So I’m to reading it, but I feel the quoted verses to be the original Tripitaka that was once written down in Sri Lanka and India. But then this morning I found out about the sort of Buddhism there was before in Burma, which was highly influenced by Hinduism and they accepted the Theravada of Mahavihara. Then I remember Sri Lanka having revival mission sending monks to Burma. But what if Tripitaka was lost in Sri Lanka and in its revival phase had to use Tripitaka from Burma which might have added the Hinduism influence to it? Because since I started reading a little of Netti and now Petakopadesa. It’s hard to think we had the same as the earliest.
The state of Sri Lankan Buddhism was so bad at this time that he could not find five bhikkhus in the whole island to ordain more monks and restore the monastic tradition; therefore, he sent an embassy to Burma, which sent back several eminent elders with Buddhist texts
So actually Burma helped Sri Lanka get probably Tripitaka seeing the conditions.
For example there is sutta qoute
He is divine, he is a monk, a bhikkhu.
Divine is actually as was said in Netti. Brahma. I think this was later omitted. But here obviosly is the way Buddha talks only once in Majjhima Nikaya. He says “ “As Brahmā and Sakka for those who understand.”
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha
Nanamoli & Bodhi
This material may be protected by copyright.
I think as if South Asia tried to omit them not understanding what he means. And preventing misunderstanding in Sangha, that didn’t understand such comparison. So no one think in unity to Brahma. But of course he probably didn’t mean that.