Are Chinese Agamas less reliable than Pali Nikayas?

This can be seen as mere someone ask you to do giving in his/her favor. There is no merit transfer indicated here as in pattidana tradition where the recipient can be only petas.

This is more like you agree that this later development is inherent in Theravada so they are not as pure as it claims to be.

Its a dedication of merit.

This is more like you agree that this later development is inherent in Theravada so they are not as pure as it claims to be.

I said perhaps it was Mahāyāna that adopted it, as in these concepts were already around when Mahāyāna was developing.

8 posts were split to a new topic: How does the dedication of merit work, according to the texts?

Even if they are less reliable, that doesn’t mean they are not worth studying at all!

1 Like

I agree. One of the major benefits to come from studying the Agamas is to see how successful the Sangha was in transmitting the Buddha’s core teachings. Putting everything else to the side, as long as we have the core teachings and practicing virtuous monastics then there is still hope for full awakening.


The following book chapter/article recently published by Choong Mun-keat may be relevant to this discussion:

“Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three- aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts”, Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts,Research Series 8; edited by Dhammadinnā), Taiwan: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, August 2020, pp. 883-932.

If you have read this paper, please do tell us your views about Buddhaghosa and Yinshun on the EBTs.

Is there anyway to access it? Have you read it? What is the synopsis?

No, I have not read the publication text yet.

Just a tip on how to make such discussions possible to follow (given that this Forum is a public place and not a private interchange between two people :wink: ): When you select something to copy, click on the "Quote button

and your post will not only automatically show readers who you are quoting, as below, but also allows them to click on the upward pointing arrow top right of the quotation, which gives them immediate access to the full context.

It is most helpful when discussants post in ways that help all readers to follow an interchange of ideas.


Noted. Will do from now on.

1 Like

Thank you. :pray:
Very much appreciated.


well… I think It’s more reliable if someone can provide this translation for free. As you know even we can provide 4 Nikayas and 6 minors, still, only few people studied it here in Indonesia. What can you expect? :eyes:

Maybe this was why the bhikkuni I studied under cautioned us, her students when we hear, listen, read and study the sutras. There seems to be 2 paths which can either lead the student to wrong view or right view. And she emphasized to embark upon study with a ‘right’ view as guide.

Isnt cdpatton doing the translation now !


Analayo’s SA translation is freely distributed on his publication list page. The MA translation although is copyrighted, it can be downloaded as PDF on BDK website.

1 Like

There’s two options:

  1. Get the copyright first, and make a translation.
  2. Translate it first for our studies, then ask the copyright later.

Tbh, I often using number 2, especially for canons where alternative translations are difficult to find… :eyes:

It’s understandable. I’ve not heard that Numata is a litigious group, so as long as you want to take the risk of getting a claim.

As I have said many times before, I do not believe that there should be any copyright on any translations of ancient Buddhist texts. These are our sacred scriptures, and we, the Buddhist community, have always treated them as the Word of the Buddha, not the property of the translator. Copyright claims on our sacred scripture criminalize our traditional practice of freely sharing Dhamma for all. It’s cultural appropriation.


You right, Bhante… :grin:


This is the published text:

1 Like

If you have read this article (“Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts”) by Choong Mun-keat regarding the issue of the three angas, please do tell us your views about Buddhaghosa and Yinshun on the EBTs.

I consider Buddhaghosa just wanted to promote his Pali tradition, i.e., the Pali Pitakas are the words/language of the Buddha, and also originated from the first council.

Analayo seems to ignore completely the relevant findings of Yinshun when he discusses about the angas in his articles. It will be useful if he could directly review the findings of Yinshun. Possibly, Analayo is unable to read the Chinese writings by Yinshun. Based mainly on the Pali information, he considers the angas are not the particular works in the Pali texts or EBTs.