8

Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā
Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts
This is the fourth volume of proceedings of the Āgama seminars convened by the
Āgama Research Group at the Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (formerly
Dharma Drum Buddhist College). It comprises nineteen studies, contributed by
eighteen different scholars, on various themes related to the Connected Collections of Oskar von Hinüber
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
discourses (suttas, sūtras) — Saṃyutta-nikāya in Pali, Saṃyukta-āgama in Sanskrit —
Bhikkhu Anālayo
transmitted by different early Buddhist lineages of reciters, preserved in their Indic Universität Hamburg

8
originals in Gandhari, Pali and Sanskrit as well as in Chinese and Tibetan translations.
Rupert Gethin
This research draws attention to fundamental methodological points posed by the University of Bristol
study of these scriptural collections as windows into the formation of early Buddhist Richard Salomon
texts and the organisation of their transmission. University of Washington

Mark Allon
University of Sidney

Joseph Marino
University of Washington

Jin-il Chung (鄭鎮一)

Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen

Peter Skilling (Bhadra Rujirathat)

École française d’Extrême-Orient

Jens-Uwe Hartmann
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Yao Fumi (八尾 史)

Waseda Institute for Advanced Studies

Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā
Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts

Bhikkhu Pāsādika
Académie bouddhique Linh-Son

Bhikṣu Huimin (釋惠敏)

Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts
Taipei National University of the Arts

Vinaya Studies Karashima Seishi (辛嶋 靜志)

The International Research Institute for
戒律研究
Advanced Buddhology at Soka University

Marcus Bingenheimer
Temple University

Ken Su [Su Jinkun (蘇錦坤)]

Āgama Research Group

Choong Mun-keat (鍾秉潔) [Wei-keat (煒傑)]

University of New England (Australia)

Stefania Travagnin
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama

edited by Dhammadinnā
in memory of Karashima Seishi 辛嶋 静志
2020
 Contents

Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (DILA) Series xi

Bhikṣu Huimin

Preface xiii
Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā

I. THE COLLECTIONS OF CONNECTED DISCOURSES:

STRUCTURAL AND REDACTIONAL PRINCIPLES

The Sagātha-vagga in the Saṃyutta-nikāya: Formation and Vedic 3

Background
Oskar von Hinüber

Peyāla in the Skandha-saṃyukta: Contraction and Expansion in 53

Textual Transmission
Bhikkhu Anālayo

Reading Repetitions in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and Early Abhidhamma: 109

From the Mahā-vagga to the Dhammasaṅgaṇi
Rupert Gethin

II. THE EARLY DISCOURSES: GANDHARAN CIRCULATION

Where are the Gandharan Sūtras? Some Reflections on the Contents 173
of the Gandhari Manuscript Collections
Richard Salomon

A Gandhari Saṃyukta-āgama Version of the ‘Discourse on Not- 201

self’ (Pali Anattalakkhaṇa-sutta, Sanskrit *Anātmalakṣaṇa-sūtra)
Mark Allon
The Gandhari ‘Discourse on Pleasure and Pain’: Some Thoughts 259
on Similes and Textual Variation in the Connected Discourses
Joseph Marino

III. THE EARLY DISCOURSES: TRANSMISSION IN SANSKRIT

Towards a New Edition of the First Twenty-five Sūtras of the 303

Nidāna-saṃyukta: Current State and Remaining Difficulties
Jin-il Chung (鄭鎮一)

‘Discourse on the Relative Value of the Varieties of Knowledge’ 327

(Vidyāsthānopama-sūtra): A Translation
Peter Skilling (Bhadra Rujirathat)

IV. SCHOOL AFFILIATION:

MULTIPLE RECITATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITIES

Sanskrit Versions of the Āgamas: Schools, Regions and Editors 359

Jens-Uwe Hartmann

‘Mūlasarvāstivādin and Sarvāstivādin’: Oral Transmission Lineages 387

of Āgama Texts
Bhikkhu Anālayo

V. SŪTRA QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES:

INTRA-, INTER-, CO- AND CROSS-TEXTUALITY

Traces of Incorporation: Some Examples of Saṃyukta-āgama 429

Sūtras in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya
Yao Fumi (八尾 史)

Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama 481

Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā
Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā
Saṃyukta-āgama Quotations in Yaśomitra’s Abhidharmakośa- 591
vyākhyā
Bhikkhu Pāsādika

Cross-references to the Śrāvakabhūmi in the Saṃyukta-āgama’s 653

Mātṛkā Transmitted in the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi
Bhikṣu Huimin (釋惠敏)

VI. ĀGAMAS IN CHINESE: TRANSLATION PROCESSES

The Underlying Languages of the Three Chinese Translations of 707

the Saṃyukta-āgamas (Taishō nos. 99, 100 and 101) and their
School Affiliations
Karashima Seishi (辛嶋 静志)

A Study and Translation of the Yakṣa-saṃyukta in the Shorter 763

Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama
Marcus Bingenheimer

Notes on the Translation and the Translator of the Shorter Chinese 843
Saṃyukta-āgama
Ken Su [Su Jinkun (蘇錦坤)]

VII. CANON FORMATION AND TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP:

PHILOLOGIES BETWEEN TRADITION AND MODERNITY

Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three- 883

aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts
Choong Mun-keat (鍾秉潔) [Wei-keat (煒傑)]

Assessing the Field of Āgama Studies in Twentieth-century China: 933

With a Focus on Master Yinshun’s 印順 Three-aṅga Theory
Stefania Travagnin and Bhikkhu Anālayo
 Highlights from a Comparative Study
of the Saṃyukta-āgama Quotations
in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Bhikkhunı̄ Dhammadinnā
Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts

482 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Abstract

This study presents highlights from an investigation of the Saṃyukta-

āgama quotations in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā.
These are drawn from collated editions, translations and compara-
tive readings of partial or full discourse (sūtra) quotations parallel-
ing discourses found in selected saṃyuktas of the Chinese translation
of the Saṃyukta-āgama (Taishō no. 99). The examples are grouped
together as representative of textual features at both the discourse
(sūtra) level (setting, proper names, modules, phraseology and in-
ternal structure) and at the collection level (titles, uddānas, intra-
/inter-textual references, abbreviation patterns). The quantity and
quality of similarities and discrepancies between the parallel ver-
sions show pervasive variance and variability in the patterns of cor-
respondences, at the mini-, micro- and nano-levels. The findings do
not however allow for identification according to neatly defined
lineages of transmission within the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Greater
Sarvāstivāda (inclusive of Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda). They
testify to the intricacies of textual transmission within these traditions,
showing that the recensions of the Saṃyukta-āgama represented by
the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā and the Sanskrit Saṃyukta-āgama
underlying the received Chinese translation are quite closely re-
lated yet not identical. The study articulates a model of multiplicity
of versions for the discourse transmission that is not dissimilar to
what is emerging in recent scholarship in the case of the Sarvāstivāda
and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas. This may be read as a reflection of tex-
tual transmission among fragmented and spread-out textual com-
munities which nevertheless coalesce under a unifying denomina-
tional and ideological umbrella – that of ‘Greater Sarvāstivāda’.
These textual characteristics would express particularism, but also a
degree of constancy in institutional and communal identity.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 483
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Contents

I. Introduction
II. Comparative Study
II.1 Setting
II.2 Proper Names
II.3 Titles, Uddānas and References
Up 2047 – SĀ 61 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 3053 – SĀ 58 & SĀ 240 (Skandha-saṃyukta & Ṣaḍāyatana-
saṃyukta)
Up 1047 – SĀ 245 (*Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
Up 6007 – SĀ 485 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)
Up 3070 – Ṣaṭsūtraka-nipāta of the Dīrgha-āgama & SĀ 486–489
II.4 Modules, Phraseology and Internal Structure
Up 9001 – SĀ 8 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 1021 (A) – SĀ 17 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 2078 – SĀ 28 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 5016 – SĀ 79 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 6016 – SĀ 81 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 1024, Up 3012, Up 6019 – SĀ 39 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 6038 – SĀ 42 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 5006(a) – SĀ 45 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 1009 – SĀ 55 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 2042 – SĀ 57 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 6061 – SĀ 212 (Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
Up 1018(a) – SĀ 222 + SĀ 223, Up 1018(b) – SĀ 224 + SĀ
225 (Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
484 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Up 6012 – SĀ 467 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)

Up 6010 – SĀ 473 & SĀ 474 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)
Up 6029 – SĀ 535 (Aniruddha-saṃyukta)
II.5 Abbreviation Patterns
Conclusion
Abbreviations and Symbols
References

 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 485
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

I. Introduction

Over the last decade of philological work and comparative studies

– built in turn on the foundation of the previous century of editing,
publication and study of the Sanskrit manuscripts and manuscript
fragments from Gilgit and Central Asia – it has become increas-
ingly clear that the extant textual Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāsti-
vāda textual witnesses do not belong to a monolithic and uniform
Sūtra (or Āgama, at the level of the scriptural collections) tradition.
Instead, much like the case of the almost fully preserved Mūlasar-
vāstivāda Vinaya corpus, the emerging model is one of a multiplic-
ity of lineages and sub-lineages of reciters and scribes, a multitude
of communities within a broadly delineated Sarvāstivāda and Mūla-
sarvāstivāda ecumene that is perhaps best designated under the head-
ing of ‘Greater Sarvāstivāda’. This heading encompasses textual,
institutional and religio-historical at large phenomena, as I discuss in
my conclusion.
Against a broadly understood backdrop of a Greater Sarvāsti-
vāda textual horizon, my presentation in the following pages will
work with the hypothesis of a Mūlasarvāstivāda Sūtra transmission
as distinct from a Sarvāstivāda Sūtra transmission, pending the out-
come of the controversial identification and definition of these
families of textual affiliation.1 In other words, I regard them as the
end products of a textual transmission handed down separately
within each of these two traditions (represented by a range of sub-
traditions, as I will discuss in more detail) which appear to show
sufficiently distinct features to be considered ‘next of kin’ or closest
1
On this issue, see, e.g., Enomoto 2000, Skilling 2002: 374–376, Yao
2007, Anālayo 2017 and 2019, and now Anālayo 2020b and Hartmann
2020 in this volume.
486 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

relative to one another, with sub-groups being even closer relations

within such a textual family.
In a nutshell, my main basis for such a working hypothesis are
the differences and similarities between the Chinese (Mūlasarvāsti-
vāda) Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99) and the (Sarvāstivāda) Madhyama-
āgama (T 26) studied in relation to the general patterns, textual
modules, phraseology and structural aspects of the arrangement of
the collections as evidenced by the uddānas in other Mūlasarvās-
tivāda and Sarvāstivāda discourse as well as Vinaya material. These
indications concord with the hypothesis that these two collections
were transmitted within a Mūlasarvāstivāda and a Sarvāstivāda trans-
mission lineage respectively.
My ongoing study of the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā (herein-
after: Upāyikā) appears to validate this hypothesis. Uddāna ref-
erences and discourse quotations show that the Madhyama-āgama
quotations exhibit more significant variations alongside agreements
with the Chinese Madhyama-āgama compared to the case of the
Saṃyukta-āgama quotations and the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama. A
general pattern emerges wherein a divide is apparent, yet with clear
affinities as is only to be expected of a collection transmitted by
related families of reciters. At the same time, the recension wit-
nessed by the Saṃyukta-āgama quotations in the Upāyikā is closely
similar but not identical to that of the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama,
pointing to distinct sub-groups within the greater Mūlasarvāstivāda
textual world.
To illustrate this pattern, with the present contribution I present
a few highlights on the Mūlasarvāstivāda Saṃyukta-āgama used by
Śamathadeva in the compilation of his Upāyikā, on the basis of a
collated edition,2 translation and comparative study of partial or full
2
When quoting or referring to the text from the Upāyikā, I refer to the
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 487
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

discourse quotations paralleling discourses in the Skandha-, Ṣaḍ-

āyātana- (partial),3 Dhātu-, Vedanā-, Aniruddha-, Smṛtyupasthāna-
and Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyuktas of the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-
āgama. This selection hopefully makes it possible to become sufficiently
acquainted with the Saṃyukta-āgama housed in the Upāyikā, and to
reveal key textual characteristics.
With regard to school affiliation, the transmission ‘container’ of
the Saṃyukta-āgama quotations represented by the Upāyikā as a
work dependent on a Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma work such as the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the presence in the Upāyikā of quotations
from other Sarvāstivāda scholastic texts (Honjō 2014: I 37–41),
and, at the level of the Tibetan translation, the text-historical envi-
ronment represented by the Mūlasarvāstivāda scriptural transmission
to Tibet, add to the abundant internal evidence that establishes be-
yond any doubt a Mūlasarvāstivāda – within the Greater Sarvāsti-
vāda – affiliation for the Āgama (and Vinaya) quotations in the
Upāyikā.4

quotation number as per the system established in Honjō 1984 and

provide full references to the page and line numbers in the different
editions of the Tanjur (B, C, D, G, N, P).
3
Parallels to the discourses in fascicles 8–9 in T 99; the parallels to fas-
cicles 10–12 have not been translated and studied yet.
4
Setting aside the complete absence of internal evidence pointing to a
different affiliation, it would be theoretically possible but hardly likely
that Śamathadeva made use of Sarvāstivāda or Mūlasarvāstivāda Abhi-
dharma and Vinaya canonical sources but, for whatever reason, e.g., of
Mahāsāṅghika or Saṃmitīya sūtras. This would not be feasible in the con-
text of memorisation of the discourses, and Śamathadeva himself states in
his postface to the Upāyikā that he relied on memory for the compos-
ition of his work; see Up 9042 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 980,21–981,10;
C, mngon pa, nyu 97a5–b1; D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 95a4–6; G 3598,
488 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

II. Comparative Study

The approach I take in this comparative study is to record simi-

larities and dissimilarities in content and format by way of phrase-
ology and textual modules. Such an approach complements and
generally concords with the conclusions reached by the pioneering
Japanese scholarship of Honjō Yoshifumi 本庄 良文 (esp. 1981,
1985 and 2014), building on earlier papers by Sakurabe Hajime 櫻
部 建 (1956) and Mukai Akira 向井 亮 (1985), studies which were
conducted with an emphasis on the structural features of the Āgamas
underlying the Upāyikā canonical quotations, that is, mostly titles
and summary verses (uddānas or uddāna-gāthās).5
My survey in the following pages groups examples according to
their significance as to the following aspects:

mdzod ’grel, thu 173b4–174a2; N, mngon pa, thu 145a5–b1; P 5595, mngon
pa’i bstan bcos, thu 144a2–5. In other words, there are neither historical
nor textual indicators that the Upāyikā could have been composed outside
of a Mūlasarvāstivāda environment of transmission and that Śamathadeva
would be relying on a recension of the Āgamas other than one circulating
within a Mūlasarvāstivāda or ‘Greater Sarvāstivāda’ community. See also
the observations in Sakurabe 1956: 160.
5
Regarding the at times important contribution offered by the com-
parative study of the Upāyikā’s Saṃyukta-āgama quotations for a more
nuanced comprehension of early Buddhist thought, due to space con-
straints, I refer the interested reader to the annotations to my published
and upcoming translations. A particularly fascinating area is possible
traces of textual development in relation to a ways in which the wider
Abhidharmic textual ‘container’ of the quotations in the Upāyikā ap-
pears to have influenced the formulation of a few passages in the quo-
tations themselves, and possible reflections of, or else precursors to,
Sarvāstivāda-specific doctrinal developments; see Dhammadinnā 2019b.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 489
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

1. setting or narrative opening (nidāna)

2. proper names
3. titles, uddānas and various intra-/inter-textual references
4. modules, phraseology and internal structure
5. abbreviation patterns.

II.1 Setting
As a general observation, it may be noted that the Upāyikā equiva-
lent to, for instance, the Sanskrit śrāvastyāṃ nidānaṃ (Pali sāvatthī-
nidānaṃ), when it is mentioned, occurs as a rule immediately after
the canonical quotation (and/or the title of the discourse, when present)
extracted from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, in the following standard
form:

gleng gzhi ni mnyan du yod pa na’o.

The opening is ‘at Śrāvastī.’

The purpose of the Upāyikā is to supplement the canonical quota-

tions cited in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya with the corresponding
discourse passage in full or even with the whole text to which the
quotations belong. In my opinion this implies that the Upāyikā’s
quotation format is not preoccupied with indicating the location
where the discourses where collected. In other words, judging from
the placement of the narrative introduction (nidāna) at the begin-
ning of the discourse quotations, whether it is given in an ab-
breviated form or in full, I doubt that Śamathadeva and the reciter
tradition he relied on should have provided it for any reason other
than giving reference to the location where the discourses were
originally delivered (regardless, needless to say, of the historical
490 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

accuracy of such information). This observation is in line with

Bhikkhu Anālayo’s (2012b: 6 note 4, 16 note 45, 29 note 88 and 52
note 150) suggestion with regard to the significance of the dis-
course openings in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama.
The Upāyikā tends to have the nidāna headings in the short
format quoted above, whereas the corresponding discourses in the
Saṃyukta-āgama tend to spell out the narrative setting in fuller
form. Thus for instance, in parallel to the śrāvastyāṃ nidānaṃ head-
ing in Tibetan, the Saṃyukta-āgama tends to give the complete
location, that is, Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park.6
Regarding the locations of the discourses, there tends to be
agreement between the Upāyikā and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallels,
although there are also a few cases of disagreement. For example,
out of the nineteen discourse quotations paralleling discourses in
the Skandha-saṃyukta for which a setting is given, fourteen agree
with their Chinese parallels in placing the setting at Śrāvastī
(abbreviated in the Upāyikā, spelled out in full in the Saṃyukta-
āgama as Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park), one in placing the
setting at Ayodhyā (by the banks of the River Gaṅgā),7 one in placing

6
E.g., Up 1010 (gleng gzhi ni mnyan du yod pa na’o) and SĀ 231 at T
II 56b11–12 (一時，佛住舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園).
7
Up 4084: bcom ldan ’das ’khrug pa can na (CDG; NP omit: na) chu
bo gang gā’i ’gram na bzhugs te. SĀ 265 at T II 68b29–c1: 一時，佛住
阿毘陀處恒河側, “At one time the Buddha was staying at Ayodhyā, by
the banks of the River Gaṅgā”. Cf. SN 22.95 at SN III 140,22–23: ekaṃ
samayaṃ bhagavā ayojjhāyaṃ viharati gaṅgāya nadiyā tīre. For an
occurrence in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya see Dutt 1984 [1947]: III.1
48,8: ayodhyāyāṃ viharati nadyā Gaṃgāyās tīre; D 3,’dul ba, kha
146b1 and P 1030, ’dul ba, ge 134b3: tshugs dka’ chu bo gang gāi ’gram
na bzhugs so; T 1448 at XXIV 48c12: … 無能敵國，住弶伽河邊; see
also Roth 2004: 125–126.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 491
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

the setting at the Monastery [located] by the Monkey Pond at Vaiśālī,8

one in placing the setting at the Eastern Park (the Hall of Mṛgāra’s
Mother), and two disagree with their Chinese parallels in placing
the setting at Śrāvastī rather that at Vārāṇasī in the Deer Park (the
Dwelling of Seers). In the last two cases, one of the two discourses
has a parallel in the Saṃyutta-nikāya, which is located at Sāvatthī,
thus matching the Upāyikā (the other has no identified Pali parallel).9
Out of the seven discourses with parallels in the first two (fasc.
8–9) of the four fascicles of Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta for which a set-
ting is given, five agree with their Chinese parallels in placing the
setting at Śrāvastī (abbreviated in the Upāyikā, spelled out in full in
the Saṃyukta-āgama as Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park), and
two disagree with their Chinese parallels in placing the setting at
Śrāvastī rather than at at Vaiśālī (in the Hall with the Peaked Roof
by the side of the Monkey Pond).
Out of the three quotations paralleling discourses in the Vedanā-
saṃyukta for which a setting is given, in all cases the opening does
not correspond in that the three quotations place the opening at
Śrāvastī whereas the corresponding Saṃyukta-āgama discourses give
Rājagṛha (in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Feeding Ground).10

8
Up 6016: bcom ldan ’das yangs pa can na spre’u’i rdzing gi tsug lag
khang na zhugs te, “the Blessed One was staying at the Monastery [lo-
cated] by the Monkey Pond at Vaiśālī”. On the Monkey Pond, Markaṭa-
hradatīra in Sanskrit sources, cf. Edgerton 1953: II 420, s.v. This loca-
tion appears to be unknown in the Pali canon, cf. Skilling 1997: II 406–
407 and Anālayo 2013a: 48 note 124 with references.
9
Up 1009 versus SĀ 55 at T II 13b13–14 (Vārāṇasī, in the Deer Park, the
Dwelling of Seers, 一時，佛住波羅 國仙人住處鹿野苑中); SN 22.48 at
SN III 47,8 is located at Sāvatthī (Ee: Sāvatthi) matching Up 1009. Up
1004 versus SĀ 56 at T II 13b24–25 (without a Pali parallel).
10
Up 6012 versus SĀ 467 at T II 119a22; Up 6010 versus SĀ 473 at T II
492 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

The single discourse quotation with a parallel in the Aniruddha-

saṃyukta agrees with the location of its parallel in the Saṃyukta-
āgama, Sāketā for Aniruddha and the country of the Bhārgas for Mahā-
maudgalyāyana, although with differences in details that I will take
up below in the section on proper names.
Both quotations paralleling discourses in the Smṛtyupasthāna-
saṃyukta for which a setting is given, have Śrāvastī (abbreviated in
the Upāyikā, spelled out in full in the Saṃyukta-āgama).
Last, the single available quotation with a parallel in the Bhikṣuṇī-
saṃyukta has Śrāvastī as the Buddha’s location and the Royal Rains
Residence (for nuns) also in Śrāvastī for the bhikṣuṇī Śailā, thereby
agreeing with its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel (where the location at
Śrāvastī is spelled out in full).
The agreements or disagreements in the setting of discourses
belonging to these saṃyuktas are summarised in Table 1 below. The
textual discrepancies in the narrative setting do not bear any special
significance in terms of the historical occasion of delivery of the
discourses.11 Nevertheless, taken together with other elements to be
surveyed in the next sections of this study, they may be considered
as additional pointers to two different lines of transmission. At the
same time the discrepancies show that two rather closely related
Āgama traditions may easily differ in their respective narrative settings.

121a19 and SĀ 474 at T II 121a2; Up 8020 versus SĀ 482 at T II 122c24–

25 (strictly speaking, this discourse quotation does not have the śrāva-
styāṃ nidānaṃ but it states that “the Blessed One departed to Śrāvastī,
the Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, for the rains residence”, after
which the exchange between the Buddha and the householder Anātha-
piṇḍada takes place. Thus the location of the discourse can be safely
understood to be the same).
11
On the lack of concern for location accuracy in narrative passages see,
e.g., Schopen 2004 [1997]: 395–407 and 2004 [1998]: 283 note 59 and
Anālayo 2011a: II 887 note 138.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 493
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Table 1. Comparison of Narrative Settings in

the Upāyikā and the Saṃyukta-āgama

Discourse Discourse
Setting in the Upāyikā /
Quotation Parallel and/or
Reference in the Saṃyukta-āgama
in the
[--- = setting not supplied]
Upāyikā Saṃyukta-āgama
Skandha-saṃyukta
Śrāvastī /
Up 9001 SĀ 8
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 6005 SĀ 9
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 2071 SĀ 11
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Up 9004 SĀ 11 & SĀ 12 ---
Śrāvastī /
Up 1021 SĀ 17
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 2078 SĀ 28
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Ayodhyā, Gaṃgānadyās tīra /
Up 4084 SĀ 265
Ayodhyā, Gaṃgānadyās tīra
Śrāvastī /
Up 1016 SĀ 61
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Up 2047 SĀ 61 ---
SĀ 71
+ reference to
*[Bhikṣuṇī-] Śrāvastī /
Up 5006 Dharmadinnā-
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
sūtra
(also refers to other
4 discourses)
494 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Śrāvastī /
Up 9023 SĀ 73
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 2074 SĀ 77
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
SĀ 79
Śrāvastī /
Up 5016 (also refers to other
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
3 discourses)
Vaiśālī, Markaṭahradatīra /
Up 6016 SĀ 81
Vaiśālī, Markaṭahradatīra
SĀ 39
Up 1024 ---
(cross-reference)
SĀ 39
Up 3012 ---
(cross-reference)
Śrāvastī /
Up 6019 SĀ 39
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 6038 SĀ 42
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Up 5006(a) SĀ 45 ---
Śrāvastī /
Up 1014 SĀ 46
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 1009 SĀ 55
Vārāṇasī, Rṣipatana Mṛgadāva
Śrāvastī /
Up 1004 SĀ 56
Vārāṇasī, Rṣipatana Mṛgadāva
Śrāvastī /
Up 2042 SĀ 57
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī, Purvārāma, Mṛgāramātuḥ prāsāda /
Up 7006 SĀ 58
Śrāvastī, Purvārāma, Mṛgāramātuḥ prāsāda
Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta (partial: parallels to fasc. 8–9 in T 99)
Śrāvastī /
Up 6061 SĀ 212
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 495
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

SĀ 214
Up 5017 ---
(cross-reference)
SĀ 214
Up 6057 ---
(cross-reference)
SĀ 214
Up 9002 ---
(cross-reference)
Śrāvastī /
Up 1018(a) SĀ 222 + SĀ 223
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 1018(b) SĀ 224 + SĀ 225
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
SĀ 225
Up 9007 --
(cross-reference)
Śrāvastī /
Up 1035 SĀ 229
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
SĀ 229
Up 4008 ---
(cross-reference)
SĀ 229
Up 8022 ---
(cross-reference)
Śrāvastī /
Up 1010 SĀ 231
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 9003 SĀ 238
Vaiśālī, Markaṭahrada, Kūṭāgāraśālā
Up 3053 SĀ 240 ---
Śrāvastī /
Up 5025 SĀ 240
Vaiśālī, Markaṭahrada, Kūṭāgāraśālā
Up 1047 SĀ 245 ---
Up 2013 SĀ 252 ---
Up 1048 SĀ 255 ---
Dhātu-saṃyukta
Up 8011 SĀ 463 ---
496 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Vedanā-saṃyukta
Up 6008
SĀ 467 ---
(nihil)
Śrāvastī /
Up 6012 SĀ 467
Rājagṛha, Veṇuvana, Kalandakanivāpa
Śrāvastī /
Up 6010 SĀ 473 & SĀ 474
Rājagṛha, Veṇuvana, Kalandakanivāpa
Up 6013
SĀ 473 ---
(nihil)
[This quotation does not have the śrāvas-
tyāṃ nidānaṃ, but it states that “The Blessed
One departed to Śrāvastī, the Jeta’s Grove,
Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, for the rains resi-
Up 8020 SĀ 482 dence”, after which the exchange between
the Buddha and the householder Anātha-
piṇḍada takes place, thus the location can
be safely understood to be the same] /
Rājagṛha, Veṇuvana, Kalandakanivāpa
Up 6007 SĀ 485 ---
SĀ 486–489
Up 3070 ---
(cross-reference)
Aniruddha-saṃyukta
Sāketā (Aniruddha); Bhārga (Mahāmaud-
galyāyana) /
Up 6029 SĀ 535
Sāketā (Aniruddha); Bhārga (Mahāmaud-
galyāyana)
Smṛtyupasthāna-saṃyukta
Śrāvastī /
Up 6027 SĀ 605
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Śrāvastī /
Up 6028 SĀ 610
Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma
Up 6031 SĀ 609 ---
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 497
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta
Śrāvastī (Buddha); Śrāvastī, Rājakārāma (Śailā) /
Up 9014 SĀ 1202 Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma (Bud-
dha); Śrāvastī, Rājakārāma (Śailā)

II.2 Proper Names

A few proper names featured in the Upāyikā discourse quotations
appear to have been either handed down or rendered differently
when compared to the forms attested in the Saṃyukta-āgama.
In a discourse quotation with a parallel in the Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta
(Up 1010), a monk approaches the Buddha with a question on that
which is called ‘the world’. The monk is referred to as tshe dang
ldan pa dran pa, which literally translates as ‘the venerable *Smṛti’.
The monk’s name in the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel is given as sanmi-
liti 三彌離提,12 which points to an underlying orthography *Saṃm-
ṛddhi or *Saṃriddhi (corresponding to regular Sanskrit Samṛddhi).
Sanmiliti 三彌離提 is attested as a counterpart to Pali Samiddhi
elsewhere in the Saṃyukta-āgama.13 It is possible that the Sanskrit
manuscript of the Upāyikā had a corrupted form similar to smṛti,
which was then translated literally as dran pa, a standard rendering
of Sanskrit smṛti.14 The two Pali parallels in the Saṃyutta-nikāya
have as their respective protagonists an unnamed monk, aññataro
bhikkhu, or the venerable Ānanda.15
The only discourse quotation in the Upāyikā that has a parallel
12
SĀ 231 at T II 56b12.
13
E.g., SĀ 230 at T II 56a25, parallel to SN 35.65 at SN IV 52,31.
14
Mahāvyutpatti, Sakaki 1916: 149 [no. 1930] and Ishihama and Fukuda
1989: 104–105 [no. 1941].
15
SN 35.82 at SN IV 52,4 and SN 35.84 at SN IV 53,11.
498 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

in the Aniruddha-saṃyukta (Up 6029) has a few interesting rendi-

tions of proper names. This discourse features two locations, one
being the place where Aniruddha resides in seclusion and reflects
on the four establishments of mindfulness, and the other being the
place from where Mahāmaudgalyāyana, knowing Aniruddha’s mind,
by means of a supernormal psychic attainment departs and reappears
standing in front of his monastic companion. The Upāyikā describes
Aniruddha’s place of residence as follows:16

tshe dang ldan pa ma ’gags pa gnas bcas na tsher ma

gsum pa can gyi tshal na brten cing gnas so.
The venerable Aniruddha was staying in Sāketā, based in
the Three-Thorn Grove.

The name of this location in the Sāketā area, tsher ma gsum pa can
gyi tshal, presumably points to a Sanskrit form *Trikaṇṭakavana or
*Trikaṇḍakavana. Aniruddha’s location in the Saṃyukta-āgama par-
allel is a dwelling in a pine forest, 松林精舍 (a rendition possibly
based on understanding the three kaṇṭakas/kaṇḍakas as three needles
as in the three-needle pine native to China).17 A partial parallel located
in the Anuruddha-saṃyutta of the Saṃyutta-nikāya instead gives
the sāvatthi-nidānaṃ as the opening.18
The Three-Thorn Grove appears to correspond to the Pali Kaṇḍa-
kīvana, alternatively spelled Kaṇṭakīvana, a setting that among the
Pali discourses occurs in two discourses in the Saṃyutta-nikāya,
the second of which is followed by two more discourses which
probably stem from the same occasion but abbreviate, and in one
16
Up 6029 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 775,8–10; C, mngon pa, nyu 13a1; D
4094, mngon pa, nyu 13a2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 53b5–6; N, mngon
pa, thu 46a5–6; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 46a5–6.
17
SĀ 535 at T II 139a17 (the Song 宋 edition reads 材 for 林).
18
SN 52.2 at SN V 296,24 (Ee).
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 499
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya.19 The Saṃyukta-āgama parallels

to these Saṃyutta-nikāya discourses, however, do not have a compa-
rable place name,20 and the Aṅguttara-nikāya discourse has no known
parallels.
Up 6029 describes the place where Mahāmaudgalyāyana was
staying as follows:21

de’i tshe na tshe dang ldan pa [mauda gal]i gyi bu chen

po brga na ri bong gsod pa zhes bya ba ri dwags kyi
nags ’jigs pa’i [dgra]ii can gyi nags na [rten]iii cing nye
bar gnas so.
i
BCDNP; G reads: maudgala. ii GNP; BCD read sgra. iii BCD; GNP: brten.
At that time the venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana was
staying in the Bhārga [country], based in the Fearsome
Foe Grove, a deer park called Mount Hare Killer.

The country’s name is rendered in Tibetan as brga, which points to

an Indic form corresponding to Sanskrit bhārga-/bhārga- (cf. Pali
bhagga).22 As an ethnonym in Sanskrit the form Bhārga is attested,
for instance, in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,23 as well as in the Sar-
19
SN 47.26 at SN V 174,26–27, SN 52.4 at SN V 298,19–20 (the latter is
the first in a series of three Kaṇṭakī-suttas, SN 52.4–6; the opening of
the second and third discourse is abbreviated in Ee, thus without spelling
the location out in full) and AN 5.144 at AN III 169,9–170,22.
20
Parallels to SN 47.26, SN 52.4–5 and SN 52.6 being, respectively, SĀ
627 at T II 175a28–19, SĀ 542 at T II 140c25–26 with SĀ 543 at T II
141a15–17 and SĀ 537 at T II 139c16–18 (cf. also another partial paral-
lel to SN 52.6, SĀ 538 at T II 140a7–9).
21
Up 6029 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 775,10–12; C, mngon pa, nyu 13a1–2;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 13a2–3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 53b6; N, mngon
pa, thu 46a6–7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 46a6.
22
Honjō 2014: II 729, however, understands it as ヴァルガ, i.e., varga.
23
Gnoli 1978: II 73,17–18: … bhārgaveṣu viharati śiśumāragirau bhīṣa-
500 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

vāstivāda Vinaya.24 Brga corresponds to the town of the baqi 跋祇

in the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel.25
The place name I render as the ‘Fearsome Foe Grove’ reads ’jigs
pa’i dgra can gyi nags in Tibetan (GNP; CD: sgra for dgra).26
Mahāmaudgalyāyana’s location in the Bhārga country is given in
the Saṃyukta-āgama as a deer park on the Śiśumāra Mountain
(called) the Fearsome Thicket, among wild animals and birds. 27
Although the Saṃyutta-nikāya partial parallel to the Saṃyukta-
āgama discourse does not specify Mahāmoggallāna’s location, its
commentary describes the site as being a grove consisting of large
shrubs, kaṇḍakīvane ti mahākaramandavane.28 The noun dgra means
‘foe’, ‘enemy’, ‘predator’, and the grove is known to Pali sources
as the Bhesakaḷāvana or Bhesakaḷāvana. According to the Pali com-
mentaries the Bhesakaḷāvana is so named because of being haunted
by the yakkha Bhesaka or the yakkhinī Bhesakaḷā.29 Such a setting

ṇikāvane mṛgadāve and D 1, ’dul ba, nga 161b1–2 and P 1030, ’dul ba,
ce 154b3: … ngan spong gi chu sbyin gyis pa gsod kyi ri la ’jigs byed
kyi tshal gyi ri dgas kyi nags na ’dug go (the passage appears to be ab-
sent in T 1450).
24
Chung 2017: 32,18 and 41,5–7 [§ 9a]: (bhagavān bhārgaveṣu vi)[hara]ti
[ś]i(śu)[m]āragirau [bh]īṣaṇa[kāva]ne m[ṛ]gadāpe, with its parallel
in T 1435 at T XXIII 139a12: 佛在迦毘羅國.
25
SĀ 535 at T II 139a18: 跋祇聚落, on which cf. also Akanuma 1930–1931:
90. Another occurrence of the same is found in SĀ 107 at T II 33a6 (trans-
lation in Anālayo 2014: 27).
26
Honjō 2014: II 731 note 2 suggests taking out the word dgra/sgra,
(i.e., ’jigs pa>’i dgra/sgra< can), seemingly on account of SĀ 535 at
T 139a17 which speaks of a fearsome thicket, 恐怖稠林.
27
SĀ 535 at T II 139a18–19: 失收摩羅山恐怖稠林禽獸之處.
28
Spk III 262,20; on this location see also Malalasekera 1997 [1937–
1938]: I 494 and Deeg 2005: 291–292.
29
Th-a I 75,16–18: bhesakaḷāvane ti bhesakena nāma yakkhena labhitattā
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 501
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

could explain the idea of a grove (infested) by a fearsome ‘foe’ be-

hind the Tibetan rendition ’jigs pa’i dgra can gyi nags.
The name of the mountain reads bong gsod pa in Tibetan, where
gsod pa literally means ‘killer’ (Sanskrit māra-) and ri bong stands
for ‘hare’, ‘rabbit’ (Sanskrit śaśaka-), thus pointing to a form *Śaśa-
kamāra instead of the expected *Śiśumāra, a ‘killer of children’,
that is, a ‘crocodile’, as in the Pali Suṃsumāra(giri), the Crocodiles
Hill. The Saṃyukta-āgama version features a phonetic rendering,
shishoumoluo (shan), 失收摩羅(山), which points to *Śiśumāra(giri).30
Thus here the traditions represented by the Upāyikā and the
Saṃyukta-āgama respectively are partly congruent and partly in-
congruent.
From the above examples I would suggest that whereas some
instances of disagreement can be explained as transmission or trans-
lation errors, others may document an eventual point of divergence
from an earlier common Indic tradition of recitation.

II.3 Titles, Uddānas and References

In this section I draw attention to inter-textual and meta-textual in-
formation supplied by Śamathadeva by way of titles, uddānas and
cross-references to other discourses in the same Saṃyukta-āgama
he quotes from. This type of information pertains to the level of the
canonical collections as units or means to organise and accomplish
the textual transmission of the discourses. It is for this reason espe-

pariggahitattā, bhesakaḷānaṃ vā kaṭṭhādīnaṃ bahulatāya bhesakaḷā-

vanan ti laddhanāme araññe; Spk II 249,9–12: bhesakaḷāvane ti bhesa-
kaḷāya nāma yakkhiniyā adhivutthattā evaṃ laddhanāme vane. tad
eva migagaṇassa abhayatthāya dinnattā migadāyoti vuccati (on this
location see also the gloss in Mp II 65,32–35).
30
SĀ 535 at T II 139a18–19.
502 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

cially relevant to the intra-Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda canoni-

cal transmission of the Āgamas.
For a more systematic treatment of the uddānas of the Saṃyukta-
āgama and its structural aspects documented by the Upāyikā I defer
to Honjō Yoshifumi’s 本庄 良文 (1981 and 1985) studies I already
referenced above. Here I confine myself to a few examples so as to
illustrate the format adopted by Śamathadeva in supplying this type
of information.
Up 2047 – SĀ 61 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Up 2047, a discourse quotation parallel to SĀ 61 in the Skandha-
saṃyukta, describes the condition of a ‘faith-follower’ and a ‘Dharma-
follower’, who are assured of being on the right path and have the
certainty of not passing away in the interval between death and the
following birth without having attained the fruit of stream-entry.
Immediately following the canonical citation from the Abhidharma-
kośabhāṣya, Śamathadeva goes on to provide the title of the discourse
as ‘Discourse on Analysis’, rnam par ’byed pa’i mdo, *Vibhaṅga-sūtra
(*Vibhāga-sūtra according to the reconstruction in Honjō 1984: 21),
and its location in the third uddāna-gāthā of the Skandha-saṃyukta
of the Saṃyukta-āgama.31 These references do indeed tally with the
reconstructed title of SĀ 61 obtained from the uddāna placed in the
Taishō 大正 edition after SĀ 64, as well as with the actual location
of the Chinese parallel in this saṃyukta.32

31
Up 2047 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 178,9–11; C, mngon pa, ju 75a3–4; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 75a3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 103b3–4; N, mngon pa, tu
81a4–5; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 84b4–5: rnam par ’byed pa (BCD;
alternatively GNP read: pa’i) mdo’i sdom gyi tshigs su bcad pa gsum
pa’i phung po las dang po (BCD; GNP omit: dang po) bslab pa’i sdom
rab tu dga’ ba’i ched du brjod pa rnam par ’byed pa las ji skad du.
32
Cf. also Anālayo 2013a: 2 note 1.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 503
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

An additional reference to the location in the first chapter (kośa-

sthāna) of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is supplied for another citation
of the same discourse passage,33 though in that case apparently ex-
tracted from the Ṣaṭ-sūtraka(-nipāta) of the Dīrgha-āgama.34
Up 3053 – SĀ 58 & SĀ 240 (Skandha-saṃyukta &
Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
The next example is from Up 3053. Śamathadeva first traces the
source of the discourse citation in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya to
the Skandha-saṃyukta, and then he further points to a related exposi-
tion in the Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta.
The discourse citation extracted from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
is reproduced in the Upāyikā in a somewhat truncated manner. It is
followed by the bibliographic information and by the actual dis-
course quotation, including the instructions for the actual recitation
of the discourse: 35
33
Abhidharmakośa I.14, Pradhan 1967: 10,19: caturbhyo ’nye tu saṃ-
skāraskandhaḥ.
34
Up 2047 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 178,18–20; C, mngon pa, ju 75a6; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 75a5–6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 104a1–2; N, mngon
pa, tu 81a6–7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 84b8–85b1: mdo ’di
yang mdzod kyi gnas dang por ’du byed phung po bzhi las gzhan zhes
bya bar bcom ldan ’das kyis (CD; GNP: kyi) mdo drug pa las ji skad
du bshad pa der (CD; GNP: par des) bris pa bzhin no. I take the op-
portunity to correct an error in my statement in Dhammadinnā 2013: 130
note 13 to the effect that “another uddānagāthā is provided at the end of
the present discourse quotation”: the reference is not an uddānagāthā
as such.
35
Up 3053 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 376,19–377,6; C, mngon pa, ju 156a1–
4; D 4094, mngon pa, ju 155b2–4; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 233a2–
233a5; N, mngon pa, tu 167b5–168a1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos,
tu 179b1–5.
504 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

bcom ldan ’das kyis thams cad la ’di skad du zhes bya ba
la re zhig phung po’i mtha’i sdom las btsun pa ci phung
po nye bar len pa lags sam ’on [kyang]i te phung po las
gzhan zhig nye bar len pa yin. dge slong dag phung po
nye bar len pa ma yin zhing phung po las gzhan yang
nye bar len pa ma yin gyi. ’on kyang dga’ ba la ’dod
chags pa ’di ni nye bar len pa zhes bya’o. de bzhin du
skye mched drug gi tshogs kyi [drug]ii po’i sdom las mig
dang gzugs nas yid dang chos kyi bar du’o ste ’di ni nye
bar blang bar bya ba zhes bya’o. gang dga’ ba la ’dod
chags pa ni nye bar len pa’i chos [zhes bya’o].iii mdo ’di
gnyis mdzod kyi gnas lnga pa dang bdun [par]iv ’chad
par ’gyur ro.
i
G; BCDNP omit: kyang. ii I emend drag po’i sdom (all editions) to read
drug po’i sdom; cf. also the Japanese translation in Honjō 2014: I 391: 同
様に、六処品の第六摂偈に［說く］. iii My reading; BCD read: zhes bya’o
zhes; GNP read: zhes. iv BCD; GNP read: pa dang.
“The Blessed One said thus everywhere.”36 – Indeed, [in
a discourse] from the final uddāna in [the ‘Chapter on]
the Aggregates’, [a monk asked:] “Venerable sir, is it the
case that the aggregates are the same as clinging? Or else
36
For the canonical quotation from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, see Pradhan
1967: 140,17–18 on Abhidharmakośa III.27: evaṃ hi bhagavatā sarva-
trākhyātam: upādānaṃ katamat? yo ’tra cchandarāgaḥ; D 4090, mngon
pa, ku 131b1–2 and P 5591, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, gu 152a7–8: bcom
ldan ’das kyis thams cad las ji skad du: nye bar len pa gang zhe na? ’di
la ’dun pa’i ’dod chags gang yin pa’o; T 1559 at T XXIX 208b13–14:
何以故。此義於一切處，世尊皆作此釋。如經言：何者爲取？於中貪欲;
T 1558 at T XXIX 51b19–20: 故薄伽梵諸經中釋云：何爲取？所謂欲貪
(translation in de La Vallée Poussin 1980 [1923–1926]: II 87). Cf. also
the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 300,20–22:
chandarāga iti. aprāpteṣu viṣayeṣu prārthanā chandaḥ. prāpteṣu rāgaḥ.
teṣu kāmādiṣu yaḥ chandarāgaḥ. tad upādānaṃ.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 505
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

is clinging something different from the aggregates?”37

[The Buddha said:] “Monks, the aggregates are not the
same as clinging, nor is clinging something different from
the aggregates. However, the lust with delight [therein],
that is called clinging. In the same way, from the sixth
uddāna in [the ‘Chapter on] the Six Sense Bases’, from
eye and [visual] forms … up to … mind and mind-objects;
these are called [things] that are clung to. Whatever lust
with delight [therein], is called things that are clinging.”38
These two discourses are to be explained as in the fifth
and seventh chapter of the Kośa.

Here Śamathadeva provides two sources for this discourse quota-

tion:39 a discourse in the Skandha-saṃyukta and one in the Ṣaḍ-
āyatana-saṃyukta. A discourse taking up among others the ques-
tion whether the five aggregates are different from the clinging to
them can indeed be found in a discourse in the Skandha-saṃyukta
of the Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 58).40 This has in turn a range of other
37
SĀ 240 does not record the monk’s question that occasions the dis-
course, but it begins directly with the Buddha’s exposition. The other dis-
course quotation that parallels SĀ 240, Up 5025 translated in Dhamma-
dinnā 2018a: 94–95, similarly does not record the monk’s question.
38
SĀ 240 at T II 58a5–6 closes with the monks’ delight at the Buddha’s
words.
39
As a possible source for the canonical quotation in the Abhidharma-
kośabhāṣya, de La Vallée Poussin 1980 [1923–1926]: II 87 with note 4
suggests a Sarva(-varga): “Comme Bhagavat l’a dit dans le Sarva :
«Qu’est-ce que l’upādāna ? C’est le chandarāga. »” (« Dans le Sarva
», j’entends dans le Sarvavarga), on the basis of 一切處 (T 1559), 諸經
(T 1558) and thams cad las (Tibetan translation of the Abhidharma-
kośabhāṣya). He notes, however, that no parallel is to be found in the
Sabba-vagga of the Saṃyutta-nikāya.
40
SĀ 58 at T II 14b22–26, translation following Anālayo 2014: 61–62:
506 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

parallels, including one in the same Upāyikā (Up 7006) and a San-
skrit fragment.41 The relevant passage in the Upāyikā reads:42

dge slong de bcom ldan ’das kyis gsungs pa la mngon par

dga’ zhing rjes su yi rangs te. slar yang bcom ldan ’das
la yongs su dri ba dris pa: btsun pa phung po gang yin
pa de nyid nye bar [len pa’i phung po]i yin na ’on te
phung po dag las gzhan zhig nye bar len pa yin zhe na?
i
BCDG; NP read: len pa.
That monk, pleased and satisfied with the Blessed One’s
words, asked another question of the Blessed One: “Ven-
erable Sir, are the five aggregates the same as the cling-
ing [to them]? Or is the clinging [to them] different from
the five aggregates?”43 [The Buddha said:] “Monk, the

時，彼比丘聞佛所說，歡喜隨喜，而白佛言：「世尊！為說五陰即受，善
哉所說！今當更問。世尊！陰即受，為五陰異受耶？」佛告比丘：「非五
陰即受，亦非五陰異受；能於彼有欲貪者，是五受陰。」 , “Then that
monk, hearing what the Buddha had said, was delighted and rejoiced
in it. He said to the Buddha: ‘Blessed One, it has been said that the
five aggregates are clung to, which is well said. Now I would ask fur-
ther about it. Blessed One, regarding the aggregates, are the five ag-
gregates different from the clinging to them?’ The Buddha said to the
monk: ‘The five aggregates are not the same as the clinging to them
and the five aggregates are not different from the clinging to them.
The potential of having desire and lust for them, that is the clinging to
the five aggregates.’”
41
The parallels are listed in Anālayo 2014: 60 note 171
42
Up 7006 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 878,4–8; C, mngon pa, nyu 55a4–5;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 54b2–3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 114a4–6; N,
mngon pa, thu 95b3–5; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 95b7–8.
43
Cf. fragment Kha ii 8c/viii 11n obv.10, de La Vallée Poussin 1913:
579: [. . . ska]ndhāḥ tāny upādānāni utānyatraiva skandhebyaḥ upā-
dānāni? na bhi . . . . . . tteṣām upādānaṃ.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 507
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

five aggregates are not the same as the clinging [to them],
nor is the clinging [to them] different from the five ag-
gregates. However, the desire and lust [for them], just
that is the clinging.”44

As to the second source identified by Śamathadeva, a relevant pas-

sage can indeed be found in SĀ 240, a discourse located in the Ṣaḍ-
āyatana-saṃyukta with a third parallel in the Saḷāyatana-saṃyutta.45
Yet another related quotation belonging to the same discourse in the
Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta is found elsewhere in the Upāyikā (Up 5025),
this time taking up the canonical citation in the Abhidharmakośa-
bhāṣya according to which “lustful desire is said to be clinging”.
Here Śamathadeva, after giving the discourse in excerpt, notes that
the teaching regarding things that are clung to and things that are
clinging occurs in many places:46

de bzhin du mdo gzhan mang po las bstan to.

It is explained in the same way in many other discourses.

Up 1047 – SĀ 245 (*Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)

The next is a case for which a correspondence between the Upāyikā
(Up 1047) and the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 245) at the level
of titles given internally to individual discourses is clearly docu-
mented. After taking up the relevant canonical citation in the Abhi-
44
Cf. fragment Kha ii 8c/viii 11n obv.11, de La Vallée Poussin 1913:
579: sadhu bhadaṃte ti.
45
SĀ 240 at T II 58a1–6 with its Pali counterpart SN 35.110 at SN IV 89,12–
22; Up 3053 corresponds with T II 58a2–5.
46
Up 5025 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 682,2–3; C, mngon pa, ju 280b4–5; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 281a2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 29b2; N, mngon
pa, thu 26b2; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 25b2.
508 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

dharmakośabhāṣya, Śamathadeva goes on to clarify:47

’dod pa rnams nyes dmigs mang por ’chad pa’i mdo las ’don
pa dang skye mched drug gi tshogs kyi mdo [sde]i dang
de las gsungs pa lta bu ste.
i
GNP; BCD read: de.
The excerpt is from the ‘Discourse on an Exposition on
the Many Disadvantages of Desires’, and it is as stated in
the discourses in the ‘Chapter on the Six Sense Bases’.

The title given for the first discourse source, ’dod pa rnams nyes
dmigs mang por ’chad pa’i mdo, might correspond to a form similar
to *Bahukāma-adīnava-deśanā-sūtra. The title provided for the
second discourse source, skye mched drug gi tshogs kyi mdo sde,
might reflect a Sanskrit form similar to *Ṣaḍāyatana-kāya-varga or
*Ṣaḍāyatana-kāya-sūtranta or, according to Honjō (2014: I 142),
*Ṣaḍāyatana-varga.
I do not fully understand the meaning of dang after mdo sde (… dang
de las gsungs pa lta bu ste), which appears to be intrusive. Nonetheless,
the parallel in the Saṃyukta-āgama is indeed located in the Ṣāḍ-
āyatana-saṃyukta.48
47
Up 1047 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 104,6–7; C, mngon pa, ju 44b7; D 4094,
mngon pa, ju 44b7–45a1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 59a1; N, mngon pa,
tu 49a7–b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 48b3–4.
48
The uddāna-gāthās for this saṃyukta are not preserved in the received
Chinese collection, which only includes uddāna-gāthās corresponding to
discourses in the Skandha-saṃyukta, covering five fascicles (fasc. 1–5)
in total in the Taishō edition (in fact, two uddānas are found in fascicle
10 but pertain to discourses that have parallels in the Pali Khandha-
saṃyutta and in the Chinese Skandha-saṃyukta; see in more detail Su
2009). To explain the situation more accurately: when we take into con-
sideration that the division in saṃyuktas is not internal to the received
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 509
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Śamathadeva then moves on to the discourse quotation itself,

which begins with the opening in the town of Kalmāṣa[damya], in
the Kurus’ country – a setting that agrees with that in the Saṃyukta-
āgama parallel (SĀ 245) – and with the Buddha announcing that the
Dharma teaching he is about to deliver is also expounded elsewhere:49

’di lta ste le’u bzhi pa zhes bya ba’i chos kyi rnam grangs
legs par rab tu nyon la yid la zung shig dang bshad par
bya’o.
… is as [taught] in the Exposition on the Dharma called
‘In Four Parts’. Listen carefully and bear in mind what I
will explain. What is the Exposition on the Dharma called
‘In Four Parts’? …

The same caption is repeated at the conclusion of the exposition:50

’di ni le’u bzhi pa zhes bya ba’i chos kyi rnam grangs te.
This is the Exposition on the Dharma called ‘In Four Parts’.

The reference to an exposition or teaching on the Dharma in four

parts, which points to *Caturparivarta-nāma-dharmaparyāya, cor-
responds with that given in SĀ 245, 四品法經:51

collection as such but it is based on a reconstruction, the received Chinese

collection actually includes uddāna-gāthās that correspond to discourses
which for the most part – though with a few exceptions – have their
parallels in discourses located in the Pali Khanda-saṃyutta.
49
Up 1047 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 104,13–14; C, mngon pa, ju 45a1; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 45a2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 59a3–4; N, mngon
pa, tu 49b2–3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 48b5–6.
50
Up 1047 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 106,16–17; C, mngon pa, ju 44b6; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 45b7; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 60a5; N, mngon pa,
tu 50a7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 49b4.
51
SĀ 245 at T II 58c20–59a2 (elision mine). A Catuparivaṭṭa is the fourth
510 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

... 謂四品法經 … 何等為四品法經？... 是名比丘四品

法經。
… that is, a discourse with a teaching in four parts …
What is the discourse with a teaching in four parts? …
Monks, this is reckoned the discourse with a teaching in
four parts.

The discourse has a Pali parallel in the Saḷāyatana-saṃyutta (SN 35.189).

In the PTS edition this discourse starts with a verse that belongs to
the previous discourse,52 followed by a simile of a fish swallowing
a fisherman’s hook alluding to the fact that the six senses constitute
six hooks for beings in the world.53 After this simile the text of the
discourse parallels that of SĀ 245. In the Pali version the Buddha
does not give any title to his exposition, thus the reference to an
“Exposition on the Dharma called ‘In Four Parts’” appears to be a
feature of the Mūlasarvāstivāda recitation traditions that handed
down Śamathadeva’s Saṃyukta-āgama and the text underlying the
Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama respectively.

in a fivefold list of discourses mentioned in the Samantapāsādikā at

Sp IV 742,24–26: tisso saṅgītiyo anāruḷhepi kulumbasuttaṃ rājovādasuttaṃ
tikkhindriyaṃ catuparivaṭṭaṃ nandopanandanti īdise āpatti yeva; Barua
1945: 85 suggests that this can be identified with the Caturdharmaka-
sūtra quoted in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bendall 1897–1902: 160,4) or else
with the 四品學法 (*Caturvargaśikṣadharma) extant in Chinese trans-
lation as T 771 (cf. also T 772, T 773 and T 774), a work classed as ‘Hīna-
yāna’ (小乘) according to the Chinese canonical catalogues (cf. Nanjio
1883: 314–315 [no. 1417]), a suggestion which seems to me unlikely in
view of the content and doctrinal outlook of T 771.
52
Cf. Bodhi 2000: 1422 note 164.
53
SN 35.189 at SN IV 158,26ult.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 511
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Up 6007 – SĀ 485 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)

The next example of bibliographic information supplied by Śama-
thadeva is of particular interest in that it shows how he made use of
the same bibliographic and structural ‘criteria’ used in the Vastu-
saṅgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi – a work in circulation within
Yogācāra textual communities of the Greater Sarvāstivāda – the
importance of which in the history of the studies on the Saṃyukta-
āgama has already been highlighted by other contributions to this
volume (Choong 2020, Huimin 2020, Travagnin and Anālayo 2020).54
This is a full quotation of the discourse source of the statement in the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya to the effect that “All that which is felt is
[included in] duḥkha.”55
The parallel in the Saṃyukta-āgama, SĀ 485, is located in the
Vedanā-saṃyukta.56 Up 6007 and SĀ 485 have a Pali parallel in the
Saṃyutta-nikāya, the Pañcakaṅga-sutta,57 a discourse which in turn
recurs in the Majjhima-nikāya under a different title (Bahuvedanīya-
54
On the position of the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse quoted by Śamatha-
deva in relation to the structure of the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama and its re-
construction on the basis of the Yogācārabhūmi see Honjō 1985: 71–79.
55
For the canonical quotation from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, gang
cung zad tshor ba de thams cad sdug bsngal ba’o zhes bya ba la in Up
6007, see Pradhan 1967: 330,10–11 on Abhidharmakośa VI.3: yat kiṃcid
veditam idam atra duḥkhasyeti; D 4090, mngon pa, khu 4a6 and P
5591, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, ngu 5a3: gang ci tshor yang rung de
ni ’dir sdug bsngal lo zhes bya ba; T 1559 at T XXIX 266c6–7: 隨所有
受皆是苦別名; T 1558 at T XXIX 114a28–29: 諸所有受無非苦者 (trans-
lation in de La Vallée Poussin 1980 [1923–1926]: IV 129 with note 2;
see also 131–132 and 131 note 1). Cf. also the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā,
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 518,21, 519,18–20, passim.
56
SĀ 485 at T II 123c21–124b17; Up 6007 corresponds with T II 123c22–
124a27 (cf. also Anālayo 2011a: I 336 note 134).
57
SN 36.19 at SN IV 223–228.
512 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

sutta, MN 59 at MN I 396–400), with the part containing the Bud-

dha’s exposition on feeling tones (vedanā) appearing in yet another
Saṃyutta-nikāya discourse, the Bhikkhu-sutta.58 A Sanskrit fragment
parallel contains part of the Buddha’s criticism of those who get
into quarrels about his teachings and of the subsequent exposition
on gradually superior types of happiness.59 Śamathadeva supplies
the source and location of the canonical quotation as follows:60

gleng gzhi yang dag par ldan pa’i sgo gsum pa’i sdom
gyi tshigs su bcad pa lnga par lnga pa dang yan lag
lngar bzhag pa [zhes bya ba’i]i mdo las.
i
BCDPG; N: zhes bya’i.
From the ‘Discourse to the master-builder *Pañcakaṅga’,
in the fifth summary stanza (uddāna-gāthā) of the third door
(sgo) in the ‘Connected [Discourses] on Conditionality’.

Here gleng gzhi yang dag par ldan pa refers to one of the seven
general structural divisions of the Saṃyukta-āgama collection, the
division on conditionality, 因縁相応 , under which the connected
discourses on feeling tones, 受, are placed. Next, sgo gsum pa’i
sdom gyi tshigs su bcad pa refers to the general uddāna-gāthā
(sdom gyi tshigs su bcad pa) of the third gate (sgo; cf. 門 in the
Yogācārabhūmi), lnga par to its fifth section, and lnga pa dang yan
58
SN 36.20 at SN IV 228–229; cf. Anālayo 2011a: I 335 note 128. For a
translation and discussion of the Pali and Chinese versions see Faust-
Koschinger 1999; extracts are also translated and compared in Choong
2000: 111–114. For a full translation of Up 6007 see Dhammadinnā
2019a: 173–178.
59
SHT II 51a (pp. 9–10); cf. also SHT IX p. 370.
60
Up 6007 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 755,1–3; C, mngon pa, nyu 4b7–5a1;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 4b7–5a1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 42a4; N,
mngon pa, thu 36b7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 36a7–8.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 513
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

lag lngar bzhag pa zhes bya ba’i mdo to the title of the discourse,
probably representing a form similar to *Pañcakaṅgasthāpati-sūtra
in the Sanskrit original.
Up 3070 – Ṣaṭsūtraka-nipāta of the Dīrgha-āgama
& SĀ 486–489
The last example is from Up 3070. Śamathadeva sources the canon-
ical citation in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya in the following manner:61

sems can thams cad ni zas kyis gnas so zhes bya ba ni

mdo’i tshig yin no zhes bya ba la. mdo drug pa ’gro ba’i
rnam grangs kyi mdo’i tshig go.
‘All beings subsist because of nutriment’: Thus it is stated
in the discourse passage.62 The discourse passage [belongs]
to the *Saṅgītiparyāya-sūtra, [located] in the ‘Six-sūtra
Group’ (*Ṣaṭsūtraka-nipāta).

Here the diction mdo drug pa ’gro ba’i rnam grangs seems to reflect
a faulty reading in the Sanskrit manuscript: Ṣaṭsūtraka(nipāt)e Gati-
paryāyasūtra° in lieu of *Ṣaṭsūtraka(nipāt)e Saṅgītiparyāyasūtra°.63
61
Up 3070 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 408,8–408,9; C, mngon pa, ju 167b4–5;
D 4094, mngon pa, ju 167b7–168a1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 252a2–3;
N, mngon pa, tu 182a3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 193b5.
62
For the canonical quotation from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, sems
can thams cad ni zas kyis gnas so zhes bya ba ni mdo’i tshig yin no
zhes bya ba la, see Pradhan 1967: 152,8–9 on Abhidharmakośa III.119:
sarvasattvā āhārasthitikā iti sūtrapadam; D 4090, mngon pa, ku 140a1
and P 5591, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, gu 161a4: sems can thams cad ni
zas kyis gnas pa’o zhes bya ba ni mdo’i tshig yin no; T 1559 at T
XXIX 210b17–18: 謂：「一切眾生以食為住」，經言如此; T 1558 at T
XXIX 53b28–29: 謂：「諸有情一切，無非由食而住」 (translation in de
La Vallée Poussin 1980 [1923–1926]: III 199 with note 1).
63
Cf. also Honjō 1984: 43
514 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

The cited line is indeed found in the Saṅgīti-sūtra of the Dīrgha-āgama.64

In addition, the same also recurs in four consecutive discourses (SĀ
486–489) in the Vedanā-saṃyukta of the Saṃyukta-āgama. 65 Thus
although the source of the present quotation given by Śamathadeva
is a (Mūlasarvāstivāda) Dīrgha-āgama, the citation is nonethless of
interest in the present context as a parallel to occurrences in a (Mūla-
sarvāstivāda) Saṃyukta-āgama.66
This last cross-reference concludes my survey of Saṃyukta-āgama
related inter-textual and meta-textual information supplied by Śamatha-
deva, a survey which has hopefully allowed the reader to get a feel
for the type of structural correspondences existing between the Mūlasar-
vāstivāda Saṃyukta-āgama known to Śamathadeva and the Sanskrit
Mūlasarvāstivāda Saṃyukta-āgama underlying the Chinese translation.

II.4 Modules, Phraseology and Internal Structure

In this section I inspect variations in textual modules, phraseology and
internal structure of the discourse material.
Up 9001 – SĀ 8 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
The first discourse quotation I take up for possibly significant dif-
ferences in phraseology compared to its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel is
Up 9001. Here, after instructing on the not-self nature of the aggre-
gates, the Buddha provides contemplative instructions to the practi-
tioner in training, as follows:67
64
See Stache-Rosen 1968: I 45: (sarva)satvā āhārasth(i)tayaḥ [§ I.1, frag-
ment 18.2 to 18.3] and DĀ 9 at T I 49c20: 一切眾生皆仰食.
65
SĀ 486 at T II 124b20–21, SĀ 487 at T II 124c1–2, SĀ 488 at T II 124c13
and SĀ 489 at T II 124c25–26: 謂： 「一切眾生由食存」.
66
For other parallels see Chung 2008: 136–138.
67
Up 9001 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 937,5–8; C, mngon pa, nyu 80a2–3;
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 515
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

dge slong dag ’di ltar mthong ba’i ’phags pa nyan thos
thos pa dang ldan pa ’das pa’i gzugs la btang snyoms
su ’gyur zhing ma ’ongs pa’i gzugs la mngon [par mi]i
dga’ la da ltar byung ba’i gzugs la yid ’byung ba dang ’dod
chags dang bral bar ’gyur ro.
i
BCDG; NP read: pa.
Monks, a learned noble disciple who contemplates in this
way, will be indifferent68 with regard to past [bodily] form,
will not take delight in future [bodily] form, will be dis-
enchanted with presently arisen [bodily] form, and will
become free from desire.

Here and below in the same quotation the Upāyikā does not in-
clude the progression towards cessation as is instead found in a
Sanskrit fragment parallel and in the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel,
where the learned noble disciple “rightly progresses towards cessa-
tion”, nirodhāya pratipanno bhavati and 正向滅盡 respectively.69

D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 77b5–6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 148a5–6; N,
mngon pa, thu 123b2–3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 123a4–5.
68
Here and below in the same discourse the Chinese parallel SĀ 8 at T II
1c23+27 speaks of being unconcerned or indifferent, 不顧 (as if pointing
to Sanskrit anapekṣa-, nirapekṣa-), with regard to bodily form (and the
other clinging aggregates). The same terminology recurs for instance in
a passage in Up 5016 vis-à-vis SĀ 79. Quotations of a discourse pas-
sage parallel to Up 5016 vis-à-vis SĀ 79 preserved in Sarvāstivāda works
in Sanskrit are consistent in this respect; see the Abhidharmakośav-
yākhyā, Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 468,30: ’napekṣo bhavati, and the
Abhidharmadīpa, Jaini 1959: 265,2: ’napekṣo bhavaty; cf. also SN 22.9
at SN III 19,17: anapekho hoti. Thus the Tibetan btang snyoms su ’gyur
in the Upāyikā is in all likelihood a rendering of the same expression,
although btang snyoms is most commonly used to represent upekṣā.
69
SHT IV 30a R5, p. 78: ti pratyutpannasya rūpasya nirvide virāgāya niro-
dhāya [pra]. for this standard formula in Sanskrit cf. also, e.g., Nidāna-
516 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

This difference qualifies for a variation in phraseology that might

represent a difference in recitation traditions or else it might be
imputed to accidental loss of text in the Upāyikā.
Up 1021 (A)70 – SĀ 17 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
The interlocutor of this quotation is the venerable Rgyal ba’i bu
(*jinaputra for *vṛjjiputra?) whom the Buddha addresses as ‘clans-
man’ (rigs kyi bu, Skt. kulaputra). Rgyal ba’i bu cannot keep the
precepts, and the Buddha advises him that he should train in the
threefold training. The discourse is parallel to the Vajjiputta-sutta,
AN 3.83, where the interlocutor is aññataro vajjiputto bhikkhu, whom
the Buddha addresses as bhikkhu rather than kulaputta.
The following passage contains a standard description of a monk
going to see the Buddha:71

de nas dge slong gzhan zhig nang du yang dag ’jog las
langs te bcom ldan ’das gang na ba der nye bar song ste.
nye bar song nas bcom ldan ’das kyi[i] zhabs la spyi bos
phyag byas te phyogs gcig tu ’dug go. phyogs gcig tu ’dug

saṃyukta in Tripāṭhī 1962: 201,5–7: bhikṣur nirvi(de vir)āgāya nirodhāya

pratipanno bhavati; SĀ 8 at T II 1c26+28–29.
70
This discourse quotation is followed by an uddāna at D 4094, mngon
pa, ju 22a6–7 and P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 24a7–8. Although
Honjō 1984: 6–7 and apparently the editors of the new collated Tanjur
edition (dpe bsdur ma) consider the text that follows the uddāna of Up
1021 (which I propose to distinguish into Up 1021 (A) and 1021 (B))
as belonging to the same discourse. In fact, a quotation from another dis-
course is clearly introduced as such: ’dir mdor bsdus pa (GNP; CD
read: par for pa) ’dod pa’i dpe gzhan yang.
71
Up 1021 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 49,4–13; C, mngon pa, ju 21a4–6; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 21a4–6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 27a5–b2; N, mngon
pa, tu 24b1–4; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 23b2–5.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 517
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

nas dge slong des bcom ldan ’das la ’di skad ces gsol to.
bcom ldan ’das bdag la legs par mdor bsdus pa de bzhin
du chos bshad du gsol. ji ltar bdag bcom ldan ’das kyi drung
du mdor bsdus pa’i chos thos nas gcig tu dben pa tshad
med pa gdung ba med pa mnyam par [gzhag]ii pa’i bdag
nyid la gnas par bya’o. gcig tu dben pa tshad med pa
gdung ba med pa mnyam par [gzhag]iii pa’i bdag nyid la
gnas te.
i
BCDNP; G adds: spya. ii BCD; GNP alternatively read: bzhag. iii BCDNP;
G alternatively reads: bzhag.
Then a certain monk emerged from meditative seclusion
and went to the place where the Blessed One [was abid-
ing], arrived at [that] place, paid homage with his head at
the feet of the Blessed One and sat to one side. Sitting to
one side, that monk asked the Blessed One this question:
“It would be good if the Blessed One would teach me the
Dharma with a brief discourse in such a way that, having
heard the Dharma in the form of a brief discourse in the
presence of the Blessed One, I shall go to abide by myself,
alone and in solitude, [with an] immeasurable [mind] and
free from longing, collected in meditation.”

The part corresponding to the description of the monk going to see

the Buddha is briefer in the Chinese parallel.72 In addition, the lat-
ter only mentions that a certain monk rose up from his seat, bared
his right shoulder and addressed the Buddha with palms joined to-
gether.73 Moreover, here and in subsequent occurrences, the wish to
72
For a Sanskrit parallel (not involving emerging from meditation) see,
e.g., Nidāna-saṃyukta 17.1, Tripāṭhī 1962: 44,5–8: anyataro bhikṣur
yena bhagavāṃs tenopajagāma, upetya bhagavatpādau śirasā vandi-
tvaikānte ’sthāt, ekāntasthitaḥ sa bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocet.
73
SĀ 17 at T II 3b29; cf. also, e.g., SĀ 19 at T II 4a29, etc.
518 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

retire and the withdrawal to a secluded spot in order to practice in

earnest are expressed quite differently. A somewhat important dif-
ference is that the Chinese version exhorts to reflect on the teach-
ing, an exhortation absent in the Tibetan text as well as in the Pali
parallel.74
In the same discourse quotation, the Buddha then enjoins:75

dge slong gang khyod ma yin pa’i chos de khyod kyis

spang bar bya’o. don [te]i khyod kyis spangs [nas]ii yun
ring po’i don dang phan pa dang bde bar ’gyur ro.
i
BCD; GNP read: de. ii BCD; GNP read: na.
Monk, something that is not you should be relinquished
by you. If you relinquish such a condition,76 for a long
time there will be welfare, benefit and happiness.

Here and in all subsequent occurrences SĀ 17 rather speaks of erad-

ication and relinquishment, 非汝所應之法, 宜速斷除 , “whatever
things do not belong to you, they should quickly be eradicated and
relinquished”.77 The Abhidharmakośavyākhyā only mentions eradi-
74
SĀ 17 at T II 4b1–2ult: 我聞法已，當獨一靜處，專精思惟，不放逸住 ……,
“On having heard the Dharma, I shall alone and in a quiet place reflect
on it with energy. Being established in it without negligence …”; SN
22.69 at SN III 78,19: “I might dwell alone, withdrawn, diligent, intent
and resolute”, eko vūpakaṭṭho appamatto ātāpi pahitatto vihareyyan ti
(abbreviated at SN III 78,19; text supplied from SN III 73,23–24).
75
Up 1021 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 50,12–13; C, mngon pa, ju 21b5; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 21b5–6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 28a3; N, mngon
pa, tu 25a4–5; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 24a5.
76
‘Thing’ (chos) in lieu of ‘condition’ (don) would have been expected
here, parallel to the same term used in the preceding phrase. Possibly
don appears in the second part of this sentence in the sense of ‘welfare’.
77
SĀ 17 at T II 3c11–12.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 519
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

cation, yad bhikṣo na tvaṃ sa te dharmaḥ prahātavya,78 in agree-

ment with Up 1021 as well as the Pali parallel.79
All of these differences evaluated together qualify for the pres-
ence of an Indic text at the basis of the Upāyikā discourse quota-
tion and its counterpart in the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-
āgama that were characterised by differences in diction at the oral
transmission level.
Up 2078 – SĀ 28 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
In the next example, from Up 2078, a monk questions the Buddha
on the attainment of Nirvāṇa here and now:80

btsun pa dge slong mthong ba’i chos [la]i mya ngan las [’das
pa]ii thob pa dge slong mthong ba’i chos [la]iii mya ngan
las ’das pa thob pa zhes bya ba [la]iv btsun pa ji tsam gyis
na mthong ba’i chos la mya ngan las ’das pa thob pa’i
dge slong du [’gyur].v ji tsam gyis na bde bar gshegs pas
mthong ba’i chos [la]vi mya ngan las ’das pa thob pa’i
dge slong zhes tha snyad gdags pas btags.
i
BCD read: la; GNP read: las. ii BCD read: ’das pa. GNP read: ’da’ ba.
iii
BCD read: la; GNP read: las. iv BCD read: la; GNP omit: la. v BCD read: ’gyur;
GNP read: gyur. vii BCD read: la; GNP read: las.
Venerable sir, it is said “a monk attains Nirvāṇa here and
78
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 48,2.
79
SN 22.68 at SN III 77,30 (although the Pali version here stands on its
own vis-à-vis all the other parallels in that it speaks specifically of de-
sire for what is not-self that should be given up): yaṃ … anattaniyaṃ,
tatra te chando pahātabbo ’ti, not followed by the indication that this
will result in the monk’s peace and happiness, etc.
80
Up 2078 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 232,12–16; C, mngon pa, ju 97b5–6;
D 4094, mngon pa, ju 97b5–6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 139a2–3; N,
mngon pa, tu 103b6–7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 111b3–5.
520 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

now.” Just in what measure is a monk declared one who

attains Nirvāṇa here and now? Venerable sir, how is it
that a monk attains Nirvāṇa here and now? Just in what
measure has the Well-gone One made the declaration
that a monk is one who attains Nirvāṇa here and now?

The monk’s query is articulated more concisely in SĀ 28:81

如世尊所說，得見法涅槃，云何比丘得見法涅槃?
As the Blessed One has spoken about attaining Nirvāṇa
here and now – how does a monk attain Nirvāṇa here and
now?

The same appears to be reflected by the citation in the Abhidharma-

kośabhāṣya, dṛṣṭadharmanirvāṇaprāpto bhikṣur ity uktaṃ,82 as well
as by the Pali parallel, kittāvatā diṭṭhadhammanibbānappatto hotī ti.83
However, when later the Buddha takes up the monk’s query by re-
stating it and asking the monk to reconfirm his earlier question, only
the main point is repeated again, that is:84

dge slong khyod ’di lta bu’i dri ba ’dri ba mthong ba’i
chos [la]i mya ngan las ’das pa thob pa zhes bya ba nas
snga ma bzhin du tha snyad btags [so]ii zhes bya ba’i bar

81
SĀ 28 at T II 6a1; cf. Anālayo 2012b: 50 note 127.
82
Pradhan 1967: 93,21.
83
SN 22.116 at SN III 164,7 (where the topic of attaining Nibbāna here
and now is also worded similarly to SĀ 28 and to the quotation in the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, although it comes as the third of three ques-
tions raised by the monk).
84
Up 2078 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 232,18–21; C, mngon pa, ju 97b6–7;
D 4094, mngon pa, ju 97b7; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 139a4–5; N, mngon
pa, tu 104a1–2; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 111b6–7.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 521
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

du’o. dge slong khyod ’di lta bu ’dri ’am?

i
BCD read: la; GNP omit: la. ii BCD read: so; GNP omit: so.
Monk, you [now] ask a question like this, to what extent
the declaration is made earlier of one who is said to attain
Nirvāṇa here and now. Monk, is this the question you ask?

The type of reiteration of a given sentence by way of a reformulation

in slightly different forms – often synonyms and quasi-synonyms
obeying the waxing syllable principle, or to a hierarchy of climaxes
or anti-climaxes – seen in the Upāyikā is quite common in the early
Buddhist discourses, serving the purpose of maintaining the texts
and preventing loss of content. Given the briefer occurrence in the
second passage in the Upāyikā as well as the formulation in the
Chinese parallel, it is difficult to infer textual addition or else textual
loss, or to consider the differences as pointers to distinct traditions
of recitation as such. Be that as it may, the lengthier of the two Ti-
betan passages accords with common practice in oral transmission
and it appears to incorporate an explanatory gloss that, to a certain
extent, further clarifies the import of the question.
Up 5016 – SĀ 79 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
The next discourse quotation, Up 5016, displays a minor structural
divergence in the layout of the exposition between the version
transmitted in the Upāyikā and that in the Saṃyukta-āgama, SĀ 79.
Although minor, when considered from a quantitative point of view,
differences of this type, counted together, do carry their weight
when one attempts to trace the transmission history of the early
Buddhist texts.85
85
In passing, I take the opportunity to mention that I tend to use the term
‘version’ rather than ‘recension’ with reference to the received Mūla-
sarvāstivāda parallels in the Upāyikā and the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama
522 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

The Upāyikā discourse under discussion broaches its main doc-

trinal topic in the following way:86

dge slong dag ’phags pa nyan thos thos pa dang ldan

pa ’di ltar mthong ba dag ’das pa’i gzugs la btang snyoms
su bya ba thob cing ma ’ongs pa’i gzugs la mngon par mi
dga’ zhing da ltar byung ba’i gzugs la skyo ba dang ’dod
chags dang bral ba dang ’gog pa thob par ’gyur ro.
Monks, a learned noble disciple who examines in this way
attains indifference with regard to past [bodily] form, does
not relish future [bodily] form,87 becomes disenchanted
with and free from desire for [bodily] form arisen in the
present and attains cessation.88

because they are still clearly recognisable as close relatives at the end
point of the transmission. I reserve the term ‘recension’ for witnesses
to the early Buddhist discourses that have considerably developed once
they started to be transmitted within their respective groups of reciters,
for example the Theravāda versus the Saṃmitīya communities, etc.
86
Up 5016 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 665,21–666,3; C, mngon pa, ju 273b6–7;
D 4094, mngon pa, ju 274a1–2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 20b3–4; N,
mngon pa, thu 185b6–7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 17b5–6.
87
Cf. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Pradhan 1967: 295,9–10: uktaṃ hi bhaga-
vatā ’tīte ced bhikṣave rūpaṃ nābhaviṣyan na śrutavān āryaśrāvako ’tīte
rūpe ’napekṣo ’bhaviṣy, yasmāt tarhy asty atītaṃ rūpaṃ tasmāc chra-
tavān āryaśrāvako ’tīte rūpe ’napekṣo bhavati; Abhidharmakośavyākhyā,
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 468,30–31: evaṃ darśī śrutavān āryaśrā-
vakaḥ atīte rūpe ’napekṣo bhavati anāgataṃ rūpaṃ nābhinandati; Abhi-
dharmadīpa, Jaini 1959: 265,2–3: evaṃ darśī śrutavān āryaśrāvako ’tīte
rūpe ’napekṣo bhavaty anāgataṃ rūpaṃ nābhinandati.
88
Cf. Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 468,31: pra-
tyutpannasya rūpasya nirvide virāgāya nirodhāya pratipanno bhavati,
Abhidharmadīpa, Jaini 1959: 265,3: pratyutpannasya rūpasya nirvide
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 523
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Here, even though agreeing in content, there is a minor structural

divergence between Up 5016 and SĀ 79, in that the first places the
(abbreviated) treatment of the other four aggregates after the com-
prehensive treatment of the aggregate of [bodily] form, whereas the
second introduces the (abbreviated) treatment of the other four ag-
gregates already in this part of the discourse, and then again later in
the part on the existence in the three times. This difference appears
to pertain to the structural level of the exposition as such rather than
to the level of abbreviation, although a clear-cut divide between these
two levels cannot always be meaningfully drawn. On the other hand,
the Pali parallel, SN 22.9, concludes at the point corresponding to
the above excerpted passage and does not have a counterpart to the
remainder of Up 5016 and SĀ 79,89 which obviously reflects the
close relationship between the two Mūlasarvāstivāda versions.
Up 6016 – SĀ 81 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
A discourse quotation which has as its protagonist the Licchavī
Mahānāma documents a transmission error that can be rectified with
the help of a comparative study, and it also displays a substantial
amount of other small but textually notable convergences and di-
vergences between the Upāyikā quotation (Up 6016) and its coun-
terpart in the Skandha-saṃyukta of the Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 81).
As already mentioned in my survey of discourse openings (section
II.1 above), Up 6061 and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel SĀ 81 share
a narrative setting that, as far as I know, is peculiar to the Greater
Sarvāstivāda tradition, the Monastery of the Monkey Pond at Vaiśālī.
In the discourse Mahānāma first visits and queries Pūrṇa Kāśyapa,

virāgāya nirodhāya pratipanno bhavati and the standard module in

SN 22.9 at SN III 19,18: nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhaya paṭipanno hoti.
89
Cf. Anālayo 2013a: 43 note 105.
524 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

leader of five hundred Ājīvikas, who was staying at the Park of the
Seven Mango Trees, and then the Buddha.
I first look at the transmission issue in the Tibetan text, which is
found in the initial depiction of Pūrṇa Kāśyapa’s profile, and then
move on to the other variations. Up 6016 portrays him thus:90

de’i tshe na ’tsho ba pa’i a mra bdun pa’i kun dga’ ra ba

na [’od srungs]i rdzogs byed dge ’dun gyi grangs kyis bgrang
zhing ’phags pa ltar bcos pa’i skye bo mang po dang chen
por bgrang pa dag gis mdun du byas te, ’tsho ba blnga brgya
tsam gyis gtso bor byas te.
i
BCDG; NP alternatively read: ’od srung.
At that time Pūrṇa Kāśyapa was staying at the Park of
the Seven Mango Trees of the Ājīvikas, having a com-
munity of followers, possessing a group of followers, be-
ing the teacher of a group of followers, regarded by
many as having the countenance of a holy man, attended
by a large entourage, the leader of five hundred Ājīvikas.

The corresponding passage in the Chinese parallel is worded in a

different way in as much as Pūrṇa Kāśyapa, “being the leader of an
assembly of heterodox practitioners, was surrounded on all sides
by five hundred heterodox practitioners, who were making a loud
clamour discussing worldly things.”91 This part is not preserved in
the parallels in SHT I 376 (p. 167) and in the Dharmaskandha (Dietz
1984: 50,17ff), a Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma text preserved in San-

90
B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 762,20–763,2; C, mngon pa, nyu 8a1; D 4094,
mngon pa, nyu 8a1–2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 46b3–4; N, mngon pa,
thu 40b2–3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 40a6–7.
91
SĀ 81 at T II 20c5–6: 外道眾主，與五百外道前後圍遶，高聲嬉戲，論說
俗事 (translation from Anālayo 2013a: 48).
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 525
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

skrit fragments from Gilgit that were edited by Siglinde Dietz (1984).
The Tibetan rendition dge ’dun gyi grangs kyis bgrang zhing ’phags
pa ltar bcos pa’i skye bo mang po dang chen por bgrang ba dag
gis mdun du byas te is partly ungrammatical and incorrect, in that it
gives a garbled version of a standard module attached to narratives
featuring non-Buddhist teachers.92 The Tibetan passage, garbled both
in syntax and vocabulary, can be clarified on the basis of the correct
module attested elsewhere in parallel passages in Mūlasarvāstivāda
texts in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit manuscript available to the Tibetan
translators of the Upāyikā must have been corrupt at this juncture.
My translation above restores the text to the corrected underlying
original. This restoration is based on the following two sources:
a) the parallel to the Śrāmaṇyaphala-sūtra included in the Saṅgha-
bheda-vastu, which has: saṅghī ca gaṇī ca gaṇācāryaś ca sadhu-
rūpasaṃmato bahujanasya, mahatā ca gāṇena saṃpuraskṛtaḥ;93
b) the Tibetan translation of the Saṅghabheda-vastu, which in
turn corresponds very closely to the Sanskrit text from Gilgit and
reads: ’dus pa can tshogs can tshogs kyi slob dpon skye bo mang
pos gzugs bzang por bkur ba tshogs chen po’i mdun gyis bltas pa.94
In the passage as it appears in Up 6016: dge ’dun gyi grangs
kyis corresponds to saṅghī ca gaṇī; bgrang zhing ’phags pa corre-
sponds to gaṇācāryaś ca (pointing to a corrupted underlying man-
uscript reading *gaṇārya (bgrang = gaṇa + ’phags = ārya), i.e.,
92
For an edition and annotated translation of the teachings of the six
non-Buddhist teachers in the Pravrajyā-vastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda
Vinaya and its Chinese counterpart see Vogel 1970.
93
Gnoli 1978: II 217,17–18.
94
D 1, ’dul ba gzhi, nga 259a3 and P 1030, ’dul ba gzhi, ce 239a1; cf.
also DN 2 at DN I 47,15 and Meisig 1987 for a synoptic presentation
of the Sanskrit and Pali versions and a translation of the Chinese par-
allels, DĀ 27 at T I 107b8 and EĀ 43.7 at T II 762a20.
526 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

ācārya must have read ārya in the Sanskrit manuscript); ltar bcom
pa’i should be corrected to ltar bcos pa’i;95 skye bo mang po dang
corresponds to bahujanasya with sādhurūpasaṃmato bahujanasya
seeming to be only partly represented by ltar bcos pa’i skye bo
mang po; mahatā ca gāṇena is represented by chen por bgrang ba
dag gis; mdun du byas te represents saṃpuraskṛtaḥ; ’tsho ba pa
lnga brgya tsam gyis gtso bor byas te corresponds to pañcamātrā-
ṇām ājīvikaśatānām pramukhaḥ.
To summarise, there appears to have been a twofold transmission
problem: the Sanskrit text before the eyes of the translators was cor-
rupt, and the translators were not familiar with the formulaic mod-
ule in question, misinterpreting its elements, for example interpret-
ing the noun gaṇa as (apparently) verbal forms derived from the root
gaṇ to get grangs, bgrangs, bgrang, all of which correspond to gaṇa
in the original module. This situation is a paradigmatic example of
the philological problems posed by the Upāyikā:
1. correct translation of faulty readings in the Sanskrit manuscript
(possibly from philological rigor and loyalty to the transmitted text);
2. wrong translation of correct manuscript readings (due to un-
familiarity with Āgama literature, its modules and usages);
3. ambiguities created by the compounding of (1) and (2).
Proceeding to variations in phraseology that do not involve tex-
tual errors, I would like to draw attention to the way Pūrṇa Kāśyapa,
on seeing Mahānāma approaching from afar, instructs his retinue
apropos the Buddha’s lay disciples’ liking for silence, as underlined
in the excerpt below from Up 6016:96
95
For ltar bcos pa as a rendering of pratirūpaka cf. Negi 1998: V 1834, s.v.;
cf. also Chandra 1959: 663, s.v., for bcos pa rendering pratirūpaka.
96
Up 6016 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 763,5–14; C, mngon pa, nyu 8a2–15;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 8a3–5; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 46b5–47a2; N,
mngon pa, thu 40b4–6; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 40a8–b3.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 527
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

’od srungs rdzogs byed kyis [lits tsha bī]i ming chen [’ongs]ii par
gyur pa dag thag ring po nas sngar mthong nas rang
gi ’khor rnams la sgra chung dur byed du bcug ste.
khyed cag re zhig sgra chung ngur gyis shig! khyed cag
kha rog ’dug cig! dge sbyong gau ta ma’i nyan thos [lits
tsha]iii bī ming chen zhes bya ba ’ong zhing ’dug [gi]iv.
dge sbyong gau ta ma’i nyan thos yangs pa can na gnas
pa khyim pa gos dkar po gyon pa de dag las [lits tsha]v bī
ming chen ni mchog tu gyur pa ste. sgra chung bar ’dod
pa sgra chung ba [la]vi dga’ pa sgra chung bar ’dul ba
sgra chung ba’i bsngags pa brjod pa ’khor sgra chung
bar rig nas ’ong bar bya’o snyam du sems so. de skad ces
smras pa dang ’khor rnams kha rog ’dug par gyur to.
i
BCDG read: lits tsha bī; NP read: li tsa. ii BCDG read: ’ongs; NP read: ’ong.
iii
BCDG read: lits tsha; NP read: li tsa. iv BCDG read: gi; NP read: gis.
v
BCDG read: lits tsha; NP read: li tsa. vi BCDGP read: la; N omits: la.
Pūrṇa Kāśyapa saw that the Licchavī Mahānāma was ap-
proaching from afar and he turned towards his assembly,
urging them to lower [the sound of their] voices: “You
there, quieten down a little! [Over there,] you, stop talk-
ing! Here a disciple of the recluse Gotama by the name
of Licchavī Mahānāma is arriving. Among those who are
white-clothed disciples dwelling at home, in Vaiśālī the
Licchavī Mahānāma is foremost. They seek silence, de-
light in silence, are disciplined in silence, commend si-
lence, and whenever they come to know there are silent
assemblies, they consider those should be approached.
He spoke in this way and the members of his following
quietened down.”

96
SĀ 81 at T II 20c5–6: 外道眾主，與五百外道前後圍遶.
528 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

The characterisation of Mahānāma’s propensity for silence in the

corresponding module in the Chinese parallel departs from the Ti-
betan text in as much as it has only two items (“they always delight
in silence and commend silence”) instead of a sequence comprising
of four items (“they seek silence, delight in silence, are disciplined
in silence, commend silence”), reading as follows:97

時，富蘭那迦葉遙見離車摩訶男來，告其眷屬，令
寂靜住：「汝等默然！是離車摩訶男是沙門瞿曇弟
子，此是沙門瞿曇白衣弟子，毘耶離中最為上首，
常樂靜寂，讚歎寂靜，彼所之詣寂靜之眾，是故汝
等應當寂靜。」.
Then Pūrṇa Kāśyapa, on seeing from afar that the Licchavī
Mahānāma was coming, told his followers that they should
stay quiet: “You be silent! This is the Licchavī Mahānāma,
who is a disciple of the recluse Gautama. Among those
who are white clothed disciples of the recluse Gautama
in Vaiśālī he is foremost. They always delight in silence
and commend silence, they approach assemblies which
are silent, therefore you should be quiet.”

An occurrence of this module in the Śrāmaṇyaphala-sūtra included

in the Saṅghabheda-vastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the con-
text here being that of Ajātaśatru’s visit to the Buddha, has the same
four items as the Upāyikā:98

97
SĀ 81 at T II 20c6–11; translation with modifications after Anālayo 2013a:
48.
98
Gnoli 1978: 218,34–219,1. For the Tibetan see D 1, ’dul ba, nga 260a3–4
and P 1030, ’dul ba, ce 239b4–5: da ltar bcom ldan ’das de la ’khor de
snyed yod na lu ba’i sgra yang mi grag. sbring pa’i sgra yang mi grag
go. lha bcom ldan ’das de ni sgra chung pa bzhed sgra chung ba la
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 529
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

yatredānīm iyatparivārasya naivotkāsanaśabdaḥ śrūyate?

alpaśabdakāmo … alpaśabdanirataḥ alpaśabdasaṃtuṣṭaḥ
alpaśabdatāyāś ca sa varṇavādī; tasya parṣad alpaśabdaiva.

In addition, the sentence towards the end of the Tibetan passage

quoted above to the effect that the members in Pūrṇa’s assembly
quietened down is not found at all in SĀ 81.
Next, a significant point of agreement between Up 6016 and SĀ
81 is their ascribing the view according to which beings are defiled
or purified without a cause and without a condition to Pūrṇa Kāśyapa
rather than to Ma(kk)hali Gosala (Gośāla Maṅkhaliputra in Jain texts),
as does the parallel to the Śrāmaṇyaphala-sūtra included in the
Saṅghabheda-vastu.99 Yet, the immediately subsequent passage that
carries Mahānāma’s further questioning of Pūrṇa is developed in a
significantly different manner in SĀ 81.
In the Upāyikā he is on record as asking:100

’od srungs gang kha cig ’di skad smra zhing ’di skad du
lung ston na khyed cag ’od [srung]i ba dag smod par byed
dam? mi bden par smra ba dang khyed cag ’od [srung

dgyes sgra chung bas ’dul sgra chung ba’i bsngags pa mdzad pas ’khor
yang sgra chung ba nyid do. The Chinese proceeds somewhat differently,
see T 1450 at T XXIV 205b7–10: 若非汝有異心，既有許多人眾，吾何
不聞謦咳之聲？」侍縛迦答曰：「彼佛世尊，三業寂靜心常在定，弟子亦
爾，以是義故無喧雜聲」. Cf. also [śa]bdavinītā (quite probably *alpa-
śabdavinītā) in a Sanskrit parallel most likely from the same formulaic
module attached to narratives related to the non-Buddhist teachers, SHT
III 886 B5 (p. 136).
99
Gnoli 1978: II 221,28; cf. also Anālayo 2013a: 49 note 126.
100
Up 6016 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 764,2–5; C, mngon pa, nyu 8a7–b1;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 8a7–b1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 47a5–6; N,
mngon pa, thu 41a2–3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 40b7–8.
530 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

ba’i]ii chos smra ba dang chos la chos kyi rjes su mthun

par lung ston pa yin [nam].iii ’ga’ zhig ’ongs te ’khor gyi
nang du chos smra ba dang rjes su smra na chos smad
pa’i gnas su mi byed dam?
i
BCDG; NP read: srungs. ii BCD; CDG read: srungs pa’i; NP read: srungs
pa’i. iii NP; BCDG read: no.
Pūrṇa, if someone should speak these words and propound
such an exposition [attributing it] to you, Pūrṇa, would he
be censurable, a speaker of falsehood? Would [such a one]
be a propounder of your teaching (dharma), Pūrṇa, one
who gives an exposition of your teaching in accordance
with the Dharma? If someone [like this] were to come
and speak such a teaching in accordance with the Dharma
in the midst of an assembly, would such a teaching incur
blame?”

In SĀ 81 Mahānāma expresses his inquiry thus:101

世有此論，汝為審有此，為是外人相毀之言？世人
所撰，為是法、為非法，頗有世人共論、難問、嫌
責以不？
In the world, is there such a doctrine? Is this truly yours?
Or is this a saying by an outsider to discredit you? Is this
composed by people in the world, is this your teaching
or is this not your teaching? Are there people in the world
who have discussed this with you, closely questioned
you about it, and criticised it?

My next example from the same quotation is the exposition on the

defilement of beings in the Upāyikā in the light of its parallels, an
101
SĀ 81 at T II 20c15–17, translation with modifications after Anālayo 2013a:
49.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 531
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

example which underscores some of the philological difficulties

encountered when dealing with these textual sources in multiple
languages and translations. I begin by quoting the relevant part in
the Upāyikā, underlining the part I am about to discuss:102

ming chen gang gi phyir gzugs gcig tu sdug bsngal ba

ma yin zhing bde ba dang yid bde ba dang rjes su ’brel
pa dang bde ba dang yid bde ba chung ngu las <mi>i ’das
te. bde bar shes pa de’i phyir zhes can rnams gzugs la yang
dag par chags shing chags nas yang dag par sbyor ba
dang yang dag par sbyor bas kun nas nyon mongs par ’gyur te.
i
Cf. Honjō 1989: 15–16 and Honjō 2014: II 719–720 with note 5.
Mahānāma, that being the case, [bodily] form is not en-
tirely duḥkha, is not without pleasure or happiness and
<not> gone beyond a small measure of pleasure and
happiness.103 Due to the experience of pleasure, beings
develop attachment to [bodily] form. On being attached,
they become tied to it. On being completely tied to it,
they become defiled.

I would like to draw attention to the last part of the passage ex-
cerpted above, wherein beings, experiencing pleasure, are said to
develop attachment to (or passion for) bodily form, on being thus
102
Up 6016 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 765,18–766,2; C, mngon pa, nyu 9a3–4;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 9a3–4; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 48a6–b1; N,
mngon pa, thu 41b7–42a1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 41b5–7.
103
Honjō 2014: II 719: “色は絶対的には苦ではなく、楽であり、楽を伴
い 、少 量 の 楽 と 喜 と を 越 え ［ ず ］、楽 ［ の 因 ］ と 知 ら れ る .” In
Dhammadinnā 2013: 142–143 (with note 58) I rendered this passage
less literally as “Mahānāma, that being the case, bodily form is not en-
tirely dukkha, is devoid neither of pleasure nor happiness, and is in
line with some pleasure and happiness.”
532 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

attached, they become tied to it, and on being thus tied, they become
defiled. The corresponding section in the Dharmaskandha similarly
states that beings are impassioned with bodily form and become
impassioned, they tie themselves up to it and become tied up, and
they become defiled:104

eva sukhena hetur api, mahānāman, na prajñāyate satvānāṃ

rūpe saṃrāgāya na ceme satvā rūpe saṃrajyeran. yasmāt
tu, mahānāman, rūpaṃ naikāntaduḥkhaṃ sukhaṃ sukhānu-
gataṃ sukhasaumanasyaparītam avakkrāntam eva sukhena
tasmād ime satvā rūpe saṃrajyaṃte saṃraktāḥ saṃyuj-
yaṃte saṃyuktāḥ saṃkliṣyaṃte.

This phrase is insufficiently preserved in the Sanskrit fragment

which only has the two verbal forms (saṃra)jyant[e] saṃraktā,105
and it is not included in the canonical citation in the Abhidharma-
kośabhāṣya. 106 The corresponding gloss in the Abhidharmakośa-
vyākhyā does not allow for comparison either.107 On the other hand,
the matching passage in the Chinese discourse (SĀ 81) reads as
follows:108

104
Dietz 1984: 50,17–24.
105
SHT I 376 V2 (p. 167).
106
Pradhan 1967: 332,11–12: uktaṃ ca bhagavatā rūpaṃ cen mahānāmann
ekāntaduḥkham abhaviṣyan na sukhaṃ na sukhānugatam ity evam ādi.
107
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 521,11–14: rūpaṃ cen mahānāmann ekāṃta-
duḥkham abhaviṣyat na sukhaṃ na sukhānugataṃ na saumanasyaṃ
na saumanasyānugataṃ na sukha-veditaṃ hetur api na prajñāyate
rūpe saṃrāgāya. yasmāt tarhi asti rūpaṃ sukhaṃ sukhānugataṃ pūr-
vavad ato rūpe hetuḥ prajñāyate yad uta saṃrāgāyeti.
108
SĀ 81 at T II 21a3–5; the translation of 隨樂、樂所長養 as “‘[bodily form]
is followed by pleasure and nourishes pleasure’” given in Dhammadinnā
2013: 143 note 58 is not correct.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 533
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

摩訶男！以色非一向是苦、非樂，隨樂、樂所長
養、不離樂，是故眾生於色染著；染著故繫，繫故
有惱。
Mahānāma, because [bodily] form is not entirely duḥkha
and unpleasant, [but] follows pleasure and has pleasure
as its sustenance [or: is sustained by pleasure], being not
without pleasure, therefore living beings are impassioned
with attachment to [bodily] form. Because of being im-
passioned with attachment, they are tied to it [i.e., to bodily
form]. Because of being tied to it, there is affliction.

An identical sequence is found in the Pali parallel (here spoken by

Mahānāma to Mahāli), where beings become impassioned with bodily
form, being impassioned, they tie themselves to it and, being tied,
they become defiled, tasmā sattā rūpasmiṃ sārajjanti; sārāgā saṃ-
yujjanti; saññogā saṅkilissanti.109
Thus all available versions use exactly the same terminology
and point to an equivalent Indic phraseology.110

109
SN 22.60 at SN III 69,18–19.
110
Contrary to what I stated in a note to my earlier translation of this pas-
sage, to the effect that “[h]ere and in the following paragraph Up 6016
agrees with SN 22.60 at SN III 69,19 and all the parallels in lacking any
reference to vexation as a consequence of being tied, against SĀ 81 at
T II 21a5: 繫故有惱”. This note was based on taking 有惱 as representing
a Sanskrit term different from kleśa-, saṃ-kliś, etc. The term 惱, ‘annoys’,
‘vexes’, ‘afflicts’ is used in Chinese Buddhist translations to render
saṃ-kliś (‘to torment’, ‘to afflict’ in proper Sanskrit usage) and kleśa-
(‘affliction’, ‘pain’ in proper Sanskrit usage), alongside the term 煩惱,
literally ‘annoyance’, ‘affliction’, ‘vexation’, which is a common rendering
of kleśa, but not in the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99). Thus 惱, ‘to vex’, ‘vex-
ation’, as used in Bhikkhu Anālayo’s 2014: 50 with note 130 translation
of the SĀ 81 passage (“Because of being defiled by attachment, they are
534 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

In addition, my above rendition of the clause “is in line with some

pleasure and happiness” (and its counterpart below in the (abbrevi-
ated) treatment of the other aggregates) follows the integration of
the negative adverb <mi> in the sentence bde ba dang yid bde ba
chung ngu las <mi> ’das te.111 Literally las <mi> ’das means ‘not
removed from’, ‘not parted from’, ‘not apart from’; thus, worded
positively, the sentence “not removed from (las mi ’das) [at least] a
small degree (chung ngu) of pleasure and happiness”, would become
“in line with a degree of pleasure and happiness”, “connected to
some pleasure and happiness”, as it appears in SĀ 81, 隨樂, 樂所長
養, “[bodily form] is followed by pleasure and nourishes pleasure”,112
as well as in a parallel discourse quotation in the Dharmaskandha,
na sukhasaumanasyaparītam avakkrāntam, “not removed from being

tied to it. Because of being tied to it, there is vexation”), agrees well
with Sanskrit kleśa, saṃ-kliś. Therefore, although 惱 cannot be rendered
in English as ‘defilement’ for (Buddhist) Sanskrit kleśa because it
does not have such meaning (other expressions such as 汚 and 染 were
used to render this Buddhist meaning of kleśa), there is no difference
after all between the underlying Indic form(s) used in the Tibetan and
the Chinese passages here, nor do we have a different version of the
passage in the Chinese as such. The literary propensity for variation in
Chinese translations as opposed to the consistent repetitions of the
Indian oral and written texts and their Tibetan renderings may perhaps
explain why the character 惱 was chosen in lieu, for instance, of the
term 染 that, in other contexts, is also used for forms related to saṃ-
kliś but that in the present case has already been used as a rendering of
forms related to rañj just a few words earlier. This correction goes to
show the linguistic challenges encountered when doing comparative
work using translated texts in different languages as witnesses of their
presumed underlying Indic original.
111
The emendation is suggested by Honjō 1989: 15–16.
112
SĀ 81 at T II 21a6.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 535
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

surrounded by pleasure and happiness”.113 The rendition of the same

string in a partial quotation of this discourse found in the Sarvāsti-
vāda *Mahāvibhāṣā appears to reflect a Sanskrit original that must
have been quite similar to that of the Upāyikā, with 無少樂喜所隨
逐 verbatim corresponding to yid bde ba chung ngu las <mi> ’das
te.114 The corresponding part in the Pali parallel is shorter, in that it
only speaks of sukha, anavakkantam sukhena.115
Last, a further variation between the Tibetan and the Chinese
version is noticeable in the exposition on the final purification of
beings, for which the Upāyikā states:116

de’i phyir sems can rnams gzugs la yang dag par chags
pa dang bral zhing ’dod chags dang bral nas rnam par
grol ba dang rnam par grol nas yongs su dag par ’gyur ro.
… that being the case, beings become free from desire
for [bodily] form. They are liberated [from it]. On being
liberated, they are purified.

Here (and for the other aggregates) SĀ 81 lacks a reference to puri-

fication as a by-product of liberation:117

113
Dietz 1984: 50,18 (10v8).
114
T 1545 at T XXVII 310a4. The entire discourse passage quoted in T
1545 at T XXVII 310a3–8 reads: 如契經說。大名當知。色若一向是苦
非樂。非樂所隨無少樂喜所隨逐者應無有情為求樂故染著於色。大名當
知。以色非一向苦亦是樂亦是樂所隨是少樂喜所隨逐故。有諸有情為求
樂故染著於色.
115
SN 22.60 at SN III 69,15.
116
Up 6016 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 767,2–4; C, mngon pa, nyu 9b3; D
4094, mngon pa, nyu 9b3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 49a6; N, mngon
pa, thu 42b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 42a7–8.
117
SĀ 81 at T II 21a15–16.
536 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

… 是故眾生厭離於色；厭故不樂，不樂故解脫。
… therefore living beings give rise to disenchantment to-
wards [bodily] form. Because of being disenchanted,
they do not delight in it. Because of not delighting in it,
they are liberated from it.

The notion of purification is instead given in the Pali parallel (vi-

sujjhanti), which, however, does not explicitly bring in liberation.118
In conclusion, the detailed comparative survey of this discourse
quotation throws into relief some of the methodological challenges,
as well as the somewhat complex situation that emerges when tri-
angulations between different versions all belonging to the same,
broadly defined, Greater Sarvāstivāda world.
Up 1024, Up 3012, Up 6019 – SĀ 39 (Skandha-
saṃyukta)
The Upāyikā contains a quotation and two references to a discourse
on five types of seeds as a simile for consciousness being conjoined
with the aggregates of clinging found in the Skandha-saṃyukta
(SĀ 39), with an additional Sarvāstivāda or Mūlasarvāstivāda par-
allel among the Saṃyukta-āgama Sanskrit fragments from Central
Asia published by Louis de La Vallée Poussin in 1913, in addition to
quotations in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya,119 the Abhidharmakośa-
vyākhyā120 and the Nibandhana commentary to the Arthaviniścaya-
sūtra.121 The version preserved by the Sanskrit fragments offers a
118
SN 22.60 at SN III 70,21–23: tasmā sattā rūpasmiṃ nibbindanti, nibbin-
daṃ virajjanti, virāgā visujjhanti.
119
Pradhan 1967: 15,16, 118,10, 333,6 (cf. also Pāsādika 1989: 104 [no.
409]) and 434,20. The Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel is SN 22.54.
120
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 522,20ult.
121
Samtani 1971: 164,1ult.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 537
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

version that is close but not identical to that of the Upāyikā dis-
course quotation. A similar situation recurs in relation to the Chinese
Saṃyukta-āgama parallel, which is in turn close but not identical to
the Sanskrit fragments. This is a case in point that illustrates the
difficulty in assigning related yet diverse versions to neatly demar-
cated groupings.
Up 6038 – SĀ 42 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
The next instance of variation comes from Up 6038, a discourse
quotation with a parallel in the Skandha-saṃyukta (SĀ 42). In the
Upāyikā, the Buddha introduces his explanation like this:122

dge slong dag gnas bdun la mkhas shing don rnam pa

gsum yongs su rtog pa’i dge slong ni chos[i] ’dul ba ’di
la myur du zag pa zad pa the tshom thob par ’gyur ro.
i
BCDNP; G adds: la.
Monks, a monk who is skilled in seven cases and con-
templates the meaning in three ways quickly attains the
destruction of the influxes in this Dharma and Discipline.

At this juncture, after mentioning the destruction of the influxes,

SĀ 42 gives the standard module of the attainment of the final goal
in full, bringing in the influx-free liberation of the mind up to the
knowing for oneself that there will be no continuation of existence.123

122
Up 6038 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 790,3–5; C, mngon pa, nyu 19a2–3;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 19a2–3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 62b1–2; N,
mngon pa, thu 53a7–b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 53a3–4.
123
SĀ 42 at T II 10a5–11, translation in Anālayo 2014: 24: 爾時，世尊告諸比
丘：「有七處善、三種觀義。盡於此法得漏盡，得無漏，心解脫、慧解
脫，現法自知身作證具足住：『我生已盡，梵行已立，所作已作，自知不
受後有。』」.
538 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Considering that a module equivalent in wording to that in SĀ

42 is attested in numerous discourse quotations in the Upāyikā,124
the format of the present passage is in all likelihood due to inten-
tional or else accidental abridgment on the part of Śamathadeva (or
perhaps to abridgement already in the discourse he had memorised).
After all, neither the orally transmitted Sanskrit text nor its written
record in the Upāyikā – apparently originating from Śamathadeva’s
own memory rather than a manuscript – underwent a final editorial
consistency-check.125 In fact, apart from occasional obvious glitches
in the Tibetan translation that are evidently due to faulty passages
in the Sanskrit manuscript that was used for translation or to mis-
understandings on the part of the translator, virtually all of the
other numerous variations and sporadic idiosyncrasies hark back to
the orally transmitted text received by Śamathadeva or at times to
his defective memory, as his own postface to the Upāyikā reveals. I
do not see a particular reason to take his quite specific justification
as being the result of a mere wish to conform to a literary cliché,
although no doubt Indian (and Tibetan) colophons to Buddhist works
have formal perfunctory colophons wherein the author denounces his
shortcomings and insufficient knowledge, to be attributed to himself
alone rather than to the Teacher or to his lineage of teachers, etc.
Coming back to the discourse quotation, Up 6038, this exhibits a
micro-level agreement, as it were, against the backdrop of the mini-
variation mentioned above. This micro-level agreement aligns the
Upāyikā and the Saṃyukta-āgama against their farthest kin repre-
sented by the Pali parallel: in the latter, in addition to being a con-
124
E.g., Up 1016, Up 2071, Up 6005, Up 6019, etc.
125
I discuss Śamathadeva’s postface to the Upāyikā in relation to (a) the
oral transmission of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Āgamas and (b) the dating
of the compilation of the Upāyikā and its Tibetan translation in Dhamma-
dinnā 2021.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 539
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

summate one in this Dharma and Discipline, such a person is said

to be the highest kind of person,126 a specification that is absent in
Tibetan and Chinese. Still, a further discrepancy, this time at what
may be dubbed as ‘nano-level’, is that the Saṃyukta-āgama has
only ‘in this Dharma’,127 於此法, against ‘in this Dharma and Dis-
cipline’ of both Up 6038, chos ’dul ba ’di la, and SN 22.57, imasmin
dhammavinaye.128 The same variations between the parallel versions
recur again at the end of the discourse, when the final goal is eventu-
ally attained. From a structural point of view, the Tibetan and the
Chinese discourse agree with each other against the Pali, which,
after the treatment of bodily form, departs from them.129
A discrepancy that might point to slightly different phraseology
in the respective underlying Indic texts is also observable in the
paragraphs on release from bodily form and the other aggregates:130

ji ltar na gzugs kyi nges par ’byung ba yang dag pa ji lta

ba bzhin [i] rab tu shes pa yin zhe na? gang zhig gzugs
la ’dun pa’i ’dod chags ’dul zhing ’dun pa’i ’dod chags
spangs pa dang ’dun pa’i ’dod chags las yang dag par ’das
pa ste. gzugs kyi nges par ’byung ba ni ’di ’o. gzugs kyi
nges par ’byung ba ni ’di lta bu ’o zhes yang dag pa ji
lta ba bzhin rab tu shes pa’o.
i
BCDGP; N adds: du.

126
SN 22.57 at SN III 61,32–33: imasmin dhammavinaye kevalī vusitavā utta-
mapuriso ti vuccati.
127
SĀ 42 at T II 10a6.
128
SN 22.57 at SN III 61,32.
129
SN 22.57 at SN III 62,22 and SĀ 42 at T II 10a23; cf. Anālayo 2014:
25 note 65.
130
Up 6038 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 791,19–792,3; C, mngon pa, nyu 19b5–6;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 19b5–7; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 63b1–3; N,
mngon pa, thu 53a5–7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 54a1–3.
540 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

How does one know the release from [bodily] form as it

really is? When one abandons lustful desire for [bodily]
form and overcomes lustful desire for [bodily] form –
this is the release from [bodily] form. In this way one
knows the release from [bodily] form as it really is.

Needless to say, the release from bodily form envisioned here per-
tains to the ultimate soteriological goal, for other passages in the
discourses – including a quotation in the Upāyikā with a parallel in
the Dhātu-saṃyukta of the Saṃyukta-āgama – define release from
bodily form as the experience of the formless, in the same way as
the realm of form is a release from that of sensual existence, and
with release from any remainder of reflection and intention coming
with the experience of cessation, that is, final Nirvāṇa.131
The release from bodily form is worded with a little more detail
in SĀ 42 compared to Up 6038, in that it involves disciplining, aban-
doning and going beyond lustful desire, 伏欲貪, 斷欲貪, 越欲貪,132
vis-à-vis their abandoning and overcoming, ’dun pa’i ’dod chags
spangs pa dang ’dun pa’i ’dod chags las yang dag par ’das pa. The
counterpart in the Pali parallel speaks of their disciplining and aban-
doning, chandarāgavinayo chandarāgapahānam.133 The same differ-
ence recurs in relation to the release from the other aggregates.
To draw a generalisation, such a predicament with variations at
various levels may be perhaps depicted or measured along a scale
that proceeds from the standard, shared format of a textual module
affiliated, broadly speaking, with the Mūlasarvāstivāda transmission,
to the mini-, micro- and nano-levels of identity or else divergence.
131
Up 8011 parallel to SĀ 463 at T II 118b6–8; cf. also It 72 at It 61,2–6
and DN 33 at DN III 275,13–18.
132
SĀ 42 at T II 10a23.
133
SN 22.57 at SN III 62,20.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 541
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Up 5006(a) – SĀ 45 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
A discourse elaborating on the idea that whenever recluses and
Brahmins see the existence of a self, it all boils down to seeing the
self in the five aggregates of clinging in various ways, offers an ex-
ample of a specific type of style rather than content variation be-
tween the Upāyikā and its Chinese counterpart.
The relevant statement reads thus in the Upāyikā:134

dge slong dag dge sbyong ngam bram ze gang cung zad
bdag go zhes yang dag par rjes su lta zhing yang dag par
rjes su mthong ba de thams cad ni nye bar len pa’i phung
po lnga rnams la bdag go zhes yang dag par rjes su lta ste.
Monks, whatever recluses or Brahmins who, conceiving,
conceive of a ‘self’, all conceive of a ‘self’ in relation to
the five aggregates of clinging.

What is noteworthy in terms of style is that the Mūlasarvāstivāda

recension witnessed by Up 5006(a) presents a doubling of cognate
verbal forms, yang dag par rjes su lta ba zhing yang dag par rjes
su mthong ba, which is consistent with the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
citation, ye kecit bhikṣavaḥ śramaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā ātmeti samanu-
paśyantaḥ samanupaśyanti, 135 with the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā,
ye kecic chramaṇā brāhmaṇā vā ātmeti samanupaśyantaḥ samanu-
paśyanti,136 and with the Abhidharmadīpa, ye kecid ātmeti samanu-
paśyantaḥ samanupaśyanti, sarve ta imān eva pañcopadānaskandhān
samanupaśyantaḥ samanupaśyanti.137 The parallel in the Saṃyutta-
134
Up 5006(a) at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 653,18–21; C, mngon pa, ju 268b6;
D 4094, mngon pa, ju 268b7–269a1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 14a4–5;
N, mngon pa, thu 12b7–13a1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 12a4–5.
135
Pradhan 1967: 282,1–2.
136
Wogihara 1971 [1932–1936]: 300,13–14.
137
Jaini 1959: 272,6–7.
542 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

nikāya also has two verbal forms, samanupassamānā samanupa-

ssanti.138 On the other hand, the Mūlasarvāstivāda version of the
Saṃyukta-āgama parallel employs a single verb, 見:139

若諸沙門、婆羅門見有我者，一切皆於此五受陰見我。
If recluses and Brahmins see the existence of a self, they all see
the self in these five aggregates of clinging.

The same pattern of doubling of verbal forms is found elsewhere in

the Upāyikā, for instance in a discourse quotation parallel to a dis-
course included in the Sarvāstivāda Madhyama-āgama in Chinese
translation, with the duplication not observable in the latter, nor in
the Theravāda counterpart in the Dīgha-nikāya.140
Another example of a doubling of verbal forms in the Mūlasarvās-
tivāda tradition in Tibetan translation is observable in the Pañcatraya-
mahāsūtra: dge sbyong dang bram ze gang dag … mngon par brjod
par byed pa de dag thams cad … mngon par brjod par byed do,141 where
mngon par brjod pa … mngon par brjod par byed pa would cor-
respond to Sanskrit abhivadanto ’bhivadanti ‘asserting, they assert’.142
There is no Chinese or Sanskrit parallel for this passage, but the
138
SN 22.47 at SN III 46,11.
139
SĀ 45 at T II 11b3–4.
140
Up 4068 at B mngon pa, ju 564,20–565,3; C, mngon pa, ju 231b2–3; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 231b2–3; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 346b1–2; N, mngon
pa, tu 255a7–b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 264b2–3: kun dga’
bo ’di ni tshor ba bdag yin no zhes yang dag par rjes su mthong zhing
yang dag par rjes su mthong ngo. kun dga’ bo gzhan yang ’di na kha
cig tshor ba bdag yin no zhes yang dag par rjes su mi mthong med
kyi, ’on kyang bdag ni rig cing tshor ba'i chos can no zhes yang dag
par rjes su mthong zhing yang dag par rjes su mthong ngo; MĀ 97 at
T I 580a17ult; DN 15 at DN II 68,4ult.
141
Skilling 1994: I 312,1 [§ 2.1].
142
Cf. also SWTF: II 125, s.v. abhi-vad and SWTF VII: 537, s.v. abhi-vad 1.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 543
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

corresponding Pali discourse in the Majjhima-nikāya employs a

single verbal form at this juncture, abhivadanti.143 The presence of
this occurrence in Pali advises against explaining the single verbal
form observed above in the Chinese version as being merely due to
language and translation differences. This could be the case in
some instances, but more extensive cross-comparisons of similar
cases are needed in order to position these redactional practices.
Such patterns deserve more extensive study not only within the
Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda sphere, but also in relation to
the other early Buddhist bhāṇaka traditions so as to record the lit-
erary peculiarities that characterised the texts transmitted within
groups and then sub-groups of reciters and therein the trajectories
of transmission of the texts across and beyond India.
Up 1009 – SĀ 55 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
Another discourse quotation with a parallel in the same Skandha-
saṃyukta of the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama elaborates on the canon-
ical citation in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya to the effect that there
are aggregates of clinging subject to the influxes.144 The Upāyikā
supplies the following definition of the aggregates of clinging:145

143
MN 102 at MN II 228,13–15: santi bhikkhave eke samaṇabrāhmaṇa apa-
rantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṃ anekavihitāni adhimutti-
padāni (Ce; Ee: adhivuttipadāni) abhivadanti.
144
Pradhan 1967: 5,8: ye sāsravā upādānaskandhās te. Also Pradhan 1967:
13,5–6: yat kiṃcid rūpam atītānāgatapratyutpannam ādhyātmikabāhyam
audārikaṃ va sūkṣmaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā praṇītaṃ vā yad vā dūre yad vā
antike tat sarvam aikadhyam abhisaṃkṣipya rūpaskandha iti saṃkhyāṃ
gacchatī ti (cf. also Pāsādika 1989: 22 [no. 14]).
145
Up 1009 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 27,17–21; C, mngon pa, ju 12a4–5; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 12a4–5; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 15b3–4; N, mngon
pa, tu 14a2–3; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 13b1–2.
544 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

phung po [gang zhe na? gzugs]i gang cung zad ’das pa

dang ma ’ongs pa dang da ltar byung ba dang nang gi
dang phyi’i dang rags pa dang phra ba dang dman pa
dang gya nom pa dang gang thag nye ba dang thag ring
ba dang thams cad gcig tu bsdus nas gzugs kyi phung po
zhes bya ba’i grangs su ’gro’o.
i
BCDNP; G has an intrusive passage: zhes bya ba’i grangs su ’gro’o. tshor
ba gang cung zad dang ’du shes dang ’du byed dang rnam par shes pa for
gang zhe na gzugs.
What is an ‘aggregate of clinging’? It is reckoned so
when in relation to whatever [bodily] form – be it past,
future or presently arisen – there is lustful desire, adher-
ence, delight, fixation, strong adherence.

The Chinese version instead mentions the influxes and the presence
of clinging, and the giving rise to lustful desire, anger, delusion and
other various types of secondary afflictions that invade the mind.146
The Pali parallel, on the other hand, only indicates that the aggre-
gates are with influxes and clung to, sāsavaṃ upādāniyaṃ.147 Thus
Up 1009 stands alone in not mentioning the influxes and clinging.
Up 2042 – SĀ 57 (Skandha-saṃyukta)
In Up 2042, a quotation from a discourse on how one is to under-
stand and see so as to quickly reach the destruction of the influxes,
the Buddha sets out wandering towards the countries in the north-
146
SĀ 55 at T II 13b19–22 (elision in the text is mine); translated in Anālayo
2014: 51–52: 云何為受陰？若色是有漏、是取，若彼色過去、未來、現
在，生貪欲、瞋恚、愚癡及餘種種上煩惱心法 …… 是名受陰.
147
SN 22.48 at SN III 47,25–27: katame ca, bhikkhave, pañcupādānakkhandhā?
yaṃ kiñci, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ … la … yaṃ
dūre santike vā sāsavaṃ upādāniyaṃ. ayaṃ vuccati rūpupādāna-
kkhandho.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 545
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

ern direction, approaching Pañcala, and goes to dwell at the root of

the Bhadraśālā Tree.148 The Saṃyukta-āgama parallel (SĀ 57) as well
as its Saṃyutta-nikāya counterpart (SN 22.81) mention the village
of Pārileyyaka/Pālilleyaka. 149 SĀ 57 further indicates that this is
located in the Vaṃsa country, and adds that the tree is situated in a
grove. It moreover specifies that the grove is guarded by men, a
detail that is absent in Up 2042 and in the Pali discourse, but found
in the Pali commentary.150 Thus in this case the Mūlasarvāstivāda
lineage of transmission of the Upāyikā diverges from that of the
Saṃyukta-āgama, which, as already observed by Bhikkhu Anālayo
(2014: 54 note 144), in the present as well as in other instances,
includes in its discourses information provided in the Pali com-
mentaries but not in the corresponding Saṃyutta-nikāya parallels.
This discourse has a substantial portion of parallel text in the
Dharmaskandha, which appears to be especially close to the text of
the Upāyikā.151 These two versions share a typological similarity,
in that both were transmitted within the larger textual frame of Abhi-
dharma works of the (Greater) Sarvāstivāda masters.
To illustrate the patterns of similarity or variation, I quote from
a passage taking up one group of self-views includes the view of

148
Up 2042 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 169b,3–4; C, mngon pa, ju 71a4; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 71a5; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 97b6; N, mngon pa, tu
77a5–6; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 80a1: de nas bcom ldan ’das
byang phyogs kyi lnga len du ljongs rgyu zhing gshegs te. shing sa la
bzang po gzhan zhig gi drung du brten te bzhugs so.
149
SĀ 57 at T II 13c17–18: 爾時，世尊遊行北至半闍國波陀聚落，於人所守
護林中，住一跋陀薩羅樹下; SN 22.81 at SN III 94,16ult.
150
Spk II 305,1.
151
See in more detail Anālayo’s 2014: 53–60 and Dhammadinnā’s 2014:
104–113 annotation to the translations of the Chinese and Tibetan ver-
sions respectively.
546 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

annihilationism, the view of sceptical doubt, and the view of ap-

propriating the ‘I’ as a self. In the Upāyikā version it reads:152

… ’on kyang chad par lta ba dang med par lta bar ’gyur ro.
de chad par lta ba dang med par lta bar mi ’gyur gyi. ’on
kyang [dogs]i pa dang som nyi dang bcas par ’gyur ro.
de [dogs]ii pa dang [som nyi]iii dang bcas par mi ’gyur gyi. ’on
kyang ’di ni [nga’i]iv bdag yin no zhes ’di ni nga’i bdag tu
yang dag par rjes su mthong ba dang de’i bdag tu [rtogs]v par
gyur te.
i
BCDN; GP read: dog. ii BCDN; GP read: dog. iii BCD; GNP read: sum
nyi. iv BCDGP; N reads: de’i. v CD; BGNP read: rtog.
… he further holds the view of annihilationism, the view
of nihilism. [Or] he does not hold the view of annihila-
tionism, the view of nihilism, but he has sceptical doubt.
Or he has no sceptical doubt, but he regards that this ‘I’
is a self in this way: ‘This is my self’, and accordingly
has the notion of a self.

The parallel Saṃyukta-āgama passage speaks of holding the view

of annihilation, the view that existence or becoming (bhava) will
be destroyed or, if one does not hold such a view, he is still not free
from self-conceit in that he still sees an ‘I’. 153 The Pali parallel
mentions the eternalist view (not taken up by Up 2042 and SĀ 57),
the view of annihilation and perplexity about the Dharma.154 Thus
in this instance the discourse recension transmitted as Up 2014 partly
152
Up 2042 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 174,4–8; C, mngon pa, ju 73a6–7; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 73a6–7; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 101a1–3; N, mngon
pa, tu 79a7–b2; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 82b2–4.
153
SĀ 57 at T II 14b6–8: 復作斷見、壞有見；不作斷見、壞有見，而不離我慢。
不離我慢者，而復見我.
154
SN 22.81 at SN III 98,ult.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 547
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

agrees with its expected closest relative (for annihilationism and

self-view), the other Mūlasarvāstivāda version (SĀ 57), and partly
with its more distant relative, the Theravāda version (for annihila-
tionism and doubt), in so far as the mention of the fetter of doubt is
found in Up 2014 and SN 22.81, but is absent in SĀ 57. The same
wordings are then repeated in the subsequent sentences dealing
with one who may not hold such a view.155
Up 6061 – SĀ 212 (Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
Here comes another example of literary peculiarities that might well
characterise the way the oral transmission of the discourses devel-
oped within proximate yet independent groups of reciters. A passage
from a full quotation of a discourse on the theme of cultivating dili-
gence in relation to practitioners at different levels of development
on the path, with a parallel in the Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta of the Saṃyukta-
āgama, enjoins:156

dge slong dag mig [gi]i rnam par shes par bya ba’i gzugs ’dod
pa sdug pa dga’ ba yid [du]ii ’ong ba ’dod pa sdud par
byed pa dga’ bar byed pa de dag mthong nas mngon par
mi dga’ zhing mngon par mi brjod [pa]iii la mi zhen cing
lhag par mi zhen cing gnas te.
i
BDGNP; C reads: gis. ii BCDG; NP read: la. iii N; BCDGP omit: pa.

155
Last, the narrative sequence of the Buddha and the monks’ wanderings
differs between SĀ 57 and Up 2042, with the latter displaying a number
of inconsistencies that signal transmission problems that can be resolved
with the help of SĀ 57; for a summary of the overall sequence common
to both versions and of the main discrepancies see Dhammadinnā 2014:
105–106 note 82.
156
Up 6061 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 819,14–17; C, mngon pa, nyu 31a3–4;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 31a4–5; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 79b6–80a1;
N, mngon pa, thu 67b4–5; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 67b3–4.
548 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Monks, [visual] forms to be cognised by the eye [can]

lead to craving conjoined with delight, they [can] be cap-
tivating, seductive and pleasurable. Having seen them,
[such a monk] does not delight in them, does not praise
them, does not adhere to them, does not dwell in attach-
ment to them.

In spite of a slight difference in wording,157 this module comprises

four items in both Up 6061 and SĀ 212: (a) mngon par mi dga’
zhing (b) mngon par mi brjod la (c) mi zhen cing (d) lhag par mi
zhen cing gnas te and (a) 不喜, (b) 不讚歎, (c) 不染, (d) 不繫著住.158
This is to be expected given that the two versions stem from closely
related Mūlasarvāstivāda traditions of reciters. An occurrence in San-
skrit also affiliated with a Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition is documented,
for instance, in the Divyāvadāna: (a) abhinandaty, (b) abhivadaty,
(c) adhyavasyaty, (d) adhyavasāya tiṣṭhati (the phrase is positive in
this instance, without negative adverbs).159 On the other hand, the
same module has three items in the Theravāda Saṃyutta-nikāya:
(a) nābhinandati, (b) nābhivadati, (c) nājjhosāya tiṭṭhati.160
Up 1018(a) – SĀ 222 + SĀ 223, Up 1018(b) – SĀ
224 + SĀ 225 (Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta)
The next case comprises differences in both structural and formal
aspects. The discourse quotation listed as Up 1018 in Honjō (1984:

157
According to SĀ 212 at T II 53c23 one might crave with delight for
visual forms cognised by the eye and become defiled by attachment
therein, 可愛樂、染著之色.
158
SĀ 212 at T II 53c24.
159
Cowell and Neil 1886: 37,22–23.
160
E.g., SN 35.118 at SN IV 102,21 (this passage is not found in the di-
rect Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel to the present discourse, SN 35.134).
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 549
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

4–5 [no. 18]) is in effect not citing from a single but from two discourses,
each of which in turn appears to parallel two discourses in the Saṃyukta-
āgama.161 That is, the first part of Up 1018, which I re-name Up
1018(a), is a parallel to SĀ 222, whereas its second part is a parallel
to SĀ 223. The same pattern applies to the second part of Up 1018,
which I re-name as Up 1018(b), where the first part of the quot-
ation only partially parallels SĀ 224 and the second part parallels
SĀ 225. All of these discourses share the same narrative setting.
Up 1018 starts off with the Buddha announcing the topic he is
about to give a teaching on:162

dge slong dag thams cad mngon par shes shing yongs
su spang bar bya ba zhes bya ba’i chos kyi rnam grangs
ngas bstan par bya yis.
Monks, I shall give an exposition on the Dharma called
‘All That is to be Directly Known and Fully Understood.’

This is reflected in the discourse quotation in the Abhidharmakośa-

bhāṣya, except that the latter speaks only of sarvābhijñeyaṃ in-
stead of thams cad mngon par shes and (thams cad) yongs su spang
bar bya ba.163 At the outset of the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel (SĀ
222) the Buddha does not introduce the title of the exposition, but
says to the monks that they should understand all things that are to
be understood and all things that are to be cognised.164
Another variation that manifests on comparing the diction in
161
Cf. also Honjō 1984: 4–5 [no. 18], who gives SĀ 222–225 as parallels.
162
Up 1018 at B 3323, mngon pa, ju 44,15–16; C, mngon pa, ju 19a6; D
4094, mngon pa, ju 19a6; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, tu 24b7–25a1; N, mngon
pa, tu 22a6; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, tu 21b1.
163
Pradhan 1967: 465,3: sarvābhijñeyaṃ vo bhikṣavo dharmaparyāyaṃ
deśayiṣyāmīty.
164
SĀ 222 at T II 55a28–29: 當知一切知法、一切識法。諦聽，善思，當為汝說.
550 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

these discourses is that the Saṃyukta-āgama qualifies feeling tones,

whether they are pleasant, painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful,
as being experienced ‘within’, 內. This terminology is peculiar to
and appears to be a pattern in the Saṃyukta-āgama.165
After a first exposition (which is abbreviated in SĀ 222 at T II
55b3 and clearly concludes with the monks delighting in the dis-
course), the following part of Up 1018(a) parallels the opening state-
ment found in the main body of the subsequent discourse in the
Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 223), but without being introduced by a new
narrative setting. This indicates that what in the Saṃyukta-āgama (Tai-
shō edition) are presented as two distinct but consecutive discourses
(SĀ 222 and SĀ 223), appear to be quoted as part of a single exposi-
tion in the Upāyikā (Up 1018(a)). The same pattern is found in Up
1018(b) vis-à-vis the two subsequent consecutive discourses in the
Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 224 and SĀ 225). The first part of Up 1018(b)
is a parallel to SĀ 224, whereas its second part is a parallel to SĀ
225, following the same pattern of the first and second parts of Up
1018(a), which parallel respectively SĀ 222 and SĀ 223.
In SĀ 224 the Buddha does not introduce the exposition by giv-
ing its title, but he says to the monks that all the things that are
desirable should be abandoned.166 The qualification of being desir-
able is repeated in the rest of SĀ 224. The same is not found at all
in the Upāyikā and is also absent in the Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel.167
Another considerable difference between SĀ 224 and Up 1018(b)
is that the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse as well as its Saṃyutta-nikāya
parallel speak throughout only of abandoning, whereas the Upāyikā

165
E.g., SĀ 222 at T II 55b2; for other examples see Dhammadinnā 2016:
74 note 32, 77 notes 38 and 38 and Dhammadinnā 2018a: 89–90 note 8.
166
SĀ 224 at T II 55b16: 一切欲法應當斷.
167
SN 35.24 at SN IV 15,20ult; cf. also Anālayo 2016a: 50 note 112.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 551
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

has understanding and abandoning. The qualification of being desir-

able might simply be an addition to the Saṃyukta-āgama version;
and the injunction to directly know before abandoning might like-
wise be an addition to the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā version.
After SĀ 224 concludes its exposition, with the monks delight-
ing in the discourse spoken by the Buddha,168 the following part of
Up 1018(b) parallels the opening statement found in the main body
of the subsequent discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ 225, which
has the same location as SĀ 224). Thus what in the Saṃyukta-āgama
are two distinct but consecutive discourses (SĀ 224 and 225) are
quoted as part of a single exposition in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-
ṭīkā (Up 1018(b)). The same pattern is found in Up 1018 (a) vis-à-
vis SĀ 222 and 223.
Up 6012 – SĀ 467 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)
This quotation and its parallel in the Chinese Vedanā-saṃyukta (SĀ
467) have different interlocutors. Rather than the monks, the inter-
locutor in the Chinese version is Rāhula. He questions the Buddha
about which way one should know and see in relation to one’s body
with its consciousness and external objects and signs, so that there
will be no sense of an I, viewing as mine, fetter, attachment and
underlying tendency to the I-conceit; such a query on the part of
the interlocutor is in fact absent in Up 6012.
The two versions also display a minor stylistic difference in the
sequence in which the three basic types of feeling tones are pre-
sented: (a) pleasant, (b) painful and (c) neither-pleasant-nor-painful
in the Tibetan version (bde ba’i tshor ba dang sdug bsngal gyi
tshor ba dang bde ba yang ma yin sdug bsngal ba yang ma yin pa’i
tshor ba) and (b) painful, (a) pleasant and (c) neither-painful-nor-
168
SĀ 224 at T II 55b20.
552 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

pleasant in Chinese (有三受：苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受).169 A frag-

mentary Sanskrit parallel preserves the akṣaras danā aduḥkhā-
su(kha), suggesting the regular sequence (a) sukhā, (b) duḥkhā and
(c) aduḥkhāsukhā vedanā in Buddhist Sanskrit texts.170 Similarly,
the Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel to SĀ 467 in SN 36.5 at SN IV 207,5–6
has the standard Pali sequence with (a) pleasant, (b) painful and (c)
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling tones, sukhā vedanā, dukkhā
vedanā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā.
Thus it seems likely that the wording in SĀ 467 is a literary feature
of the Chinese translation and is not to be taken as signalling
differences in the originals. This pattern is however not fully con-
sistent throughout the Saṃyukta-āgama (Anālayo 2011a: II 840–841
note 110).
Differences in wording between the Tibetan and Chinese ver-
sions surface again in the same discourse with regard to contempla-
tion of feeling tones, where in the Upāyikā the Buddha proclaims:171

dge slong dag de la bde ba’i tshor ba ni sdug bsngal du

blta bar bya’o. sdug bsngal gyi tshor ba ni zug rngur
blta bar bya’o. bde ba yang ma yin sdug bsngal ba yang
ma yin pa’i tshor ba ni mi rtag pa dang yongs su ’gyur
ba’i chos can du blta bar bya’o.
Monks, pleasant feeling tones are to be seen as unsatis-
factory (duḥkha), painful feeling tones are to be seen as a
dart, neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling tones are to be
seen as impermanent and of a nature to change.

169
SĀ 467 at T II 119a27.
170
BL Or.15009/206r1, Enomoto 2004: 42 and 45.
171
Up 6012 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 760,20–761,3; C, mngon pa, nyu
7a4–5; D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 7a4–5; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 45b3–4;
N, mngon pa, thu 39b3–4; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 39a7–8.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 553
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Here the Saṃyukta-āgama speaks of seeing pleasant feeling tones

as unsatisfactory, painful feeling tones as a piercing sword (劍刺;
alternatively: ‘a sword [or] a thorn’) and neither-painful-nor-pleasant
feeling tones by cultivating the perception of impermanence (無常
想), to which subsequent occurrences add ‘perception of cessation’
( 滅想 ), which could thus be restored in the present passage. 172
According to the Pali counterpart pleasant feeling tone should be
seen as unsatisfactory (dukkha), painful feeling tone as a dart and
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling tone as impermanent,173 which is
similar to the Upāyikā. The same difference as to the neither-painful-
nor-pleasant (feeling tones) recurs in the verse part of the discourse.174
Up 6010 – SĀ 473 & SĀ 474 (Vedanā-saṃyukta)
The next quotation, Up 6010, provides evidence of both structural
and literary discrepancies when studied in relation to its parallel in
the Vedanā-saṃyukta (SĀ 474).175 Up 6010 is a full parallel to SĀ
474. It further includes a set of closing stanzas not found in SĀ 474,
which consists only of prose. These stanzas have a close parallel in
the preceding discourse of the Vedanā-saṃyukta (SĀ 473),176 without
a counterpart in its Pali parallel (SN 36.11) so that Up 6010 is a
parallel to both SĀ 474 (which, like Up 6010, features the venerable
Ānanda meditating alone in a quiet place as the Buddha’s inter-
locutor) for the main body of the discourse and to SĀ 473 (with an

172
SĀ 467 at T II 119a27–29, 119b2 and 119b5; cf. also Shi Tianxiang 1998: 43.
173
SN 36.5 at SN IV 207,6–8: sukhā … vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā, dukkhā
vedanā sallato daṭṭhabbā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā aniccato daṭṭhabbā.
174
SĀ 467 at T II 119b5.
175
The discourse parallel in the Saṃyukta-āgama is SĀ 474 at T II 121a19–
b25 (partial translation and study in Choong 2000: 122–128). Up 6010
is translated with annotation in Dhammadinnā 2019a: 163–169.
176
SĀ 473 at T 121a11–17.
554 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

unnamed monk similarly meditating alone in a quiet place as the

interlocutor) for the closing verse section.177 In addition, as already
observed above, the narrative settings do not correspond.
A structural inconsistency between the two versions is apparent
in the way the exposition is organised. According to Up 6010, after
the Buddha instructs Ānanda that he has spoken of any feeling tone
whatsoever as all unsatisfactory intending the impermanence of con-
structions (saṃskārāḥ) and their change, he goes on to explain:178

kun dga’ bo ’on kyang ’du byed rnams rim pa bzhin du nye
bar zhi bar ’gyur zhing rim pa bzhin du ’du byed rnams
nye bar zhi bar ’gyur te. rim pa bzhin du ’du byed rnams
so sor [’gag]i par ’gyur zhing rim pa bzhin du ’du byed
rnams so sor rab tu ’gag par ’gyur ro.
i
BCD; GNP read: ’gags for ’gag.
However, Ānanda, every (rnams) construction gradually
subsides; gradually all (rnams) constructions subside.
Every construction gradually ceases; gradually all con-
structions cease.

At the corresponding juncture in SĀ 474 it is instead Ānanda who

prompts the rest of the presentation by asking why the Buddha had
spoken intending the gradual subsiding of feeling tones;179 such a
query is absent in Up 6010, where the Buddha simply carries on
with his exposition.
Moreover, as regards the gradual subsiding of feeling tones in

177
Cf. also Honjō 1984: 84–85 [no. 10].
178
Up 6010 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 758,18–759,1; C, mngon pa, nyu 6a7–
b1; D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 6a7–6b1; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 44a6–b1;
N, mngon pa, thu 38b4–5; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 38a6–7.
179
SĀ 474 at T II 121b1–2.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 555
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

SĀ 474, it bears noting that at an earlier point in this discourse the

Buddha had introduced the gradual appeasing (and ceasing) of
constructions (諸行) rather than feeling tones (諸受).180 The same is
found a few lines later in the conclusion of the exposition on the
gradual subsiding of constructions.181 The Pali parallels to SĀ 473
and SĀ 474 also speak of the Buddha having declared the gradual
cessation of constructions.182 Based on these occurrences, Wang Jianwei
王建偉 and Jin Hui 金暉 (2014: II 216 and V 359 note 19) emend
the passage in SĀ 474 to read 諸行 instead of 諸受.183 Up 6010
seems to lend support to this correction.
The phraseology in the excerpt given above (and in its subse-
quent occurrence) is unique to the Tibetan version in that the ver-
batim repetition of each of the two statements, joined by the con-
nective particle zhing, does not have a counterpart in the Chinese
parallel. The formulation appears to convey a sense of progressive
and steady process wherein constructions keep subsiding in succes-
sion, one after the other, eventually leading up to the ultimate ces-
sation of all of them, which is spoken of as saṃskṛtātyanta vyupa-
śama in Sanskrit texts. My rendition of the Tibetan is an attempt at
reflecting this.184 In the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel the fact that all

180
SĀ 474 at T II 121a27–28: 又復，阿難！我以諸行漸次寂滅故說，以諸
行漸次止息故.
181
SĀ 474 at T II 121b8–9: 是名漸次諸行寂滅,
182
SN 36.11 (an unnamed monk as the Buddha’s interlocutor) at SN IV
217,4–5, SN 36.15 (Ānanda as interlocutor) at SN IV 220,13–14, SN 36.16
(Ānanda as interlocutor) at SN IV 221,19 (abbreviated), SN 36.17 (monks
as interlocutors) at SN IV 222,11–12, SN 36.18 (monks as interlocutors) at
SN IV 222,33 (abbreviated): atha kho pana … mayā anupubbaṃ saṅ-
khārānaṃ nirodho akkhāto.
183
SĀ 474 at T II 121b1–2.
184
Honjō 2014: II 713 renders this passage as follows: “またアーナンダ
556 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

feeling tones are duḥkha is directly related to the gradual stilling of

constructions, that is, to the experience of Nirvāṇa.185 This more
clearly correlates the gradual stilling of all experiences qua duḥkha
to the eradication of duḥkha and the stilling of all constructions.186
Later in the discourse, the Buddha teaches the progression of
the gradual subsiding and gradual cessation of all constructions in
detail, which I quote in full (leaving out the lengthy Tibetan text) but
eliding the parts spoken by Ānanda:187

Ānanda, upon entering the first absorption, speech sub-

sides; upon entering the second absorption, initial and
sustained mental application subsides; upon entering the

