I was wondering what some may have to say about this article?
Theravadins often proudly claim a direct lineage from the time of the Buddha and that the Pali Canon is a direct and complete record of the Buddha’s teachings . However, it must be noted that they are, in reality, descendents of the Vibhajyavada sect (which is in turn a derivatives of Sthaviravada). At the time of collation of the Pali Canon at the time of King Asoka, it was only one of the many sects present in India at the time. The fact that only this “triple baskets” of Canon got to be dispersed widely was solely because of the king’s favour. In fact,the Sarvastivada school, another sub-sect of Sthaviravada, moved to North India and subsequently had immense influence in the subsequent development of Buddhism there for the next few hundred years. It must also be noted that the monks in Sri Lanka were probably known as the Vibhijyavada followers until the 11th century when their name was changed to Theravada ( the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit name of Sthaviravada) to stress their direct lineage from the Buddha. In reality, therefore, the Pali Canon only represented the teachings of the Buddha according to one school that appeared more than 200 hundred years after the passing away of the Buddha. And then, it was another 200 years before they were written down. This is not to mention the fact that the earliest physical evidence for any Pali canonical texts is a set of twenty gold leaves found in the Khin Ba Gon trove near Sri Ksetra ( Burma) which has been dated to the second half of the 5th century A.D. ( Note 5) As to the great Buddhist King, Asoka, although he left a large number of inscriptions on rocks and pillars which archeologists can study to this date. He, curiously enough, never mentioned any key Buddhist soteriological concepts like nibbana.
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/what-exactly-did-the-buddha-say-
(By the way, I am familiar with Ajahn Brahmali and Sujato's criteria as presented in the Early Buddhism course. So please don't refer to that as if that is the end all of this discussion. I studied Catholic theology and am aware of the historical, social and archaeological methods of authentification. Though there is much value to this approach, it also has its limits).
To take this further, knowing what the Buddha really said is one thing. Knowing what he really meant is quite another. Just consider emailing or writing someone in a far away country for a year or so. Your words can be as clear as they could possibly be. Same goes for your corresponding writer. But tell me if anyone has NOT experienced confusing moments of communication simply because written words can never take in all the other aspects of face to face communication (non verbal communication and cues, intonation, etc.).