Dear Bhante,

> My info comes from Rod Bucknell's unpublished work on the structure
> of the Nikayas/Agamas. He refers in fact to the
> Abhidharmakosopayika. Rod does not know much Tibetan, but he refers
> this to HonjoYoshifumi, presumably a Japanese study.

Yes, I know of the work by Honjo. It is incomplete and apparently
unreliable.

> The AKO indicates that the Sarv Dirgha comprised just two groupings,
> the Silaskandhanipata and the satasutrikanipata.

No. Somebody has not done their homework properly :) Folio 19b (Qianlong
ed) of Vol II of the AKO has "lung ring-po'i (Diirgha-aagama) ting-nge-'dzin
yang-dag-par-ldan-pa'i (samaadhi-samyukta) mdo (suutra) dang-po (the first)"
= the first suutra of the samaadhi-samyukta of the Dirgha-aagama.
Unfortunately, the AKO does not specify any other sutras in this varga /
nipaata.
Additionally, we cannot draw any conclusions from the Chinese MA about what
was in or not in the AKO's Diirgha-aagma because it is completely different
in structure and probably in some aspects of content. Judging the way the
contents of the Skandhaka section of the various Vinayas was reworked and
shuffled around, this is not very surprising.
[snip]

> I still don't quite get the distinguishing features between Sarv and
> Mula-Sarv.

My understanding is that the Sarvastivadins were those based in Kashmir who
compiled a vast abhidharmic edice culminating in the Mahaa-vibhaa.sa, hence
their alternative name Vaibhaa.sika. The Mula-sarvastivadins were those
Sarvastivadins who did not accept the abhidharma / Mahaa-vibhaa.sa,
originally based in Mathura and also found in Gandhaa and other places.
Asanga and Vasubandhu followed the Mula Sarv tradition. It has been agued
convincingly that Mula-Sarv is also identical to Sautrantika -- those who
rejected the abhidharma as a valid independent authority, only accepting the
authoity of the sutras.
[snip]

> I want to make a website that will function as a resource base for
> all this kind of stuff. Hopefully can get it running next year.as a basic

resource.
Please keep my posted -- I may be able to contribute some material.

> Indeed. The model I'm working on sees sutta/vyakarana, not as
> what we find today as distinct samyuttas (as in Asanga, followed by
> YinShun, etc) but as discrete vaggas within each main samyutta.

I would be interested to read your reasoning for this conclsion.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge