Okay. I see that this is stated implicitly in your definitions section in the book. You did not contradict yourself.
I will read through the book to see if I find the arguments made that they are contemporaneous compelling. At this time, I think that there are significant contradictions and omissions that need to be addressed in order to support your thesis. I only see “Atthakavagga” appearing twice and Snp only appears a few times. it doesn’t look like you address its consistency with the four Nikayas. If you can point to the place in the book you think covers this, please let me know.
I reread your book. I do not see how the arguments made support the claim that the bulk of the four nikayas are as old as the Atthakavagga. The Athakavagga/Snp 4.* is only mentioned in a few places and in some of those places seem to imply its older. None of the named doctrines categories appear in Snp 4.* in your list and the fact that references to other suttas always go from four nikayas to Snp 4.* and not the other way around.
I also don’t think the main arguments made that may apply to the four nikayas apply to the Atthakavagga. There are no geopolitical references in the Atthakavagga to use as evidence. The scholarly opinion speaks of the four nikayas without mentioning the Atthakavagga.
As far as consistency between the two, I have pointed out what seems to be contradictions in this thread and others. The arguments I get back are always “It must be because of skillful means” or “formulated doesn’t include things the Buddha directly knew put in words”. The problems is that how does one know this. They offer it up because they see a difference and so try to come up with an explanation that preserves their assumption that it all came from the Buddha. The reasoning is circular. A better argument would be a demonstration that somehow these apparent differences reduce to the something.
I think a better approach overall would be to argue that there are three possible hypothesizes that are at all likely and to compare how well they explain the evidence.
- The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the Atthakavagga and the four nikayas.
- The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the Atthakavagga, but not the four nikayas.
- The historical Buddha was the source of the suttas in the four nikayas, but not the Atthakavagga.
I think #2 and #3 fare best. In other words, the Atthakavagga was from the Buddha and the four nikayas were the product of later development by a individual or small group of systematizers; or the Atthakavagga was taught by a highly influential teacher of the Buddha and the Buddha developed the Four Nikayas using the Atthakavagga as a starting point.
