Coincidentally I just read Stefan Karpik’s recent paper on Epigraphic Pali which starts with that parable:
His paper shows (once again!) the major pitfall of making a big historical difference based on too little data.
4 Likes
Thanks for posting this.
Another strong case made for Pali as the Buddha’s language !
1 Like
Just on this and related matters.
I believe that the prose suttas as we have them do not preserve any word for word reportage of what a person named gotoma of the sakyans actually said. They preserve prose commentaries of earlier poetry, mostly to be found in sources like the Sagathavagga, the Suta Nipata, the Dhammapadas etc, mostly in a more vedic leaning prakrit than a classical leaning prakrit.
These prose commentaries themselves over time develop commentaries. The prose commentary I designate the Patipada (at DN2, etc) occurs in all ten of the shared suttas of the silakhandhavagga common to the Therevadan, Darmaguptaka and Sarvastivadan traditions.
This is a 100 percent agreement on the canonicity of these 10 suttas.
These metacommentaries, on the patipada commentary on the term Vijjācaraṇasampanno, are wholy presectarian, and form the first layer of the layer cake of buddhist texts.
To cdpatton and snowbird.
The approximate chronological order of the canonisation and editorial closure of the presectarian buddhist canon is this:
Po (Poetry, much of the poetry in Sagathavagga, Dhammapadas, Sutta Nipata, etc)
P (Patipada) a 50KB text in D that is a commentary on the Po “Vijjācaraṇasampanno”.
K (Silakhandavagga, the first vagga in D = DN - (DN6 DN7 DN10))
D2 (DN - K -( DN17 DN22 DN30 DN32))
2MB in 30t
M (Medium MN-MN29 MN30 MN33 MN34 MN35 MN36 MN41 MN42 MN48 MN51 MN53 MN55 MN57 MN58 MN60 MN62 MN71 MN76 MN85 MN92 MN94 MN95 MN98 MN100 MN102 MN103 MN105 MN110 MN111 MN114 MN116 MN131 MN147 MN151 MN152)
3MB in 100t
Spo (Sagathavagga)
500KB in 250 Po
S1 (Nidanavagga although it is possible that this is earlier than much of M, I will place it here at the head of the Numerical Prose anthologies that follow it and grow exponentially in length and complexity )
500KB in 250t
S2 (SN22-56)
2MB in 1000t
Actually the first of the “large” numerical collections the sense that it is much larger than it’s predecessor the Nidanavagga.
E (Numerical DN33 DN34, AN/EA)
4MB in 1500t
By far the largest and latest open collection of doctrinal and linguistic variations in the “suttas” of the four principle prose collections.
A1 (Ds, Pp)
A2 (Vib, Kv, Dhat, Path)
10MB in 1100t
Double the size of anything in C the Abhidhamma is a meta meta commentary on the concordance to the commentaries on the commentary P Patipada on the poem Vijjācaraṇasampanno
V1 (Vibangha)
V2 (Kandhaka, Parivara)
6MB in 400t
The monastic texts take for granted features of communal and societal life that the sutta texts do not. They are the product of later generations than the suttas, who in their turn must have comprised generations of those who depended on the Po as their principle source of “Literal” Buddhism. (i.e any kind of literature, like poetry, prose, commentary, anthology, etc.)
L2 (late lesser, i.e Ap, Nett, Pet, Nidd etc)7MB in 1000t
The KN in places provides a very good index to S2, as does often A2, but is outside our imagined presectarian canon here and is therefore almost by definition late, as it can be contested as to whether the collection of as a whole is canonical for all contemporary buddhists.
So thats the basic sequence.
The evidence for the basic picture is overwhelming, I could choose from literally hundreds of examples but to take just a couple, take a really basic one;
dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ. When did buddhists start calling it that?
Lets read it off the corpus shall we?
Using our just mentioned terminology:
Leaving aside Po, which I think manifestly has to be delt with differently to the prose, the phrase
dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ is used in
P 0 times
K 0 times
D2 1 times (in the last open document in D2, equiv DN16)
M 13 times
S1 2 times
S2 12 times
E 27 times (taking AN as an approximation)
So we see exactly what we might expect in a term, a string of zeros, then a growth through the corpus. We cn say therefore that dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ, if it was a concept, was not called by that name in the chronology before D2, in particular DN16. This effectively rules out the idea that we have an original technical/doctrinal/etc term here.
You can run this test with asavas, jhanas, mind reading, past lives, hindrances, divisive speech, all sorts of buddhist ideras and get a picture of things on one side of the divide.
Then try aggregates, DO, eightfold paths, etc etc to see the other side.
EG:
Str: jhānaṃ (the underscores indicate spaces, so jhānaṃ as a separate word, not a compound containing the string)
Str: jhānaṃ
P 4
K 31
D2 24
M 130* (taking MN as an approximation)
S1 9
S2 40
E 127
See? Here we have a concept thats prominent from the start, having a four paragraph teaching (eight with the similies) that is thick on the ground throughout the proposed chronology, now compare
rūpaṃ niccaṃ
P 0
K 0
D 0
M 3*
S1 2
S2 46
E 0
anattā
P: 0
K: 0
D: 0
M: 18*
S1: 0
S2: 73
E: 15
saññā
P: 0
K: 0
D: 0 (all 18 hits are DN22)
M: 41 (all after MN90, still taking MN as an approx)
S1: 1
S2: 72
E: 35 (all after 3.100)
Viññāṇaṃ anattā
P 0
K 0
D 0
M 11*
S1 0
S2 24
E 0
eso me attā
P 0
K 0
D 1
M 18*
S1 5
S2 45
E 0
You can see the pattern right? the 4 principle prose collections start with a ten chapter book running into the half a megabyte in JSON, that is wholly composed of variations on frame stories for a 50KB piece of text called the Patipada.
Every concept in this Patipada passage can be found underlying huge swaths of the contents of DN, MN, SN and AN.
This passage, as long as about 30 average Samyutta or Anguttra suttas combined, contains NO MENTION of
four foundations of mindfullness
five clinging aggregates
eightfold path
twelve links of dependent arising
and dozens of other tropes that emerge later.
there is almost always a simple line form the originals to the derivitives too.
For example the Foundations of Mindfulness teaching relys on the hinderences and minds of others passages from the Patipada.
We can define it as a commentary on P.
So P is at layer 1 of the buddhist layer cake of Prose, and F (Foundations) is at layer 2.
Layer 1 is earlier than layer 2.
to give a follow up example, the 37 Wings of Awakening teaching is dependent on F, as F is one of the collections listed.
so W > F (“W depends on F”)
and F > P so
W > F > P is a third layer of our layer cake.
W also functions as the organising principle of the last 3rd of S2.
I can give you plenty more examples, answwer any questions?
2 Likes
So roughly, we have;
Narrative:
- K 500KB in 10 texts
- D 1MB in 20 texts
- M 3MB in 100 texts
And we can date M to after D by 10DO vs 12D0
Numerical:
4. S1 1MB in 500 texts
6. S2 2MB 1000 texts
5. E 4MB 1500 texts
And we can date S1 to after D by 10DO vs 12DO.
(the case of S1 vs M is more tricky and I am still investigating).
Note that the length of the collections grows across time.
And reflect on how this makes perfect sense!
Ands if you want proof just masure the layers and the points of introuction of almost any tecnical/religious/teaching trope you like!
it goes K - D - M and S1-S2 and E just keeps adding forevere, althoough again I need to do more work on the restricted AN/EA case.
1 Like
I’m still cleaning it up but I have a rough picture of a “Restricted Pali Canon” of those suttas in DN with direct parallels in DA, MN in MA, SN in SA and AN in EA.
By my count this procedure reduces the number of suttas in the 4 collecitons to a total of 850.
That is a list of 850 suttas that can be compared directly between the Chinese and the Pali:
Parallels
dn1 → da21
dn2 → da27
dn3 → da20
dn4 → da22
dn5 → da23
dn8 → da25
dn9 → da28
dn11 → da24
dn12 → da29
dn13 → da26
dn14 → da1
dn15 → da13
dn16 → da2
dn18 → da4
dn19 → da3
dn20 → da19
dn21 → da14
dn23 → da7
dn24 → da15
dn25 → da8
dn26 → da6
dn27 → da5
dn28 → da18
dn29 → da17
dn31 → da16
dn33 → da9
dn34 → da10
mn1 → ma106
mn2 → ma10
mn3 → ma88
mn5 → ma87
mn6 → ma105
mn7 → ma93
mn8 → ma91
mn9 → ~ ma29
mn10 → ma98
mn11 → ma103
mn13 → ma99
mn15 → ma89
mn16 → ma206
mn17 → ma107–108
mn18 → ma115
mn19 → ma102
mn21 → ma193
mn22 → ma200
mn24 → ma9
mn25 → ma178
mn27 → ma146
mn28 → ma30
mn32 → ma184
mn38 → ma201
mn39 → ma182
mn40 → ma183
mn43 → ~ ma211
mn44 → ma210
mn45 → ma174
mn46 → ma175
mn47 → ma186
mn49 → ma78
mn50 → ma131
mn52 → ma217
mn54 → ma203
mn56 → ma133
mn61 → ma14
mn63 → ma221
mn64 → ma205, ma194
mn66 → ma192
mn68 → ma77
mn69 → ma26
mn70 → ma195
mn75 → ma153
mn77 → ma207
mn78 → ma179
mn79 → ma208
mn80 → ma209
mn81 → ma63
mn82 → ma132
mn83 → ma67
mn85 → ~ ma204
mn86 → ma216
mn88 → ma214
mn89 → ma213
mn90 → ma212
mn91 → ma161
mn93 → ma151
mn96 → ma150
mn97 → ma27
mn99 → ma152
mn101 → ma19
mn104 → ma196
mn106 → ma75
mn107 → ma144
mn108 → ma145
mn112 → ma187
mn113 → ma85
mn115 → ma181
mn117 → ma189
mn119 → ma81
mn120 → ~ ma168
mn121 → ma190
mn122 → ma191
mn123 → ma32
mn124 → ma34
mn125 → ma198
mn126 → ma173
mn127 → ma79
mn128 → ma72
mn129 → ma199
mn130 → ma64
mn132 → ma167
mn133 → ma165
mn134 → ma166
mn135 → ma170
mn136 → ma171
mn137 → ma163
mn138 → ma164
mn139 → ma169
mn14 → ma100
mn140 → ma162
mn141 → ma31
mn142 → ma180
mn143 → ~ ma28
sn12.1–2 → sa298
sn12.10 → ~ sa285.
sn12.11 → sa371
sn12.12 → sa372
sn12.13 → sa353
sn12.14 → sa352
sn12.15 → sa301
sn12.16 → sa363–365
sn12.17 → sa302
sn12.18 → sa303
sn12.19 → sa294
sn12.20 → sa296
sn12.22 → sa348
sn12.24–25 → sa343
sn12.28 → sa355
sn12.29 → sa354
sn12.31–32 → sa345
sn12.33 → sa356
sn12.34 → sa357
sn12.35–36 → sa297
sn12.37 → sa358
sn12.39 → sa360
sn12.4–9 → sa366
sn12.40 → sa361
sn12.46 → sa300
sn12.49–50 → sa350
sn12.51 → sa292
sn12.52 → sa286
sn12.53–54 → ~ sa285
sn12.55–56 → sa284
sn12.57 → sa283
sn12.58 → ~ sa284
sn12.61 → sa289
sn12.62 → sa290
sn12.63 → sa373
sn12.64 → sa374–378
sn12.65 → sa287
sn12.66 → sa291, ~ sf158
sn12.67 → sa288, ~ sf155
sn12.68 → sa351
sn12.70 → sa347
sn12.83 → sa367
sn12.84 → sa368
sn13.1–11 → ~ sa891
sn14.1 → sa451
sn14.11 → sa456
sn14.12 → sa449
sn14.13 → sa457
sn14.14 → sa445
sn14.15 → sa447
sn14.17 → sa450
sn14.2–6 → sa452–453
sn14.25 → ~ sa-3.20, ~ sa450
sn14.26 → ~ sa-3.20, ~ sa450
sn14.27 → ~ sa-3.20, ~ sa450
sn14.28 → ~ sa-3.20, ~ sa450
sn14.29 → ~ sa-3.20, ~ sa450
sn14.7–10 → sa454–455
sn15.1 → sa-2.333, sa940
sn15.10 → ea-2.30, sa-2.340, sa-3.11, sa947, t765.2, iti24
sn15.11 → sa-2.336, sa943
sn15.12 → sa-2.335, sa942
sn15.13 → ea51.2, sa-2.330, sa937
sn15.14–19 → sa-2.338, sa-2.345, sa945, sa952
sn15.2 → sa-2.334, sa941
sn15.20 → sa-2.350, sa956
sn15.3 → ea51.1, sa-2.331, sa938
sn15.4 → sa-2.332, sa939
sn15.5 → ea52.4, sa-2.342, sa949
sn15.6 → ea52.3, sa-2.341, sa948
sn15.7 → sa-2.343, sa950
sn15.8 → sa-2.339, sa946
sn15.9 → sa-2.348, ~ sa954
sn16.10 → sa-2.118, sa1143
sn16.11 → sa-2.119, sa1144, san-lo-mvu72
sn16.12 → sa-2.120, sa905
sn16.13 → sa-2.121, sa906
sn16.3 → sa-2.111, sa1136, t121:t0544b12–t0545a16, ~ sf74
sn16.4 → sa-2.112, sa1137
sn16.5 → ea12.6, ea41.5, sa-2.116, sa1141
sn16.6 → sa-2.113, sa1138, ~ ea31.11
sn16.7 → sa-2.114, sa1139
sn16.8 → sa-2.115, sa1140
sn16.9 → sa-2.117, sa1142
sn17.11–20 → ea11.7–8
sn17.28 → ea12.9
sn17.35–36 → kd17:2.5.1–2.5.25, sa1064, an4.68, ea23.7, sa-2.3, ~ ea12.7
sn17.5 → ~ sa1263
sn17.8 → ~ sa1264
sn18.1–10 → ~ sa897
sn19.10 → sa518
sn19.11 → sa522
sn19.12 → sa525
sn19.13 → sa523
sn19.14 → sa520
sn19.15 → sa524
sn19.16 → sa517
sn19.17–21 → sa530
sn19.4 → sa510
sn19.5 → sa516
sn19.6 → sa515
sn19.8 → sa513
sn19.9 → sa514
sn20.10 → sa1260
sn20.11 → sa1262
sn20.2 → sa-3.22, sa1256, ~ sn56.61–131, ~ sa442
sn20.3 → sa1254
sn20.4 → sa1253
sn20.5 → sa1255, ~ sf75
sn20.6 → sa1257
sn20.7 → sa1258
sn20.8 → sa1252
sn20.9 → sa-2.22, sa1083
sn21.1 → sa501
sn21.10 → sa-2.10, sa1071
sn21.3 → sa503
sn21.4 → sa-2.9, sa1070
sn21.5 → sa-2.1, sa1062
sn21.6 → sa-2.2, sa1063, ja202
sn21.7 → an4.48, sa-2.8, sa1069
sn21.8 → ea18.6, sa-2.5, sa1067
sn21.9 → sa-2.7, sa1068
sn22.1 → ea13.4, sa107
sn22.100 → sa267
sn22.101 → sa263, ~ an7.71
sn22.102 → sa270
sn22.103 → sa70
sn22.105 → sa71, ~ an10.20, ~ ea46.2
sn22.115–116 → sa26, ~ sa28–29
