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

[Coëmgenu]

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

Footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35 (which is found on p. 152 of the Choong text) is linked to the text here:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.

I do not see an acknowledgement of alteration of the āgama source text here, did you find it elsewhere?

The Buddha encourages us not to ask questions with the intent to ensnare the answerer and make him look uninformed, however, in this instance, it is perfectly reasonable that Choong would cite this. I was very surprised that he didn't. I myself have looked through his book before for citations of alterations to texts of the āgamāḥ he deals with. I have not found any. If you have found some, that would improve my opinion of Choong Mun-Keat as a scholar.

[thomaslaw]

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

Footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35 (which is found on p. 152 of the Choong text) is linked to the text here:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.

I do not see an acknowledgement of alteration of the āgama source text here, did you find it elsewhere?

The Buddha encourages us not to ask questions with the intent to ensnare the answerer and make him look uninformed, however, in this instance, it is perfectly reasonable that Choong would cite this. I was very surprised that he didn't. I myself have looked through his book before for citations of alterations to texts of the āgamāḥ he deals with. I have not found any. If you have found some, that would improve my opinion of Choong Mun-Keat as a scholar.

You need to follow the foodnote no. 11, p. 152: CSA ii p. 35.

[Coëmgenu]

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

Footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35 (which is found on p. 152 of the Choong text) is linked to the text here:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.

I do not see an acknowledgement of alteration of the āgama source text here, did you find it elsewhere?

The Buddha encourages us not to ask questions with the intent to ensnare the answerer and make him look uninformed, however, in this instance, it is perfectly reasonable that Choong would cite this. I was very surprised that he didn't. I myself have looked through his book before for citations of alterations to texts of the āgamāḥ he deals with. I have not found any. If you have found some, that would improve my opinion of Choong Mun-Keat as a scholar.

You need to follow the foodnote no. 11, p. 152: CSA ii p. 35.

I am sorry but the footnote does not say what you are saying it says. Unless you can elucidate how 'The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions' is relevant to Choong's alteration.

[thomaslaw]

Footnote 11: CSA ii, p. 35 (which is found on p. 152 of the Choong text) is linked to the text here:


I do not see an acknowledgement of alteration of the āgama source text here, did you find it elsewhere?

The Buddha encourages us not to ask questions with the intent to ensnare the answerer and make him look uninformed, however, in this instance, it is perfectly reasonable that Choong would cite this. I was very surprised that he didn't. I myself have looked through his book before for citations of alterations to texts of the āgamāḥ he deals with. I have not found any. If you have found some, that would improve my opinion of Choong Mun-Keat as a scholar.

You need to follow the foodnote no. 11, p. 152: CSA ii p. 35.

I am sorry but the footnote does not say what you are saying it says. Unless you can elucidate how 'The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions' is relevant to Choong's alteration.

Just check and read: CSA ii p. 35.

Cf. also footnote 14 about the Sanskrit text.

[Coëmgenu]

You need to follow the foodnote no. 11, p. 152: CSA ii p. 35.

I am sorry but the footnote does not say what you are saying it says. Unless you can elucidate how 'The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions' is relevant to Choong's alteration.

Just check and read: CSA ii p. 35.

I did. You are lying or being deceptive. One of the two. Anyone else can also check and read. I supplied a link to the text we are addressing. Anyone else is free to follow your trail of nonexistent breadcrumbs.

[thomaslaw]

I am sorry but the footnote does not say what you are saying it says. Unless you can elucidate how 'The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions' is relevant to Choong's alteration.

Just check and read: CSA ii p. 35.

I did. You are lying or being deceptive. One of the two. Anyone else can also check and read. I supplied a link to the text we are addressing. Anyone else is free to follow your trail of nonexistent breadcrumbs.

Do you know what is 'CSA'?

Cf. also footnote 14 about the Sanskrit text.

[Coëmgenu]

Just check and read: CSA ii p. 35.

I did. You are lying or being deceptive. One of the two. Anyone else can also check and read. I supplied a link to the text we are addressing. Anyone else is free to follow your trail of nonexistent breadcrumbs.

Do you know what is 'CSA'?

Cf. also footnote 14 about the Sanskrit text.

Yes I do. What you are talking about is still irrelevant.

[thomaslaw]

I did. You are lying or being deceptive. One of the two. Anyone else can also check and read. I supplied a link to the text we are addressing. Anyone else is free to follow your trail of nonexistent breadcrumbs.

Do you know what is 'CSA'?

Cf. also footnote 14 about the Sanskrit text.

Yes I do. What you are talking about is still irrelevant.

Good on you!

[Coëmgenu]

Do you know what is 'CSA'?

Cf. also footnote 14 about the Sanskrit text.

Yes I do. What you are talking about is still irrelevant.

Good on you!

You're quite literally citing me a footnote from a completely different section of the book. Good for me for giving people something to read I suppose?

[thomaslaw]

Yes I do. What you are talking about is still irrelevant.

Good on you!

You're quite literally citing me a footnote from a completely different section of the book. Good for me for giving people something to read I suppose?

' ... from a completely different section of the book' ???

[Coëmgenu]

Good on you!

You're quite literally citing me a footnote from a completely different section of the book. Good for me for giving people something to read I suppose?

' ... from a completely different section of the book' ???

Yes. You originally directed me to page 35 of the text. Poor communication. I eventually found a footnote that resembled what you had given me at 152, but the Choong text does not address anything I brought up that requires citation, and footnote 11 there is appended to this:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.]

I already typed this out but here I am doing it again.

This is not relevant to anything discussed thus far. This is not relevant to dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā. This is not Choong citing his alteration. Nor is it citing an alteration of Ven Yin Shun.

[thomaslaw]

You're quite literally citing me a footnote from a completely different section of the book. Good for me for giving people something to read I suppose?

' ... from a completely different section of the book' ???

Yes. You originally directed me to page 35 of the text. Poor communication. I eventually found a footnote that resembled what you had given me at 152, but the Choong text does not address anything I brought up that requires citation, and footnote 11 there is appended to this:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.]

I already typed this out but here I am doing it again.

This is not relevant to anything discussed thus far. This is not relevant to dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā. This is not Choong citing his alteration. Nor is it citing an alteration of Yin Shun.

I see!

Choong in fact follows both Yinshun (CSA ii, p. 35) and the Sanskrit text.

[Coëmgenu]

' ... from a completely different section of the book' ???

Yes. You originally directed me to page 35 of the text. Poor communication. I eventually found a footnote that resembled what you had given me at 152, but the Choong text does not address anything I brought up that requires citation, and footnote 11 there is appended to this:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.

I already typed this out but here I am doing it again.

This is not relevant to anything discussed thus far. This is not relevant to dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā. This is not Choong citing his alteration. Nor is it citing an alteration of Yin Shun.

I see!

Choong in fact follows both Yinshun (CSA ii, p. 35) and the Sanskrit text.

He may follow it but he does not cite the differences between this scholarly reconstruction and the traditional Buddhavacana. That has been my point all along.

He remembers to cite the alteration on page 45 of this text of his.

I think he simply forgot to cite it properly in the other text. People make mistakes. I'm glad I managed to find a citation of alteration from him. It had always bothered me that the alteration was not cited in the original text discussed.

That being said, the citation is missing in Fundamentals of Early Buddhism. I've already discussed how the text for footnote 11 does not address the topic at hand. Furthermore, footnote 11 in Fundamentals is a citation of a different section of Ven Yin Shun's CSA than his direct citation addressing specifically dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā in the Pratyayasūtra in his Annotated Translation of Sutras from the Chinese Samyuktagama relevant to the Early Buddhist Teachings on Emptiness and the Middle Way.

[thomaslaw]

Yes. You originally directed me to page 35 of the text. Poor communication. I eventually found a footnote that resembled what you had given me at 152, but the Choong text does not address anything I brought up that requires citation, and footnote 11 there is appended to this:

The corresponding SA 296 is different in expression; for example, it reverses the sequence, beginning with "conditioned by ignorance are activities". However, the message is the same in both versions.

I already typed this out but here I am doing it again.

This is not relevant to anything discussed thus far. This is not relevant to dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā. This is not Choong citing his alteration. Nor is it citing an alteration of Yin Shun.

I see!

Choong in fact follows both Yinshun (CSA ii, p. 35) and the Sanskrit text.

He may follow it but he does not cite the differences between this scholarly reconstruction and the traditional Buddhavacana. That has been my point all along.

He remembers to cite the alteration on page 45 of this text of his.

I think he simply forgot to cite it properly in the other text. People make mistakes. I'm glad I managed to find a citation of alteration from him. It had always bothered me that the alteration was not cited in the original text discussed.

That being said, the citation is missing in Fundamentals of Early Buddhism. I've already discussed how the text for footnote 11 does not address the topic at hand. Furthermore, footnote 11 in Fundamentals is a citation of a different section of Ven Yin Shun's CSA than his direct citation addressing specifically dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā in the Pratyayasūtra in his Annotated Translation of Sutras from the Chinese Samyuktagama relevant to the Early Buddhist Teachings on Emptiness and the Middle Way.

I think his notes 11 (for Yinshun CSA ii p. 35) & 14 (for the Sanskrit text), and the citation for SA 296 in page 153, are very clear indeed. You need to follow and read Yinshun CSA ii p. 35 & the Sanskrit text, not just T2 p. 84.

[Coëmgenu]

[...] the citation is missing in Fundamentals of Early Buddhism. I've already discussed how the text for footnote 11 does not address the topic at hand. Furthermore, footnote 11 in Fundamentals is a citation of a different section of Ven Yin Shun's CSA than his direct citation addressing specifically dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā in the Pratyayasūtra in his Annotated Translation of Sutras from the Chinese Samyuktagama relevant to the Early Buddhist Teachings on Emptiness and the Middle Way.

I think his notes 11 (for Yinshun CSA ii p. 35) & 14 (for the Sanskrit text), and the citation for SA 296 in page 153, are very clear indeed. You need to follow and read Yinshun CSA ii p. 35 & the Sanskrit text, not just T2 p. 84.

This is Ven Yin Shun's footnote from his CSA, it is footnote 2, in volume 2, page 36:

註【13-002】「定」，原本誤作「空」，今依『論』改。

Ven Choong cites this particular footnote in his aforementioned Annotated Translation. Footnote 11 of Fundamentals is not citing this particular footnote of Ven Yin Shun. It is citing a different section of the text. This makes sense, because Footnote 11 of Fundamentals does not address or discuss dharmanairātmyatā --> dharmaniyāmatā, but his footnote in Annotated Translation does. In Footnote 11 of Fundamentals he is citing material from the previous page.

I am not calling Ven Choong a liar or anything of the like, as I said before:

I think he simply forgot to cite it properly in the other text. People make mistakes. I'm glad I managed to find a citation of alteration from him. It had always bothered me that the alteration was not cited in the original text discussed.