich et al have started to look at these and try to correct any mistakes that have crept in over time. the missing "va" in MN111 may be such a case of an error creeping in or it maybe evidence of something else like you suggest.
No. pointing out the parita isn't unusual within Buddhism, or wider Indic traditions.Are you trying to judge buddhavacana based on so-called miraculous powers/magic of Indic traditions? Lord Buddha outrightly denied miraculous powers/magic. He gave dependant origination. According to that our past kamma will bare results here, not chanting paritta! One can't change kamma by chanting or praying.Cittasanto wrote:Do note truth has a long history in indic traditions of being attributed miraculous powers and this isn't the only instance in pali where it happens.
[/quote]It seems OP not interested in trying to be the last of every argument (or rather, useless arguments), so he can run in circles.Cittasanto wrote:Do you care to say something about the rest of the previous post you replied to?
the OP can reply or not as they deem fit. And I am sure if they do it will deal with what I have said with reasoned argument and evidence, rather than be a fallacious eel wrigler.
Kind Regards
Cittasanto.