At 06:27 PM 30-06-05, yifertw wrote:

>Dear Bante Kumaara,
> The purposes of this comparison is not to judge "It is superior,
> it is equal, it is inferior." The purposes of this comparison are:
> 1. Offer help to read Chinese Samyutta Aagama:
> There are quite a few suttas is difficult to catch the meaning due
>to lack of background messages, poor tanslations and mis-interpretation
>of words. With the help of SN, we can avoid jumping into the puddles of
>poor Chinese wording.

I thought you understood that I was speaking of 'ren2 bi3 ren2" (comparing among people) in answering to your difficulty in "explain(ing) why Bhikkhus should not perceive "I am superior", "I am equal" or "I am inferior"." In any of these 3, there's grasping on the "I", therefore making it dukkha and akusala.

> 2. As you know, among 56 sammyutta of SN, there are 36 corresponding
>samyutta in Chinese SA. There are 13 sammyutta in Chinese SA without
>the related couterparts in SN. Roughly speaking, Suttas showed on both
>SN & SA are about 99.5% of Division I, Sagatha; 80% of Division II,
>Nidana; 70% of Division III, Khandha; 60% of Division IV, Salayatana;
>and 40 % of Division V, Mahaa (Chinese version calls it "Magga").
>It can support each other. There is almost nothing in Chinese Tipitaka
>as the commentaries for Aagamas. Through the help of Pali, we can
>define it much precise for Chinese Aagama's readers.
> 3. We may have a chance to locate the common parts as the intrinsic
>teachinf of Buddha and his contemporary deciples. And for those
>variances, we might suspect this doctrines may arise from sectarian
>Buddhism.

But I'm glad that you misunderstood. What you provided above is of great interest to me.


peace

Kumâra Bhikkhu