[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?
