SuttaCentral

Three Saṃyuktāgamas?


#1

Why are there three Saṃyuktāgamas? And is the answer to this question anywhere on SuttaCentral?


#2

There are three Saṃyuktāgamas because three versions have survived and been transmitted to us by different traditions. It is possible that mention of this is made in Bhante Sujato’s respective Nikaya introduction (for Saṁyutta Nikaya) on SC, but I don’t know for sure.


#3

The three are all different translations made at different times. The “second” and “third” ones are very incomplete, consisting mostly of sections of the Sagathavagga. I’m not sure if the histories recorded why exactly three were made, but it is a common feature of the Chinese texts. There was no single authority making translations, it was all piecemeal. So different versions were made at different times and places.


#4

Thanks! So, the first (SA1) is the Sarvāstivādin? and corresponds to Taisho #099? And 2 and 3 are… T100? from the Kāśyapīya school?


#5

T100 and T101, and no, probably not Kasyapiya. I think they’re from the Sarvasativada, though not sure if any sub-school or region has been specified more precisely.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250015300_More_Suttas_on_Sakka_and_why_the_Shorter_Chinese_Samyukta-agama_should_not_be_attributed_to_the_Kasyapiya_school


#6

Ah ok. Thanks! :slight_smile:


#7

In a previous paper Bingenheimer attributed SA-2 to comparatively northerly Central Asian Sarvāstivādins and SA to southerly Indian Sarvāstivādins, arguing they originated as more or less the same document with SA-2 being translated in a northerly Prākrit. I’ll look for the citation in a second. I wonder if he still favours that proposal.

EDIT: here, The literature labelled SA & SA-2 here, just ignore my very amateur Chinese work! :speak_no_evil::hear_no_evil::see_no_evil:


#8

Thanks everyone. For what it’s worth, I now see where this information is on the site. I didn’t see it earlier because it took so long to load: