The sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix, 契經, 摩呾理迦 or 本母), essentially a commentary on a portion of the Saṃyukta-āgama, in the Vastusaṅgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi (T 1579 at T XXX 772c9–868b22), follows the sequence of the Saṃyukta-āgama, as was first noted by Lü Cheng 呂瀓(1896–1989).
About the sūtra-mātṛkā, see pp. 898-899, note 21 in Choong Mun-keat, “Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts”, in Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts, Research Series 8; edited by Dhammadinnā), Taiwan: Dharma Drum Corporation, August 2020, pp. 883-932.
My question is: This sūtra-mātṛkā in Chinese has a Tibetan version. Was this Tibetan text originally translated from Chinese (which was from Sanskrit), or the Chinese text translated from Tibetan to Chinese?
They were both translated from Sanskrit. Xuanzang’s translation was done in the 7th c. CE, and Ye shes sde and Cog ro Klu’i rgyal mtshan’s translation was done in the 9th c. CE.
4 Likes
Thank you for the information.
1 Like
I have another question:
Why did the author (a Mahayana follower) not state clearly that the sūtra-mātṛkā was essentially a commentary on a portion of the Saṃyukta-āgama followed the sequence of the Saṃyukta-āgama?
That was first noted by Lü Cheng, a Chinese scholar.
Ven. Yin Shun, a Chinese scholar monk, presented further extensive research on that topic.
Good news is: The findings on that subject matter have now been made known to the Buddhist studies circle (in EBTs) in the world.
In I923 (see Yin Shun, Za ahan jing-lun huibian 雜阿含經論會編[Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Saṃyukta-āgama ] (1983), vol. 1, p. 2).
1 Like
Choong Mun-keat in note 21 (in the above-mentioned article) indicates he uses the corresponding Tibetan term, ldan pa’i gtam , to identify its Sanskrit term, saṃyukta-kathā , for the corresponding Chinese term 相應教 “Connected Discourses”. This is very helpful:
“即彼一切事相應教間廁鳩集。是故說名雜阿笈摩 =
gzhi thams cad dang ldan pa’i gtam de yang dag par ldan pa las ’byung bas na de’i phyir yang dag par ldan pa zhes bya’o.
即 彼相應教。復以餘相處中而說。是故說名中阿笈摩 =
de dang ldan pa’i gtam nyid rnam pa gzhan du bar gyi mdo sde rnams kyis bstan pas na de’i phyir bar ma zhes bya’o.
即彼相應教。更以餘相廣長而說。是故說名長阿笈摩 =
de nyid rnam pa gzhan du rgyud ring po’i mdo sde rnams kyis bstan pas na de’i phyir ring po zhes bya’o.
即彼相應教。更以一二三等漸增分數道理而說。是故說名增一阿笈摩 =
gcig dang gnyis dang gsum la sogs pa nas gcig nas gcig tu sde tshan gyi tshul gyis ’byung bas
na gcig las ’phros pa zhes bya’o”
His English translation in the note 21 is:
“Because the connected discourses/teachings (相應教, saṃyukta-kathā) are grouped together according to all the topics/subject matters (事, vastu) into connected units (saṃyuktas), it is called Saṃyukta-āgama.
Because the connected discourses are expounded in another manner by means of medium-sized discourses, it is called the Madhyama-āgama.
Because the connected discourses are expounded in another manner by means of lengthy discourses, it is called the Dīrgha-āgama.
Because the connected discourses are arranged sequentially in sections going from one [topic/subject matter], to two, three and so forth, it is called the Ekottarika-āgama.”
That’s a good question. One thing I have noticed is that when people assume everyone knows something, they often don’t say it explicitly. It’s too obvious to spend time discussing. It may have been obvious to everyone when Asanga wrote the Yogacarabhumi that he was commenting on the Samyukta Agama. Today, it’s not obvious, so we scratch our heads about it. We’ve forgotten and lost texts that were readily available in 400 CE.