sn22.117 → ~ sa74
sn22.118–119 → ~ sa76
sn22.12–14 → ~ sa1
sn22.122–123 → sa259
sn22.124–125 → sa22
sn22.126 → ~ sa256, ~ sn22.127–128
sn22.127–128 → sa256, ~ sn22.126
sn22.129–130 → ~ sa258, ~ sn22.131–132
sn22.131–132 → sa258, ~ sn22.129–130, ~ sn22.133–134
sn22.133–134 → ~ sa258, ~ sn22.131–132
sn22.135 → ~ sa257
sn22.146 → sa47
sn22.147 → sa48
sn22.15 → sa10, sa9, sn22.16, sn22.17, up6.005, ~ mn35:9.1
sn22.150 → sa146, ~ sn35.105
sn22.152 → sa152, sn24.3
sn22.19–20 → sa12, ~ up9.004
sn22.2 → sa108, ~ ea41.4
sn22.22 → ea25.4, sa73
sn22.23 → sa72, sn22.106
sn22.24 → sa3, sa5, sa7, sn22.29
sn22.26–27 → sa14
sn22.28 → sa13
sn22.3 → sa551
sn22.30 → sa78
sn22.32 → sa51
sn22.33–34 → sa269
sn22.35 → sa16
sn22.36 → ~ sa15
sn22.37–38 → sa49–50
sn22.39–42 → sa27
sn22.43 → ~ sa36
sn22.44 → sa69
sn22.45 → sa84
sn22.46 → sa85
sn22.47 → sa45, sa63
sn22.48 → sa55
sn22.49 → sa30, ~ sf89
sn22.5 → ~ sa59–60
sn22.5–6 → sa65
sn22.50 → sa31, ~ sf89
sn22.51 → ~ sa1, sa-3.12
sn22.52 → ~ sa2
sn22.53 → sa40
sn22.54 → sa39
sn22.55 → sa64
sn22.56 → sa41
sn22.57 → ~ ea-2.1:t0875b04–t0875c16, sa-3.27, sa42, ~ ea-2.3:t0876b01–t0876c07
sn22.59 → sa34, t102, lzh-mi-kd1:t0105a15, lzh-dg-kd1:t0789a12, ~ sa33, ~ san-lo-mvu95
sn22.60 → sa81
sn22.63–65 → ~ sa15
sn22.64 → sa21
sn22.65 → ~ sa74
sn22.68 → sa17, up1.021
sn22.69 → sa18
sn22.7 → sa43, sa66, mn138:20.1–21.1
sn22.70 → sa19
sn22.79 → sa46
sn22.8 → sa44
sn22.80 → sa272, ~ ma140
sn22.81 → sa57
sn22.83 → sa261
sn22.84 → sa271
sn22.85 → sa104
sn22.86 → sa106, sn44.2
sn22.87 → ea26.10, sa1265
sn22.88 → sa1024
sn22.89 → sa103
sn22.9–11 → sa79, sa8, ~ up9.001
sn22.90 → sa262, ~ sn12.15, ~ sa301
sn22.91 → sa198, sa23, sn18.21
sn22.92 → sa199, sa24, sn18.22
sn22.93 → sa268
sn22.94 → sa37, ~ sa38
sn22.95 → sa265, t105, t106, ~ sa953
sn22.96 → ma61, sa264
sn22.99 → sa266
sn23.1 → sa120
sn23.11 → sa124
sn23.12 → sa121
sn23.19–22 → sa127
sn23.2 → sa122
sn23.23 → sa125
sn23.24 → sa126
sn23.3 → ~ sa111
sn31 → sa128–129
sn23.35–46 → ~ sa130
sn23.4 → sa112
sn23.9–10 → sa123
sn24.1 → sa164, sn24.19, sn24.45
sn24.2 → sa142, sn22.151, ~ sa133
sn24.37–44 → sa166, ~ sa167
sn24.5 → sa154–156
sn24.6 → sa162
sn24.7 → sa157–160
sn24.8 → sa161, sa163
sn24.9–18 → sa168
sn26.1 → sa315
sn26.1–10 → sa899
sn27.1–10 → sa900
sn28.10 → sa500
sn32.1 → ~ sa871
sn33.1–5 → sa-2.197, sa963
sn34.1–55 → sa883
sn35.1–12 → sa195
sn35.10–12 → sa208
sn35.101 → sa274, ~ sn35.102, ~ sn35.138, ~ sn35.139, ~ sn22.33, ~ sn22.34, ~ sa269
sn22.33 → ~ sa274, ~ sn35.101, ~ sn35.102, ~ sn35.138, ~ sn35.139, ~ sn22.34
sn22.34 → ~ sa274, ~ sn35.101, ~ sn35.102, ~ sn35.138, ~ sn35.139, ~ sn22.33
sn35.105 → ~ sn22.150, ~ sa146
sn35.106 → sa218, sn12.43
sn35.107 → sa233, sn12.44
sn35.108 → sa149, ~ sa150–151
sn35.109 → sa239, sn35.122
sn35.110 → sa240, sn35.123
sn35.111–112 → sa242
sn35.114–115 → sa244
sn35.116 → sa234
sn35.117 → sa211
sn35.124 → sa237, sn35.125, sn35.126, sn35.128, sn35.131, sn35.118
sn35.127 → sa1165, ~ sf69
sn35.129 → sa460
sn35.130 → sa553
sn35.132 → sa255
sn35.133 → sa253, ~ sf284
sn35.134 → sa212
sn35.136 → sa308
sn35.147 → sa219
sn35.148–150 → sa220
sn35.15–18 → sa243
sn35.151 → sa235
sn35.156–157 → ~ sa188
sn35.158–159 → ~ sa189
sn35.160 → sa207, sn35.99
sn35.161 → sa206, sn35.100
sn35.167 → sa202
sn35.19–20 → sa194
sn35.21–22 → ~ sa192–193
sn35.228 → sa217
sn35.229 → sa216
sn35.23 → sa319
sn35.230 → sa245
sn35.232 → sa250
sn35.233 → sa559
sn35.235 → sa241
sn35.236–237 → sa1166
sn35.238 → ea31.6, sa1172, ~ sf15
sn35.24 → sa224
sn35.240 → sa1167
sn35.241 → ea43.3, sa1174
sn35.243 → sa1176, ~ sf280
sn35.244 → sa1173
sn35.245 → sa1175
sn35.246 → sa1169
sn35.247 → sa1170–1171, ~ ea38.8
sn35.248 → sa1168
sn35.25 → ~ sa225
sn35.26–27 → sa190–191, ~ sa222–223
sn35.33–52 → ~ sa196
sn35.53–59 → ~ sa201
sn35.63 → sa309
sn35.64 → sa310
sn35.65–68 → sa230
sn35.69 → sa252, ~ sf258, ~ sf261, ~ t505
sn35.7–12 → sa333
sn35.70 → sa215
sn35.71–73 → sa209
sn35.74 → sa1025
sn35.75 → sa1026
sn35.81 → sa114
sn35.82 → sa231
sn35.90–91 → sa226–227
sn35.92 → sa213
sn35.92–93 → ~ sa273
sn35.93 → ~ sa214
sn35.94 → sa279
sn35.95 → sa312
sn35.96 → sa278
sn35.97 → ~ sa277, ~ t107
sn36.1 → ~ sa473, ~ sn36.11, ~ sa474
sn36.10 → sa466
sn36.11 → sa473, sa474, ~ sn36.15, ~ sn36.16, ~ sn36.17, ~ sn36.18, ~ sn36.1
sn36.12–13 → sa471
sn36.14 → sa472
sn36.15 → sn36.16, sn36.17, sn36.18, ~ sa473, ~ sa474, ~ sa476, ~ sn36.11, ~ sn36.23
sn36.21 → sa-2.211, sa977
sn36.23 → sa476, ~ sn36.15, ~ sn36.16, ~ sn36.17, ~ sn36.18
sn36.24 → sa475
sn36.26 → sa478
sn36.27–29 → sa480
sn36.3 → sa468
