A short note on the structure of SN/SA

[josephzizys]

SN is structured into 5 books;

the sagathavaggasamyutta
the nidanavaggasamyutta
the khandhavaggasamyutta
the salayatanavaggasamyutta
and the mahavaggasamyutta

in it’s turn the mahavaggasamyutta is divieded into

Maggasaṁyutta
Bojjhaṅgasaṁyutta
Satipaṭṭhānasaṁyutta
Indriyasaṁyutta
Sammappadhānasaṁyutta
Balasaṁyutta
Iddhipādasaṁyutta

Which are the same seven sets of teachings making up the 37 bodhipakkhiyā dhammā as at DN28 thus;

This consists of such skillful qualities as
Tatrime kusalā dhammā seyyathidaṁ—
the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening factors, and the noble eightfold path.
cattāro satipaṭṭhānā, cattāro sammappadhānā, cattāro iddhipādā, pañcindriyāni, pañca balāni, satta bojjhaṅgā, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo.

these are then followed by

Anuruddhasaṁyutta
Jhānasaṁyutta
Ānāpānasaṁyutta
Sotāpattisaṁyutta
Saccasaṁyutta

Focusing our attention on the bodhipakkhiyā dhammā part of SN we look at which suttas in each of the 7 chapters have parallels in the SA thus;

Maggasaṁyutta 180 suttas 27 have parralels in SA (mostly in the 700s)
Bojjhaṅgasaṁyutta 184 suttas 51 have parallels in SA (mostly in the 700s)
Satipaṭṭhānasaṁyutta 104 suttas 30 have parallels in SA (mostly in the 600s)
Indriyasaṁyutta 178 suttas 20 have parallels in SA (mostly in the 600s)
Sammappadhānasaṁyutta 54 suttas 22 have parallels in SA (mostly in the 800s)
Balasaṁyutta 108 suttas 12 have parallels in SA (SA673)
Iddhipādasaṁyutta 86 suttas 1 of which has a parlllel in SA (SA561)

Anuruddhasaṁyutta 28/7
Jhānasaṁyutta 54/0
Ānāpānasaṁyutta 20/16
Sotāpattisaṁyutta 74/45
Saccasaṁyutta 131/94

…

Just while I am here, I should say that this tedious groundwork is probably back the front, the issue is with what constitutes a “parallel”. For example, in the Nidānasaṁyutta SN12.1 has it’s parallel given as SA298 but this isn’t a parallel at all, it is a parallel of SN12.2, which is a completely different, Vibhaṅgasutta style sutta, so SN12.1 probably doesn’t have a direct parallel in SA. SA298 isn’t even a direct parallel of SN12.2, it gives a differing location, it’s analysis of the individual links is different, especially of ignorance, and so on.

The parallel for SN12.4 thru SN12.9 is then given as SA366, again, this is not a doctrinal parallel at all, it preserves the shorter 6 link DO from death to contact, and states that this is what the six Buddhas taught.

Taken together this means that the actual doctrinal parallel for 12DO between 12.1 and 12.9 is just 1 parallel out of 9, SA298, and there is ample evidence of a shorter 6DO in the sarvastivadan S.

In fact, in SN12.10 it gets even worse still, the parallel SA285 this time does not even give contact, stopping rather at craving, thus exhibiting a 5DO.

Continuing with SN12.11 SA371 gives the DO down to the sense bases not 12 DO.

Finally we get all the way to SN12.12 before we see another genuine parallel (almost) but it is because this time SN forgets where it is and gives the DO from the senses not 12DO!! (there may also be some subtle disagreement in the about just how the sense bases come to be also but I am not proficient enough in Chinese to work it out).

SN12.13 itself omits ignorance and so gives aan 11DO, but the “parallel” at SA353 once again goes from the senses to death.

SN12.14 SA352 is once again 11DO vs 8DO.

SN12.15 finally agrees (again subtleties aside) with SA301, so here we have our second appearance in SA of the 12DO, showing a much greater tendency to the shorter versions of the teaching than is evident in SN12.

SN12.16 gives 11DO again, agreeing with SA364

Fianlly we arrive at one of my essential suttas SN12.17, here again the parallel with SA302 is quite good, both give 12DO, both agree on person and location, there is a slight variation between the probation trope and the killed by a cow trope and with the SA sutta giving the “when this then that” trope prior to the 12DO but the agreeement is pretty good overall (again maybe some subtle differences like SA ommiting “leans to eternalism” and “leans to annihilationism”, but overall a lot of agreement.)

The subsequent sutta SN12.18 is made interesting by disagreeing with the place and person of SA303 and by SA303 refering to SA302 by name thus reinforcing the suspision that this is simply a repition of the last sutta in both cases with the insertion of “pleasure and pain” for "suffering, as an amusing aside, our own suttacentral even fluffs it and incorrectly translates the sutta, forgetting it’s new terminology at:

“It’s not that there’s no such thing as pleasure and pain.
Na kho, timbaruka, natthi sukhadukkhaṁ;

Pleasure and pain are real.”
atthi kho, timbaruka, sukhadukkhanti.

“Then does Mister Gotama not know or see suffering?”
Tena hi bhavaṁ gotamo sukhadukkhaṁ na jānāti, na passatīti?

“It’s not that I don’t know or see pleasure and pain.
Na khvāhaṁ, timbaruka, sukhadukkhaṁ na jānāmi, na passāmi.

I do know pleasure and pain,
Jānāmi khvāhaṁ, timbaruka, sukhadukkhaṁ;

I do see pleasure and pain.”

passāmi khvāhaṁ, timbaruka, sukhadukkhan”ti.

Off to bed.

continuing our no longer all that short note, the next sutta SN12.19 is almost exaclty paralleled at SA294 and SF161. Interestingly it is the Pali that is the odd one out, in that both the parllels talk of the body with or of consciousness, and distinguish between this internal body of consciousness and the external name and forms.

“Mendicants, for a fool shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has been produced.
“Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṁ kāyo samudāgato.
So there is the duality of this body and external name and form. Contact depends on this duality. When contacted through one or other of the six sense fields, the fool experiences pleasure and pain.
Iti ayañceva kāyo bahiddhā ca nāmarūpaṁ, itthetaṁ dvayaṁ, dvayaṁ paṭicca phasso saḷevāyatanāni, yehi phuṭṭho bālo sukhadukkhaṁ paṭisaṁvedayati etesaṁ vā aññatarena.

vs

avidyayā nivṛtasya bālasya tṛṣṇayā saṁyuktasyaivam ayam bālasyāśrutavataḥ pṛthagjanasya savijñānakaḥ kāyaḥ samudāgataḥ | ity ayañ cāsya savijñānakaḥ kāyo bahirdhā ca nāmarūpam | evaṁ dvayam |

and

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「愚癡無聞凡夫無明覆、愛緣繫，得此識身。內有此識身，外有名色，此二因緣生觸。

the parallels make better sense, the duality between internal consciousness and external name and form is explicit, whereas it is difficult to see exactly how a physical body is an internal thing opposed to external things.

[Dunlop]

@josephzizys

SN 12.19 the parallels make better sense, the duality between internal consciousness and external name and form is explicit, whereas it is difficult to see exactly how a physical body is an internal thing opposed to external things.

The parallels read wrong because I read (in this essay: 'Kāya' and 'body' in context) the word ‘kaya’ does not refer to ‘physical body’. The notion of a kaya of consciousness reads ludicrous. ‘Kaya’ reads to refer to the ‘group’ or ‘collection’ of the five aggregates.

@josephzizys

For example, in the Nidānasaṁyutta SN12.1 has it’s parallel given as SA298 but this isn’t a parallel at all, it is a parallel of SN12.2, which is a completely different, Vibhaṅgasutta style sutta, so SN12.1 probably doesn’t have a direct parallel in SA. SA298 isn’t even a direct parallel of SN12.2, it gives a differing location, it’s analysis of the individual links is different, especially of ignorance, and so on.

SN 12.1 provides no definitions of terms therefore obviously did not warrant loading in the backpack on the long journey from India to China. SN 12.1 reads like a sutta for those who wish to fondle with their fertile imaginations about what Dependent Origination is about.

@josephzizys

The parallel for SN12.4 thru SN12.9 is then given as SA366, again, this is not a doctrinal parallel at all, it preserves the shorter 6 link DO from death to contact, and states that this is what the six Buddhas taught.

It reads as though the parallel is wrong.

@josephzizys

SN12.13 itself omits ignorance and so gives aan 11DO, but the “parallel” at SA353 once again goes from the senses to death.

I read many versions of DO. The full teaching is 12 conditions. Are you suggesting there is no such reality as ignorance?

@josephzizys

Fianlly we arrive at one of my essential suttas SN12.17

Can you provide a short (i.e. brief) note on why SN 12.17 is essential?

