We know that the Vimuttimagga (T1648) translated into Chinese originated in is likely to have been copied from an original text from Sri Lanka.
Likewise, we know that the Dharmaguptaka school was essentially Northern Theravada that was not terribly doctrinally different from those Sthavira schools to the south other than in the use of Gandhari Prakrit and we have texts from that school like the Śāriputrābhidharma (T1548) extant in Chinese.
There is also a Chinese Vinaya commentary that is closely related to the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Aṭṭhakathā titled the Sudarśana Vinaya Vibhāṣā. To be honest, it seems as though Buddhaghosa was sourcing his work from an Indian tradition, and we have some texts in Chinese that also come from that tradition. It’s just that they evolved and change a bit over time. The Dharmaguptaka canon seems to have also originated from a common source and similarly changed over time to arrive at what we have today in Chinese.
We learn from the Cūla-vaṃsa that a monk named Jotipāla played an important role in the Buddhism of the island of Ceylon at the end of the sixth century and during the early decades of the seventh century. In a previous article (AS I) I have discussed his important role in the development of the Pali ṭīkā literature. In the first section of this article I briefly review the evidence we have for his work in Sanskrit.
Vism-sn cites passages from a work called the Ārya-satyâvatāra (ĀS) and from another which is named either Jñeya-sampatti-ṭīkā or Jñeya-saptati-ṭīkā (JS-ṭ). Given the manner in which they are cited, it seems likely that this refers to a single work and its commentary — the Ārya-satyâvatāra would be the name of a work in kārikās, which would have an accompanying commentary, both being associated with the name of Jotipāla. The Jñeya-saptati-ṭīkā would be the name of this commentary.
One of the views given in the JS-ṭ passages in Vism-sn is attributed in Sumaṅgala’s twelfth/thirteenth century commentary on the Abhidhammâvatāra (Abhidh av ṭ) to Jotipāla. A passage in Abhidh-av-ṭ which gives a saying of Jotipāla is described in the thirteenth century ṭīkā to the Sacca-saṅkhepa as from the Aññeyya-sattati-ṭīkā.
Vism-sn contains around sixty six Sanskrit citations. A few of these are from general Indian sources, from the grammatical literature or from the literature of non-Theravādin forms of Buddhism. The great majority are specific to the Theriya abhidha(r)mma tradition.
Conclusion:
Jotipāla emerges as a major figure who defended the position of the Mahāvihāravāsins in Sanskrit, very much the literary language of the day. It seems likely that the Sanskrit language played a greater role in the history of the Theriya school of Southern India and Ceylon than has been hitherto realized. This no doubt accounts for some of the increasing North Indian awareness of Theravāda during this period.
