Is there a spesific reason why Theravadins more frequently use the term Nikayas instead of Agamas? Is there any journal or paper discussed it?
Thank you 
I do not know for sure why they use the term Nikayas instead of Agamas.
Perhaps, is there any reference to the term Nikāya in Āgamas or other northern traditions (Sarvastivada, Dharmaguptaka, etc) sources?
Analayo indeed reviewed Yinshun work. In A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya vol. 2 page 179 footnote 69, he wrote a long comment of Yinshun findings:
Yìnshùn 1971/1983: 788 considers the three angas of discourse, verses, and exposition,
修多羅, 祇夜, 記說, to be the earliest organizing principle in the evolution of the early Buddhist canon. Choong 2010: 56-57 explains that according to this hypothesis these three angas underlie the structure of the Samyukta-agama, considered to be “the foundation of all four agamas (nikayas) in the formation of early Buddhist texts”, which then “subsequently expanded and yielded the other agamas in the sequence Madhyama-agama, Dirgha-agama, Ekottarika-agama. Therefore, the … SA [Samyukta-agama] is the foundation of all four agamas”, in contrast to “the secondary nature of [the] Madhyamagama/Majjhima-nikaya, Dirghagama/Digha-nikaya, and Ekottarikagama/Anguttara-nikaya”. This hypothesis is based on the description of the Agamas given in the Vastusamgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi.Although the indications made in the Vastusamgrahani have indubitably been of great importance for reconstructing the order of the Samyukta-agama (T 99), which in the Taisho edition is in disarray (cf. also Bucknell 2006: 685), from a methodological viewpoint it would not be possible to use the reconstructed Samyukta-agama in turn to prove that the indications given in the Vastusamgrahani are correct, since this would become a circular argument. Besides, it is also not clear if the description of the Agamas in the Vastusamgrahani has to be read as positing the Samyukta-agama as a kind of ‘Urkanon’ in its own right. It might just intend to explain why the Samyukta-agama is given pride of place in its listings of the four Agamas. In the corresponding passage in the (Mula-)Sarvastivada Vinaya, T 1451 at T XXIV 407b27, cf. also Lévi 1916: 36, the point at stake does in fact not seem to be a temporal priority of the formation of the Samyukta-agama, but only a temporal priority of it being recited by Ananda at the so-called first council, before he recited the other Agamas.
Although the idea that the early Buddhist oral transmission began by assembling discourses according to topics in a manner similar to what is not found in the Samyukta-agama and the Samyutta-nikaya is certainly appealing, there seems to be no reason why a numerical organisation could not have been in use as well, similar to what underlies the Ekottarika-agama and the Anguttara-nikaya. The introduction to the Ekottarika-agama in fact emphasizes this numerical arrangement, T II 550b24, and hence gives pride of place among the four collections to the Ekottarika-agama, with the Samyukta-agama relegated to the last position in its list, cf. T II 549c29 (other listings that place the Ekottarika-agama in first position and the Samyukta-agama last can be found, e.g., in the (presumably) Haimavata Vinaya, T 1463 at T XXIV 820a23, the *Mahaprajñaparamita-(upadesa-)sastra, T 1509 at T XXV 69c5, and the 入大乘論 , T 1634 at T XXXII 36c15; for still other listings cf. below p. 864 note 46). Perhaps more than one organizing principle was in use from the outset, since otherwise it would be difficult to explain what happened to those discourses that do not neatly fit into the topic-wise arrangement now found in the Samyukta-agama/Samyutta-nikaya.
It seems improbable that these were just left to float around without being in any way organized at a time when other discourses were formally assembled according to topic. Alternatively, all such discourses must be considered to be of later origin, resulting in a presumption about the nature of earliest Buddhism that would be difficult to substantiate. The Samyukta-agama (T 99) itself contains a number of passages and tales that in the Theravada tradition are found only in commentarial literature. This makes it improbable that the Samyukta-agama, at least in the form we have it now, should be assigned to a textual strata that is distinctively earlier than the other discourse collections (cf. also Choong 2010: 63, who notes that the discourse material found in this collection does not “all actually belong to the teachings of Early Buddhism”).
Regarding the angas, the description of the Agamas in the passage under discussion from the Vastusamgrahani does not explicitly refer to the set of three angas. The only tri-partite analysis found in the present passage distinguishes the Samyukta-agama discourses from the viewpoint of speaker, topic, and audience, T 1579 at T XXX 772c17: 一是能說, 二是所說, 三是所為說 and D (4039) sems tsam, zi 128a1 or Q (5540) ’i 143b6: su ston pa dang, ci ston pa dang, gang la ston pa dang (cf. also Bucknell 2007: 19 and 32 note 78). This division does not naturally evoke the three angas of sutta, geyya, and veyyakarana (on the significance of the last of these three cf. also Analayo 2009l). In fact, had this been the original intention, the three angas could have been directly mentioned.
Another argument in support of the significance of the threefold listing is presented by Sujato 2005: 62, who notes that in a reference to the twelve angas in a Mahaparinirvana-sutra fragment, cf. SN 362 folio 173R6-7 in Waldschmidt 1950: 62, “the twelve angas are listed with the first three members declined as individual words, while the remaining members occur grouped together as one long compound”, which he takes to point to a special emphasis on the first three. Although in the case of another Mahaparinirva0a-sutra version, fragment 1024R5 in Waldschmidt 1968: 5, the remainder of the listing does not form a compound: sutram geyam vyakaranam gath-oddana nidanavadana itivr(ttkajataka)v[ai]pulyadbhutadharmopa(desas), Sujato notes that in the Sravakabhumi listings of the angas also follow the above pattern, cf., e.g., Shukla 1973: 100,18 or SSG 1998: 154,3. Yet, this form of presentation need not be interpreted as reflecting some underlying awareness of an ancient use of the three angas at the time of the formation of the canonical collections, otherwise forgotten.
It could just be the result of a standard procedure in Buddhist texts, where the first three members of listing are always mentioned, even when the rest is abbreviated (cf. also note 70 below). This pattern can in fact be observed in the same Sravakabhumi, cf., e.g., Shukla 1973: 101,20 or SSG 1998: 154,25: sutram geyan vyakaranam iti vistarena purvavat, a formulation that could easily have influenced the pattern noticed by Sujato. In sum, it seems that the evidence brought forward so far in support of a special significance of the three angas is not conclusive. Hence, the present passage in MA 191 (and presumably also in MN 122) might, after all, be just the result of a transmission error.
2 Likes
I’ve seen Analayo say this in another less-well-argued paper, but here again, he either is unaware or avoiding the definition of the angas found in the Yogâcārabhūmi (418c7-9) that defines the vyākaraṇa:
云何記別。謂於是中記別弟子命過已後當生等事。或復宣說已了義經。是名記別。
What is vyākaraṇa? It refers to predictions of events in the later births of disciples after they die or to sutra that explain the meaning of discourses that have been given. This is called vyākaraṇa.
Notice that the Theravada tradition doesn’t recognize the first meaning, from what I’ve gathered, which perhaps inconveniently was taken up by bodhisattva theorists to create a genre of texts in which Buddhas give predictions to bodhisattvas about their future buddhahood, one of which is included in the Madhyama Agama. However, that isn’t the primary meaning originally, in my opinion; there are sutras in which the Buddha tells about a disciple’s destiny after dying (such as whether they attained parinirvāṇa, etc).
What is meant by the second definition? I’ve gathered that it means sutras in which someone comes to the Buddha and asks for a explanation about a given term or topic. These sutras usually name the person who comes forward, and in the case of notable disciples they were collected together into samyuktas. This is the meaning that appears to be followed in SA and SN, so it may well be the older one.
