thomaslaw wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:44 am
Choong also voices his disagreement with Bingenheimer who considers the attribution of the ASA or SA-2 to the Sarvastivada in the aforementioned article (2011).
A note regarding Choong Mun-Keat and his presentation of āgama-nikāya parallels.
This is from page 153 of his 2000 text The Fundamentals of Early Buddhism
Note the appearance of "certainty of phenomena/dharmāḥ" (法定).
If we look at the original text of the āgama, we see 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。
Look at the 3rd unit of text seperated by commas: 法空. Not 法定.
This is a correction inserted by Choong to the Chinese text. He substitutes dharmanairātmyatā (法空) for dharmaniyāmatā (法定).
The issue is, for me, that there is absolutely no acknowledgement of the change made. Not even a single footnote. The text is changed to bring it into correspondence. The text already has a high degree of correspondence. This one tiny difference: dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā, should be acknowledged, and if Buddhavacana is to be altered, even if it is to "correct" it, IMO the alteration should at least be acknowledged.
With no grasp of Chinese & without consulting the Chinese source text, a reader of his English rendering of that text would have no way to know that the alteration occurred, regardless of how justified or unjustified that alteration to the Buddhavacana would have been.
He makes reference to "words that have no exact counterparts in SN". I can think of dharmanairātmyatā (法空) & dharmadhātu (法界), both of which are omitted by Choong Mun-Keat in his rendering of the Chinese.