Wind wrote:So do we know if it's only MN 117 that is different than the Chinese version? Or are there more discrepancies in other Suttas? I think it's critical to observe the discrepancies to figure out what happened.
They are from different schools so, YES!
each school used there own doctrine to compile the texts, whether latter work crept in or was influenced by this is another matter, but out of the 7 satipatthana suttas each has differences, sections or words included or not depending on the compiler of that particular version, one according to Sujato is obviously incompletely edited.
I do not know about the other comparative suttas to comment on them, but if you are editing or compiling your particular interpretation will creep in somewhere, and if it is done by a group of like minded people this may give more emphasis.
I think it is unwise to say something is creeping in when it could be the case of it creeping out, if the related text supports the inclusion of the differences then are the differences wrong or is the omition wrong?
there is only two question that need answered, does it align with Dhamma? or does it shift the corresponding teachings within its own tradition?
sure if it is a no to either of these questions then more examination is needed, and if it a yes to both then comparative study of the corresponding text where differences are maybe worthwhile in finding out why there is/are differences, the answer could be simple or complex, nothing more than what is being pointed to (the path an aspect of the path or the fruit) or something else someone may have gotten it wrong, or both have gotten it correct.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill