Hello again,

thanks once more for the info. The only thing to clear up is that
the point i was making re the Samdhinirmocana Sutra was not that it
is of a similar type to the general samyutta matika, but is in
certain unusual respects identical. Specifically the sequence:
khandha ayatana nidana ahara sacca dhatu... (then the 37BPD). The
inclusion of ahara as a separate item is unusual, as is the specific
sequence of the last three items. I think this indicates a specific
identity of this list in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra with the existing
SA, not merely a generic similarity.

Bhante Sujato

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...> wrote:
> Dear Bhante,
>
> > I am generally aware of the info on SA you mentioned. I've been
in
> frequent contact with Rod Bucknell, the teacher of Choong Mun-
Keat, whose
> book on SA/SN you were evidently referring to. I've been trying to
push
> these studies even further, specifying exact correlations of
sequences of
> suttas in SA & SN, and trying to ascertain the structural
principles used by
> the redactors. Early days yet, but still some interesting
findings...
> ****
> Yes, it was to Choong Mun-Keat's work that I was alluding. Your
work sounds
> interesting and important. Pls keep us informed of your progress.
>
> > On the identity of Asanga's SA. I hadn't heard about the
inclusion of MA
> and EA sutras, hmm, interesting.
> It's not that he includes EA sutras but some of the MA ones
correspond to AN
> suttas. He includes the following from the MA (Taisho nos),
bearing in mind
> that I retain the Taisho SA numbers but resequenced:
> 171, 11-13, 19 {between SA 201 & 202}
> 190, 191 {between SA 236 & 237}
> 163, 169 {between SA 342 & 283}
> 97 {between SA 293 & 294}
> 23 {between SA 345 & 346}
> 9 {between SA 370 & 371}
> 10, 30 {between SA 378 & 379}
> 181 {between SA 464 & 466}
> 119, 22, 103, 162, 1, 113, 111, 112, 75. {between SA 489 & 605}
> Since the Vasu-samgrahani is explicitly a thematic commentary on
the SA, it
> seems reasonable to assume that all of the above were included in
his
> version of the SA, unless there was some other unobvious (to me)
reason for
> their inclusion.
>
> > I don't know if it's relevant, but the Samdhinirmocana Sutra
frequently
> mentions a list of dhamma topics that it usually associates with
the
> academics who spend all day quibbling about details, full of
pride -
> obviously the abhidhammikas. The list of topics is reasonably
consistent,
> and seems to be derived from one single list, with some
corruption. This
> list is a version of the samyutta-matika, and in particular is
virtually
> identical to the list of topics in SA as commented on by Asanga.
This
> suggests to me that Asanga was following a Yogacara tradition in
regarding
> SA as THE fundamental collection.
> ***
> I'm not sure I agree with your "pride" characterization, but yes,
a standard
> mat.rkaa underlies many of such works -- cf also the Abhidharma-
samuccaya.
> I would not necessarily tie Asanga down to a "Yogacara tradition"--
as I
> mentioned previously, much of the YBS shows no obvious signs of
standard
> Yogacara concepts or even Mahayana ones. I think he derives his
standard
> from a Mula-sarvastivadin tradition. But you are right -- Asanga
clearly
> regards "the SA as THE fundamental collection".
>
> > 1. A new manuscript of DA? I didn't know there was one. Any
details?
> It's hard to get details but it is thought the ms originated in
the Bamiyan
> or Hadda area -- if not stolen from Kabul Museum, as are some bits
in the
> Schoyen Collection purportedly from Bamiyan. Presently two chunks
are
> known -- one in the US and a smaller chunk in Japan (a great
start !). It
> is a fairly complete ms, possibly covering at 2/3 of the DA.
Editorial work
> is currently underway in the US and UK (Lance Cousins). The
affiliation is
> not certain but it may be Dharmaguptaka. This might be helpful,
since the
> Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is close to the Theravadin version.
>
> > 2. Is the published Sravakabhumi in Devanagiri or Roman? Alas I
don't know
> devanagiri.
> The Indian version by Shukla is devanagari, but I think the
Japanese one is
> romanized. If you get stuck, let me know and I'll see what we can
work out
> privately.
>
> > Maybe I'll get around to it. I just have to learn Chinese first !
> From your description of your interests, I can see that you will
need
> Chinese. However, Tibetan translations are much more reliable, so
you might
> want to think about adding Tibetan to your repertoire -- I think
it is the
> easiest of the "Dharma languages" to learn, though comprehension
always
> depends upon familiarity with the subject matter. For example, in
my YBS
> research, as far as the portions I have done are concerned, I have
come to
> the conclusion that Xuanzang sub-contracted some parts to somebody
who knew
> a lot of Skt vocabulary but didn't have a very good grasp of Skt
grammar.
> Misunderstandings abound -- where there are lemmata from the SA
etc which
> can be independently evaluated via Pali parellels, Tib is always
correct but
> C not infrequently gets the meaning completely wrong. Depressing,
eh !
>
> Best wishes,
> Stephen Hodge {NB: I'm singular}