Oh, dear. Where to begin? Well,…
First , thank you, @Vaddha, see how quite often the obvious solution will elude us? Even at this stage, something as simple as cross-referencing the Āgama version didn’t occur to me. And, yes, I would tend to agree with you that
And, thank you, @cdpatton.
Ha-ha! That’s funny! I can relate. I’ve come up with some doozies in my time. No doubt, experience is the best teacher. That’s what Chinese teachers taught me: just read a lot and you’ll come to understand (a very traditionally Chinese approach). So I’ve been damned to just sort of “feeling” the sense of classical Chinese particles. I know 耳 comes at the end of declarative sentences, but is not quite as straightforwardly declarative as 也; it communicates emotion often, but not as powerfully as 哉; and so on, and such like. It’s not so scientifically precise, admittedly (though neither is classical Chinese), but it works a sight better than these new fangled pseudo-sinophlies with the cut and paste, Google translate classical Chinese study method.
Which brings me to you, sir, @Jayarava. I would like to thank you as well, but you never answered my question: you simply pontificated. I mean, at least you responded; I suppose I could thank you for that.
“Thank you.”
And, of course there were the peripheral historical issues you brought up, some of which I must certainly concede to.
No, I’m not. Which is why I said,
Because I recognize that, even if I don’t regard them as historical figures, the textual record does, and would try to maintain such historical rigor as its authors were capable of to preserve historical accuracy. So I treat them as such.
And, truthfully speaking, my focus here is not on the characters, but this teaching which juxtaposes existence with non-existence, which at least some traditions associated with Kāccanagotta and others appear to have possibly associated with a text attributed to Mahākāccana. Wynne connects the two traditions without providing any evidence or support for his conclusions.
Perhaps, but not here. There is at least one tradition which seems to have focused on Mahākāccana as the protagonist (to use your terminology) here by, as @Vaddha has demonstrated, at some point, conflating him with someone of a similar name: the Kāccanagotta of the Kāccanagotta Sutta. This may have been deliberate or through oversight, I don’t know, but, either way, it’s a possible lead to connecting the Kāccanagotta Sutta to the MMK and the Madhyamaka by way of Mahākāccana and the *Peṭaka, and I’m following it up.
(Again, thank you for your correction of the imprecision of my reference; though I don’t know that it refutes my claim or, more importantly, affects my overall point regarding the contrasting of the three hermeneutical methods.)
My, but this is a presumptuous statement! Whatever gave you the idea that I don’t know of this dictionary? I’m really asking here; I’m truly puzzled–just as I was puzzled (I think I said “perplexed”) as to how that entry “cast doubt” on my translation. Again, this is another question you never answered.
Is that your habit? Not answering questions? Because the nod to your “modest contribution” was rather superfluous and took us off-topic. Why not stick to the topic and pontificate and self-promote less?
Returning then to @Vaddha’s very constructive contribution to this thread, checking the Sanskrit version of the Kāccanagotta, the Buddha’s interlocutor is there is referred to as Sandhākātyāyana. The Dictionary of Pali Proper Names has, under sandha, the following entry:
Sandha: A monk who visited the Buddha at Ñātikā in the Giñjakāvasatha, when the Buddha preached to him the Sandha Sutta (q.v.). (A. v. 323f). v.l. Saddha (see GS. v. 204, n. 2; and 216, n. 2).
It is, perhaps, the same monk who is mentioned as Saddho (v.l. Sandho) Kaccāyano. (S. ii. 153, Giñjakāvastha Sutta). He asks the Buddha a question on dhātu, and the Buddha explains it to him. In neither case does the Commentary say anything about Saddho (or Sandho).
The translator of the Samyutta regards saddho as an epithet.
So, it would seem that we have three different Kaccāyanas as the protagonist in three different versions. Only one of whom, Mahākaccāna, any tradition I’m acquainted with associates with the Peṭakopadesa/蜫勒(*Peṭaka):
Da zhidu lun 18 fasc.: “The *Peṭaka … composed by Mahākātyāyana.”
《大智度論》卷18：「蜫勒……大迦栴延之所造」(T1509 192b3-4)
(Be wary of sweeping generalizations, indeed; this one seems pretty accurate nonetheless.)
Incidentally, and funnily enough, I found the following entry regarding the so-called 小乘四門 Xiaosheng simen, the Four Schools of the Hinayāna in the 佛學大辭典 Foxue dacidian:
（名數）天台所判。一小乘有門，發智六足論等之所說。二小乘空門，成實論之所說，三小乘亦有亦空門，毗勒論之所說，四非有非空門，迦旃延經之所說。
It basically says that, according to the Tiantai school’s taxonomy, there were four hermeneutical schools of the Lesser Vehicle: the first three being the same three identified by the Da zhidu lun, with the addition of a fourth which espouses neither existence nor emptiness, a teaching expressly associated by the Tiantai with what we know in Pāli as the Kaccānagotta Sutta. Interesting.
The 佛光大辭典 Foguang dacidian, p. 935 has a more expanded entry, as does our friend Charles “Chuck” Muller, which I’ll include as well:
Tiantaiʼs division of Hīnayāna into four schools or doctrines of: (1) belief in the reality of phenomena 有門, the existence of all phenomena, the doctrine of being, as taught in the Sarvâstivāda pada treatises 六足論, etc.; (2) emptiness of phenomena 空門, or nonexistence (cf. 成實論); (3) of both, or relativity of existence and nonexistence 亦有亦空門 (cf. 毘勒論); (4) of neither, or transcending existence and nonexistence 非有非空 (cf. 迦旃延經). 〔妙法蓮華經玄義 T 1716.33.790c12]〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Soothill]
What I find interesting is that the third school–upholding relative existence and non-existence and associated with Mahākaccāna’s Peṭakopadesa/*Peṭaka–is distinguished from the fourth–held to derive from the Kaccānagotta Sutta and variously associated with Mahākaccāna, Kaccānagotta, and Saddha/Sandha Kaccāna–which teaches its diametric opposite: transcendence of both existence and non-existence.
This is very much reminiscent of the state of affairs Wynne identifies in his article (i.e., what was originally a transcendence of the two extremes eventually became a embrace of their relativity), though he doesn’t refer to any of these sources.
Thoughts anyone?
