Thoughts on the Dirgha Agama's History

Essays
1

Lately, I’ve been attempting to write an introduction to the Dīrgha Āgama. Part of that introduction is a discussion of the history of the collection, such as speculating about what an ur-Dīrgha Āgama may have looked like. It’s a subject that scholars understandably avoid because the picture is complicated and there’s little objective history to confirm or refute different scenarios that we might consider. The result is that, beyond the story of the First Council, the different accounts of how the Saṅgha fractured into multiple traditions, and comparing the contents of the three extant Dīrgha collections, we don’t have much to base our theories on.

Still, I think it’s worthwhile to try to formulate something, and perhaps others can add their two cents. I’m sure there’s scholarship I’m unaware of simply because I don’t have access to a university library.

The Three Extant Collections

Let’s begin by looking at the contents of the three Dīrgha collections, using the smallest of them as the frame of reference and placing the parallels in the other two beside it:

Dharmaguptaka Theravāda Sarvāstivāda
1. Mahāvadāna 14. Mahāpadāna 5. Mahāvadāna
2. Mahāparinirvāṇa 16. Mahāparinibbāna 6. Mahāparinirvāṇa
17. Mahāsudassana (MĀ 68)
3. Govinda 19. Mahāgovinda 14. Govinda
4. Janavṛṣabha 18. Janavasabha 13. Jinayabha
5. Kṣudranidāna 27. Aggañña (MĀ 154)
6. Cakravartīrāja 26. Cakkavatti (MĀ 70)
7. Padāśva 23. Pāyāsi (MĀ 71)
8. Sandhāna 25. Udumbarika (MĀ 104)
9. Saṅgīti 33. Saṅgīti 3. Saṅgīti
10. Daśottara 34. Dasuttara 1. Daśottara
11. Ekottara
12. Triskandha
13. Mahānidāna 15. Mahānidāna (MĀ 97)
14. Śakrapraśna 21. Sakkapañha (MĀ 134)
15. Anomiya 24. Pāṭika 9. Bhārgava
16. Sujāta 31. Siṅgālovāda (MĀ 135)
17. Prasādayati 29. Pāsādika 15. Prāsādika
18. Personal Gladness 28. Sampasādanīya 16. Prasādanīya
19. Mahāsamaya 20. Mahāsamaya 24. Mahāsamāja
20. Ambāṣṭha 3. Ambaṭṭha 35. Ambāṣṭha
21. Brahmacala 1. Brahmajāla 47. Brahmajāla
22. Śroṇatāṇḍya 4. Soṇadaṇḍa 33. Śroṇatāṇḍya
23. Kūṭatāṇḍya 5. Kūṭadanta 34. Kūṭatāṇḍya
24. Dhruva 11. Kevaddha 29. Kaivarti
25. The Naked Wanderer 8. Kassapasīhanāda 46. Kāśyapa
26. Trivedajnana 13. Tevijja 45. Vāsiṣṭha
27. Sramanaphala 2. Sāmaññaphala 44. Rājā
28. Poṭṭhapāda 9. Poṭṭhapāda 36. Pṛṣṭhapāla
29. Lohitya 12. Lohicca 28. Lohitya (2)
30. Lokaprajnatpi
6. Mahāli 32. Mahallin
7. Jāliya 30. Maṇḍīśa (1)
10. Subha 42. Śuka
22. Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna (MĀ 98)
30. Lakkhaṇa (MĀ 59)
32. Āṭānāṭiya 23. Āṭānāṭa
2. Arthavistara
4. Catuṣpariṣat
(MN 60 Apaṇṇaka) 7. Apannaka
8. Sarveka
(MN 105 Sunakkhatta) 10. Śalya
(MN 4 Bhayabherava) 11. Bhayabhairava
(MN 12 Mahāsīhanāda) 12. Romaharṣaṇa
(MN 102 Pañcattaya) 17. Pañcatraya
18. Māyājāla
(MN 95 Caṅkī) 19. Kāmaṭhika
(MN 36 Mahāsaccaka) 20. Kāyabhāvanā
(MN 85 Bodhirājakumāra) 21. Bodha
(MN 100 Saṅgārava) 22. Śaṃkaraka
25. Tridaṇḍin
26. Piṅgalātreya
27. Lohitya (1)
31. Maṇḍīśa (2)
37. Kāraṇavādin
(MN 51 Kandaraka) 38. Pudgala
39. Śruta
? 40. Mahalla
41. Anyatama
(MN 55 Jīvaka) 43. Jīvaka

There are a total of sixty sūtras that appear in the three extant collections. This is largely because a large number of sūtras was added to the Sarvāstivāda version, and because the Theravāda/Dharmaguptaka and Sarvāstivāda versions disagreed on whichsūtras ought to be in the Dīrgha collection and which ought to be in the Madhyama collection. I’ve noted the parallels in the Majjhima Nikāya and Madhyama Āgama to show this disparity that existed between them.

When we compare the Dharmaguptaka Dīrgha to the Theravada Dīgha, they are very similar, differing only in that each added a few sūtras that the other did not. The table below illustrates this:

Dharmaguptaka Theravāda
1. Mahāvadāna 14. Mahāpadāna
2. Mahāparinirvāṇa 16. Mahāparinibbāna
2. Mahāparinirvāṇa 17. Mahāsudassana
3. Govinda 19. Mahāgovinda
4. Janavṛṣabha 18. Janavasabha
5. Kṣudranidāna 27. Aggañña
6. Cakravartīrāja 26. Cakkavatti
7. Padāśva 23. Pāyāsi
8. Sandhāna 25. Udumbarika
9. Saṅgīti 33. Saṅgīti
10. Daśottara 34. Dasuttara
11. Ekottara
12. Triskandha
13. Mahānidāna 15. Mahānidāna
14. Śakrapraśna 21. Sakkapañha
15. Anomiya 24. Pāṭika
16. Sujāta 31. Siṅgālovāda
17. Prasādayati 29. Pāsādika
18. Personal Gladness 28. Sampasādanīya
19. Mahāsamaya 20. Mahāsamaya
20. Ambāṣṭha 3. Ambaṭṭha
21. Brahmacala 1. Brahmajāla
22. Śroṇatāṇḍya 4. Soṇadaṇḍa
23. Kūṭatāṇḍya 5. Kūṭadanta
24. Dhruva 11. Kevaddha
25. The Naked Wanderer 8. Kassapasīhanāda
26. Trivedajnana 13. Tevijja
27. Sramanaphala 2. Sāmaññaphala
28. Poṭṭhapāda 9. Poṭṭhapāda
29. Lohitya 12. Lohicca
30. Lokaprajnatpi
6. Mahāli
7. Jāliya
10. Subha
22. Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna
30. Lakkhaṇa
32. Āṭānāṭiya

