chownah wrote:You're assessment is correct to a degree. The comment I made is one way to indicate a likely shortcoming in Pali which can be discussed without being a Pali scholar as opposed to not being able to discuss it at all unless one is well read across the entire body of Pali literature which seems to be Kare's view....and my concerns are not specifically what you describe but what you describe might be considered to be a specific case of a more general idea....to me there seems to be a very narrow body of Pali literature for many reasons (including what you have mentioned) and one of these is the narrowness of authorship. Another concern is whether one person or a small number of people exerted too much influence on the language or it's transmission...Buddhagossa comes to mind. If memory serves me correctly it seems that some king long ago wanted to sponsor a translation of the Pali into some more modern language and he found Buddhagossa and asked him to translate one text to see how it went......the king liked what Buddhagossa did so he gave him the job of translating it all. Seems to me that we are at the whim of Buddhagossa to a great extent and of course who knows whether Buddhagossa had to make politically correct adjustments to please the king. I'm no scholar on this area but this does raise questions about undo influence on the part of two historic figures.
Then it seems to me that an issue here is about what a religion (or school of practice or however one might call it) as such is, what it means to be a member of a particular religion, how conversion and membership come about, and related topics.
I think that one central point is the relationship between a teacher and a student, and what role and importance it has. For the sake of convenience, I'll talk about the "Eastern model" and the "Western model."
In general, in the Eastern model, one takes to following a particular teacher, not a particular religion. This is quite different than the way we in the West are used to thinking about religion as such, membership in a religion, and conversion. In the Western model, it seems one is expected to first pick a religion, and then a school within it, and then, perhaps, a particular teacher. While in the Eastern model, one, generally starts off with apprenticeship to a teacher, and then via the teacher, formally subscribes to a religion (although this step is not necessarily always present; it can all be limited simply to the relationship between the teacher and the student).
On principle, in the Eastern model, prospective students are interested primarily in what they can learn from a particular teacher and how this can help them in their personal spiritual quest.
The Western model, evidently influenced by fire-and-brimstone Christianity, is essentially all about picking "the right religion" and then "sticking to it," without much emphasis on developing a close, personal student-teacher relationship (and, arguably, without much emphasis on learning and developing one's mind or personal qualities).
In this way, in the Eastern model, an ordinary person would not concern themselves much with whether this or that text is authentic or properly translated or properly interpreted etc. or not. While in the Western model, these concerns are in the foreground.