sn36.30–31 → sa483
sn36.4 → sa469
sn36.5 → sa467
sn36.6 → sa470
sn36.7 → sa1028
sn36.8 → sa1029
sn37.27–28 → ea35.4, ~ sa-3.19
sn39.1–16 → sa491
sn40.10 → sa506, sa988–989, ~ ea36.5
sn40.9 → sa502
sn41.1 → sa572
sn41.10 → sa575
sn41.2 → sa569
sn41.3 → sa570
sn41.4 → sa571
sn41.5 → ~ sa566
sn41.7 → sa567
sn41.8 → sa574
sn41.9 → sa573
sn42.1 → sa-2.125, sa910
sn42.10 → sa-2.126, sa911, kd22:1.4.1–1.4.14
sn42.11 → sa-2.128, sa913
sn42.12 → sa-2.127, sa912
sn42.2 → sa-2.122, sa907
sn42.3 → sa-2.123, sa908
sn42.5 → sa-2.124, sa909
sn42.7 → sa-2.130, sa915
sn42.8 → sa-2.131, sa916
sn42.9 → sa-2.129, sa914
sn43.11–43 → sa890
sn44.10 → sa-2.195, sa961
sn44.11 → sa-2.193, ~ sa959
sn44.7 → sa-2.191, sa958
sn44.8 → sa-2.192, ~ sa959
sn44.9 → ~ sa-2.190, ~ sa957
sn45.1 → sa749
sn45.13 → sa761
sn45.141–148 → ma141, sa-2.66, sa1239, t765.1, ~ sf100, ~ sn3.17
sn45.15 → ~ sa764
sn45.16–17 → sa766
sn45.2 → d300, sa726, sa768
sn45.21 → sa770, sa784, t112, ~ sn45.8, ~ arv7
sn45.24 → sa751
sn45.29 → sa759
sn45.30 → sa752
sn45.34 → sa771, ~ an10.117
sn45.35 → sa796–797, sa799
sn45.36 → sa794–795, sa798
sn45.37–40 → sa800
sn45.4 → sa769
sn45.5 → ~ sa783
sn45.55 → ~ sa748
sn45.7 → ~ sa753
sn45.76 → ~ sa775–777, ~ sa781
sn45.77 → sa778, sa779, sa780, sn45.84
sn45.8 → arv7, ~ sa784, ~ t112, ~ sn45.21, ~ sa770
sn45.83 → ~ sa775–777, ~ sa781
sn46.10 → sa731, sa732
sn46.16 → sa727, sf245:wal30.10–wal30.22, ~ ea39.6, ~ sf251
sn46.2 → sa715, sn46.51
sn46.22 → sa728
sn46.27 → sa729
sn46.29 → ~ sa716
sn46.3 → ~ sa723, ~ sa724, ~ sa736, ~ sa740
sn46.4 → sa718
sn46.41 → sa730
sn46.42 → ea39.7, ma58, sa721–722, t38
sn46.49–50 → sa717
sn46.5 → sa733, ~ sa737
sn46.52 → sa713
sn46.53 → sa714
sn46.54 → sa743
sn46.56 → sa711–712
sn46.57–76 → sa747
sn46.62 → sa744
sn46.66 → sa746
sn46.67 → sa741
sn46.68 → sa742
sn46.8 → sa719
sn46.38 → sa709
sn46.34 → sn46.39:3.1, sn46.55:23.1, sn46.37:2.1, sa707:t0189c21–t0189c25
sn46.39 → sa708
sn46.40 → sa706, ~ iti87
sn46.6 → sa281
sn47.1 → sa607
sn47.10 → sa615
sn47.11 → sa614
sn47.12 → sa498, ~ da18, ~ dn28, ~ sf61, ~ sht-sutta83, ~ t18
sn47.13 → sa638, ~ ea26.9
sn47.14 → sa639
sn47.15 → sa625
sn47.16 → sa624
sn47.17 → sa634
sn47.19 → sa619
sn47.2 → sa622
sn47.20 → sa623
sn47.21 → ~ sa628
sn47.23 → sa629
sn47.24 → arv13, sa606
sn47.26 → ~ sa627
sn47.30 → sa1038
sn47.33 → ~ sa608
sn47.39 → sa610
sn47.4 → sa621
sn47.41 → ~ sa608
sn47.42 → sa609
sn47.43 → sa-2.102, sa-3.4, sa1189
sn47.46 → ~ sa637
sn47.6 → sa617
sn47.7 → sa620
sn47.8 → sa616
sn48.1 → sa643
sn48.10 → ~ sa655, ~ sa658
sn48.12 → sa648, ~ sa735, ~ sa739
sn48.13 → sa653
sn48.14 → sn48.18, sa652
sn48.2–3 → sa644
sn48.20 → sa649
sn48.23 → ~ sa642
sn48.4–5 → sa645
sn48.50 → sa659, ~ sa-2.346, ~ sa953
sn48.52 → sa654, ~ sa655–658
sn48.6–7 → sa650–651
sn48.65 → sa734, sa738
sn48.8 → sa646, ~ an5.15, ~ sa675
sn48.9–10 → sa647
sn49.1–12 → sa875–878
sn49.13–22 → sa882
sn50.1–12 → ~ sa673
sn51.1 → ~ ea29.7
sn51.15 → sa561
sn52.1 → ~ sa536
sn52.10 → sa541, ~ sa540
sn52.2 → ~ sa535
sn52.23 → sa539
sn52.4–5 → sa542–543
sn52.6 → sa537, sn47.28, ~ sa538
sn52.8 → ~ sa545
sn54.10 → sa813, ~ sf134
sn54.11 → sa807
sn54.12 → sa808
sn54.13 → sa810
sn54.13–16 → ~ mn118, ~ sa815, ~ sht-sutta84
sn54.15–16 → sa811–812
sn54.2–5 → sa804
sn54.6 → sa805
sn54.7 → sa806
sn54.8 → ~ sa814
sn54.9 → sa809
sn55.1 → sa835
sn55.10 → sa854
sn55.12 → sa842
sn55.16–17 → sa836
sn55.18 → sa507
sn55.2 → sa1127
sn55.20 → sa1135
sn55.22 → sa-2.155, sa930
sn55.23 → sa-2.159, sa935
sn55.24 → sa-2.160, sa936
sn55.26 → ma28, sht-sutta66, ~ ea51.8, ~ mn143, ~ sa-2.187, ~ sa1032, ~ sa593, ~ sn2.20
sn55.27 → sa1031
sn55.3 → sa1034
sn55.30 → sa833
sn55.31 → sa1131, sa838
sn55.32 → sa1132–1134, sa840
sn55.34 → sa847
sn55.35 → sa848–850
sn55.36 → sa1124
sn55.37 → sa-2.152, sa927
sn55.39 → sa1036
sn55.4 → sa844
sn55.40 → sa855
sn55.41–42 → sa841
sn55.44–45 → sa834
sn55.46 → arv21, sa1126
sn55.47 → sa856
sn55.48 → ~ sa1123
sn55.49 → ~ sa153, ~ sa928, ~ sa-2.153
sn55.5 → sa843
sn55.50 → ~ sa1125
sn55.53 → sa1033
sn55.54 → sa1122
sn55.55 → ~ sa1125
sn55.55–58 → ~ sa1128–1129
sn55.6 → sa860
sn55.7 → sa1044
sn55.8 → sa852–853
sn55.9 → sa851
sn56.1 → sa429
sn56.10 → sa411
sn56.11 → sa379
sn56.15 → sa416
sn56.16 → sa418
sn56.2 → sa428
sn56.20 → sa417, sn56.27
sn56.21 → d316, ea25.1, sa403
sn56.22 → ~ sa390–392
sn56.23 → sa402, ~ sn56.24
sn56.24 → ~ sa402, ~ sn56.23
sn56.29 → sa382
sn56.3–4 → ~ sa393, ~ sf267
sn56.31 → sa404
sn56.32 → sa397, ~ sa435
sn56.33 → sa430
sn56.34 → sa400
sn56.35 → sa401
sn56.36 → sa438
sn56.37 → sa394
sn56.38 → sa395
sn56.39 → sa398
sn56.40 → sa399
sn56.41 → sa407
sn56.42 → sa421
sn56.43 → sa422, ~ sf136
sn56.44 → sa436–437
sn56.45 → sa405
sn56.46 → ~ sa423, ~ sa424–426
sn56.47–48 → sa406
sn56.49 → sa439, sn13.11, ~ sa441
sn56.5–6 → ~ sa390–391
sn56.52–53 → sa440, ~ sn13.7, ~ sn56.57
sn56.61–131 → sa442, ~ sa-3.22, ~ sn20.2, ~ sa1256
sn56.7 → sa409–410
sn56.8 → sa408
sn56.9 → sa412
sn46.35 → sa704
an1.1–5 → ea9.7
an1.11–15 → ea9.9, sf203:tri16.101–tri16.105
an1.16–20 → ea9.10, sf203:tri16.106–tri16.111
an1.170 → ea8.2
an1.173 → ea8.7
an1.174 → ea8.10
an1.175 → ea8.4
an1.188–234 → ea4.1–10, ~ t126:t0831a07–t0833a08
an1.21 → sf177:tri2.1
an1.235–247 → ea5.1–5, ~ t126:t0833c08–t0833c26
an1.248–257 → ea6.1–4, ~ t126:t0833c26–t0834a27
an1.258–267 → ea7.1–3, ~ t126:t0834a27–t0834b21
an1.268–277 → ~ mn115, ~ d297, ~ ma181, ~ t1537.10, ~ t776, ~ up1.032
an1.29 → ea11.5
an1.30 → ea11.6
an1.314 → ea17.5, sf206:tri17.511–tri18.00
an1.315 → ea17.6, sf206:tri17.521–tri17.523
an1.320–321 → sf196:tri13.14–tri13.15
an1.324–327 → sf196:tri13.21–tri13.22
an1.39 → sf180:tri3.11, ~ sf125
an1.40 → sf180:tri3.12–tri3.13, ~ sf126
an1.41 → sf183:tri4.11–tri4.13, ~ sf127
an1.42 → sf183:tri4.21–tri4.23, ~ sf128
an1.43 → ea9.5
an1.44 → ea9.6
an1.46 → ~ sf194
an1.47 → sf177:tri2.2–tri2.3
an1.485–494 → ea2.1–10, t605
an1.6–10 → ea9.8
an2.1 → ~ ea18.2
an2.119 → ea-2.32
an2.120 → ea-2.36
an2.121 → ea-2.34
an2.122 → ea-2.35
an2.126 → ea15.10, sf225:tri28.3, ~ sf114
an2.134 → ~ ea18.10
an2.141 → ea15.3, ~ sf111
an2.142 → ea15.4, ~ sf112
an2.19 → ~ ea-2.41:t0881b18–t0881b22, ~ ea-2.1:t0875c16–t0875c18, sht-sutta77
an2.2 → ea-2.39
an2.25–26 → ~ ea18.9
an2.31 → ~ ea20.7
an2.32 → ~ ea20.5
an2.33 → ea20.11, ~ sf86, ~ sf99, ~ t141, ~ an7.63, ~ ea51.9, ~ t142a, ~ t142b, ~ t143
an2.35 → ma127, sa992, ~ ea42.8
an2.38 → ea19.9, sa547
an2.53 → ea17.2
an2.56–57 → ~ ea17.3
an2.59 → ea19.4
an2.9 → ea-2.40, ea18.1, sa1243
an3.108 → ~ ea22.10
an3.109 → ea-2.2
an3.129 → ~ ea22.9
an3.131 → ea22.4
an3.16 → ea21.6
an3.183–352 → ea24.10
an3.2–9 → ea22.6
an3.29 → ~ ea-2.41:t0881b22–t0881c03, ~ sf11, ~ ea-2.3:t0876a16–t0876b01
an3.35 → ea28.3
an3.36 → ~ ea32.4, ~ ma64, ~ t42, ~ t43, ~ t86:t0909b02–t0910c20, ~ da30:t0126b09–t0127a28, ~ t212.10:vns306–t0669b10, ~ t24:t0330c18–t0332b16, ~ t25:t0365a15–t0387b13, ~ t741, ~ mn130
an3.37–38 → ea24.6, sa-2.46, sa1117, sht-sutta55
an3.39 → ma117, ~ ea22.8, ~ an5.57
an3.41 → ~ ea24.7
an3.42 → ea-2.43, ~ sf4
an3.45 → ~ ea-2.47
an3.48 → ~ an5.40, ~ ea50.7
an3.56 → ea-2.14
an3.68 → ~ ea-2.45, ~ an10.108, ~ ea21.7
an3.69 → ea-2.46
an3.75 → ea21.4
an3.76 → ea-2.42
an3.79 → ea23.5, sa-2.12, sa1073, t116, t117, ~ sf273
an3.82 → ea16.4, sa828
an4.10 → ea-2.4, t1536.8:t0399a09
an4.102 → ea-2.10, ea25.10
an4.105 → ea25.7
an4.114 → an5.140, ea-2.26
an4.128 → ea25.3
an4.14 → ea-2.11, sa879, sht-sutta47, ~ gf10
an4.156 → ~ ea50.9
an4.162 → arv11, ~ ea31.3
an4.180 → ea28.5, ~ da2:t0017b29–t0018a23, ~ dn16:4.1.1–4.11.1, ~ kd6:40.1.1–40.3.7, sf245:wal24.1–24.52
an4.185 → ~ ea26.8, ~ sa-2.206, ~ sa972, ~ sf132, ~ sf84, ~ sf93
an4.31 → ea-2.7
an4.32 → ea-2.6, sa669
an4.34 → ea21.1, an5.32:3.1–11.1, iti90, ~ sa902–904, ~ sn45.139:1.1
an4.36 → sa-2.267, sa101, ~ ea38.3, ~ gf10
an4.37 → ea-2.12
an4.45 → an4.46, sa-2.306, sa1307, sn2.26, ~ ea43.1
an4.49 → ea-2.5
an4.50 → ea28.2
an4.7 → ea27.7, sa873
an4.70 → ~ ea17.11
an4.77 → ~ ea29.6, ~ sa406–407
an4.88 → ea28.7
an4.9 → sf199:tri14.91, ~ ea29.8, ~ sf2, ~ sf8
an4.95 → ~ ea-2.9
an4.97 → sht-sutta78, t1536.9:t0404c13, ~ ea-2.8
an5.110 → ea-2.21
an5.123 → ea32.8
an5.124 → ea32.9
an5.148 → ea-2.16
an5.153 → ea-2.17
an5.2 → ea32.1
an5.202 → ea36.1
an5.205 → dn33:2.1.76, an9.71, mn16:3.1–7.1, dn34:1.6.23, da10:t0053c07–t0053c13, an10.14:2.1–3.1, t1536.12:t0416b29, vb17:240.1, ea51.4:t0817a17–t0817b04, ma206:t0780b19–t0780b26
an5.206 → dn33:2.1.84, an9.72, mn16:8.1–12.1, an10.14:4.1–5.1, t1536.12:t0418a13, an9.82, an9.92, vb17:241.1, ea51.4:t0817b05–t0817b13, ma206:t0780b27–t0780c25
an5.208 → ea36.3, kd15:31.1.4–31.1.7
an5.215 → ea-2.24
an5.216 → ea-2.25
an5.221 → ea33.7
an5.223 → ea33.8–9
an5.241–244 → ~ ea-2.22
an5.250 → ea-2.23
an5.29 → ea-2.20, sht-sutta46
an5.31 → ~ ea17.8, ~ ma148, ~ sa94, ~ sa-2.260
an5.34 → ea52.6, ~ an7.57, ~ ea32.10, ~ sf130
an5.36 → ea-2.15, ea32.12
an5.37 → ea32.11, t132a, t132b
an5.40 → ea50.7, ~ an3.48
an5.42 → ea-2.13, ~ an8.38
an5.48 → ~ ea34.6
an5.50 → ea32.7
an5.61 → ~ an10.56, ~ an7.48, ~ an9.16, ~ ea46.9
an5.75 → ea33.3
an5.76 → ~ ea33.4
an6.19 → ea40.8, ~ an8.73
an6.37 → ~ ea37.4
an6.52 → ea37.8, ma149
an6.55 → ea23.3, ma123, sa254, lzh-mi-kd6:t0145a22, lzh-dg-kd5:t0843b12–t0845a11, ~ sf274, ~ sf278, ~ kd5:1.11.1–1.27.17
an7.11–12 → ~ ea40.3
an7.15 → ea39.3, ma4, t29
an7.22 → ea40.2, ma142
an7.48 → ~ an10.56, ~ an9.16, ~ an5.61, ~ ea46.9
an7.50 → ea37.9, ~ sf40
an7.57 → ~ an5.34, ~ ea52.6
an7.63 → ea51.9, t141, t142a, t142b, t143, ~ an2.33, ~ ea20.11
an7.66 → ea40.1, ma8, t30
an7.67 → ea39.4, ma3
an7.68 → ea39.1:t0728b26–t0729b10, ma1:t0421a12–t0422a16, t27:t0810a01–t0810b29, t1536.17:t0437b18–t0437c13
an7.69 → ea39.2, ma2, t28
an7.72 → ea33.10, ma5
an8.1 → ~ an11.15, ~ ea49.10, ~ sht-sutta4, ~ t138
an8.17 → ~ ea44.5
an8.19 → ea42.4, ma35
an8.27 → sa692, sa693, ~ ea38.1
an8.29 → ea42.1, ma124
an8.30 → ea42.6, ma74, t46
an8.37 → ea42.9
an8.38 → ~ an5.42, ~ ea-2.13
an8.41 → ea43.2, ~ an9.18
an8.5 → ea43.8
an8.59–60 → ~ ea43.10
an8.69 → ea42.7, ~ dn16:3.20.1–3.21.1
an9.10 → ea44.8, ~ an10.16
an9.11 → ea37.6, ma24
an9.15 → ea-2.29
an9.16 → ~ an10.56, ~ an5.61, ~ an7.48, ~ ea46.9
an9.18 → ~ an8.41, ~ ea43.2
an9.20 → ea27.3, ma155, t72, t73, t74
an9.6 → ~ ea45.3, ~ ma107, ~ mn114
an10.108 → ea-2.45, ea21.7, ~ an3.68
an10.16 → ~ an9.10, ~ ea44.8
an10.20 → ea46.2, ~ sa71, ~ sn22.105
an10.21 → ea46.4, sa684, sa701, t780a, t780b, t781, t802, ~ mn12, ~ sht-sutta36, ~ t757:t0591c16–t0597c25, ~ sf141, ~ sf243, ~ sf261, ~ sf95, ~ an6.64, ~ sa686–687, ~ arv22
an10.217–219 → ma15, ~ ea48.1
an10.221 → ea47.1, ~ sa1056
~ an10.28, kp4, ~ an10.27, ~ ea46.8, ~ sa486–489
an10.31 → ea46.1
an10.56 → ea46.9, ~ an5.61, ~ an7.48, ~ an9.16
an10.57 → ea46.10
an10.69 → ea47.4, ~ an10.70
an10.70 → ~ ea47.4, ~ an10.69
an11.15 → ea49.10, sht-sutta4, t138, ~ an8.1
an11.17 → ~ mn33, ~ ea49.1, ~ sa1249, ~ t123, ~ t1509.2, ~ d211
an3.47 → ~ ea22.5
an6.11 → dn33:2.2.37–2.2.48, an6.12, ea37.1, t1536.15:t0431b26–t0432b16
an6.2 → ea37.5, dn34:1.7.83–1.7.1
an7.44 → ea39.5, dn33:2.3.28–2.3.41, dn34:1.8.1–1.8.24
an8.56 → ea-2.28, ~ an6.23
an8.70 → ma36, ea42.5, dn16:3.1.1–4.23.1, ~ sn51.10, ~ ud6.1
an9.24 → ea44.1, dn33:3.2.24–3.2.41
1 Like
It would make this thread far more readable if you could put those long lists in “Hide detail” tags. I weep for the poor mobile users who have to scroll through all that if they aren’t interested. 
[details="Summary"]
This text will be hidden
[/details]
It can be a little finiky in the rendered view while you are editing your post but it works just fine when published.
3 Likes
@josephzizys Compacted and converted references to proper notations using this guide Automatic linking of citations to SC IDs for you 
4 Likes
Could you explicitly link or paste this text P (Patipada)?
I’d like to read it but I have no idea how to reconstruct? it.
1 Like
its at DN2:40.1 to DN2:98.8
1 Like
‘The numbers’ also are unable to indicate clearly what are early or later teachings of Early Buddhism (based on the four principal Nikayas/Agamas).
A general update on my progress with this Quantitative stuff:
If we insist on taking it that diputes between the placement of suttas in the canon reflect a divergence of the tradition, then we can formulate a colleciton of those suttas that are in both DN and DA, MN and MA, SN and SA and AN and EA.
This is most far-reaching for AN/EA, but this should only strengthen our conviction that the sectraian canons grew and diverged over time.
Scraping the parallels.json file we arive at this collection by removing the Sagathavagga from the four principle prose collectinos.
I then seperate silakhandavagga from D, designating it K, move DN33 and DN34 to E, our combined Anguttra/Ekkotra, and split the remainder of the Samyutta/samyukta into the Nidanavagga, N, the Khandhavagga, A, the Salytanavagga, S, and the Mahavagga, W (for the Wings).
So
K Silakhandhavagga
D Later Long Discources
M Middle
N Nidanavagga
A Khandavagga
S Salyatanavagga
W Mahavagga
E Anguttara
We then have 2 types of sutta, 3 collecitons of long Narrative pieces and 5 collections of short Numerical pieces, 838 parallel prose texts:
Narrative suttas: in 120 parallel texts.
K 470KB 10 texts
D 850KB 15 texts
M 2100KB 95 texts
Numerical suttas: in *KB 718 parallel texts. *KB to follow when I finish procesing my files.
N 169 texts
A 116 texts
S 117 texts
W 191 texts
E 174 texts
These are all texts where we can check a parallel in another schools equivilent canon to determine if the passage in the Pali is present in multiple traditions of the canon.
This is a huge advantage for research.
For a quick example:
We search for bhavapaccayā in our restricted canon.
It first occurs at DN1.
We check DA21.