@josephzizys

(again maybe some subtle differences like SA ommiting “leans to eternalism” and “leans to annihilationism”, but overall a lot of agreement.)

This reads as a significant omission because it could lead to believing eternalism, annihilationism & dependent origination are ideologies about reincarnation. SN 12.17 reads to say eternalism is the belief the same person who ran a red traffic light is the same person who is fined by a police officer two minutes after running the red traffic light. SN 12.17 reads to be about a continuity (‘eternalism’) of self-belief. The parallel writers/composers read as though they were guided by their own idiosyncratic interpretations.

@josephzizys

The subsequent sutta SN12.18 is made interesting by disagreeing with the place and person of SA303 and by SA303 refering to SA302 by name thus reinforcing the suspision that this is simply a repition of the last sutta in both cases with the insertion of “pleasure and pain” for "suffering, as an amusing aside, our own suttacentral even fluffs it and incorrectly translates the sutta, forgetting it’s new terminology at:

SN 12.17 & SN 12.18 read to be different suttas. First, keep in mind, it is not the Buddha but the questioner that dictates the language. SN 12.17 reads as:

“Well, Mister Gotama, is suffering made by oneself?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘sayaṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti?

SN 12.18 reads as:

“Well, Mister Gotama, are happiness and suffering made by oneself?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, sayaṅkataṁ sukhadukkhanti?

The translations of ‘pleasure’ & ‘pain’ read inaccurate to me. SN 12.18 does not read as though it is about vedana. The wanderer Timbaruka would not ask about vedana. Those undeveloped in the Path such as the wanderer Timbaruka would not be clearly cognisant of vedana.

@josephzizys

the parallels make better sense

I think the short-comings of the parellels are self-evident.

[thomaslaw]

@josephzizys

and

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「愚癡無聞凡夫無明覆、愛緣繫，得此識身。內有此識身，外有名色，此二因緣生觸。

the parallels make better sense, the duality between internal consciousness and external name and form is explicit, whereas it is difficult to see exactly how a physical body is an internal thing opposed to external things.

On this duality, cf. pp. 184-188:
Pages 184-188 from the Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (357.3 KB)

[josephzizys]

Moving on to SN35, again we have a complete disagreement between SN35.1 thru SN35.6 and the suggested parallel SA195 the Pali gives in all cases the sense bases alone, SA195 gives the sense base, the external form, the sense consciousness, contact and the feelings arising dependent on contact.

So here again, there is this quite stark difference, where a there is disagreement about what the core of the doctrine is meant to encapsulate. SN is, as ever, obsessed with anicca - dukkha - anatta, while SA ignores that trope entirely, instead focusing on teasing out the conditionality sequence, which the SN ignores entirely.

[josephzizys]

Finally in SN22 SN22.1 differs from SA107 in that SA has the danger gratification and escape trope:

尊者舍利弗語長者言：「善哉！長者！汝今諦聽！當為汝說。愚癡無聞凡夫於色集、色滅、色患、色味、色離不如實知；不如實知故，愛樂於色，言色是我、是我所，而取攝受。彼色若壞、若異，心識隨轉，惱苦生；惱苦生已，恐怖、障閡、顧念、憂苦、結戀。於受、想、行、識亦復如是。是名身心苦患。

whereas the Pali has obscured this:

“And how is a person ailing in body and ailing in mind?
“Kathañca, gahapati, āturakāyo ceva hoti, āturacitto ca?
It’s when an unlearned ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the qualities of a noble one. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the qualities of a true person.
Idha, gahapati, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
rūpaṁ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṁ vā attānaṁ; attani vā rūpaṁ, rūpasmiṁ vā attānaṁ.
They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am form, form is mine!’
‘Ahaṁ rūpaṁ, mama rūpan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti.
But that form of theirs decays and perishes,
Tassa ‘ahaṁ rūpaṁ, mama rūpan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyino taṁ rūpaṁ vipariṇamati aññathā hoti.
which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Tassa rūpavipariṇāmaññathābhāvā uppajjanti sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

So in summary all three of the major chapters of the S; the causes, the aggregates, and the senses, seem to differ between the SN and SA collections, in ways that emphasis different aspects depending on where they are.

[Element]

@josephzizys

SN is, as ever, obsessed with anicca - dukkha - anatta, while SA ignores that trope entirely, instead focusing on teasing out the conditionality sequence, which the SN ignores entirely.

Hi , probably you already know , that SN which emphasis much on three marks narration appear to be somewhat later revised or adaptation edition .