Turning back to the passage Analayo is quoting, it reads like this:
當知如是一切相應略由三相。何等為三。一是能說。二是所說。三是所為說。若如來若如來弟子是能說。如弟子所說佛所說分。若所了知若能了知。是所說。如五取蘊六處因緣相應分。及道品分。若諸苾芻天魔等眾。是所為說。如結集品。如是一切粗略標舉能說所說及所為說。即彼一切事相應教間廁鳩集。是故說名雜阿笈摩。即彼相應教。
It should be known that all of the samyuktas essentially come from three characteristics. What are the three? 1. The teacher, 2. what’s taught, and 3. to whom it’s taught. Whether it’s the Tathagata or his disciples, they are the teachers, as in the “Teachings by Disciples” (SA 28-33) and “Teachings by the Buddha” (SA 34-51) divisions. Whether it’s what’s understood or understanding (itself), this is what is taught, as in the “Five Acquired Aggregates,” “Six Sense Fields,” and “Dependent Origination” samyukta divisions (SA 1-6) as well as “The Path” division (SA 7-16). If the assemblies are monks, gods, Mara, etc., they are who are taught, as in the chapters that collect them together (SA 17-27).
I’ve added the samyukta numbers for convenience. Essentially, though, this passage divides SA into three broad divisions. Analayo is correct that Ybs doesn’t actually say each corresponds to one of the three angas. That isn’t the point. Even if it did, it would be a late era Mahayana commentator telling us his theory.
Now, in the Theravada SN, we have a very close correspondence between SA 17-27 and SN 1-11, which is literally called the “Sagatha” division in the Theravada tradition. So, we have a clear division of verse-centric sutras in both traditions; that’s one aṅga.
If we consider sutras to be straightforward lectures on doctrine without any special features to cause them to fall into other genres, then we can see that SA 1-16 falls easily into that criteria, and these samyuktas appear to be grouped together consciously as doctrinal subjects. For SN, however, it’s a messier affair. The Nidana Vagga mixes together doctrine with collections on disciples. The same is true of Khandha Vagga, which begins with the aggregates samyutta but includes a samyutta on Sariputta. So, SN doesn’t separate the doctrinal samyuttas from those that center around disciples the way SA does.
So, let’s look at these disciple-topic samyuktas. Take SN 23 the Radha Samyutta. Suttas 1-22 all take the format of Radha asking the Buddha about a topic. It’s only at the end, Suttas 23-34, that we see lectures given to Radha personally. SA 34 is the parallel to SN 23, and it has 133 sutras (counting alot of variants at the end that are like SN 23.24-34). The first nine sutras are also Radha approaching the Buddha and asking questions, then afterward the sutras are personal teachings given to Radha. So, we see a pattern. Generally speaking, if we consider the first sections as older and later sections as gradual accretions, we could say that these samyutkas were originally cases of someone wanting an explanation of a prior teaching, and that fits Ybs’s definition of vyākaraṇa. Then, they were later expanded to include teachings to that particular disciple.
In the Sarvastivada tradition, at least, these disciple samyuttas were consciously grouped together, whereas in the Theravada canon that’s no longer the case if it was at a earlier time. We’d want to look at all of these disciple-centered samyuktas to see if there’s this underlying pattern, but these issues are left aside by Analayo in his arguments, which are essentially throwing shade on a teacher from another tradition by tossing out many objections without investigating the matter further. It’s easy to undermine a theory with skepticism in this way.
3 Likes
If you read carefully Choong Mun-keat’s article (2020)“Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts”, you can easily see Analayo just presents his opinions, and completely ignores and downplays the relevant findings of Yinshun.
2 Likes
Yes, I think the Yinshun findings is a good hypothesis on the formation of early Buddhist canon, which is fascinating for me too.
