Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

Dear thomaslaw: thanks for the links.
The excerpt below from the link you gave, contains a great deal of food for thought.
The Pali Devata and Devaputta Samyuttas belong to the Tamragatiya/Vibhajyavada school (often called Theravada), the Samyuktagama version belongs to the Sarvastivada school, and the Additional Translation of Samyuktagama version may belong to the Kasyapiya school(or to an unidentified school).
Now Theravada also includes the Sthaviras right? Why does the author call only Tamragatiya/Vibhajyavada, the Theravada school?
Why are the original Sthaviras excluded from the Theravada classification? Is it because the Tamragatiya/Vibhajyavada tampered with the original teachings of the Sthaviras, and introduced new suttas such as DN22/MN10 or many suttas with Upanishadic leanings?
To me DN 22/MN 10 offer incorrect establishments of Mindfulness.
But a sutta found in Samyutta nikaya SN 47.42 appear to have got the Four Establishments of Mindfulness correct.
Thanks to the Samyutta Nikaya, those who want to be saved, find the right path to do so.

Also curiously Charles Patton of Sutta Central, discussing a sutta in Anguttara, (AN 8.63 MĀ 76) comments that Chinese suttas believed that Samma Sati, and Samma samadhi are connected (Sarvastivadin), but Theravadins (Vibajjhavadins) treated these two as separate meditations???
With love :candle:
PS I could ask the first question slightly differently. Did Sarvastivadin and Theravadin both base their canons on Sthavira texts, but since the Sarvastivadin canon closed earlier than the Theravadin canon, is it more likely to be less influenced by sectarianim that became rampant with time?
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Pulsar wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:58 pm PS I could ask the first question slightly differently. Did Sarvastivadin and Theravadin both base their canons on Sthavira texts, but since the Sarvastivadin canon closed earlier than the Theravadin canon, is it more likely to be less influenced by sectarianim that became rampant with time?
Choong Mun-keat in his recent 2020 article (p. 901) states:

"The extant Saṃyukta-āgama and Saṃyutta-nikāya are definitely sectarian texts. Since we do not have the Mahāsāṅghika Saṃyukta-āgama, it is not possible to find out precisely and clearly what the original version of the Saṃyukta/Saṃyutta text would have been."

The extant SA and SN, and also other āgamas/nikāyas, are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively (p. 11 in Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).

:reading: :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote
The extant SA and SN, and also other āgamas/nikāyas, are sectarian texts.
Does this not tell us that sectarianism crept into these canons? and that one has to be careful in deciphering which sutta is uncorrupted, and which is corrupted by Vibajjavadin (in the case of Pali nikaya).
For instance there is large number of suttas that include Arupa samapattis (not the Buddha's teaching) in the nikayas other than Samyutta Nikaya. I am leaving out Parayanavagga and Atthakavagga which were closed during Buddha's time but which are not included in the nikayas??? as you said.

In the case of the Samyutta Nikaya there is a silver lining, such corruptions are minimal. (limited to Sariputta and Mogggalana Samyutta known to be late fabrications and a very few other.
Again what I suspect to be corruptions in these two samyuttas do not have parallels in the Agama.
Sarvastivadins in this sense, stuck to the original teachings of the Buddha more faithfully.
Hence SA although sectarian as you say, is less sectarian than SN?
Compilers of Samyutta Nikaya on the whole seem to have understood Paticca samuppada very clearly and resisted such intrusion by vibajjavadin oriented Abhidhammikas? As I begin to engage with you, Sagathavagga becomes clearer. I find the Bhikkuni Samyutta of the Sagata Vagga the most brilliant and concise of these small selection of Samyuttas.
Do you know of additional publications on Bhikkuni Samyutta? I would love to read it.
What are your thoughts?
With love :candle:
PS I apologize for any typos in the above comment, if there is, it is not intentional.
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:18 pm Sariputta and Mogggalana Samyutta known to be late fabrications and a very few other.
Again what I suspect to be corruptions in these two samyuttas do not have parallels in the Agama.
About these two Samyuttas, you may see the following articles by Choong Mun-keat:

“A comparison of the Chinese and Pali versions of the Sariputra Samyukta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Sariputra”, in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol.10, May 2016, pp. 27-52.

"A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli Saṃyukta/Saṃyuttas on the Venerable Mahā-Maudgalyāyana (Mahā-Moggallāna)", Buddhist Studies Review, v. 34.1 (2017), pp. 67-84.

Check: https://www.academia.edu/ :reading: :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

The discrepancies found in the Agama and Theravada versions of linked Discourses, while not huge,
when they occur, point to an ugly truth.
With sectarianism, Buddha's foundational teaching became the victim of sectarian misunderstandings of Dependent origination. With later additions nikaya came to divert from the original teachings.
One can almost see where Stahvira entries ended, and entries of Tamragatiya/Vibhajyavada school (often called Theravada) began.
The fraudulent fabrication of Sariputta and Moggallana Samyuttas are the textbook examples. The attempt to sneak in Arupa Samapatthis that prevailed in India before the Buddha???
With that, it is no wonder that many Buddhists came to believe that there is no difference in meditation (Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi) of Noble Eightfold path, and Jain and other meditations. 
But the observant observes that the Eightfold path was Buddha's invention.
  • Words like Jhana lose their liberative significance when misused.
  • Without having the 8-fold path as its foundation, jhana becomes the topic of a frivolous discourse, a form of sensationalism.
The agama commentaries saw the link between Samma Sati (SN 47.42) and Samma Samadhi. Vibajjavadins disconnected the two meditative steps  of the 8 fold path from each other. Once that mission was  accomplished, all the previous meditations prevalent in Indian society could be brought in as Buddha's teachings. 
SN 12.63 of Nidana Samyutta ends with
  • "When name-and-form is fully understood, I say, there is nothing further that a noble disciple needs to do"
in both Samyuktagama, Samyutta nikaya, clearly a foundational sutta.
But for the Tamragatiya/Vibhajyavada compilers who dragged Arupasamapatthis into the Samyutta Nikaya, and other Nikayas, they  did not understand the
true meaning of Name and form.
By this time?
their abhidhamma had been tampered with quite significantly, that it did not reflect Buddha Dhamma anymore.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40493
Rupa of Nama-rupa was misinterpreted as a physical aggregate, a major SNAFU.
SN 12.63 wrote 
  • "When name-and-form is fully understood, I say, there is nothing further that a noble disciple needs to do"
However the Vibajjavadin abhidhammikas did not arrive at that crucial understanding. Hence the suttas they would introduce DN 22, MN 10, SN 28.1-9 would mislead the naive buddhist.
The Theravada compilers did not delete SN 47.42. 
  • Not all Theravada compilers were Vibbajjavadin.
The two celebrated scholars of Theravada, Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu point to the contrary SN 47.42, which elucidates the 4 establishments of Mindfulness in an entirely different manner. BB notes that its thrust goes against the general thrust of the Theravada/Vibajjavadin tradition. Both scholars note this sutta is unique.
But these sentiments are in their foot notes. Who reads foot notes?
SN 47.42 matches the teaching of Dependent origination curiously, yet its significance was lost on Vibbajavadins who failed to take note of
  • the significance of Nama-Rupa.
Even though Buddha himself had claimed "When name-and-form is fully understood, I say, there is nothing further that a noble disciple needs to do"

Dear thomaslaw: As the present exchange  continues i begin to notice where and how the sectarians tampered with the original teachings.  
Thanks for the links, i could not access the first two, but i have a rough idea what they might be.
BY spending more time with Bhikkhu Bodhi's writings, and your comments and Charles Patton's comments to agama (On Sutta central), I figure there was a ton of late activity regarding Sariputta and Moggallana Samyutta. With love  :candle:
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:50 pm
their abhidhamma had been tampered with quite significantly, that it did not reflect Buddha Dhamma anymore.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40493
Thanks for this link! :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote
Thanks for the link :candle:
You might also find the paper below helpful, found on Academia.edu.
Discourses on the establishments of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthānas) quoted in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā" by Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā.
The author Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna refers to a Tibetan translation of the parallel to SN 47.42. A sutta found in Samyutta nikaya, and Samyukta agama SĀ 609
In her paper is also a sutta where Moggalana claims 
There is just one path for the purification of beings,
for going beyond sorrow and misfortune, for the fading away of duḥkha and distress,
for attaining the dharma of the [right] method. 
That is, the four establishments of mindfulness"
What are the four? The correct answer is found in SN 47.42,  
Due to their apparent misinterpretation of DO?  Vibajjavadins came up with a whole slew of suttas,
most popular ones being DN22/MN 10, where we find Moggallana's statement
"There is just one path for the purification of beings" cut and pasted on, to an error prone method of the 4 establishments of Mindfulness, DN 22/MN10.
Main culprit is the way Vibajjavadins abhidhammikas tweaked the Foundational teaching,
ie nama-rupa---> consciousness, along with DO.
  • For these late comers, rupa was not a mental construct.
 A new school was created for which rupa became a physical construct. From that point on Buddha vanished from the suttas thus created, and teachings of other elders took his place.
Sutta pitaka contains a mix of Sthavira and Vibajjavadin suttas.
Vibajjavadins failed to understand the original soteriological significance of the 4 establishments of mindfulness. 
With love  :candle:
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Pulsar wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:06 pm
... SN 47.42. ... Samyukta agama SĀ 609
This sutta regarding the origination and the passing away of the four stations/establishments of mindfulness seems to have close connection with the concept of four aharas/nutriments in the Nidana Samyutta of SN and SA. See pp. 202-204 in Choong Mun-keat's Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism:

As for the practice of the four stations of mindfulness, SN 47.2 = SA 622 (see p. 216) is very useful:
Attachments
p. 216 in the-fundamental-teachings-of-early Buddhism_choong-mun-keat 2000.pdf
(83.02 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
Pages 202-204 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf
(221.53 KiB) Downloaded 8 times
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Regarding ‘studies in Samyutta/Samyukta’, Choong Mun-keat has published the following articles
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5664-2895):

"A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of Jhāna Saṃyutta, Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta, and Abhisamaya Saṃyutta: early Buddhist discourses on concentrative meditation, the uncompounded, and realisation", Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 2021 (21), pp. 10-43.

“A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of Nāga Saṃyutta, Supaṇṇa Saṃyutta, and Valāhaka Saṃyutta, early Buddhist discourse collections on mythical dragons, birds, and cloud devas”, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 2020 (18), pp. 42-65.

“A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of Okkantika Saṃyutta, Uppāda Saṃyutta, Kilesa Saṃyutta and Rāhula Saṃyutta, early Buddhist discourses on entering, arising, affliction, and the Venerable Rāhula”, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 2018 (14), pp. 20-36.

"A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli Saṃyukta/Saṃyuttas on the Venerable Mahā-Maudgalyāyana (Mahā-Moggallāna)", Buddhist Studies Review (Journal of the UK Association for Buddhist Studies), v. 34.1 (2017), pp. 67-84.

“A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Kassapa Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Kasyapa”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Cambridge University Press), vol. 27, issue 2 (2017), pp. 295-311.

“A comparison of the Chinese and Pali versions of the Sariputra Samyukta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Sariputra”, in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol.10, May 2016, pp. 27-52.

"A Comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Versions of the Brahma Saṃyutta, a Collection of Early Buddhist Discourses on Brahmās, the Exalted Gods", Buddhist Studies Review (Journal of the UK Association for Buddhist Studies), vol. 31.2, pp. 179-194 (2014)

"A Comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Versions of the Gāmani Samyutta, a Collection of Early Buddhist Discourses to Headmen", Journal of Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 7, pp. 98-115 (2014)

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Sakka Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on 'Sakra, ruler of the gods' ", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 22, issue 3-4, October 2012 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 561–574.

"A comparison of the Chinese and Pali versions of the Bala Samyukta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on "Powers" (Bala)", in Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol.2, May 2012, pp. 84-103.

"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" ", Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol.1, October 2011, pp. 60-88.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Mara Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on Mara, the Evil One", The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies', vol.10, 2009, pp. 35-53.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Brahmana Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the priestly Brahmanas", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 19, issue 03, July 2009 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 371-382.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Vangisa-thera Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Vangisa", Buddhist Studies Review 24 (1), 2007, pp. 35-45.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Bhikkhu Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on monks", Buddhist Studies Review 23 (1), 2006, pp. 61-70.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Kosala Samyutta, an early Buddhist discourse on King Pasenadi of Kosala", The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 7, 2006, pp. 21-35.
---
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote
This sutta regarding the origination and the passing away of the four stations/establishments of mindfulness seems to have close connection with the concept of four aharas/nutriments in the Nidana Samyutta of SN and SA.
This is very true,
  • those who fail to understand the significance of Ahara/nutrients in the context of SN 12.63
    fail to understand the soteriological significance of 4 establishments of mindfulness.
  • The four establishments do not mean, the savoring of body, the savoring of feeling, the savoring of mind and mind's objects. It is targeted at getting rid of the 4 stations of mind.
Theravadin abhidhammikas got off on the wrong foot by making the first establishment the physical body. DN 22/MN10. Fragments of this wrong understanding have leaked into many other suttas they later compiled.
What made them treat first aggregate as a physical body?
Once there was a discussion on Ahara, and the 4 establishments of mindfulness on Sutta Central, and our DooDoot made an amazingly tantalizing comment there.
Also Nutrients are treated in two different contexts in the Samyutta Nikaya.
I wonder whether these were later additions, by sutta compilers??? I just did not have time to explore that.
Thanks for the other links you provided.
These studies require a ton of dedication, to sort through.
The different ways the Thervadins and Sarvastivadins compiled the connected Series of suttas, reveal valuable details regarding the differences in their interpretation.
With love :candle:
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:18 pm I find the Bhikkuni Samyutta of the Sagata Vagga the most brilliant and concise of these small selection of Samyuttas.
... What are your thoughts?
The feature of SN 5. Bhikkhuni Samyutta is very similar to SN 4. Mara Samyutta.

Bhikkhuni Samyutta is about bhikkhuni, but in most cases is that Mara tries to interrupt and disturb Bhikkhuni's concentration; this is followed by the individual bhikkhuni and Mara challenging each other in 'verse'; and finally Mara, after being identified, departs defeated and disappointed. The individual bhikkhuni and Mara talked to each other in verse!

One thought: It seems Bhikkhuni Samyutta is more about the notion of Mara rather than Bhikkhuni. It is the early Buddhist adaptation of general Indian religious beliefs about divine beings (devas), and one of them is Mara. The adaptation style is presented in verse in the early Buddhist texts.

Cf. the following article by Choong Mun-keat on Mara Samyutta:

“A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Mara Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on Mara, the Evil One”, The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies , vol.10, 2009, pp. 35-53.
https://www.academia.edu/42299965/A_com ... e_Evil_One

:candle: :reading:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote wrote
One thought: It seems Bhikkhuni Samyutta is more about the notion of Mara rather than Bhikkhuni. It is the early Buddhist adaptation of general Indian religious beliefs about divine beings (devas), and one of them is Mara. The adaptation style is presented in verse in the early Buddhist texts.
Some might perceive it that way. I don't quite see it like this, I have a tendency to look past myth and get at the truth of the dhamma conveyed. Mythology is a way of presenting profound dhamma to the general public, unfamiliar with DO.
In "Empty village" SN 35.238 aggregates are described as Mara.
  • Bhikkhuni Samyutta is about how the bhikkhunis dealt with the over powering challenge of aggregates.
For instance, note this remarkable simile, only a woman Bhikkhuni could come up with. I consider these bhikkhunis Creme de la creme of Buddha's disciples.
Aggregates are presented as chopping block. I noticed this simile first in SDC's study group.
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40050
The force of the simile is astounding.
Just imagine being a chopping block!

From Bhikkhuni Samyutta.
SN 5.1 Alavika .
Intro: Here (Mara) aggregates tell her "Look Lady, without me (us) you are nothing" meaning there is no escape from the aggregates, feelings etc.
To which the brilliant Bhikkhuni unfazed by Mara's shenanigans responds
"There is an escape in the world
Which I have closely touched with wisdom,
O Evil One (meaning the forms, feelings, perceptions, volitions, and vinnana that constantly arise) .
Kinsmen of the negligent
You do not know that state
Sensual pleasures are like swords and stakes. (or a thorny forest as presented in another sutta)
The aggregates like their chopping block.
What you call sensual delight
Has become for me non-deight"
Dearest thomaslaw Thanks for engaging with me. You have been educating Pulsar, in the best possible way, using the connected series of Discourses.
I will bring up a couple more suttas from Bhikkhuni Samyutta when I find the time.

I find the same simile, attributed to Sela theri in Therigatha. The difference in the names??? VBB in the foot note says "There is no way to determine whether this bhikkhuni is Alaviaka". Based on the verse in Samyutta Nikaya we might deduce the real name of Sela is Alavika. Samyutta Nikaya being earlier than Therigatha???

Therigatha version runs like this
Selātherīgāthā (Selā) Thig 3.7
“There’s no escape in the world,
so what will seclusion do for you?
Enjoy the delights of sensual pleasure;
don’t regret it later.”

“Sensual pleasures are like swords and stakes
the aggregates are their chopping block.
What you call sensual delight
is now no delight for me.

Relishing is destroyed in every respect,
and the mass of darkness is shattered.
So know this, Wicked One:
you’re beaten, terminator!”
With love :candle:
PS Thanks SDC for the Study Group. It is a trove of treasures.
thomaslaw
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

thomaslaw wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:41 am
thomaslaw wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:00 am https://www.academia.edu/39352226/The_F (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism 2020)
... 2020 correct to: 2000

:namaste:
This site is a list of corrected errors (errata) for the first edition of the book:

https://www.academia.edu/12476012/Errat ... y_Buddhism

:candle: :reading:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw thanks for the 
list of corrected errors
Once I favored the placement of Sagathavagga first, in the Connected Series of suttas, in the Pali Nikaya. I am wrong. 
It seems many pithy statements in these short verses can be woefully misinterpreted, if one has not mastered Nidana Samyutta, Dhatu Samyutta, and SalayatanaSamyutta.
Salayatana Samyutta is about the activity at the sense bases (that the body holds). This is what relates to the first establishment of mindfulness, which in turn relates to how things originate (SN 47.42). 
It is from these origins that we need to guard our minds. 
  • Origination of suffering!
Compilers who failed to understand this, created suttas like DN 22/MN10 which present the first establishment as the physical body.
  • Buddha's concern was with the origin of suffering at the sense bases.
For instance consider this pithy verse in SN 5.4 Vijaya in Bhikkhuni Samyutta.
"As to those beings who fare amidst form,
And those who abide in the formless"
Vibajjavadins who misunderstood form, interpreted formless of this Bhikkhuni's verse
as the formless of Arupa samapatthis of Jain/brammanical origin, and incorporated their teachings into the canon.
  • Formless in the bhikkhunis' verse means absent of form, in the nama-rupa formulation
The state is clearly described in Sn 4.11 Kalaha Vivada sutta, formlessness of 4 buddhist jhanas, which I dealt with at great length on my Jhana thread. This too was misinterpreted by some.
Perhaps that was the price they had to pay for putting the cart before the horse. Once one gets the understanding of Paticca samuppada confused, rest of the teaching fail to conform to Buddha's Dhamma.
Thank you for encouraging me to be curious.
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ven. Yinshun: Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

Yinshuns studies on Samyukta agama reveals a lot more issues with the Pali canon, that I originally failed to see. It also helped me locate the crucial suttas in The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha.
For instance DN 22/MN 11 are Vibajjavadin creations.
Buddha did not teach like this. SN 42.47 is how Buddha taught the 4 establishments of Mindfulness.
I've always suspected the presence of two categories of suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya.
In fact VBB says so, in his introduction to Samyutta Nikaya.
1. Those that are down to earth?
2. Those that are meant for those interested in the higher mind.

My interest is only in the latter. Mythology is nice when one has the time for it.
Bhikkhu in the original canon does not exclude the layman
The original meaning of Bhikkhu was the earnest aspirant, who sticks with the 4 establishments of mindfulness correctly, and practices so.
Some monks may practice so, and some may not???
cdpattons's table on Yinshuns classification of Samyukata agama, leads me to some of the advanced suttas in AN. https://dharmapearls.net/dharmabase/ind ... rses_(CSA)

If you click on something like say Horse Samyutta, (not found in Samyutta Nikaya)
it gives a list of corresponding valuable AN suttas.
It requires time to engage in text critical studies this way. It is exhausting.
But that exhaustion pays off in the long run.
For instance one can eliminate the many suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya that do not contribute value. They are either mythology or suttas that are just multiplications of an original sutta and does not contributing anything more, added by later compilers. I recall V. Sujato once saying Pali canon is mythology? But it is not all Mythology. 
I am beginning to rely on only the suttas in the Pali canon when they are accompanied by Sarvastivadin parallels. 
A question for you dear thomaslaw, when an early sutta like Sn4.11 is interpreted by scholars using Theravada abhidhamma??? does it make sense? 
Is not there a huge gap between the way, Buddha taught DO, (Nidana samyutta) and the way later abhidhammikas interpreted it?
Why would a scholar use Niddesa to bring out the intention of Sn 4.11? Isn't Sn 4.11 self explanatory by itself for the one understands that form in Nama-Rupa is a mental creation? (which is not so in the Theravada abhidhamma?)
With love  :candle:
Post Reply