There is no equivilent to the line containing bhavapaccayā.
We can then say at least
bhavapaccayā:
K 0
it next occurs at DN14/DN15 and it IS in DA1/DA13.
So we can say at least
bhavapaccayā:
K 0
D 2
We can continue to find all mentions of bhavapaccayā and build a picture of what was “agreed” between the Chinese and Pali tradtions.
bhavapaccayā:
K 0
D 2
M
N
A
S
W
E
Taking Digital Pali Reader results as an analogue (so not applying my “Chinese” filter except for K and D)
bhavapaccayā:
K 0
D 2
M 3* all parallel suttas, havent yet checked the term in the chinese.
N 14* havent checked if they are parallel, just the DPR output, I expect the term here anyway, obviously 
A 2* unchecked.
S 2*
W 0
E 2*
So outside the division of the samyutta devoted to DO, and the same in D, M, there is very little evidence for bhavapaccayā in our restricted sense.
This makes it feasable, to start with, to actually verify the parallels with respect to the presense of the term. This may or may not effect terms in any particular case, but it will often narrow our search as in the DN1DA21 case here.
trying a different search term; paṭiccasamuppād
paṭiccasamuppād:
K 0
D 2
M 4*
N 10*
A 1*
S 0
W 1*
E 0
so DO, and a crucial link in it, are confined to realtively few sources where we can easily check a direct parallel.
Here is another example, showing a feature of DO we all already know about, that there is a 10DO in D and a 12DO elswhere.
avijjāpaccayā:
K 0
D 0
M 2*
N 28*
A 1*
S 0
W 1*
E 0
Again, outside N, the evidence for a 12DO is now reduced by D entirely, S entirely, E entirely, the channasutta in A, and SN55.28 in W.
Applying our techniqe to the other collections, MN38MA202 does not support avijjāpaccayā.
MN115/MA181 does support avijjāpaccayā
we therefore get
avijjāpaccayā:
K 0
D 0
M 1 MN115
N 28*
A 1 SN22.90
S 0
W 1 SN55.28
E 0
so if we want to see all the contexts in the Pali prose where there is a directly equivilent document in the Chinese about the concept of avijjāpaccayā we simply consult the shared Nidanavagga, MN115, SN22.90 and SN55.28.
and while it’s not clear cut in many cases, here we can say that the term occurs later in MN, in terms of pages into the volume you have to read before you come to it.
another example;
Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ:
K 0
D 0
M 0
N 0
A 8*
S 4*
W 0
E 0
Again, this claim seems thin on the ground in the corpus, requiring me to check only 12 cases all in Samyutta/Samyukta to determine the extent of Pali/Chinese agreement.
1 Like
On the philosophical side again.
I was watching a show last night and thought about this post again in a romantic scene, and wondered how many relationships (romantic or otherwise) have been ruined because of assumption of a permanent self.
“You think I would do something like that?”
“I can’t believe you did X!”
“Will you love me forever no matter what?”
“I worked so hard for X, I deserve now to get Y!”
Situations like this, I suppose are subtle points of assumption about a permanent self. And no one knows how transient our beings are more than two lovers who’ve grown estranged.
People don’t want us to change. We might not want to change. We might wish people behaved the same way all the time.
Whether this is more Anicca or Anatta, it’s hard to tell. Especially in a social setting, I suppose it’s hard to tell the difference. But even when we’re intellectually able to accept that things change, we hardly ever want to think of us or people around us in those terms. “Things change, but certainly not people!”
Just some musings… 
1 Like
I’ll be taking a look at this. I’m toying with a way to visualize your data.
I agree. That would ostensibly be the only way to get population sampling in the true sense. And I’m not so interested in that level of speculation. I’m more interested in seeing patterns of teachings tailored to specific audiences.
(I’m decidedly NOT a statistician; the only college course that made me weep literally was statistics. Which is odd because I enjoy parsing data and statistics.)
Oh that paper looks delightful!!
Still, imagine the personality of a scribe. I mean, what do scribes do? Presumably they are paying more attention to the technical content relative to the people who were underwriting their scribing. I don’t think in any way, shape, or form this waters down the Buddha’s teachings.
We have the whole corpus (more or less) and can make reasoned conclusions about how he tailored his teaching IMO. Versus everybody else through the centuries.
So we may have a better shot at understanding the context. Of course, context plays no part in the Buddha’s liberation program. But it can help in other ways that influence how Buddhism is introduced to lay people.
2 Likes
I’m not saying they were paying attention to word frequency. I’m saying that they emphasized doctrines according to the type of audience. I assume the Buddha did as well.
Of course, an audience might correlate to a geographic region and time-period, which would also have its impact. That’s what Alexander Wynne seems to be saying in the paper noted in a recent thread. In the abstract, Wynne writes:
…in the late canonical period, an apophatic tradition was transmitted in the western lineage of Kaccāna, before reaching Gandhāra where it was reformulated as the Prajñāpāramitā.
Mid-way through the paper, he establishes:
…the Aṭṭhaka’s focus on cognition and experience is often expressed in descriptions of mindful states, both in terms of how an unenlightened person should experience the world and how a liberated person actually does…
He reasons:
Only four suttas of the Aṭṭhaka make no mention of mindfulness: the Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka (III), Pasūra (VIII) and Cūḷaviyūha Suttas (XII), which focus on the
spiritual ethics of debating and holding views, as well as the Tissametteyya Sutta (VII), which is concerned with the secluded, renunciant way of life. As can be seen in Table 1, terms and ideas in the other twelve suttas of the Aṭṭhaka presume the practice of mindfulness.
Immediately following is a table that notes all occurrences of “mindfulness” in the Aṭṭhakavagga. With that (and some other observations), he concludes:
…And, with this, the case for Proto-Madhyamaka in the wider Pāli canon is
concluded: there can be no doubt that the teachings of the Aṭṭhakavagga —
on ‘no view’, non-conceptuality, ineffability, present-moment mindfulness
and antirealism — are found more widely among early Buddhist teachings.
To me, that is noting frequency of terms to build a theory. Even noting no occurrences is counting. If someone opens the door to counting no occurrences, that’s still counting.
With the data, Wynne goes on:
…Elsewhere in the Pāli suttas, Kaccāna is closely associated with the
Aṭṭhakavagga
From there he establishes “the emphatic textual distance between Kaccāna and the Buddha” suggesting that:
…he was not an integral part of earliest Buddhism… If so, we could perhaps read the Kaccāna texts symbolically, as a code for how buddhavacana was transmitted and elaborated within Kaccāna’s lineage.
This possibility is suggested by the geographical location of Kaccāna in the Pāli suttas…
Whatever the case, both Madhurā and Avanti lie well beyond the core region of early Buddhism (Kosala/Magadha), in a W/NW region which is marginal in the canonical discourses, but plays an important role in the Pāli account of the Second Council.
If we make a loose connection between the Second Council and Avanti/Madhurā, we can assign the Kaccāna texts to roughly this period, or soon afterwards, that is, towards the end of the 4th century BC, when Buddhism was expanding West.
Well, this is all about what Wynne re-names Proto-Prajñāpāramitā and where it shows up in the pāli canon.
Still, his approach in the paper suggests to me that some people consider data-driven approaches as valid ways to establish how/why/when certain doctrines show up in certain parts of the pāli canon.
In fact, in the beginning of the paper he writes:
But constructing a theory is preferable to ignoring the evidence. … As Salomon and Marino have warned (2014: 37), we should be careful not to fall into the trap of ‘letting skepticism take over one’s thinking, leading to the mindset of “In the end, we know nothing”’. It is preferable to formulate a positive hypothesis, to get as much out of the evidence we have, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and exclaiming ‘who knows?’.
Obviously he brings other extensive knowledge to bear, as well; I’m not trying to summarize his paper, which I don’t have the background to do.
Bhante, yes. I’ve studied John Dominic Crossan extensively over the years. That’s precisely what he does. (And his peers.)
Noam Chomsky:
Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that’s where the light is. It has no other choice.
2 Likes
Who is considered something of a crackpot by other biblical scholars, no?
There’s a tradition of Buddhist hermeneutics which does not rely on statistics.
This isnt a “basic fact” its just trivially false and egregiously so, in the case of Pali, where there is ENORMOUS amounts of evidence that the redactors DID add repititions of teaching tropes that they thought where important where the redactors of several of the traditions that the Chinese relies on did not, or at least did not at the time of translation.
1 Like
I had an informal conversation over breakfast this summer with Amy Jill-Levine where she spoke to him as a peer. She didn’t raise the topic of him being a crackpot. I suppose I’ll have to look into that.
1 Like
Hi Beth,
I believe you have read this, but will still post the counterargumentation of Ven. Anālayo from the latest book, for the sake of those who haven’t (yet?):
Just to provide one example, the explicit and comprehensive
applicability of the teaching of the absence of a self can be seen
in the following statement, preserved in a range of sources from
different reciter lineages: “All phenomena are without a self.”
115
The formulation adopted here makes it quite clear that the teaching on not self is meant to apply to all and everything, without
any exception.In an article dedicated to questioning whether the early Budhist tradition indeed differed from the brahminical traditions
in teaching that there is no eternal self, Walser (2018: 109) presents the results of a digital search of Pāli discourses that feature
the doctrine of anattā as follows:
at 7.4% we can hardly say that the teaching of anatta [sic] is
more prominent than other doctrines conducive to liberation
(such as concentration). If 7.4% discuss anatta, then 92.6%
of discourses in the sample never mention it at all. What this
means is that potentially someone could listen to a great
many Buddhist suttas and never hear a discussion about anatta. Furthermore, the doctrine of anatta could theoretically
be a representative Buddhist doctrine even at 7.4% if a community of Buddhists had access to the whole Tipiṭaka. But
this was assuredly not the case during the generations in
which the canonical texts themselves were being composed.
The precise criterion determining the result of 7.4% of this digital search is not clearly spelled out and thus requires some probing. A starting point would be the reference provided by Walser
(2018: 111 note 23) to what he considers to be seven discourses
addressed to “named non-brahmin lay interlocutors” that contain teachings related to anattā.
116 Judging from these cases, the
search criterion appears to be an explicit reference to the self,
attā, and its denial.
Yet, this much does not suffice to capture all teachings related to the absence of a self. This doctrine stands in the background to teachings on impermanence and conditionality, just
――――――
116 One of the seven is SN 53.3, which must be an error, as this is the
third discourse in the Jhāna-saṃyutta and just an instance of an abbreviated repetition series not related to anattā; see SN V 308,15.as to many a teaching on the five aggregates and the six sensespheres. The same holds for the Buddha’s reported refusal to
take any of the four positions envisaged by his contemporaries
for predicating the after-death state of a fully realized one, referred to as a Tathāgata in such contexts. This refusal appears
to be an expression of the insight that a Tathāgata is not some
sort of substantial entity. As a result, all four possibilities have
to be rejected, because they all involve an unwarranted reification;
117 they all stand in conflict with the doctrine of anattā.
In other words, even if “potentially someone could listen to
a great many Buddhist suttas and never hear a discussion” that
involves an explicit use of the term anattā, such a hypothetical
listener would still stand a good chance of coming across a
teaching that reflects this doctrine.
In fact, a Pāli discourse and its parallels report that, on being
asked by a non-Buddhist debater, a monastic disciple gave a
succinct presentation of the Buddha’s teaching that includes the
qualification of the five aggregates being without self.118 That is,
from the viewpoint of the reciters this teaching was seen as
fairly commonplace.119
――――――
117 See, e.g., Anālayo 2018c: 41–44. It follows that, for example, the
teaching Pasenadi receives on this topic at SN 44.1 at SN IV 375,9
would also need to be counted as an instance of instructions related
to anattā that are being addressed to “named non-brahmin lay interlocutors,” even though the term itself does not occur in it.
118 MN 35 at MN I 228,12, with parallels in SĀ 100 at T II 35b4 and
EĀ 37.10 at T II 715b4.
119 This in a way illustrates a basic problem identified by Nance 2010/
2011: 97 (in a different context not related to the present topic):
“For all of the benefits provided by e-texts—and they are considerable—they cannot substitute for the hard work of reading through,
and thinking with, these texts.Besides, another Pāli discourse and its parallels convey the
impression that a form of peer review was in use among disciples, in the sense that, if anyone should be holding some type of
self-view, other disciples would step in to clarify that such a
view is not in accordance with what the Buddha taught.120 In
sum, the situation that emerges from these texts would be one
where, even without “access to the whole Tipiṭaka,” the doctrine
on the absence of a self can reasonably be expected to have been
well known among the Buddha’s disciples.
For the sake of illustration of the overall situation, I briefly
turn to teachings on karma. These are clearly based on giving
priority to intention; in fact, such priority plays out in monastic
law when the motivation behind a particular action serves as the
decisive criterion for deciding whether a breach of a rule has
occurred.121 Yet, the actual principle of identifying mental volition or intention as karma is only expressed once among Pāli
discourses.122 This example goes to show that frequency of explicit mention is not necessarily a safe guide to assessing overall
importance.
Now, the majority of relevant teachings have a more practical orientation and for this reason employ formulations conveying what should be done rather than asserting what exists and
does not exist. But this practical orientation is grounded in the
assessment that the belief in a self is mistaken, hence the need
to view the five aggregates, etc., as devoid of a self so as to train
the mind to let go of a deeply ingrained pattern. Such practical
injunctions do not reflect some sort of sophistry behind whichstands a tacit acknowledgement that a self exists apart from the
five aggregates, along the lines of one of the options envisaged
by Evan Thompson.
In fact, unlike the case of identifying mental volition or intention as karma, the dictum that “all phenomena are without a
self” is not the only one of this type among the early discourses.
Another relevant example can be identified in a Pāli discourse
and its Chinese and Tibetan parallels.
123 The teaching found similarly in the three versions indicates that each of the six senses,
as well as their respective objects, fails to qualify for being a
self. The argument goes that each of these is impermanent,
wherefore none of these can be reckoned a self.
Besides confirming the above-quoted clarification offered
by Richard Gombrich that a central issue at stake is permanency,
this type of presentation is clearly meant to be comprehensive,
given that elsewhere the discourses indicate that the senses and
their objects together make up “all.”124 As if to make absolutely
sure that such comprehensiveness cannot be missed in this case,
the present Pāli discourse and its Chinese and Tibetan parallels
proceed even further, by way of applying the same treatment
also to consciousness, contact, and the feeling tones that arise in
dependence on contact
No I haven’t…but now I must! I’m keenly interested in counter-arguments. I briefly read your excerpts and will spend more time with it, via the paper.
It bears noting that Walser puts a link to his database in a footnote but now the link is dead. So I imagine the DB is available for public consumption and I’m going to ask him whether he might send me a link. Even Walser says in the paper “the devil is in the details” … for me that’s the DB. It appears Ven. Anālayo wants to go down that path, too. Or at least he would like to see better evidence related to the data methodology.
Edit: Apparently I’ve read it because I summarized the first two parts of the book on another thread 
Interesting because at the time I hadn’t read Walser’s analysis in detail. So I likely skimmed through that part to do the summary.
Which inspires me to summarize the third part of the book, which I’ve been putting off.
1 Like
Yes, as far as I understand, Ven. Anālayo simply says, that the basic premise of Walser is wrong/flawed. It is not about statistics.
1 Like