DN includes six suttas not found in the Dharmaguptaka DĀ, and that DĀ includes three that are not in DN. Generally speaking, we can conclude that both versions have about the same amount of material added independently of each other, but the two collections share the vast majority of their contents. This is because one of the texts added by the Dharmaguptakas is very large. I think we can safely say that both were originally the same or nearly the same collection, which diverged over time in each tradition.

The Sarvāstivāda version is quite different, however, sharing only 20 sūtras with the Dharmaguptaka/Theravada versions. This makes the whole situation messier, but it also narrows the common ur-Dīrgha down to a smaller set of texts.

The First Chapter of the Original Collection

These are the 20 sūtras shared by all three collections (using the titles found in the Dharmaguptaka version):

Common Sutras of theDīrgha Collections
1. Mahāvadāna
2. Mahāparinirvāṇa
3. Govinda
4. Janavṛṣabha
9. Saṅgīti
10. Daśottara
15. Anomiya
17. Prasādayati
18. Personal Gladness
19. Mahāsamaya
20. Ambāṣṭha
21. Brahmacala
22. Śroṇatāṇḍya
23. Kūṭatāṇḍya
24. Dhruva
25. The Naked Wanderer
26. Trivedajnana
27. Sramanaphala
28. Poṭṭhapāda
29. Lohitya

It’s interesting that all three extant collections have 20 sūtras in common. Traditionally, Buddhist collections were grouped into chapters of 10 sūtras each. Texts were later inserted or removed from these sets of ten, but that was clearly a common practice when the first collections were assembled. If there was originally an ur-Dīrgha that predated the surviving collections, I would expect that it consisted of 10, 20, or 30 sūtras depending on how many chapters it contained.

It so happens that ten of these common sūtras occur in the same section of all three extant collections:

  • The first Chapter of the Collection on Morality (Sīlakkhandhavagga) in DN
  • The third Chapter of the Collection on Morality (Śīlaskandhanipāta) in the Sarvāstivāda DĀ
  • The third section of the Dharmaguptaka DĀ, which was untitled

Each of these chapters have the common theme of stories about encounters with non-Buddhists. Let’s look at the contents of that chapter in each collection. Again, we’ll use the smallest of the collections as the frame of reference and place parallels in the other two next to it.

Dharmaguptaka Theravada Sarvastivada
20. Ambāṣṭha 3. Ambaṭṭha 35. Ambāṣṭha
21. Brahmacala 1. Brahmajāla 47. Brahmajāla
22. Śroṇatāṇḍya 4. Soṇadaṇḍa 33. Śroṇatāṇḍya
23. Kūṭatāṇḍya 5. Kūṭadanta 34. Kūṭatāṇḍya
24. Dhruva 11. Kevaddha 29. Kaivarti
25. The Naked Wanderer 8. Kassapasīhanāda 46. Kāśyapa
26. Trivedajnana 13. Tevijja 45. Vāsiṣṭha
27. Sramanaphala 2. Sāmaññaphala 44. Rājā
28. Poṭṭhapāda 9. Poṭṭhapāda 36. Pṛṣṭhapāla
29. Lohitya 12. Lohicca 28. Lohitya (2)
6. Mahāli 32. Mahallin
7. Jāliya 30. Maṇḍīśa (1)
10. Subha 42. Śuka
25. Tridaṇḍin
26. Piṅgalātreya
27. Lohitya (1)
38. Pudgala
31. Maṇḍīśa (2)
37. Kāraṇavādin
39. Śruta
40. Mahalla
41. Anyatama
43. Jīvaka

As we can see, there was a great expansion of this chapter by the Sarvāstivādins, who more than doubled it’s size compared to the Dharmaguptakas. Only two of these additions have parallels in MN, suggesting that they may have been original compositions by the Sarvāstivādins. Not having access to the texts themselves, it’s hard to judge just how original they were. Sometimes, smaller sūtras whose parallels are found in AN or SN were expanded into larger ones and then placed in the Sarvāstivāda MĀ, so it stands to reason a similar process may have taken place when they expanded their version of DĀ.

We could very easily decide that this was a chapter of the original ur-Dīrgha: Ten sūtras depicting conversations with non-Buddhist ascetics and brahmins. Let’s call this the first chapter.

The Second Chapter of the Original Collection

But what about the other ten common sūtras? They aren’t as easily placed in a chapter with a single theme. They consist of:

  • Two Abhidharma-related sūtras (DĀ 9-10)
  • Two sūtras that describe the Buddha’s history (DĀ 1-2)
  • Three sūtras that describe gods and spirits (DĀ 3-4 and 19),
  • Three sūtras about faith and disbelief in the Buddha (DĀ 15 and 17-18).

Suffice it to say, they appear to be a miscellaneous set of texts that happens to sum up to ten. Could it be that this was a second chapter put together on various topics in the ur-Dīrgha? I think so.

The Splitting of the Original Second Chapter into Two Chapters

At some point after the initial compilation of the ur-Dīrgha, it would seem that the expansion process began. This made it necessary to add a third chapter to the collection, but it wasn’t done in a straightforward way. Instead of simply appending a third chapter, the sūtras that were originally in the second chapter were divided between two new chapters. The new second chapter collected together the most important sutras about the Buddha and Dharma, and the third chapter became the miscellaneous collection that lacked a common theme. This is more difficult to document exactly because each tradition ended up with a different set of sūtras in their second and third chapter. It would seem that this expansion occurred before the Theravāda/Dharmaguptaka schools arose but after the Sarvāstivāda split away from their parent tradition. Or, the Sarvāstivādins may have simply been the more creative tradition early on as well as in later eras.

Sectarian Reorganizations of the Three Chapters

In each sectarian version of the Dīrgha, these three chapters are arranged in a different way.

1. The Theravāda Arrangement

I believe that the Theravāda version may be the most straightforward representation of the expansion process, if we accept that the Sīlakkhandhavagga was the first chapter of the collection. That is:

  • The Sīlakkhandhavagga is the oldest group of suttas (with a few additions)
  • The Mahāvagga was the next stage of expansion that occurred when Vinaya stories were turned into independent suttas
  • The Pāthikavagga was where later additions were collected into a chapter of miscellania without an intentional theme

2. The Dharmaguptaka Arrangement

The Dharmaguptaka version has these three chapters plus a fourth one in a different order:

  • The second chapter containing the Vinaya sūtras was moved to the front of the collection, perhaps owing to the Dharmaguptaka reverence of the Buddha.
  • The third miscellania chapter was moved to second place, which may have represented the Dharma to them given that it contained the Abhidharma sūtras and sūtras on dependent origination.
  • This left the original first chapter in third place.
  • They also attached a mythological collection to serve as a fourth chapter.

This organization followed the Dharmaguptaka principle of dividing canonical collections into four parts. Their Vinaya has four parts and their Abhidharma consists of four parts. They must of divided their Āgamas into four parts, too.

3. The Sarvāstivāda Arrangement

The Sarvāstivāda version consists of three chapters, but they didn’t maintain the same organization of the two new chapters that the Theravādins and Dharmaguptakas did. This could be evidence that the creation of a third chapter happened during the sectarian period but before the Theravādins and Dharmaguptakas parted ways and became separate traditions. I think that parting of ways most likely happened when Aśokan missionaries traveled to South India and Northwest India carrying very similar or identical versions of the Dīrgha Āgama. Then, over centuries of time, those two version diverged in the ways already described, which are fairly minor in the greater scheme of things.

For the Sarvāstivādins, though, the two new chapters were organized in a different way, so this may have happened before Aśoka. Or, perhaps, Sarvāstivādins were much more open to reorganizing their collection, which isn’t an unreasonable scenario given how many more sūtras they added to it.

Their first chapter, which they unimaginatively titled the Chapter of Six Sūtras (S. Ṣaṭsūtrakanipāta), consisted on both Abhidharma sūtras and texts drawn from the Vinaya:

The Chapter of Six Sūtras Theravāda Dharmaguptaka
1. Daśottara Ch. 3, DN 34 Ch.2, DA 10
2. Arthavistara
3. Saṅgīti Ch. 3, DN 33 Ch.2, DA 9
4. Catuṣpariṣat
5. Mahāvadāna Ch.2, DN 14 Ch.1, DA 1
6. Mahāparinirvāṇa Ch.2, DN 16 Ch.1, DA 2

It’s not surprising that Sarvāstivādins would place Abhidharma sūtras at the top of their Dīrgha given how important Abhidharma became in their tradition. Then, like the Dharmaguptakas, they placed Vinaya stories about the Buddha right after them, giving them pride of not-quite-first place. The Dharmaguptakas did the opposite, placing the Abhidharma sūtras in their second chapter. Theravādins placed them dead last, which might well represent how late they actually were in Buddhist history.

The Sarvāstivādins called their second chapter the Chapter of Pairs (S. Yuganipāta), and it consisted of nine pairs of related sūtras. To give a couple examples of what they considered to be pairs, the chapter contains the Janavasabha and Mahāgovinda parallels, which both culminate in stories told by Brahmā. Another pair are the Āṭānāṭiya and Mahāsamaya parallels, which are both esoteric sūtras about mythical spirits and gods. This chapter also contains sūtras that are in both of the second and third chapters in the Theravāda/Dharmaguptaka collection:

The Chapter on Pairs Theravāda Dharmaguptaka
7. Apannaka MN 60
8. Sarveka
9. Bhārgava Ch.3, DN 24 Ch.2, DĀ 15
10. Śalya MN 105
11. Bhayabhairava MN 4
12. Romaharṣaṇa MN 12
13. Jinayabha Ch.2, DN 18 Ch.1, DĀ 4
14. Govinda Ch.2, DN 19 Ch.1, DĀ 5
15. Prāsādika Ch.3, DN 29 Ch.2, DĀ 17
16. Prasādanīya Ch.3, DN 28 Ch.2, DĀ 18
17. Pañcatraya MN 102
18. Māyājāla
19. Kāmaṭhika MN 95
20. Kāyabhāvanā MN 36
21. Bodha MN 85
22. Śaṃkaraka MN 100
23. Āṭānāṭa Ch.3, DN 32
24. Mahāsamāja Ch.2, DN 20 Ch.2, DĀ 19

As can be seen, the majority of these sūtras occur in the Majjhima Nikāya, and they may well of also appeared to the Dharmaguptaka MĀ if still existed for us to compare (assuming that it was as similar to MN as their DĀ is to DN).

Thus, it does seem likely that the Sarvāstivādins subjected their Dīrgha to wholesale reorganization, but kept the original chapter largely unchanged aside from doubling its size. This in itself argues for that group of sūtras are being the core of the original Dīrgha, as this old core would have been tampered with less than later additions.

11 Likes
2

You may need to read carefully and critically Ven. YinShun’s “第二節 中阿含與長阿含” (MA and DA) in the book The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts (原始佛教聖典之集成), pp. 703-754. CBETA 線上閱讀

1 Like
3

Read also:
Bucknell, Roderick S. 2014:
“The Structure of the Sanskrit Dīrgha-āgama from Gilgit vis-à-vis the Pali Dīgha-nikāya”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.), Research on the Dīrgha-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 5), Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 57–101.

2 Likes
4

And this one can be found here :nerd_face:

2 Likes
5

I’m curious why the conclusion is that elements of one collection not found in the others are additions, and not possibly the result of texts being “lost” or “rejected”.

Later, you discuss some of these added texts being traceable as expansions of shorter texts found in other canons (which seems like solid evidence), but I’m just curious if there are other reasons for believing this, and if the evidence is different for different suttas.

1 Like
6

Those are both good questions.

My experience is that it was rare for sutras to be created from scratch. Usually they had some sort of precedent if original sutras were created. Sometimes smaller texts were enlarged with material in other texts, passages were combined in unique ways, [edit: larger texts were divided into smaller ones,] or vague parallels were created that only shared a general theme or subject. And that makes sense for a religious tradition that was attempting to preserve the teachings of its founder. They weren’t intentionally creating new teachings very often. So, all things being equal, my default assumption is that missing parallels were lost at some point.

It was also not uncommon for sutras to be moved from one sutra collection to another by different traditions (if we assume they all started from one version). The additions to the Dīrgha Āgama were probably relocated from other parts of a given tradition’s Tripitaka. We can see that happening in the Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda versions because we have nearly all of their Sutra Pitakas to compare. For the Dharmaguptakas, it’s more of a mystery.

There are a couple reasons why I assume the three versions of the Dīrgha Āgama all grew over time.

We can look at general patterns when comparing the surviving canons. We have the Madhyama and Samyukta Āgama of the Sarvāstivādins, and they are both somewhat larger than their Theravāda counterparts. The Madhyama has 70 more sutras, and the Samyukta has over 13,000 sutras if we count all of the variants. A partial commentary to the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese describes the Sarvāstivādin Ekottarika as being much larger compared to the one that was translated to Chinese, which contains less than 500 sutras. It sounds like it resembled the Theravāda Anguttara Nikāya, but for all we know, the Sarvāstivāda Ekottarika was even larger. It’s lost today, so we can only guess.

The conclusion I reach then is that the Sarvāstivāda Dīrgha Āgama being about 33% larger than the Theravāda Dīgha Nikāya fits the pattern of their Āgamas being larger. The Theravādins would have lost a large part of their Sutta Piṭaka if the Sarvāstivādins weren’t adding material to their own. They are the outlier, so I think it’s more likely they were doing something different.

When we compare DN to the Dharmaguptaka Dīrgha Āgama, it’s not as striking a difference. We have only their Dīrgha Āgama, Abhidharma, and Vinaya to form conclusions about the Dharmaguptaka’s Tripitaka. What exists of it is very similar to the Theravāda canon, but the two did diverge by adding different things independently. It was much less growth compared to the Sarvāstivādins, but there was some. And that’s what we see when we compare their two versions of the Dīrgha. Some incremental changes that make them different, but they have the majority of the sutras in common.

A second reason is one that I mentioned in the essay. Chapters in EBT collections usually consisted of ten sutras each. The majority of chapters are that size, so it seems likely that later insertions created odd numbered chapters, making many of them a bit more than 10. When I see that the Sarvāstivādin Dīrgha Āgama has three chapters of 6, 18, and 23 sutras, it seems unlikely that it would be the original version of the collection. The chapters should be closer to 10 each, which is what we see in the other two versions. That supports the conclusion that the Sarvāstivādins have rearranged and expanded their Dīrgha Āgama, while the other two are closer to the original version.

The part of my theory that I think is the weakest is my feeling that the Theravada DN is arranged in the order that the collection grew. That is, the first chapter is the oldest part and the last chapter is the most recent. I say that partly because the other two differ significantly, but it depends on whether Sīlakkhandhavagga is really the original core of the collection. I’m guessing that it is because it has a full ten sutras in common across all three collections and has the same title in two of them. It seems too much of a coincidence to me.

Another thing to remember is that we don’t know what the time frame was between the oldest and the newest parts of the collection. It could be a couple decades or a couple centuries. It’s difficult to know for sure since so little is known about the initial centuries of Buddhist history.

5 Likes
7

According to Ven. YinShun, the Āgamas of the Sarvāstivādins are “adding new texts but not deleting the old ones”. This is why they are somewhat larger than their Pali counterparts. Because of these compilation elements, the Madhyama and Samyukta Āgama of the Sarvāstivādins, and the tradition of the Sarvāstivādins become the most essential textual sources for the comparative study and understanding about the gradual formation of the four Nikāyas/Āgamas. See below text:

“2.漢譯四阿含與巴利四部，比對起來，發見一項重要的差別，這是與文字無關的。漢譯，特別是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda），是立新而不廢古的。這如《雜阿含經》的一部分，編入「中阿含」與「增壹阿含」；《中阿含經》的一部分，編入「長阿含」與「增壹阿含」。雖編入新的部類，而仍保持舊有的部分。所以漢譯的聖典，比對巴利文典，覺得重複的極多。

巴利的四部，是經過銅鍱部嚴密編纂的 。經文的數目太多，四部間不可能沒有重複；但多數是編入《中部》、《長部》與《增支部》的，在《相應部》與《中部》中，不再保留，所以重複的較少。

這是漢巴聖典（說一切有部與銅鍱部等）再編定時，彼此方法的根本不同。如沒有漢譯的，說一切有部的《雜阿含經》、《中阿含經》，沒有說一切有部的傳說，對於四部阿含的次第形成，是不可能明了的。由於立新而不廢舊，所以儘管有增附的新成分，而在四部阿含成立的研究上，不失為第一流的資料！” (pp. 789-790)

8

Is anyone aware if the Catuṣpariṣat of Sarvāstivāda Dīrgha is the same as or a parallel of sf259?

And does anyone have any idea what Arthavistara might be?

(I just posted a thread about this stuff but had obviously loved and then immediatly lost track of your OP @cdpatton this post is a thousand times more interesting and worthy of revival!

Here is what I said in my new thread:

I am reading an excellent overview of the (relatively) recently discovered Long Discourses of the Sarvastivadans preserved in Brahmi script from the Gandhari region here;

I note the article is now 20! year old, and wondered if anyone had any recommendations for more recent research into this important find.

I also note that while the “DS” as I will call it (for Dirgha Sarvastivada) differs quite significantly form DN and DA, the area where it most resembles it’s cousins is exactly where I would expect, that is in the silakhandhavagga which forms the last 3rd of the DS and the first 3rd of DN.

Here is a simplified table of the parallels

DN1 DA21 DS47
DN2 DA27 DS44
DN3 DA20 DS35
DN4 DA22 DS33
DN5 DA23 DS34
DN6 NDA DS32
DN7 NDA DS30
DN8 DA25 DS46
DN9 DA28 DS36
DN10 NDA DS42
DN11 DA24 DS29
DN12 DA29 DS27
DN13 DA26 DS45

This section of DS additionally comprises:

DS28
DS31
DS37-41
and DS43 (MN55)

For which apart from MN55 the article gives no known parlallels in either the Pali or Chinese.

As my theory about the strata of the 4 principle collections remains that the silakhandavagga is the basis for all the rest, the substantial overlap between the contents of all 3 known sila collections in D is heartening.

I would love to learn more.

Anyone who has recommended reading in this are, please respond here, or PM me if you wish to share documents that might be for private use only.

Metta

And here is a futhur thought I will add before I go back and read the OP here:

the Sarvastivada D seems to open with the most abbhidhamma-y possible arrangment of giving DN34 and DN33 first before moving on to 1. an account of the awakening of buddha ala sf259 (DS4) and then a main teaching of Buddha DO ala DN14 (DS5) and then a death of buddha ala DN16 (DS6)

This once again scans for a school devoted to encyclapedic exegesis and now I will go back and probably read you pointing all this out in the OP! lol.

And you did!

1 Like
9

I haven’t read it, but according to Ven. Anālayo it’s like DN33 and DN34, but with the subjects given a thematical rather than an ascending numerical arrangement.

1 Like
10

Thanks! that makes sense I guess if the title means “expansion of meaning” as at

11

Might be something like this: Arthaviniścaya

Description is thus:

The Arthaviniścayasūtra is a Sanskrit text which consists almost entirely of quotations of early sūtra passages. The text has been edited and published in a series of editions by Alfonsa Ferrari (1944), P.L. Vaidya (1961), and N.H. Samtani based on several manuscripts discovered in Tibet and Nepal. The SuttaCentral text is based on the revision of Samtani by Ānandajoti. Ferrari and Vaidya classified this text under Mahāyāna, but Samtani and Ānandajoti point out that there are only a few mentions of Mahāyāna concepts, and these are likely to be later additions. The original text appears to be related to the Sarvāstivādins, possibly from the Sautrāntika school.

It’s kind of like a proto-Vibhanga, rather easier on the exposition, consisting entirely from passages from suttas, kind of like an Abhidhammic text in a sense, a recollection of the entire doctrine in broadest terms.

I think it fits the Arthavistara description given as well. Or perhaps if Arthavistara is really an expansion, then it might be the Sarvastivadin version of Vibhanga.

1 Like
12

As Ven. Dhammanando said, the Arthavistara is alike DN 33-34. The Sanskrit Dīrga-āgama manuscript is severely damaged at the beginning, and mostly missing, while the Arthavistara is the sūtra Nr. 2 in the manuscript. That’s why we only have bits and pieces of this sūtra. But I doubt there was or will be anything sensational in or about it.

1 Like
13

So far for me it is exactly the lack of any suprises that is so suprising about both this find and EBT more broadly.

What I mean is that it appears that this D matches more or less exactly, as far as anyone can tell, the speculative “reconstruction” of the central asian D from the sanskrit fragments.

This find, and the fragments, where they match suttas an DN, often do so more or less word for word, sentence for sentence, and where they differ it is often in discrete additions of well known qoutations of doctrine or in obvious elaborations of known tropes.

Similarly where DA and DN share texts they share them as recognisably identical texts, again with the above noted variations.

All this makes the polemical skepticism of people like Gregory Shopen (who I love) much less forceful, something people will only know by exposure to this literature.

That there appears to be an obviously earliest section to D, the sila, and that we have Thervada, Dharmagupta and Sarvastivada versions showing the extent to which these texts agree, and that we have manuscript witnesses, (not of these specific canons but of the sutta material more broadly) from as early as perhaps 200ce are all, imo, deeply suggestive of the antiquity and centrality of these texts.

The other thing about it all toemis just how much it seems to indicate the conservatism of the structure of the 4 collections in Pali.

It is my growing impression that broadly, the Pali canon has the order right.

That is it makes sense to think about the sarvastivadans recompiling the chaptwr of 6 to give a synopsis of the contents of thier ever growing, liberal, and still being collected and reorganised canon.

And it makes sense to think of the aggregates teaching, and the method of permutions, beginning in M and suspect that it was the sarvastivadans who thematically recompiled them into thier S rather than them migrating into the Pali M from the Pali S.

The deep consistency of this literature is what is suprising

That is why, despite speculating on nothing more than a name, I wouldnt be suprised if the Gandhari catu was more or less the sanskrit fragment i linked to and the Artha is like what @Dogen linked to.

If they are no one will be suprised, despite the method of selection being about as scientific as blindfolding a child and having them swing a stick.

Thats the suprise.

1 Like
14

Just while I am investigating various aspects of this, in DN3 the Buddha attributes a poem, apearing here, and at DN27 MN53 SN6.11 and AN11.10 to a “sanaṅkumārena”;

Brahmā Sanaṅkumāra also spoke this verse:
Brahmunā pesā, ambaṭṭha, sanaṅkumārena gāthā bhāsitā:

‘The aristocrat is best among people
‘Khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṁ,
who take clan as the standard.
ye gottapaṭisārino;
But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct
Vijjācaraṇasampanno,
is first among gods and humans.’
so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti.

DA20 gives

「剎利生中勝， 種姓亦純真；
明行悉具足， 天人中最勝。」

DA5

『生中剎利勝， 能捨種姓去；
明行成就者， 世間最第一。』

T20 does not appear to contain the poem

while T10 gives

『剎帝利族人中尊， 種姓真實復清淨，
三明諸行悉周圓， 為人天中勝尊者。』

MN53 has no agama parallel.

But the poem is attested in MA at MA154 with

『剎利二足尊， 謂有種族姓，
求學明及行， 彼為天人稱。』

The poem is confirmed in SA at SA1190 where it is given as

「於諸種姓中， 剎利兩足尊，
明行具足者， 天人中最勝！」

and at SAB103 where it is given as

「剎利二足尊， 種姓真正者，
明行已具足， 人天中最勝。」

AN11.10 has no parallel.

although

EA38.5 has a somewhat similar

「世間所有力， 遊在天人中，
福力最為勝， 由福成佛道。

The long poem at SAB268 likewise seems to evoke similar thematics and the “among gods and men” of 天人中 as does SAB307.

SA110 gives;

「於諸大會中， 奉火為其最；
闈陀經典中， 婆毘諦為最；
人中王為最， 諸河海為最，
諸星月為最， 諸明日為最，
十方天人中， 等正覺為最。」

So the poem appears to be attested in all 4 of the Pali principle Nikayas, and in 3 out of 4 Chinese Agamas, as well as in the independently translated parallel discourses in the Taisho.

Anyway, I wondered if this sanaṅkumārena might not be the same Sanatkumara who in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata says;

Men possessed of scriptural lore cannot obtain him by such lore. Nor can He be obtained by Penances, nor by Sacrifices. The only means by which He can be attained is by restraining the Senses. Nor that sacrifices are entirely useless towards such an end. For one, by relying upon both external and internal acts, and upon one’s own mind, can purify (them) by one’s own understanding. By such means, one succeeds in enjoying infinity in the world.

This certainly seems to echo the “knowledge and conduct” refrain, as well as the seeming demotion of the priestly lore and sacrifices in favour of the more warrior type ethos of “self relience”.

Anyway, I guess all this is a rambling round about way of asking if anyone has anything further of interest to say about the relationship between the figure of “the eternal youth” (Sanatkumara) the aristocratic class, and buddhism, as they all relate to the wider indian context?

15

In another topic I mention that according to Yin Shun, DN/DA was expanded mainly from geya (祇夜) of SN/SA. (將分別抉擇的成果，對外道、婆羅門，而表揚佛是正等覺者，法是善說者，適應天、魔、梵——世俗的宗教意識，與「祇夜」精神相呼應的，集為「長阿含」。)

If you are now working on DN/DA texts, please do pay attention to this finding, the connection between DN/DA and the geya (祇夜) of SN/SA.

1 Like
16

Thanks @thomaslaw , I’ll keep that in mind.

just continuing my musing on DN3

Manusmriti 10.8 gives

ब्राह्मणाद् वैश्यकन्यायामम्बष्ठो नाम जायते ।
निषादः शूद्रकन्यायां यः पारशव उच्यते ॥ ८ ॥

brāhmaṇād vaiśyakanyāyāmambaṣṭho nāma jāyate |
niṣādaḥ śūdrakanyāyāṃ yaḥ pāraśava ucyate || 8 ||

From the Brāhmaṇa on a Vaiśya maiden is born the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ and on a Śūdra maiden the ‘Niṣāda,’ who is called ‘Pārośora.’

Which goes some way to clarifying what is going on in the case of our ambaṭṭha who’s name effectively seems to mean “mixed caste” according to the Laws of Manu (which admittedly might in this case be influenced by the Buddhists rather than recalling an earlier tradtion on which both rely.)

17

You were doing fine until you got to EA 38.5 and started citing verses that have basically nothing to do with the one in DN.

2 Likes
18

And just back to Sanatkumāra for a second, he is certainly addressing the same theme of memorisation of the scriptures at Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 7:

॥ सप्तमोऽध्यायः ॥
अधीहि भगव इति होपससाद सनत्कुमारं नारदस्तं होवाच यद्वेत्थ तेन मोपसीद ततस्त ऊर्ध्वं वक्ष्यामीति स होवाच ॥ ७.१.१ ॥

|| saptamo’dhyāyaḥ ||
adhīhi bhagava iti hopasasāda sanatkumāraṃ nāradastaṃ hovāca yadvettha tena mopasīda tatasta ūrdhvaṃ vakṣyāmīti sa hovāca || 7.1.1 ||

Nārada went [for spiritual instruction] to Sanatkumāra and said, ‘Sir, please teach me.’ Sanatkumāra said to him: ‘First tell me what you know already. I’ll teach you from that point.’ Nārada said—

ऋग्वेदं भगवोऽध्येमि यजुर्वेदं सामवेदमाथर्वणं चतुर्थमितिहासपुराणं पञ्चमं वेदानां वेदं पित्र्यं राशिं दैवं निधिं वाकोवाक्यमेकायनं देवविद्यां ब्रह्मविद्यां भूतविद्यां क्षत्रविद्यां नक्षत्रविद्यां सर्पदेवजनविद्यामेतद्भगवोऽध्येमि ॥ ७.१.२ ॥

ṛgvedaṃ bhagavo’dhyemi yajurvedaṃ sāmavedamātharvaṇaṃ caturthamitihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ vedaṃ pitryaṃ rāśiṃ daivaṃ nidhiṃ vākovākyamekāyanaṃ devavidyāṃ brahmavidyāṃ bhūtavidyāṃ kṣatravidyāṃ nakṣatravidyāṃ sarpadevajanavidyāmetadbhagavo’dhyemi || 7.1.2 ||

Sir, I have read the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts. Sir, this is what I know.

सोऽहं भगवो मन्त्रविदेवास्मि नात्मविच्छ्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयत्विति तं होवाच यद्वै किंचैतदध्यगीष्ठा नामैवैतत् ॥ ७.१.३ ॥

so’haṃ bhagavo mantravidevāsmi nātmavicchrutaṃ hyeva me bhagavaddṛśebhyastarati śokamātmaviditi so’haṃ bhagavaḥ śocāmi taṃ mā bhagavāñchokasya pāraṃ tārayatviti taṃ hovāca yadvai kiṃcaitadadhyagīṣṭhā nāmaivaitat || 7.1.3 ||

‘True, I have learnt much, but I know only the word meaning. I do not know the Self. Sir, I have heard from great persons like you that only those who know the Self are able to overcome sorrow. I am suffering from sorrow. Please take me across the ocean of sorrow.’ Sanatkumāra then said to Nārada, ‘Everything you have learnt so far is just words’.

And teaching something very much akin to conditionality in the subsequent verses;

नाम वा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेद आथर्वणश्चतुर्थ इतिहासपुराणः पञ्चमो वेदानां वेदः पित्र्यो राशिर्दैवो निधिर्वाकोवाक्यमेकायनं देवविद्या ब्रह्मविद्या भूतविद्या क्षत्रविद्या नक्षत्रविद्या सर्पदेवजनविद्या नामैवैतन्नामोपास्स्वेति ॥ ७.१.४ ॥

nāma vā ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmaveda ātharvaṇaścaturtha itihāsapurāṇaḥ pañcamo vedānāṃ vedaḥ pitryo rāśirdaivo nidhirvākovākyamekāyanaṃ devavidyā brahmavidyā bhūtavidyā kṣatravidyā nakṣatravidyā sarpadevajanavidyā nāmaivaitannāmopāssveti || 7.1.4 ||

Name is the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts. These are only names. Worship name.

स यो नाम ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते यावन्नाम्नो गतं तत्रास्य यथाकामचारो भवति यो नाम ब्रह्मेत्युपास्तेऽस्ति भगवो नाम्नो भूय इति नाम्नो वाव भूयोऽस्तीति तन्मे भगवान्ब्रवीत्विति ॥ ७.१.५ ॥
॥ इति प्रथमः खण्डः ॥

sa yo nāma brahmetyupāste yāvannāmno gataṃ tatrāsya yathākāmacāro bhavati yo nāma brahmetyupāste’sti bhagavo nāmno bhūya iti nāmno vāva bhūyo’stīti tanme bhagavānbravītviti || 7.1.5 ||
|| iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

‘Anyone who worships name as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of the name.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than name?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than name,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.

वाग्वाव नाम्नो भूयसी वाग्वा ऋग्वेदं विज्ञापयति यजुर्वेदं सामवेदमाथर्वणं चतुर्थमितिहासपुराणं पञ्चमं वेदानां वेदं पित्र्यंराशिं दैवं निधिं वाकोवाक्यमेकायनं देवविद्यां ब्रह्मविद्यां भूतविद्यां क्षत्रविद्यां सर्पदेवजनविद्यां दिवं च पृथिवीं च वायुं चाकाशं चापश्च तेजश्च देवांश्च मनुष्यांश्च पशूंश्च वयांसि च तृणवनस्पतीञ्श्वापदान्याकीटपतङ्गपिपीलकं धर्मं चाधर्मं च सत्यं चानृतं च साधु चासाधु च हृदयज्ञं चाहृदयज्ञं च यद्वै वाङ्नाभविष्यन्न धर्मो नाधर्मो व्यज्ञापयिष्यन्न सत्यं नानृतं न साधु नासाधु न हृदयज्ञो नाहृदयज्ञो वागेवैतत्सर्वं विज्ञापयति वाचमुपास्स्वेति ॥ ७.२.१ ॥

vāgvāva nāmno bhūyasī vāgvā ṛgvedaṃ vijñāpayati yajurvedaṃ sāmavedamātharvaṇaṃ caturthamitihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ vedaṃ pitryaṃrāśiṃ daivaṃ nidhiṃ vākovākyamekāyanaṃ devavidyāṃ brahmavidyāṃ bhūtavidyāṃ kṣatravidyāṃ sarpadevajanavidyāṃ divaṃ ca pṛthivīṃ ca vāyuṃ cākāśaṃ cāpaśca tejaśca devāṃśca manuṣyāṃśca paśūṃśca vayāṃsi ca tṛṇavanaspatīñśvāpadānyākīṭapataṅgapipīlakaṃ dharmaṃ cādharmaṃ ca satyaṃ cānṛtaṃ ca sādhu cāsādhu ca hṛdayajñaṃ cāhṛdayajñaṃ ca yadvai vāṅnābhaviṣyanna dharmo nādharmo vyajñāpayiṣyanna satyaṃ nānṛtaṃ na sādhu nāsādhu na hṛdayajño nāhṛdayajño vāgevaitatsarvaṃ vijñāpayati vācamupāssveti || 7.2.1 ||

Speech is certainly superior to name. Speech makes known the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts; also heaven and earth; air, space, water, and fire; the gods and human beings; cattle and birds; creepers and big trees; animals of prey as well as worms, fleas, and ants; merit and demerit; truth and untruth; good and evil; and the pleasant and the unpleasant. If speech did not exist there would be no awareness of merit and demerit, nor of truth and untruth, good and evil, the pleasant and the unpleasant. Speech alone makes it possible to understand all this. Worship speech.

after name depending on speach, the remaining verses say that speach in turn depends on mind, mind depends on intention, intention depends on thoughfulness, which depends on jhana which depends on consciousness which depends on vigour which depends on food which depends on water which depends on fire which depends on space etc until the culmination of the teaching; in which a reverse form of dependence, moving towards the infinite and independent, is presented:

यदा वै विजानात्यथ सत्यं वदति नाविजानन्सत्यं वदति विजानन्नेव सत्यं वदति विज्ञानं त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्यमिति विज्ञानं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.१७.१ ॥
॥ इति सप्तदशः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai vijānātyatha satyaṃ vadati nāvijānansatyaṃ vadati vijānanneva satyaṃ vadati vijñānaṃ tveva vijijñāsitavyamiti vijñānaṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.17.1 ||
|| iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘When a person knows for certain, then he can truly speak of the Truth. But without knowing well, he cannot speak of the Truth. One who knows for certain speaks of Truth. But one must seek knowledge in depth.’ Nārada said, ‘Sir, I seek knowledge in depth’.

