No, the list from Authenticity quoted above represents the opinion of myself and Ven Brahmali.
Again, it’s a matter of definition. If I say, “hoisted by his own petard”, is that a quote from Shakespeare or something else?
This is rare, but it does happen. Of course there are many instances where quotations in later sources can vary in minor details from early sources (which is why they are interesting). There are also cases where a verse or passage may be referred to or quoted in a later text as if it is an early one, but no record of it survives. In the Mahavastu, for example, there is an extra verse in the Ratana Sutta, which on stylistic grounds, appears to be authentic.
Nope.
The problem is that once you start to define these things, opinions vary quite a bit. On SC we try to keep it to things that are fairly generally accepted among those who study early Buddhism. But if we tried to say, this text is early, that one is late, it gets too complicated too quickly. Which is why we offer our opinion in a separate book.
Yes, for example, is Xuanzang’s translation in the 7th century of the Itivrttaka an EBT? It’s really hard to say. The original certainly was an EBT at some point, but texts changed over time in India.
The Chinese Abhidharma texts, which covers both the Sarvastivada Abhidharma and Abhidharma-kosa texts, should be included. Xuanzang’s Yogacarabhumi Sastra has an extensive section quoting Agamas as authority for its theories. Scholars have used it to reconstruct the structure of the Sanskrit Samyukta Agama. There’s also the Commentary on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, which quotes and paraphrases jatakas and EBTs throughout.
The Chinese canon has much more than the four complete Agama collection translations, including many individual translations that are excerpts from the Agamas but represent different versions. There are a total of 4 Chinese versions of the Parinirvana Sutra counting the one included in the Dirgha Agama, for example. Sorting them out takes a some legwork though since some translations are as late as the 10th century. And it’s rabbit hole of parallel canons compared to the simple world of the Pali canon.
I’m for including the early Sarvastivada Abhidharma, since its equivalent to the Theravada Abhidhamma in SC. But the later texts I think is pushing it, because, even though they quote EBTs, so does the Visuddhimagga for example and other later Theravada texts. If we started doing that, there would be no end to it.
However, if SC wanted to be comprehensive, it could include excepts from these later texts that quote EBTs, such as Samathadeva’s Abhidharmakosha commentary.
The difference is that the texts quoted in some later Chinese works like the Yogacara-bhumi are currently lost to us beyond some fragments here and there in Indic languages. The Pali canon is extant, so the Visuddhimagga quotes are essentially alternate readings if they vary. On the other hand, Chinese texts are all translations and the originals vary, so the whole picture is blurrier.
It just depends on what we are doing. If we just want to list the primary texts that practitioners want to read and study, then those sources aren’t as important.
The Yogacara-bhumi has been important because it’s been used as another witness to the Samyukta Agama’s structure. The fascicles of the Chinese translation of the Samyukta were apparently jumbled and a couple lost at some point in its history. A librarian or redactor then replaced a couple fascicles with Jataka stories translated separately. Using the Yogacara-bhumi as a reference, scholars have been able to deduce the order it probably had before that happened. So, it’s an important resource for anyone translating or studying the Chinese Agama to be aware of, but it’s less interesting as something for the readers to care so much about.
That’s a good example of how complicated translating these texts can be.
Ven Dhammadinna is working on this, and we will integrate it when ready.
We haven’t looked into this. I am sure there are many quotes and references to early texts and passages in Mahayana literature. We’re happy to record occasional passages as they are brought to our attention, but more systematic work will probably emerge from AI.
The Yogacara-bhumi for the relevant portion of the Chinese Samyukta Agama is called the sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix) in pp. 772c-868b, T30, no.1579 (i.e. “the Vastu-saṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra”).
The corresponding Tibetan text is in the Peking edition of Tibetan Tripiṭaka, vol. 111, text no. 5540 (see p. 57, note 7 in Choong Mun-keat 2010: “Problems and Prospects of the Chinese Samyuktāgama: Its structure and content”, Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects (= Series: East Asia Intercultural Studies - Interkulturelle Ostasienstudien 3), edited by Konrad Meisig, pp. 53-64, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.)
Does anyone know which version (Chinese or Tibetan) of the texts (the sūtra-mātṛkā) is earlier?
Xuanzang’s translation was in the middle of the 7th century; it looks like the Tibetan translation is from the early 9th century (according to this paper pg. 507).
Getting back to the topic of EBTs, I would say the Chinese Itivrttaka should be included in the list, as its somewhat different in content from the Pali.
The Chinese also has two Dharmapada collections, one early and one later. Both have Avadana style commentaries as separate texts that match them. And there are several Jataka collections in Chinese. Those would be the definite EBTs in Chinese I can think of right away besides the four Agamas.
What is the time allocated to this study? My initial reaction is that evaluating all of the sources would take a lifetime, but perhaps I’m overestimating what you mean by “evaluating”.
Perhaps my interest for this thesis is better described as surveying all of the early sources.
I think so.
I think a cursory, superficial evaluation for this particular thesis would suffice - the primary aim being to survey the scope of the early sources (as far as is known at this time).
Spending the rest of my life doing more in-depth evaluation of the full scope of the early sources (only) doesn’t sound like a bad way to spend the rest of my life lol
By evaluation, I mean evaluation of “authenticity,” initially just in terms of “internal consistency” between the various the various early sources - in other words, identifying obvious and subtle outliers in the texts.
No, MPhil, 40,000-60,000 word thesis.
But I do wish to build on this “survey of early textual sources” Master’s research in a PhD program, where I wish to spend time on more in-depth evaluations.
Maximum: ~1.5 years
The title has been evolving to the point where I am not sure how useful it would be to share it.
The primary thesis that I wish to defend is that “Buddhism” is “most accurately represented” by the “early Buddhist textual sources.”
So it is an attempt to make both a claim about “what Buddhism is (and isn’t)” (How would you define "Buddhism"?) and “what exactly the early sources are” (How to compile a list of all Early Buddhist Texts? - #28 by SeriousFun136) and perhaps the relationship between the two.
Thank you for asking these questions to help me clarify.
Please feel free to ask further questions, because as you rightly said, it can help more directly hone in and target exactly what I’m after.
This is awesome, we’d love for you to keep giving us feedback as we go. We’re pretty confident we have most of the early texts on SC, but of course there will be more. Since the definition of an EBT is somewhat loose, it will never be 100%, but we want to get as close as we can.
For the purpose of actually hosting texts, we find a diminishing return in texts that are very marginal or specialized, such as fragmentary Sanskritic texts, or quotes or passages buried deep in a commentary or late sutra. But still, there’s no reason they can’t be noted in our parallels.
A nice usage, bhante, showing your great and unmatched wisdom. 
