This is just a follow-up to my last posting. Here's the version of
the Samudaya Sutta from the Prajnaparamita. I've adapted the
terminolgy from Conze's translation to bring out the connections
with the pali.
'And what, Subhuti, are the 4 satipatthanas?
One dwells contemplating a body in the body internally, externally,
and both internally and externally - ardent, clearly comprehending,
and mindful, having put away covetousness and aversion for the
world. He dwells contemplating origination regarding the body,
contemplating dissolution, contemplating bothe origination &
dissolution. He dwells independent, and does not grasp at the world.
And the same with regard to feelings, mind, dhammas.' (VII 5.2.1)
One might question whether this should be regarded as a cognate of
the Samudaya Sutta, since it does not mention the actual causes of
the four satipatthanas. Anyway, it is substantially similar. Again,
it should be compared with the 'vipassana refrain' of the Theravada
Satipatthana Sutta. Obviously it has been 'cut-&-pasted' into this
very long Mahayana Sutra with almost no alteration. This little
section occurs at the beginning of an exposition of the 37
Bodhipakkhiya Dhammas.
The detailed exposition of satipatthana also finds a place in the
Prajnaparamita Sutra. Chap 16 begins 'When a Bodhisattva is walking
he knows 'I am walking'...and so on. The kayanupassana sections are
identical with the Pali, except that anapanasati is placed after the
sections on postures. This is in common with the gradual training
and with all the other Satipatthana Sutta versions. It seems that
the Theravada Satipatthana Suta is unreliable on this point.
There is not much of a refrain after each exercise. It just
says 'And that through non-apprehension'. But we have seen above
that the 'vipassana refrain' of the Theravada Satipatthana Sutta is
included as a separate sutta. One wonders whether these two sections
originally formed one sutta (as in the Theravada Satipatthana
Sutta), which was split into two; or whether they were two suttas
that were fused into one. For various reasons i favor the second
explanation.
Unfortunately, the Prajnaparamita Sutra does not continue to expound
the remaining 3 satipatthanas in detail. But Conze's translation, on
which i rely, is an amalgamation of several different recensions. It
is possible that one of the versions might include a more full
exposition. I wonder if our good friend Mr Hodge might be persuaded
to clarify this question?