यदा वै मनुतेऽथ विजानाति नामत्वा विजानाति मत्वैव विजानाति मतिस्त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्येति मतिं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.१८.१ ॥
॥ इति अष्टादशः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai manute’tha vijānāti nāmatvā vijānāti matvaiva vijānāti matistveva vijijñāsitavyeti matiṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.18.1 ||
|| iti aṣṭādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘When a person learns to think well, then he can know deeply. Without thinking well, one cannot know deeply. One knows for certain when one thinks deeply. But one must want to know how to think well.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know how to think well’.

यदा वै श्रद्दधात्यथ मनुते नाश्रद्दधन्मनुते श्रद्दधदेव मनुते श्रद्धा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्येति श्रद्धां भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.१९.१ ॥
॥ इति एकोनविंशतितमः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai śraddadhātyatha manute nāśraddadhanmanute śraddadhadeva manute śraddhā tveva vijijñāsitavyeti śraddhāṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.19.1 ||
|| iti ekonaviṃśatitamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘When a person has respect [for what he hears], then he gives due thought to it. Without this respect he attaches ho importance to what he hears. One thinks deeply over something that one respects. But one must try to attain this respect.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to have this respect’.

यदा वै निस्तिष्ठत्यथ श्रद्दधाति नानिस्तिष्ठञ्छ्रद्दधाति निस्तिष्ठन्नेव श्रद्दधाति निष्ठा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्येति निष्ठां भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.२०.१ ॥
॥ इति विंशतितमः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai nistiṣṭhatyatha śraddadhāti nānistiṣṭhañchraddadhāti nistiṣṭhanneva śraddadhāti niṣṭhā tveva vijijñāsitavyeti niṣṭhāṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.20.1 ||
|| iti viṃśatitamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra: ‘When a person is steady and devoted to his teacher, then he has respect. Without being steady, one cannot have respect. One has steadiness when one has genuine respect and devotion. But one must seek this steadiness with great earnestness.’ Nārada replied, ‘I seek this steadiness’.

यदा वै करोत्यथ निस्तिष्ठति नाकृत्वा निस्तिष्ठति कृत्वैव निस्तिष्ठति कृतिस्त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्येति कृतिं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.२१.१ ॥
॥ इति एकविंशः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai karotyatha nistiṣṭhati nākṛtvā nistiṣṭhati kṛtvaiva nistiṣṭhati kṛtistveva vijijñāsitavyeti kṛtiṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.21.1 ||
|| iti ekaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘When a person keeps doing his duty, he becomes steady. If one does not do one’s duty, one cannot have steadiness. One attains steadiness by doing one’s duty. But one should try to know what duty means.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know about duty’.

यदा वै सुखं लभतेऽथ करोति नासुखं लब्ध्वा करोति सुखमेव लब्ध्वा करोति सुखं त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्यमिति सुखं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.२२.१ ॥
॥ इति द्वाविंशः खण्डः ॥

yadā vai sukhaṃ labhate’tha karoti nāsukhaṃ labdhvā karoti sukhameva labdhvā karoti sukhaṃ tveva vijijñāsitavyamiti sukhaṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.22.1 ||
|| iti dvāviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘A person works when he gets happiness. He does not care to work if he does not get happiness. By getting happiness one does one’s duty. But one must try to understand the true nature of this happiness.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know well the true nature of happiness’.

यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं नाल्पे सुखमस्ति भूमैव सुखं भूमा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्य इति भूमानं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥ ७.२३.१ ॥
॥ इति त्रयोविंशः खण्डः ॥

yo vai bhūmā tatsukhaṃ nālpe sukhamasti bhūmaiva sukhaṃ bhūmā tveva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 7.23.1 ||
|| iti trayoviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘That which is infinite is the source of happiness. There is no happiness in the finite. Happiness is only in the infinite. But one must try to understand what the infinite is.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to clearly understand the infinite’.

यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥

yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 ||

Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing else. But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’.

गोअश्वमिह महिमेत्याचक्षते हस्तिहिरण्यं दासभार्यं क्षेत्राण्यायतनानीति नाहमेवं ब्रवीमि ब्रवीमीति होवाचान्योह्यन्यस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति ॥ ७.२४.२ ॥
॥ इति चतुर्विंशः खण्डः ॥

goaśvamiha mahimetyācakṣate hastihiraṇyaṃ dāsabhāryaṃ kṣetrāṇyāyatanānīti nāhamevaṃ bravīmi bravīmīti hovācānyohyanyasminpratiṣṭhita iti || 7.24.2 ||
|| iti caturviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

In this world it is said that cattle, horses, elephants, gold, servants, wives, farmlands, and houses are a person’s glory. I do not mean this type of glory, for these things are not independent of each other. This is what I am talking about—

स एवाधस्तात्स उपरिष्टात्स पश्चात्स पुरस्तात्स दक्षिणतः स उत्तरतः स एवेदं सर्वमित्यथातोऽहंकारादेश एवाहमेवाधस्तादहमुपरिष्टादहं पश्चादहं पुरस्तादहं दक्षिणतोऽहमुत्तरतोऽहमेवेदं सर्वमिति ॥ ७.२५.१ ॥

sa evādhastātsa upariṣṭātsa paścātsa purastātsa dakṣiṇataḥ sa uttarataḥ sa evedaṃ sarvamityathāto’haṃkārādeśa evāhamevādhastādahamupariṣṭādahaṃ paścādahaṃ purastādahaṃ dakṣiṇato’hamuttarato’hamevedaṃ sarvamiti || 7.25.1 ||

That bhūmā is below; it is above; it is behind; it is in front; it is to the right; it is to the left. All this is bhūmā. Now, as regards one’s own identity: I am below; I am above; I am behind; I am in front; I am to the right; I am to the left. I am all this.

These are all strikingly similar ideas to Buddhist ideas.

Metta.

19

Thanks i guess? I just meant that EA38.5 was one of the few other occurances of “amongst gods and men”.

1 Like
20

Mathieu Boisvert talks to this at some length in the first chapter of The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology. He cites Stcherbatsky’s work which looks equally fascinating: The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word “Dharma”. Along with Jayatilleke: The Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge.

One day I hope to acquire those two works. (I have Boisvert’s.)

:pray:t2: :elephant:

1 Like