Hi Paul,


Because of this Dmytro would be correct

> in proposing that evidence of other word use from the Diigha and
> Majjhima carried the most weight.

Although it is not an easy matter to argue, i have come to disgree
with the idea that the Digha and Majjhima constitute the oldest
strata of texts. It is, on the face of it, a slightly odd claim, for
the usual trend of Buddhist literature is to get longer, so we might
be inclined to seek in the shorter discourses. I think the claim of
the primacy of the Digha originates with Rhys-Davies, and i suspect,
with all due respect to that great savant, that his agenda had more
than a little to do with the fact that the Digha attacks the pride
of the Brahmans with such skill, at a time when Rhys-Davies was
trying to rescue Buddhist studies from the shadow of Hinduism.

Although i think it is obvious that we can't say 'this one is old,
this one is late', my personal belief, following Yin Shun, is that
the Samyutta constitutes the earliest strata of canonized texts.

Leaving this difficult issue aside, however, i still would not
prefer to give precednce to the Majjhima occurence of 'ekaayana'
over the Samyutta. The Samyutta references occur straightforwardly
in the context of satipatthana and obviously mean exactly the same
as 'the' Satipatthana Sutta. Furthermore, there are far more of
them. Since we know from the Sanskrit, Jataka, etc., references that
ekaayana can have different meanings in different contexts, we
should look for the closest context to see what the implications
are.

The reason why the Samyutta reference has been relatively neglected
is part of a general tendency to sideline the Samyutta in
discussions of satipatthana, in the assumption that 'the'
Satipatthana Sutta is the last word on the subject. But the samyutta
comes right out and tells us that this phrase was at least echoed
and amplified by Brahma, and this must surely be taken as
an 'olaarika nimitta' that we are to look in the Brahmanical context
for an explanation.

> This leads in to the proposal by Bhante Sujato that the text

should

> be seen as a clear allusion to Sanskrit texts of Buddha's time.
> This is intriguing but perhaps the connection hasn't been fully

made.

Alas, sadly true. I have tried to do the issues justice in a short
space, but really it requires a full-scale study (which i've been
doing for the last three years!). Certainly, Gethin's work should be
consulted. He mentions the Upanishadic context i quoted earlier, but
did not give it full justice.

Perhaps if we

> studied Pali at the same university we would be thinking more
> alike :)

O how dull! Then we'd have nothing to learn from each other.

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato