Dear Bhante Bhante Sujato,

Let me begin by saying how nice it is to hera from somebody else who has an
interest in some aspects of Yogacara.

> I'd be very interested to know of any research findings regarding the YBS.

Very little in English but considerably more in Japanese and some in
Chinese.

> I've been doing some research on the origins of SA/SN and their role in

the formation

> of the four nikayas/agamas.

The Vastu-samgrahani portion of the YBS (which I am currently translating)
is also important. The reaction of the SA used by Asanga is very similar to
the SA version preserved in Chinese but possibly not identical as his
version includes some texts found in MA/MN or AA/AN. Most scholars seem to
think that the Chinese SA is Sarvastivadin in affiliation so I think it is
likely that Asanga's SA was the Mula-sarvastivadn version. Despite the
slight differences, the data provided by the VS (YBS) concerning the SA was
instumental in restoring the Chinese SA to its correct sequence -- the
various fascicles of the Chinese version were somewhat jumbled and a small
portion is missing with an intrusive Asoka-avadana inserted.
As you may be aware, the overall structure of this SA seems more logical
than the SN. If you are not familiar with this, I'll fill you in next
time -- there is a comparative study in English of the SA/SN, which you
probably have.

> I read in a footnote to Analayo's book on satipatthana that there is

apparently a version of the Satipatthana Sutta in the Sravakabhumi of
Yogacarabhumisastra. Do you know anything about this? Is it in the portions
of the YBS that are available in Sanskrit? If so, do you know the
publication details?
**
1. The bhavana treatment in the ShB is very detailed and extensive. I
have not especially studied this part of the YBS (lack of time, not
interest). It is quite possible that there is a version of the Satipatthana
Sutta in there somewhere -- I'll try to find it for you.
2. Yes, it is available in Sanskrit (with some short lacunae). The
Indian published version by Shukla is rather poor and a Japanese team based
at Taisho University is currently re-doing it, using better photographs of
the text. They have already published the first quarter (1st yoga-sthaana)
and it is still in print. There is also Alex Wayman's "Analysis of
Sravakabhumi Manuscript" (Univ of California Press 1961) which contains
edited transcriptions and translations of all key secetions of the ShB.

> Regarding the dates of EA/AN, the lack of congruence is not necessarily a

sign of lateness. Other relevant factors are: EA is possibly from a
Mahasanghika school, so the date of schism from the Theravada group of
schools is earlier than in the case of the other agamas, so we would expect
a greater degree of divergence. This criterion might be checked by detailed
comparison of the degree of congruence of EA/AN, and the Theravada and
Mahasanghika vinayas.
***
In a way, it is regretable that the version preserved in Chinese is
Mahasanghika affiliated -- it would have been instructive if one of the
other schools were represented as well. According to Waldschmidt, the
Theravada and Mahasanghika vinayas are fairly close so one might have
expected their agama / nikaya collections to have a reasonable degree of
similarity. Judging from Akanuma's comparative catalogue, only about 50% of
the EA has any parallel suttas in any part of the AN, while the much larger
AA has hundreds of additional suttas with no parallels in any of the agamas
(perhaps as much as 70%). This is not to say that any particular sutras not
found elsewhere in either the EA or AN lack authenticity -- I get the
feeling that there were a lot of extra sutras floating around that were
available for inclusion. The EA also includes a small quantity of what one
might think of as quasi-Mahayana sutras -- mainly involving Maitreya. I do
npt think that these are necessary Mahayana per se but, as far as I know,
nobody has done any detailed studies available in English. Obviously, a lot
of study needs to be done which would shed considerable light on the
development of this agama / nikaya.

> Another point is that there is a substantial amount of material in EA that

is found elsewhere in the Nikayas, for example about 76 suttas in the
Majjhima. This suggests that we have different sets of criteria as to what
sutta goes where, that is to say, different editing policies, not
necessarily later compositions. Again, there are several mini-samyuttas in
the Pali Anguttara that in the Chinese are in SA (sikkha, kamma,
dasangikamagga...), which is surely where they belong.
**
No problem with this.

> Having said this, i agree that AN/EA is likely to be, on the whole,

somewhat later than the other collections, but perhaps not so much later as
the degree of divergence may suggest. One of the surprising conclusions of
the study of satipatthana is that the Maha Satipatthana Sutta of the DN is
very late, possibly Sri Lankan, so there is clearly late material in the
other Nikaya/Agamas, too.
**
Indeed. Your suggestion regarding the Sri Lankan origin of the MSS is
intriguing. Do you know if there is a MSS contained in the recently
discovered DA ms ?

> Your statement of the influence of Yogacara on Buddhaghosa is interesting.

I have noticed some similarities in the Pratyutpannabuddhavasthitasamadhi
Sutra and the descriptions of nimittas, etc., in the Vsm; the PBS Sutra
relates such ideas, at least in part, to the practice of satipatthana.
It is an area that I have not researched in detail (again lack of time) but
I feel an increased research emphasis on the similarities rather than the
divergences between early and later forms of Buddhism is both desirable and
healthy as well as potentially yeilding a better understanding of the
emergence of Mahayana -- it seems to me that most forms of Mahayana are less
radical than popularly thought. I have my own views concerning the
development of Mahayana but I'l save that for another time..

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge