The Structure and Formation of the Anguttara Nikaya and the Ekottarika Agama

Is there anyone here who have read this journal article? Is there any interesting findings about AN dan EA?

The Structure and Formation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya and the Ekottarika Āgama

Tse-fu Kuan, Roderick S. Bucknell

Issued Date: 19 Mar 2020


In both the Aṅguttara Nikāya in Pali and the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese translation, the suttas are grouped into eleven nipātas (“books”), from the Ekaka-nipāta/Eka-nipāta (Book of Ones) to the Ekādasaka-nipāta (Book of Elevens) – though in the Ekottarika Āgama the nipātas are not labelled as such. This grouping into nipātas is based on the number of doctrinal items dealt with in the component suttas. In the Ones and Twos, it is often the case that a single original sutta has been subdivided so that its component sections become a series of similarly structured derivative suttas superficially appropriate for inclusion in the Ones or Twos. Moreover, material for this process of subdividing has sometimes been provided by multiplying doctrinal sets with formulaic statements. In most of the remaining nipātas the phenomena noted in the Ones and Twos are also present, but on a much smaller scale. In view of their Chinese counterparts in the Saṃyukta Ᾱgama, some groups of suttas in the Aṅguttara Nikāya with saṃyutta-like nature were probably moved from the Saṃyutta Nikāya to the Aṅguttara Nikāya within the Pali tradition. Evidence of a comparable movement into the Ekottarika Āgama is also available. The artificial suttas created by subdivision and the original suttas shared by the Ekottarika Āgama and the Aṅguttara Nikāya largely retained their original places at the beginning of each nipāta, while the genuine suttas, probably earlier located in the Saṃyukta Ᾱgama and Madhyama Āgama, were added progressively at the end of the growing nipāta.

Thank you :anjal:


Thanks for pointing this out! I’ve read it now. Pretty interesting survey of AN and EA. The main focus is on the way both collections seemed to have created the Book of Ones by simply breaking up larger sutras into single passages, and the Book of Twos has much of the same pattern. They talk also about a couple cases of whole Samyuttas being apparently imported into AN by noting the common theme and that parallel samyuktas exist in SA. They also show that EA has a pattern of having sutras at the beginning of its divisions that seem to be an early set of core texts that are shared with AN, while the texts that follow have fewer parallels, suggesting that each division was added to over time.