Dear Bhante,

Thanks for posting this as well as the private communication.

> I notice that one of the new,
> previously unknown suttas bears the intriguing title 'Mayajala',
> the 'Magic Net'. Now, what kind of net might that be?

Not so unknown -- this is one of the Maha-sutras and I think Peter Skilling
includes the surviving Tibetan version in his book on these sutras.

> (Mula) Sarvastivada Dirgha Agama (DA2)

I am puzzled why Hartmann includes the (Mula) bit. It is more probable that
this DA ms is just plain old Sarvastivada. That it is not the
Mula-Sarvastivadin DA is corroborated by Samathadeva's various mentions of
DA and MA titles and uddanas -- he is utilizing material from a different
tradition which IS likely to be the MS versions of the DA and MA. If one
accepts that the MA preserved in Chinese is Sarvastivadin, then
Samathadeva's MA has, at least, a different structure and one would expect
him to use a DA from the same tradition as his MA. In fact, it is
Samathadeva's DA and MA that is likely to be from the Mula-sarvastivadin
lineage.

What one can reconstruct of Samathadeva's DA differs in some points from
this new ms DA. In his version, it looks as though the Sangiti-paryaya is
the *first* sutra in the Satsutrikanipata -- the quotes he gives only have
parallels in the Pali Sangiti-pariyaya and not the Dasottara (but I have not
had time to check the Central Asian Skt versions). He also includes in this
nipata a quotation from a sutra that corresponds to a passage in the Pali DN
Udumbarika-sihanada. I am not sure if material from this DN sutta is
included anywhere in the Artha-vistara or Catusparisat. If not, then again
Samathadeva is clearly working from a different compilation to the DA to
this ms version. Moreover, though the Tibetan wording is a little
ambivalent, it looks as though this nipata was at the *end* of his DA, not
at the beginning.

Samathadeva also quotes from the Prsthapada-sutra, which he says on two
occasions is the *ninth* sutra of his DA -- curiously, as in the DN too --
while it cannot, by any method of counting, be the ninth sutra in this new
ms version. Additionally, he quotes from a DA sutra, the title of which
might be reconstructed from the Tibetan as "Brahma-nirmaa.na / nirmita" -- I
don't think this is a variant of the Brahma-jala since that is mentioned
separately.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge