Your questions are about some textual formation issues on the four Agamas/Nikayas in connection with angas (textual classifications).
The textual arguments are whether the nine (or twelve) angas came to exist before the four Agamas/Nikayas or vice versa; the four Agamas/Nikayas were established at once or in different sequence and times.
These textual formation issues are at first noticed due to discovering the Dīpavaṃsa’s legend that based on the nine angas, the four Agamas/Nikayas were then established at once in the first council: The sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix, 契經, 摩呾理迦 or 本母) - Discussion - Discuss & Discover
That is, the nine angas came to exist before the formation of the four Agamas/Nikayas.
I just checked the pp. 6-11 (in Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Saṃyukta-āgama 1983), only the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya contains a similar list regarding the content of the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 1451 at T XXIV 407b20–27).
As stated above, the sutra anga’s content in the text includes:
‘Discourses Connected with the Śrāvakayāna, the Pratyekabuddha- yāna, and the Tathāgatayāna’ (聲聞乘相應語, 獨覺乘相應語, 如來乘相應語) (i.e., the ‘Sections Spoken by Śrāvakas and the Tathāgata’). The sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix, 契經, 摩呾理迦 or 本母) - Discussion - Discuss & Discover
but, the core teachings (in terms of Sutra-matrka) contain only the seven topics within the sutra anga’s content (which includes the ‘Sections Spoken by Śrāvakas and the Tathāgata’).
The seven topics of the ‘Connected Discourses’ (相應教, saṃyukta-kathā) are identified by Ven. YinShun as the sūtra-aṅga portion of SA/SN.
According to the Vastusaṅgrahaṇī (Sheshifen 攝事分) of the Yogācārabhūmi (T 1579 at T XXX 772c16–18), the three categories are (I) ‘Who Speaks’ (能說), (II) ‘What is Spoken’ (所說), and (III) ‘To Whom it is Spoken’ (所為說):
I. ‘Who Speaks’: ‘Sections (分, nipāta) Spoken by Śrāvakas
(弟子所說) and Spoken by the Buddha/Tathāgata (佛/如來所說)’.
II. ‘What is Spoken’: ‘Sections Connected with (相應分) the Five Aggregates of Attachment (五取蘊, pañca-upādāna-skandha), the Six Sense spheres ( 六 處 , ṣaḍāyatana), Causal Condition (因緣, nidāna)’, and the ‘Section Connected with the Elements of the Path (道品分, mārga)’.
III. ‘To Whom it is Spoken’: To the Assemblies of Monks, Devas, Māras, etc., as in the ‘Chanted Section’ (結集品, saṅgīta).
The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, as mentioned above, contains a similar list regarding the content of the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 1451 at T XXIV 407b20–27), which includes the two types of Vyakarana/Veyyakarana, Spoken by the Tathāgata and Spoken by Śrāvakas sections.
However, regarding these two sections, the extant Taishō edition of SA is marked off by the editors only with the heading Dizisuoshuosong 弟子所說誦(‘Section Spoken by Śrāvakas’) (T 99 at T II 126a3). The Spoken by the Tathāgata section is not so marked, but its distribution is inferred from the information given in Yogacarabhumi-sastra, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.
This may suggest that the Asanga’s SA and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya’s SA are later than the extant SA version (T99).
Nevertheless, the original structure of SA/SN should be just five major sections/vaggas (i.e. aggregates, sense spheres, causal condition, path, and verse sections), and the two types of Vyakarana/Veyyakarana (Spoken by the Tathāgata and Spoken by Śrāvakas sections) are scattered in the aggregates, sense spheres, causal condition and path sections (pp. 44-5 in 雜阿含經論會編 [Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Saṃyukta-āgama]).
Okay, let me address some of the things you’ve pointed out - some of which is helpful, thanks.
This is not the issue, and it isn’t a question that can be answered, IMO. We don’t have sources that can help us understand which came first. They are too late in history to know and tell us different stories about how their canons were compiled.
The problem to me is identifying the sutra anga with the specific doctrinal chapters of SA. Asanga is the only commentator who makes this connection between Dharma teachings and the sutra anga. Other commentators say a sutra is a sutra if it begins with the right intro and outro. The other divisions are defined similar to the way Asanga does, saying they are sutras with a distinctive style or purpose.
Thanks for this reference. It makes no mention of the angas, though. The Mulasarvastivadins were a school that considered the Samyukta Agama as the first to be recited. So, the story about the recitation by the arhats at the First Council goes through its divisions in order. It certainly supports the identification of SA with the Mulasarvastivadins.
Different schools told different stories of this kind. Theravadins considered the Digha Nikaya to be the first recited. So, they depict Ananda reciting the first suttas of DN in their canon. Other schools thought the Ekottarika Agama was the first Agama to be compiled. The introduction to the Chinese translation of EA claims that all the sutras were drawn from it originally. This is the problem that we have - different stories about the same event in history. We can decide that we like one story better than another, but they are all equal witnesses.
Yes, so it includes other texts besides SA, I would imagine. The Tathagata vehicle division would equate to the bodhisattva vehicle, which would refer to Mahayana sutras like the Prajnaparamita. There’s no need to try to place these in SA. One interesting thing to note, though, is that T99 apparently lost two fascicles of material. That’s a lot of text, probably more than the two samyuktas that Yinshun considered lost (the samyuktas on right effort and the psychic abilities). It’s not impossible that these topics Asanga mentions might have been samyuktas in those lost fascicles.
I asked previously “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 ?”
If this could be the case, then Asanga, a Mahayana follower, might just present his viewpoints on the core Dharma teachings (in the sutra-anga topics/contents) according to the foundation (i.e. Samyukta-katha) of the four Agamas/Nikayas that had been well known to the Buddhist communities at that time.
Yes. I think when I look at the various versions of this in different sources that exist - Theravada, the Ekottarika Agama, Asanga, Buddhaghosa, etc - it becomes clear that Buddhists were still divided into regions that maintained different memories of the past even in 400 CE. Asanga apparently followed the history that the Mulasarvastivadins believed, and so the Samyukta Agama was the foundational collection. The Ekottarika Agama looks very old to me, too, and so I personally can’t discount what it’s introduction claims. They are both persuasive to me, and perhaps they are both right in some way. It’s just difficult to know without a time machine to go back and witness what happened in that first century or two of Buddhism.
Neverthelss, Sāratthappakāsinī, ‘Revealer of the Essential Meaning’, is the title of Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Saṃyutta-nikāya.
This might suggest that the Theravada tradition at that time also recognised the practical, essential, and foundational values of the Saṃyutta-nikāya suttas for Buddhist monks.
For example, the structure of the Sutra-anga topics of SA/SN bears certain resemblances to the structure of three Abhidharma books:
the Pali Vibhanga, the Abhidharma-dharmaskandha-pada-sastra of the Sarvastivada, and the Sariputra-abhidharma of the Dharmaguptaka school.
These three Abhidharma works are thought to be descended from a common source text, dating from before the third council.
However, EA/AN is relatively a new collection in the formation of EBTs according to contemporary Buddhist scholars. See p. 676 in Mayeda Egaku’s A History of the Formation of Original Buddhist Texts (English title) ( 前田惠學：《原始佛教聖典之成立史研究》), 1964.
It may be good to do a comparative study between the “Sutra-matrka” (Asanga’s Mahayana viewpoints) and the above-mentioned three Abhidharma works (as Hinayana/early Buddhist sectarian viewpoints) on the Sutra-anga topics of SA/SN.
