Typo in sa 296 ,法定 instead of 法空 。

FYI in sa 296 法空 is an error .
Should be 法定 。

《 若佛出世,若未出世,此法常住,法住法界,彼如來自覺知,成等正覺,為人演說,開示顯發,謂緣生故,有老、病、死、憂、悲、惱。此等諸法,法住、(法空)、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。如是隨順緣起,是名緣生法。》

1 Like

Hi James,

Ayya looked this up, it’s the same on the CBETA text, which you can see here:

http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T02n0099_012

So if there’s a mistake, it’s in the original text. Having said which, while emendation you propose looks sensible, it’s not obvious to me that the original is a mistake. Maybe the Sanskrit simply had suññatā there. The Sanskit parallel for this at SF 163, nevertheless, does not have suññatā:

sthitā eveyaṃ dharmatā dharmasthitaye dhātuḥ

2 Likes

bhante ,

法定 is correct in SA 296. See Choong Mun-keat The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 152-3, notes 11 and 14. Also in the note 11 of the book, see CSA ii, p. 35.

1 Like

This is reproduced from a chart on page 153 of Choong Mun-keat’s The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism that @James mentioned . It seems he (Choong Mun-keat) is the one who argues that 空 was a scribal error, and suggests 定 to try to “bring it closer” to the Sanskrit & Pāli recension.

[quote]SN 12.20:

there remains this [fact of] nature (ṭhitā va sā dhatu), this constancy of phemonena (dhammaṭṭitatā), this certainty of phenomena (dhamma-niyāmatā), this causal relatedness (idappaccayatā).

SA 296:
these phemonena (此法) are persistence (常住), the constancy/status of phenomena (法住), the nature of phemonena (法界).

SN 12.20:
that which is suchness (tathātā), not unsuchness (avitathātā), not otherwise (anaññathatā), causal relatedness (idappaccayatā).

SA 296:
these dharmas are the constancy of phenomena (法住), the certainty of phenomena (法定), suchness of phenomena (法如法爾), no departing from the true (法不離如), actuality (審諦), truth (真), reality (實), non-confusion (不顛倒)

(from page 153)[/quote]He seems to think that since 法空 is absent from the Sanskrit & Pāli, 法定 must have been the original because he argues that the original was dhammaniyāmatā, as in [quote]iti yātra dharmatā dharmasthititā dharmaniyāmatā dharmayathātathā avitathatā ananyathā bhūtaṃ satyatā tattvatā yāthātathā aviparītatā aviparyastatā[/quote]

I am a little leary of this reproduction of his chart that I made, one has to reorganize the flow of the āgama and cut it up a bit to make it fit to the Pāli so neatly as abive, the chart gives the impression that the two texts can be “completely” aligned, which is not the case at all points. It is less deceptive looking in how it appears in the original book though, where we can tell that different parts of the texts are being pulled from different areas to show commonalities.

2 Likes

Thanks for the info. The interesting thing about this, I think, is that the Chinese and Sanskrit versions are so very close that even such a tiny discrepancy can be noticed and an emendation proposed.

But we’re not in the business of correcting ancient texts, so we’ll leave it as is.

[quote=“sujato, post:5, topic:5659”]
I think, is that the Chinese and Sanskrit versions are so very close that even such a tiny discrepancy can be noticed and an emendation proposed.
[/quote]Choong Mun-keat, in his analysis of this āgama (150 onward), seems convinced that the Sanskrit manuscript he is looking at (the same as SF 163? I wouldn’t know) is resolutely the same manuscript (text, not the same material copy) as was the original source text of the Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by Ven Fǎxiǎn from Sri Lanka between 337 & 422 AD that is believed to be the ur-text of the present SA & SA-2 recensions of Sarvāstivāda Buddhavacana, from India & Central Asia respectively. This would involve the SF recension being postulated to constitute, in theoretical reconstructed fullness, a much, much, larger body of Buddhavacana than what is currently accounted for, to account for the sheer larger amounts of Chinese āgamāḥ that do not seem to be later accruals. In light of this, SF, or an extant document like it (in Sanskrit), is being suggested to be this very same ur-text.

That seems an awfully large assumption, does it not?

Is there a dominant opinion in the field of EBT studies that the Sarvāstivāda only retained one recension of “sutta-layer” (if my terminology is clear) Buddhavacana (à la Theravāda) despite their relative geographical dispersion compared to the Early (proto-)Theravāda (geographical isolation, one recension)?

The fact that later in Buddhist sectarianism, we have Central Asian Sarvāstivādins using an older stage of SA-2/BZA and the Sourtherly Sarvāstivādins using ancestors of SA/ZA (source: Bingenheimer), seems to point to me, that the fact that two communities shared a Sarvāstivāda vinaya does not necessarily mean that they had the exact same suttas and sutta-recensions, particularly due to the geographical range of the historical Sarvāstivāda, and also assuming that Early Buddhist Sectarianism (“EBS”? Is that a “thing”?) was predicated on divisions of vinaya, not sutta and sutta-interpretation (or sutta-recension?) necessarily.

Does that seem fair?

Thank you for your time.


Added (in addition to above): we have a reasonable guess as to the origins of the ZA & BZA in the attribution, discussed above, of the source text of the manuscripts to Ven Fǎxiǎn from his travels in Sri Lanka.

If such is the case, it is likely that Ven Fǎxiǎn retrieved the āgamāḥ that he did from the extensive libraries of the Abhayagirivihāra, active at that time, where a host of multiple āgamāḥ, from multiple schools (he is also said to have retrieved a Dīrghāgama (Xican Li, Faxian’s Biography and His Contributions to Asian Buddhist Culture: Latest Textual Analysis, 41), it would be interesting if this was the same Dīrghāgama as extant from the Dharmaguptaka school (source Bingenheimer, I will find it in a moment) that is hosted here as the DA collection.

Futhering the likelihood that Ven Fǎxiǎn retrieved these from Abhayagirivihāra (where Sanskrit Mahāyāna and Pāli scriptures were studied), not Mahāvihāra where likely only Pāli suttāni were housed and studied, is the fact that he also is said to have retrieved a Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (大般涅槃經) (Ibid.), a Mahāyāna vaipulya (大方等) on an theorized EBT much like the Pāli parallel (it is a pity that there is so much accrual in the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra, as I have read that parts of its “core” are believed to have been EBT material which would be very interesting for study here, if only it were possible to sift out the layers of the text).

Knowing this, is it likely not possible that Ven Fǎxiǎn would have had multiple recensions to choose from preserved at Abhayagirivihāra? Or am I overestimating their resources at this time in Sri Lanka? This is the “Golden Age” of the Abhayagirivihāra, is it not?

With this in mind, from where does the Sanskrit recension from which SuttaCentral hosts SF 163 originate? Is this known? Is it also from Abhayagirivihāra in Sri Lanka?
:anjal:

Thank you both @James and @Coemgenu! This discussion will become part of the SuttaCentral “commentary” on this sutta because it will be visible in the menu of the sutta (as soon as the function works again … ).

1 Like

This relates to my remark in a previous post. But to be clear, it seems likely that there were somewhat different versions. In the Vinayas, where we have more confident sectarian ascriptions and a wider variety of texts, there are clearly differences even within one school.

However, in the case of the SA, all the indications are that the texts were, in fact, very similar. Without having investigated it personally, I think it’s probably correct to say they are the same text. That does not mean, however, that they are literally identical in every detail. Different manuscripts of the Pali canon are clearly the “same text”, but they will always differ in minor details, and the same must have been true of the other traditions.

Mun-keat’s proposed emendation seems reasonable to me. But of course, these things are never 100%.

1 Like

@sujato
@Coemgenu

Hi , don’t know if this helpful .
法定 was used throughout the text.

Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra
{ 卷四百十 ◄ 大般若經第二三會
(中品般若):第401卷至第537卷
卷四百十一 ► 卷四百十二 }
大般若波羅蜜多經卷第四百一十一

三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
Translated by xuan zang

第二分譬喻品第十一

爾時,具壽善現白佛言:
「世尊 !言菩薩者是何句義?」

佛告善現:「無句義是菩薩句義。何以故?善現!菩提、薩埵二既不生,句於其中理亦非有故,無句義是菩薩句義。

「善現當知 !譬如空中鳥跡句義實無所有,菩薩句義亦復如是實無所有;譬如夢境、幻事、陽焰、光影、水月、響聲、空花、變化句義實無所有,菩薩句義亦復如是實無所有。

「善現當知 !
如一切法真如句義實無所有,
菩薩句義亦復如是實無所有;
如一切法法界、法性、不虛妄性、
不變異性、[法定] 、法住、
實際句義實無所有 ,
菩薩句義亦復如是實無所有。

Please refer to the last Third line.

1 Like

[quote=“James, post:9, topic:5659, full:true”]
Please refer to the last Third line.
[/quote]Very interesting!

This thread reminds me of another manuscript error, in SA 653, that was discussed earlier, was a note also made of that one, in case SuttaCentral ever hosts a translation of it?

No, we’re not keeping notes for these. But it’s a good idea: why don’t you start a thread and list them there? It’d be a useful reference.

If you are still so interested, nonetheless, in such trivia as this, after this exchange, from a more informed perspective, I can see more specifically the error in textual transmission that Choong is suggesting. He suggests a misunderstanding of the Sanskrit original of dharmaniyāmatā being read, presumably before transmission into Chinese (?), as dharmanairātmya, IMO and as far as I can see. It is a more sensible conclusion, Choong Mun-Keat’s, when the underlying logic is laid out. Apologies if it was redundant to point out.

That being said, how farfetched is dharmanairātmya here, if you are so inclined?

Reasonably? The terms are common in the early texts, but the specific usage in this way really assumes the whole history of Abhidhammic reification and Mahayana de-reification.

1 Like

Please pardon my ignorance here, but does dharmanairātmya or perhaps something like *dharmanairātmyatā(?), although eccentric if compared to both the Sanskrit and Pāli readily available, imply here something deeper than the dharmas being ‘without ātma’, in the sense of something like ‘sarvadharmāḥ anātmatā’/‘sabbe dhammā anattā’? If so, could you elaborate whenever you have time? My Sanskrit is very poor, in addition to my exposure to Abhidhamma.

Thank you for your time.

It’s not that the term implies anything deeper, but that it it is a philosophical abstraction that summarizes or refers back to a well-understood concept. By the time the term had come into use, the theory itself was well known, and could be referred to in brief during a discussion.

1 Like