What is called science nowadays definitely need to be shown it’s proper place.
1 Like
That’s why I asked about simply ignoring what I don’t understand, because whenever I read the arguments from both sides, I end up agreeing with both to some degree. Something similar happens with the sutta-jhana vs. vism-jhana debate 
2 posts were split to a new topic: Evolutionary theory
If you read what I wrote correctly, I discussed the innateness of language in general without introducing Pāli into the discussion until the last paragraph. If the innateness of language and the possibility of its sudden emergence are sufficient, then that is indeed enough if you understand where it leads. If this is understood, then we can bring up Pāli, and the statement will be reasonable and based on theoretical academic data (even far beyond Pāli specifically; rather, language in its broader aspect), unlike issuing a judgment that the commentaries stated it without basis. If the innateness of language’s emergence is indeed something that has been proposed in academic circles, then it actually supports it, contrary to how you viewed it.
If Pāli is related to Vedic Sanskrit, and given the latter’s proximity to Hebrew, your example is meaningless. On the other hand, my explanation was merely an example to clarify the connection between languages.
It is not different in any way, but rather complementary to it. If all languages have a single origin, as defined by the American linguist Lyle Campbell, who says it is “the ancestral language from which daughter languages evolved. It can also refer to a language reconstructed through the comparative method, representing the ancestral language from which related languages descended. Ideally, the reconstructed proto-language and the actual spoken proto-language should align if the reconstruction is accurate. It is sometimes called common or primitive, as in the case of Proto-Indo-European.”
if we take into consideration that all languages have originated from a single language (Māgadhī in this context), which is considered to be “mūlabhāsā” (the root language).
Who said that “I” am like this? You are just speculating. I have pointed out the issue of the inerrancy of the commentaries within the traditional Theravāda textual hierarchy, which has no relation to anything I personally hold regarding these marginal points. It is not something I carry or might carry, for your saying “You said that for you the commentaries…”.
The Vedas are considered above language or any form that limits them within Brahmanical belief. The Brahmins even reject associating them with the deities, so do you think they would associate them with language? The idea that language is innate and a common vernacular shared by all humans (especially the lower classes) is not a Brahmanical view or something they might believe, as it leads to many consequences that contradict the opinions they actually hold. You are merely connecting one thing to another to weave this idea. The Brahmins themselves do not assert this.
This dilemma and pitfall ensnare all followers of religions; similarly, many Buddhists. Some slip into it, while others leap with joy through it. There exists a vast chasm in the attempt to reconcile the definitive text with ephemeral scientific knowledge. While scientific knowledge is regarded as reliable, it is not absolute, immutable, or rigid. A quintessential aspect of science is its self-correcting nature and constant revision, which is precisely why we deem scientific knowledge to be tentative. Hence, what is heralded as ‘scientific’ today may, in a few decades, transform into a ridiculous tale that evokes laughter, and we say, “Look at what we once believed to be a scientific truth, and how it has proven to be false,” revealing its erroneous nature. Attempting to equate the two is not a sound approach, especially when considering the Buddha-Dhamma, which inherently holds an absolute nature.
No one has forced you to “believe” in it or hold faith in it, but “rejecting” it, denying it, or claiming it is incorrect will not lead you to awakening either. If you consider yourself a Theravādin, such secondary points are not an issue. You asked about this yourself; taking a silent stance on this matter is not equivalent to claiming the commentaries have gone wrong in any way.
As I mentioned earlier, if you don’t lean towards Theravāda, there’s no need for me to continue with this because it’s pointless. It’s like trying to teach a fish to climb a tree. No matter how hard you try, it’s just not going to work. No hard feelings.