But Analayo’s argument is pointing out that there is no solid evidence of first 3 angas as the oldest division of early Buddhist canon. The evidence provided by Bhante @sujato from Sanskrit fragment of Mahaparinirvana Sutra (first 3 angas are individual words and the reminders are in compound) in his A History of Mindfulness is weak because there is another fragment of the same text with the reminder angas are not in compound. Analayo said that the first 3 angas is always mentioned because it is an abbreviated form or transmission error. In the next note he said:
Note 70: AN 5:194 at AN III 237,17: yadi suttaso yadi geyyaso yadi veyyakaranaso yadi abbhutadhammaso. Von Hinüber 1994a: 129 explores the possibility that this fourfold presentation may point to a beginning stage of the list of nine angas, suggesting that sutta could refer to the Patimokkha-sutta as the basis for the later Vinayapitaka (for a critical reply to this suggestion cf. Klaus 2010: 516-518), geyya could stand for the verse, and veyyakarana for the prose out of which later the Suttapitaka developed, while abbhutadhamma could stand for the beginnings of the Buddha legend. Von Hinüber 1994a: 124 supports his assumption that the nine-fold listing is later with the observation that whereas the listing sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, abbhutadhamma follows the law of waxing syllables by having 2+2+5+5 syllables, the same is no longer true for the nine-fold listing: sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, gatha, udana, itivuttaka, jataka, abbhutadhamma, vedalla, resulting in 2+2+5+2+3+5+3+5+3 syllables, an irregularity that can be a sign of a later expansion of an earlier formula. However, in longer listings the principle of waxing syllables is often applied to subunits only, cf. also above p. 15 note 102. The survey of anga listings in Mayeda 1964 shows that in a considerable number of instances of the nine-fold listing, the last term is abbhutadharma; cf. also Choong 2010: 60. If the same sequence were to be applied to the Pali listing, assuming that perhaps the sequence got slightly jumbled during the process of transmission, then the Pali listing of nine angas would accord with the principle of waxing syllables by having three sub-groups: 2+2+5 syllables, 2+3+5 syllables, and 3+3+5 syllables. If this should indeed have been the original pattern, then the reference to four angas in AN 5:194 could simply be the result of an intentional abbreviation, which often mentions the first three and the last member of a listing, a tendency already noted by von Hinüber 1994a: 124.
Note 71: In addition to the proposals discussed in the notes above, Mayeda 1964: 26 and 34 (cf. also Nakamura 1980/1999: 28) offers yet another hypothesis, according to which the starting point for the list of nine (and later twelve) types of text could have been a fivefold listing that comprised sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, gatha, and udana. Yet another listing can be found in the *Karmavibhangopadesa in Lévi 1932a: 161,8: sutram geyam vyakaranam itivrttam gathodanam, a listing which is clearly due to a loss of text, as the *Karmavibhangopadesa continues by speaking of the nine types of canonical text, evam navangasasanam. This evident instance of textual loss makes it stand to reason that a similar explanation could also be applicable to the listings in MN 122 and AN 5:194.
1 Like
Yes, and that argument will always be the safe one since we’ll very unlikely to ever have direct evidence of what the Buddhist canon looked like prior to the sectarian canons. Were all four major collections put together at the same time as the First Council stories say, or were they put together at different times?
I’m sympathetic to the idea that both the SA/SN and EA/AN may have been put together around the same time, using two different methods of compilation. It would make sense. The texts in DA/DN and MA/MN seem like later composite suttas that combine the smaller, simpler sutras in the other collections.
I’ve been slowly reading Yinshun’s introduction to SA in my spare time, but I think his conclusion that SA/SN came first may be because we find SA collections in AN. It’s hard to say, though. The texts may have been shuffled around over time until the canons were closed and frozen in place.
4 Likes
But only the first 3 angas are mentioned in MN 122: MN III 115 = MA 191: T1 739c4 (see pp. 901, 903, notes 23, 24, in Choong Mun-keat 2020).
If you read carefully Analayo long comment I post above, you will see that’s not a strong evidence because there is a mention of 4 angas (3 first and the last one) in AN 5.194 (in which Von Hinüber thought that this is the original angas forming the whole Buddhist canon). There is another hypothesis (by Maeda) that 5 angas (sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, gatha, and udana) is the oldest angas. But Analayo also pointed out that *Karmavibhangopadesa mentioned 5 angas (sutram geyam vyakaranam itivrttam gathodanam) due to textual loss so he concluded that the mention of first 3 angas in MN 122 (or 4 angas in AN 5.194) could be a textual loss too.
1 Like
Possibly this is because Yinshun is according to the information provided in the Vastu-saṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra regarding the SA is the foundation of all four Agamas (see p. 899, note 21 in Choong MK 2020).
1 Like
It seems this “a textual loss” idea is not a strong evidence. As mentioned above, the first 3 angas in MN 122 are also found in the corresponding MA 191.
Note: The Tibetan version of MN 122 = MA 191 has 12 angas. This is evidently a later textual edition.
