Are there any EBT suttas not found in the paali collection?

[Caodemarte]

Unfortunately owing to copyright issues with Ven. Anālayo's translations

Venerable, is it the case that these aren't available for free, or whatsoever? If the former, where can I pay for them?

My understanding is that they are free but that the copyright is held by that Japanese Mahayana outfit that distributes Buddhist Gideon Bibles to Asian hotels. I've forgotten its name now.

Are you referring to BDK? They distribute the“Gideon Bible” you can find in many hotels and other places.

The free English agama translation, but not by Ven. Analayo, is at http://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/ ... ode&id=632 and http://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/ ... ode&id=676. BDK America will sell a hard copy as well.

[alan]

There is enough in the Originals to keep you interested and reading for the rest of your life.

[dylanj]

There is enough in the Originals to keep you interested and reading for the rest of your life.

what are "the Originals"

[alan]

The originals are what is found in the Pali Canon, which contain all the early texts. Not all of them are worth reading, but the basic stuff sure is. Here is a link to a site where you can learn more: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/

[dylanj]

The originals are what is found in the Pali Canon, which contain all the early texts. Not all of them are worth reading, but the basic stuff sure is. Here is a link to a site where you can learn more: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/

I know what the Pali Canon is, hence this post. Why do you think some aren't worth reading? & yes there's enough in the pali texts, but I was curious if there are texts missing from it that are found in other EBT collections, which, by the way, are just as "original" as the pali.

[Coëmgenu]

Second Part of the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama
https://suttacentral.net/sa-2

If you will allow me some pedantry, bhante, SA-2, rather than being a second part to a set of Chinese āgamāḥ, is actually an independent only-partially-preserved parallel recension to SA. SA is from the Southerly Sarvāstivādins in India. SA-2 is from Northerly Sarvāstivādins in Central Asia, and was likely a Gāndhārī text before it was Chinese. I will put some citations up for this after work.

[Coëmgenu]

Second Part of the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama
https://suttacentral.net/sa-2

If you will allow me some pedantry, bhante, SA-2, rather than being a second part to a set of Chinese āgamāḥ, is actually an independent only-partially-preserved parallel recension to SA. SA is from the Southerly Sarvāstivādins in India. SA-2 is from Northerly Sarvāstivādins in Central Asia, and was likely a Gāndhārī text before it was Chinese. I will put some citations up for this after work.

The above is all information from Marcus Bingenheimer's Studies in Āgama Literature: with special reference to the Shorter Chinese Saṃyuktāgama. All of the information presented here is from that same paper, which is AFAIK available for-free online if anyone desires to search for it.

SA (雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as ZA) is tentatively traceable to a Prākrit-or-Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn from Abhayagirivihāra in Śrī Laṃkā. Marcus Bingenheimer and some others argue that SA-2 (別譯雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as BZA) is a parallel descendant of the very same Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn.

The differences between the two, the extant Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama & the Chinese ZA/SA, as is usual in EBT studies, are very interesting.

For instance (and here we depart from specifically Bingenheimer's scholarship), from the Paccayasutta, the Pāli has: ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā

The Sanskrit has: iti yātra dharmatā dharmasthititā dharmaniyāmatā dharmayathātathā avitathatā ananyathā bhūtaṃ satyatā tattvatā yāthātathā aviparītatā aviparyastatā

The Chinese has: iti yātra dharmatā dharmasthititā dharmanairātmyatā dharmayathātathā avitathatā [...]

A one-word difference between the Chinese & Sanskrit, but both lists seem "reasonable". The Sanskrit & Pāli agreeing spells bad news for the Chinese, though.

[thomaslaw]

Second Part of the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama
https://suttacentral.net/sa-2

If you will allow me some pedantry, bhante, SA-2, rather than being a second part to a set of Chinese āgamāḥ, is actually an independent only-partially-preserved parallel recension to SA. SA is from the Southerly Sarvāstivādins in India. SA-2 is from Northerly Sarvāstivādins in Central Asia, and was likely a Gāndhārī text before it was Chinese. I will put some citations up for this after work.

... SA (雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as ZA) is tentatively traceable to a Prākrit-or-Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn from Abhayagirivihāra in Śrī Laṃkā. Marcus Bingenheimer and some others argue that SA-2 (別譯雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as BZA) is a parallel descendant of the very same Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn.

The differences between the two, the extant Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama & the Chinese ZA/SA, as is usual in EBT studies, are very interesting.

However, SA-2 (T2, no. 100: 別譯雜阿含經, abbreviated ASA, or BZA) belongs to the Kasyapiya school (or to an unidentified school), according to Yinshun, Mayeda (also for an unidentified school) and Choong Mun-keat (see Choong Mun-keat, 2011, 'A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Devata Samyutta and Devaputta Samyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas "gods" and devaputras "sons of gods" " in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, p. 62, note 6).

[Coëmgenu]

If you will allow me some pedantry, bhante, SA-2, rather than being a second part to a set of Chinese āgamāḥ, is actually an independent only-partially-preserved parallel recension to SA. SA is from the Southerly Sarvāstivādins in India. SA-2 is from Northerly Sarvāstivādins in Central Asia, and was likely a Gāndhārī text before it was Chinese. I will put some citations up for this after work.

... SA (雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as ZA) is tentatively traceable to a Prākrit-or-Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn from Abhayagirivihāra in Śrī Laṃkā. Marcus Bingenheimer and some others argue that SA-2 (別譯雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as BZA) is a parallel descendant of the very same Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn.

The differences between the two, the extant Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama & the Chinese ZA/SA, as is usual in EBT studies, are very interesting.

However, SA-2 (T2, no. 100: 別譯雜阿含經, abbreviated ASA, or BZA) belongs to the Kasyapiya school (or to an unidentified school), according to Yinshun, Mayeda (also for an unidentified school) and Choong Mun-keat (see Choong Mun-keat, 2011, 'A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Devata Samyutta and Devaputta Samyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas "gods" and devaputras "sons of gods" " in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, p. 62, note 6).

Bingenheimer disagrees with these scholars. He voices his disagreement with the attribution of the BZA to the Kāśyapīya in the aforementioned article.

[SarathW]

Are you referring to BDK? They distribute the“Gideon Bible” you can find in many hotels and other places.

I found the teaching of Buddha in one of hotels in Japan.
I ask and they gave me a free copy.

https://thejapans.org/tag/the-gideons/

[thomaslaw]

... SA (雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as ZA) is tentatively traceable to a Prākrit-or-Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn from Abhayagirivihāra in Śrī Laṃkā. Marcus Bingenheimer and some others argue that SA-2 (別譯雜阿含經, normally abbreviated as BZA) is a parallel descendant of the very same Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama retrieved by the venerable Fǎxiǎn.

The differences between the two, the extant Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama & the Chinese ZA/SA, as is usual in EBT studies, are very interesting.

However, SA-2 (T2, no. 100: 別譯雜阿含經, abbreviated ASA, or BZA) belongs to the Kasyapiya school (or to an unidentified school), according to Yinshun, Mayeda (also for an unidentified school) and Choong Mun-keat (see Choong Mun-keat, 2011, 'A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Devata Samyutta and Devaputta Samyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas "gods" and devaputras "sons of gods" " in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, p. 62, note 6).

Bingenheimer disagrees with these scholars. He voices his disagreement with the attribution of the BZA to the Kāśyapīya in the aforementioned article.

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).

[Coëmgenu]

However, SA-2 (T2, no. 100: 別譯雜阿含經, abbreviated ASA, or BZA) belongs to the Kasyapiya school (or to an unidentified school), according to Yinshun, Mayeda (also for an unidentified school) and Choong Mun-keat (see Choong Mun-keat, 2011, 'A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Devata Samyutta and Devaputta Samyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas "gods" and devaputras "sons of gods" " in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, p. 62, note 6).

Bingenheimer disagrees with these scholars. He voices his disagreement with the attribution of the BZA to the Kāśyapīya in the aforementioned article.

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).

Scholar battle death-match! Two likely-out-of-shape men enter the cage. One leaves.

[Coëmgenu]

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.

Thoughts?

[thomaslaw]

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.

Thoughts?

See footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35, indicated in the book.

[Coëmgenu]

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.

Thoughts?

See footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35, indicated in the book.

Unfortunately, in the copy of the book I have, a free online version from A Handful of Leaves, which anyone is free to download, has no footnote 11 on page 35. This edition is available here.

Could you possibly reproduce the footnote addressing the alteration that you found?