I don’t know about the evidences you asked for, but I prefer the mention of first 3 angas in MN 122 is likely an abbreviation of 9 angas. The missing of remaining items is not neccesary a proof of later addition of remaining items.
Take another case. In Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26) there is no mention of Four Noble Truths as first teaching of the Buddha and the parallel in MA 204 only mentioned the middle way. Many scholars think this mean Four Noble Truths are not original teaching of the Buddha, but a later development of doctrine.
But it seems to me it more likely that the first teaching of the Buddha is not included in Ariyapariyesana Sutta and it’s parallel because the text focus on how Gotama strive for enlighment so there no need to mention to the first teaching completely.
Besides that, there is an Ekottarika Agama version of the first discource (EA 19.2) which mentioned only the middle way, but another version of the first discource from the same collection (EA 24.5) mentioned Four Noble Truths. It is not that the shorter EA 19.2 is an earlier version and EA 24.5 details of Four Noble Truths is addition. It is more likely that the EA 19.2 is just an extract from complete version of the first discourse known by all early Buddhist schools.
So I think it’s the similar case of abbreaviated list of angas in MN 122 or AN 5.194.
1 Like
Also, Yinshun cites a passage in the Mahāvibhāṣā (T1545.659c-660a) that defines the vyākaraṇa aṅga in very specific terms: 1) when disciples ask a question, and the Tathāgata explains; 2) when the Tathāgata asks a question, and the disciple explains it; 3) a disciple asks a question, and another disciple explains it; and 4) conjured gods and the like ask questions, and it’s explained.
This brings in other scenarios for these sutras than the narrow one (a disciple asking a question) that I used as an example.
1 Like
Something about lists like 9 and 12 angas is that they do appear to be expanded when I compare them from different sources. The list after the first three items is kind of jumbled. The items are all the same, but the orders aren’t stable. So, it would seem like it wasn’t an original list that every sect preserved the same way (like the eightfold path or five powers, etc.). Just the fact that the Theravada seems like an outlier in having only 9 instead of 12 suggests the list grew in stages.
4 Likes
Just to note here for the record, I agree with Analayo that that particular data point is weak, although it is only one of several indications. Even taking other details into account, however, it’s just a hypothesis. I still think it holds up pretty well, though. It’s a simple hypothesis with a strong explanatory power.
I always wanted to revisit this point with a proper statistical analysis, which I suspect might be the only way to really discern the underlying Samyutta structure.
3 Likes
Ah, yes. He does cite that passage in CSA’s introduction. The impression I’m getting, however, is that it was in the later Sarvâstivāda tradition that SA rose to this prominent position. Earlier Indian accounts like in the DZDL and EA claim that EA is the first collection of sutras recited. Analayo is not wrong to bring up that point, but it only proves that Buddhists weren’t agreed on what exactly happened in the early days of the canon.
The list of the first 3 angas mentioned in both MN 122 and its corresponding MA 191. So, it is very unlikely they are “the similar case of abbreviated list of [all 9 or 12] angas in MN 122 [and MA191]”.
Yes, that’s the main argument proposed by Yinshun and supported by Sujato, but as shown by Analayo in long notes posted above, this is not conclusive because there are occurrences of 3 (or 4) angas in other texts because abbreviation, etc.
I think there are many possibility of this, either this is the original or just abbreviated or textual/transmission loss, but we cannot sure about it because all of these is lack of solid evidence and just a hypothesis. Personally, I prefer Analayo’s explanation.
Thank you 
Though rare, āgama (in the singular only) is actually evidenced in Pali sources long before the Dīpavaṃsa. You’ll find it, for example, in the Kusinarasutta (AN 10:44) and its parallel in the Vinaya’s Cūḷavagga.
Furthermore, a mendicant who wants to accuse another should check this: ‘Am I very learned, remembering and keeping what I’ve learned? These teachings are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased, describing a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Am I very learned in such teachings, remembering them, reinforcing them by recitation, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically? Is this thing found in me or not?’ If it’s not, there will be people who say: ‘Come on, venerable, memorize the scriptures first (‘iṅgha tāva āyasmā āgamaṃ pariyāpuṇassū’ti).’
4 Likes