よ、諸行は順次寂滅し、順次消滅する” (“Furthermore, Ānanda, con-

structions are successively disappearing and they successively disap-
pear”).
185
SĀ 474 at T 121a28–b1: 又復，阿難！我以諸行漸次寂滅故說，以諸行
漸次止息故說，一切諸受悉皆是苦, “Moreover, Ānanda, I said that all
feeling tones without exception are duḥkha on account of the gradual
subsiding of constructions, on account of the gradual stilling of con-
structions.”
186
See for instance AN 9.34 at AN IV 414–418, in which Sāriputta states
at the outset that “this Nibbāna is happiness” (sukham idaṃ … nibbānaṃ,
sukham idaṃ nibbānan ti). Asked by Udāyin “what, then, is the happi-
ness here where there is nothing that is felt?” (kiṃ pan’ ettha … sukhaṃ
yadettha natthi vedayitan ti?), he gives an exposition on the progres-
sive overcoming of the four absorptions and four immaterial states
leading up to the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling
tone, so that on seeing with wisdom, one reaches the destruction of the
influxes (paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti).
187
Up 6010 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 759,3–760,10; C, mngon pa, nyu
6b1–7a2; D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 6b2–7a2; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu
44b2–45a5; N, mngon pa, thu 38b5–39a7; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan
bcos, thu 38a8–39a3.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 557
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

third absorption, happiness subsides; upon entering the

fourth absorption, exhalation and inhalation subside.
Upon entering the attainment of the cessation of percep-
tion and affective knowing (samjñāvedayitanirodha), con-
structions and feeling tone subside.188 Ānanda, it is like
this that every construction gradually subsides, gradually
all constructions subside. 189 (…) Ānanda, from … upon
entering the first absorption, speech ceases … up to …
upon entering the attainment of cessation of perception
and feeling tone, constructions and feeling tone come to
cease. Ānanda, it is like this that every construction gradu-
ally ceases, gradually all constructions cease.
Ānanda, there also exists a gradual cessation superior
to such gradual cessations, an exalted gradual cessation,
an unsurpassed gradual cessation, an unexcelled gradual
cessation, a gradual cessation apart from any other grad-
ual cessation, an unsurpassed progression, a progression
that goes entirely beyond, a sixth sublime progression.
Ānanda, what is such … from … [a gradual cessation su-
perior] to such gradual cessations … a gradual cessation
apart from any other gradual cessation, an unsurpassed
progression, a progression that goes entirely beyond, a
sixth sublime progression?190 Ānanda, here the mind of a

188
Here and in a subsequent occurrence, the translation in Honjō 2014: II
713 (lines 2 and 5) presupposes an emendation of ’du byed dang tshor
ba to read ’du shes dang tshor ba, so that perception and feeling tone
rather than constructions and feeling tone would subside.
189
The closing statement of this passage is shared by Up 6010 and SĀ
474 at T II 121b8, but it is not found in SN 36.11; the same applies to
the closing statement of the passage on the gradual cessation of con-
structions below in Up 6010 and SĀ 474 at T II 121b1 vis-à-vis SN 36.11.
190
Adopting the reading gya nom par ’jug pa drug pa in P (and in line
558 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

monk is detached from passion and becomes liberated; it

is detached from aversion and delusion191 and becomes
liberated. Ānanda, from … [superior] to such gradual ces-
sations … a gradual cessation apart from any other gradual
cessation, an unsurpassed progression, a progression that
goes entirely beyond, a sixth sublime progression.192

In this exposition Up 6010 departs from SĀ 474 by explicitly num-

bering the highest form of cessation as the sixth (the four absorp-
tions and the cessation of perception and feeling tone being the
first five).193
In its account of the gradual subsiding of constructions, before
the cessation of perception and affective knowing (saṃjñāvedayita-
nirodha), SĀ 474 further includes the four immaterial spheres of
(infinite) space, (infinite) consciousness, (infinite) nothingness and
neither-perception-nor-non-perception;194 these four involve the sub-
siding of the perception of material form, of the perception of the
sphere of (infinite) space, of the perception of the sphere of (infi-
nite) consciousness and of the perception of the sphere of noth-
ingness respectively.
As in the case of the gradual subsiding, SĀ 474 also includes
the ceasing of the four immaterial spheres prior to the cessation of
perception and affective knowing also in the exposition on the

with the subsequent occurrence in all editions); CD read: gya nom

par ’jug pa drug pa de; GN read: gya nom par ’jug pa drug.
191
My translation is based on the expunction of the intrusive sems in zhe
sdang dang gti mug las >sems< ’dod chags dang bral zhing.
192
SĀ 474 at T II 121b21–24 does not abbreviate.
193
In addition, SĀ 474 at T II 121b17–20 does not abbreviate the Buddha’s
exposition.
194
SĀ 474 at T II 121b1–8.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 559
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

gradual cessation of constructions.195 In addition, unlike Up 6010,

SĀ 474 does not abbreviate the Buddha’s exposition at this juncture.196
As already noted by Honjō (2014: II 713–714 note 2), such an
absence of the immaterial attainments (that are present in the Chi-
nese and Pali parallels) cannot be ascribed to an error which oc-
curred at the time of or after the translation into Tibetan, as shown
by the mention of the sixth (cessation), which refers to the highest
form of cessation as the sixth after the four material absorptions
and a fifth attainment, namely the cessation of perception and af-
fective knowing. I suggest that such a discrepancy as well as the
caption of a ‘sixth’ cessation must have already been present in the
Saṃyukta-āgama discourse memorised by Śamathadeva.
A comparison of the Tibetan and Chinese passages is further-
more interesting in that it shows that side by side with a noteworthy
discrepancy, close similarities in phraseology can be observed between
the two versions. SĀ 474 introduces the utmost form of cessation
in a manner similar to Up 6010, by juxtaposing four near-synonyms
and stating that on comparing such cessation to the other (forms of)
cessation, there is none which could surpass it.197 This reference is
absent in the Pali parallel, SN 36.11. Only a few lines later the two
versions then depart from each other in phraseology, although at
the micro-level, in that whereas in Up 6010 the mind of a monk is
detached from passion and becomes liberated, and is detached from
aversion and delusion and becomes liberated, according to SĀ 474
it is liberated through not delighting in sensual passion, aversion or
delusion.198 Last, SĀ 474 concludes with Ānanda’s delight after the
195
SĀ 474 at T II 121b9–16.
196
SĀ 474 at T II 121b10–16.
197
SĀ 474 at T II 121b17–18: 佛告阿難：「復有勝止息、奇特止息、上止息、
無上止息。如是止息於餘止息無過上者。」.
198
SĀ 474 at T II 121b22: 於貪欲心不樂，解脫；恚、癡心不樂，解脫.
560 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Buddha’s exposition quoted above as per the standard closing of

Saṃyukta-āgama discourses, without verse.199
Nevertheless, the two Mūlasarvāstivāda witnesses remain very
close kins once a third relative, the Theravāda, is taken up for com-
parison. Not only are the recapitulative statements of the Buddha
after the expositions of the gradual subsiding and the gradual
cessation (“Ānanda, it is like this that …”) shared by Up 6010 and
SĀ 474 and not found in the Pali parallel (SN 36.11);200 but also in
the Pali parallel the culmination point of the process of gradual
cessation of constructions (anupubbasaṅkhārānaṃ nirodho) after a
ninefold progression of which saññāvedayitanirodha forms the ninth
and last stage is worded in terms of the ceasing (niruddha hoti),
subsiding (vūpasanta hoti) and complete tranquilisation (paṭippassaddha
hoti) of sensual passion, aversion and delusion with the destruction
of the influxes.201
Up 6029 – SĀ 535 (Aniruddha-saṃyukta)
The penultimate quotation I analyse is Up 6029, a complete paral-
lel to SĀ 535, a discourse located in the Aniruddha-saṃyukta;202 in
fact, this is the sole parallel for the Aniruddha-saṃyukta available
in the Upāyikā.
Particularly interesting for the purposes of my present topic of

199
SĀ 474 at T II 121b24–25.
200
SĀ 474 at T II 121b8 (gradual subsiding) and SĀ 474 at T II 121b1 (grad-
ual cessation).
201
SN 36.11 at SN IV 217,16ult; cf. also SN 36.15 at SN IV 220,16ult and
SN 36.16 at SN IV 221,19ult.
202
SĀ 535 at T II 139a16–b24 has a Pali parallel in SN 52.2 at SN V 296,23–
297,23, the second Rahogata-sutta located in the Rahogata-vagga of
the Anuruddha-saṃyutta. For a full translation of Up 6029 see Dhamma-
dinnā 2018b: 25–26.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 561
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

multiple Sarvāstivāda / Mūlasarvāstivāda affiliations is this declar-

ation made by Aniruddha on the path of practice represented by cul-
tivation of the four establishments of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna):203

de nas tshe dang ldan pa ma ’gags pa gcig pu dben par

gyur pa na [nang du yang dag ’jog la gnas pa na]i sems
la sems kyi rnam par rtog pa ’di lta bu dag skyes te:
sems can rnams yongs su dag par byed cing mya ngan
dang [yongs su ’tshe ba]ii las ’da’ zhing sdug bsngal ba
dang yid mi bde ba rnams nub nas rigs pa’i chos rtogs
pa’i theg pa ni gcig kho na ste. ’di lta ste dran pa nye
bar gzhag pa bzhi’o.
i ii
BCD; GNP read: nang du yang dag par ’jog pa las gnas pa na. GNP;
BD reads: ’tshe ba for ’tsho ba.
Then when the venerable Aniruddha was dwelling alone
in meditative seclusion, in a solitary place, such a thought
came to [his] mind: “There is just one path for the purific-
ation of beings, for going beyond sorrow and misfortune,
for the fading away of duḥkha and distress, for attaining
the dharma of the [right] method.204 That is, the four estab-
lishments of mindfulness.”

Aniruddha’s statement slightly differs in wording from its counter-

part in the Saṃyukta-āgama:205

有一乘道，淨眾生，離憂、悲、惱、苦，得真如法，
所謂四念處。
203
Up 6029 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 775,12–17; C, mngon pa, nyu 13a2–3;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 13a3–4; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 53b6–54a2;
N, mngon pa, thu 46a7–46b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 46a6–8.
204
On the phrase rigs pa’i chos rtogs pa’i, “for attaining the dharma of the
[right] method”, see Dhammadinnā 2018: 35, note 39.
205
SĀ 535 at T II 139a20–22.
562 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

There is a one-vehicle way206 for the purification of be-

ings, for being separated from sorrow, grief, distress and
duḥkha, for attaining the dharma of reality, namely the
four establishments of mindfulness.

A third parallel (only to this specific passage) in the Madhyama-

āgama reads:207

有一道，淨眾生，度憂畏，滅苦惱，斷啼哭，得正
法，謂四念處。
There is one path for the purification of beings, for going
beyond sorrow and fear, for eradicating duḥkha and dis-
tress, for abandoning wailing and tears, for attaining the right
dharma, namely the four establishments of mindfulness.

As can be seen from the quoted excerpts, this is a case in point of

two modules stemming from closely related Mūlasarvāstivāda tex-
tual transmissions (Up 6029 and SĀ 535) being closer to each other
compared with their Sarvāstivāda parallel (MĀ 98), yet not identical.
Fortunately, a counterpart to this module is contained in a single
folio in the Schøyen collection witnessing the Sanskrit version of a
discourse parallel to another discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama (SĀ
550), with a third parallel in the Aṅguttara-nikāya (AN 6.26), the
context being here the recollection of six qualities of the Dharma
rather than the four establishments of mindfulness. The Sanskrit
text is reconstructed by Paul Harrison (2007b: 204,5–6) as follows:208
206
On the expression 一乘道 in T 99 see Nattier 2007: 185 and Harrison
2007b: 208; on the significance of this term in early Buddhist discourses
Anālayo 2003: 27–29 and Anālayo 2013b: 8–12.
207
MĀ 98 at T I 582b9–11, translation with modifications after Anālayo 2013b:
269.
208
Manuscript 2380/1/1+2 v2–3.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 563
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

ekāyano mārgaḥ satvānāṃ viśuddhaye śokaparidravāṇāṃ

samatikkramāya duḥkhadaurmanasyānām astagamāya nyā-
yyasya dharmasyādhigamāya.

The Sanskrit wording corresponds verbatim with the text preserved

in Tibetan translation in Up 6029:209

sems can rnams yongs su dag par byed cing mya ngan
dang yongs su ’tshe ba las ’da’ zhing sdug bsngal ba
dang yid mi bde ba rnams nub nas rigs pa'i chos rtogs
pa’i theg pa ni gcig kho na ste.

The Sanskrit folio in question is part of a group of fragmentary folios

that appear to belong to discourses in the Ṣaṭka- and Saptaka-nipātas
of an Ekottarika-āgama collection of as yet undetermined school af-
filiation (Harrison 2007a). The agreement between the phraseology
in Up 6029 and the Sanskrit is interesting in that Up 6029 appears
to be even closer to the Sanskrit version than to its established direct
Mūlasarvāstivāda parallel (SĀ 550). Furthermore, as Paul Harrison
(2007b: 207) remarks:

the fit of the Sanskrit text with the Chinese translation—

presumably a (Mūla-)Sarvāstivādin recension—is some-
what better than with the Pāli Aṅguttaranikāya version
(Theravādin), but it is far from exact: there are many sig-
nificant differences.

One of these significant differences is the order of terms in the

section on recollection of the Dharma (dharmānusmṛti). Whether

209
Up 6029 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 775,14–16; C, mngon pa, nyu 13a2–3;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 13a3–4; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 54a1–2; N,
mngon pa, thu 46a7–b1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 46a7–b8.
564 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

this order has any implications in terms of school affiliation is not

clear, however, as noted by Harrison (2007b: 207), it matches the
one in a fragment from the Turfan finds,210 which are part of a Sar-
vāstivāda or Mūlasarvāstivāda corpus. It is noteworthy that a ver-
sion of this module attested in the extant Chinese translation of the
Ekottarika-āgama (discourse parallel to MĀ 98 and MN 10) differs
significantly in wording from the Sanskrit fragment in question (in
addition to bringing in the abandonment of the five hindrances):211

有一入道，淨眾生行，除去愁憂，無有諸惱，得大
智慧，成泥洹證。所謂當滅五蓋，思惟四意止。
There is a one-going path for the purification of the ac-
tions of living beings, for removing worry and sorrow, for
being without vexations, for attaining great knowledge
and wisdom, for accomplishing the realization of Nirvāṇa.
Namely, the five hindrances should be abandoned and the
four establishments of mindfulness should be attended to.

The affiliation of the received Chinese translation of the Ekottarika-

āgama is still debated, though scholarly consensus leans at present
towards the Mahāsāṅghika reciter tradition.212 Whatever the final
word on the affiliation of this collection, the Sanskrit fragment does
not appear to stem from the same or a sufficiently close textual tradition.
In addition, a disagreement between the Sanskrit fragment and the
Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda tradition has also been noted by Harrison
(2007b: 207–208) with reference to the discrepancies between the
six qualities in the recollection of the Dharma in the Schøyen frag-

210
SHT IV 263, also in Schlingloff 2006 [1964]: 179.
211
EĀ 12.1 at T I 568a2–4; translation with modifications after Anālayo
2013b: 9.
212
For an overview of the arguments see, e.g., Anālayo 2016b: 211–214.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 565
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

ment and the Mahāvastu-avadāna of the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda

Vinaya. Thus the closeness of the Sanskrit fragment to the Mūlasar-
vāstivāda tradition of reciters responsible for the transmission of
the discourses quoted in the Upāyikā vis-à-vis the tradition repres-
ented by the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama might be
suggestive of distinct specific local Mūlasarvāstivāda textual sub-
communities.
To summarise, with all due caveats due to its isolated occurrence,
this finding might offer a pointer to a Mūlasarvāstivāda affiliation of
the Sanskrit Ekottarika-āgama in the Schøyen collection. It may also
be suggestive of a working hypothesis of shared affiliation between
the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition responsible for the transmission of
the discourses quoted in the Upāyikā and responsible for the trans-
mission of this Sanskrit Ekottarika-āgama. Such a hypothesis must
of course to be verified through close textual triangulations between
the Upāyikā, the Schøyen Ekottarika-āgama fragments and other Mūla-
sarvāstivāda texts such as the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama, provided
the available/identified textual material allows for them.
In this regard, Harrison (2007a: 4 note 12) gives the example of
Sanskrit fragments of the *Udakopāma-sūtra (manuscripts 2382/262a
and 2381/uf19/3a) possibly stemming from a Saptaka-nipāta, which
differ in wording both from the version preserved in the Chinese
Ekottarika-āgama (EĀ 39.3, to which the version preserved as an
independent translation, T 29, is also somewhat related) and the version
preserved in the Chinese Madhyama-āgama (MĀ 4, to which a San-
skrit fragment from Turfan, SHT VIII 1701, is very close), yet they
also share some features with these two Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda
versions. Basically, as Harrison (2007a: 4 note 12) concludes, “[c]loser
study is required to sort out the complex pattern of similarities and
differences. Similar results may be expected in other cases where
parallels are available.”
566 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Up 9014 – SĀ 1202 (Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta)

My survey draws to a close with a quotation that once again high-
lights the point of imperfect correspondence between the tradition
of the Saṃyukta-āgama transmitted in the Upāyikā and that under-
lying the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama. This is the single Upāyikā par-
allel available for the Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta.
The discourse is spoken by the arhatī bhikṣuṇī Śailā,213 a resident
of Śrāvastī’s Royal Residence for Nuns, the Rājakārāma. 214 This
example is valuable because it allows for a triangulation, although
rather limited in terms of quantity of text, between the Upāyikā, the
Saṃyukta-āgama and the shorter Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-
āgama (T 100), a collection whose characteristics and school affili-
ation are touched upon by other contributions to this volume (Bingen-
heimer 2020, Ken Su 2020, Karashima 2020).
The description of Śailā’s entering Śrāvastī for alms and then
213
On the identity of the protagonist in the parallels see the annotation to
my translation in preparation.
214
The Tibetan reads rgyal po’i dge slong ma’i dbyar khang, pointing, lit-
erally, to *Rājā-bhikṣuṇī-varṣaka, that is, the Rājakārāma, which according
to Jā II 15,1–2 King Pasenadi commissioned to be built in the proximity
of Jeta’s Grove. The same setting is found in SĀ 1202 at T II 327a20–21,
whereas SĀ2 218 at T 454c15 does not specify the nun’s place of resi-
dence. The Rājakārāma is the nuns’ residence in all discourses in the
Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta of T 99, SĀ 1198 to SĀ 1207. Their counterparts
in T 100 do not explicitly indicate the nuns’ whereabouts except SĀ2
219 at T II 455a9–10, SĀ2 220 at T II 455b3+b6–7, SĀ2 222 at T II 455c24+28
and SĀ2 223 at T 456a23, which refer to the Rājakārāma as 王園精舍.
The Rājakārāma also features as a nun residence in the *[Bhikṣuṇī-]
Dharmadinnā-sūtra quotation in Up 1005, parallel to MĀ 210 and MN
44 (translated in Anālayo 2012a [2011b]: 40). On this setting as a venue
for teachings given to the nuns by the Buddha or monks see Deeg 2005:
293–294 and Anālayo 2015 [2014]: 205 note 13.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 567
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

approaching her spot to meditate reads thus in the Upāyikā:215

de nas dge slong ma brag snga dro chos gos dang lhung
bzed thogs te mnyan yod du bsod snyoms kyi phyir [bzhugs]i te.
bsod snyoms spyad nas zas kyi bya ba byas te zos pa’i ’og
tu lhung bzed bkrus te. chos gos dang lhung bzed phyogs
gcig tu bzhag nas ’dug pa’i stan khyer nas long ba can
gyi [nags]ii tshal gang na ba der nye bar song ste. nye
bar song nas long ba can gyi nags tshal du zhugs te.
shing ljon pa gzhan zhig gi drung du [nyin]iii bar gnas pa’i
phyir [rten]iv cing ’dug go.
i
N; BCDGP read: zhugs. ii BCDNP; G reads: nag. iii
GNP; BCD read:
nyan. iv GNP; BCD read: brten.
Then in the morning, having taken robe and bowl, the
nun Śailā went into Śrāvastī for alms.216 Having completed
the alms round, she partook of her meal. After eating,
she washed her bowl.217 Having put her robe and bowl to
one side, taking a sitting mat, she went to the vicinity of
the Blind Men’s Grove.218 Having reached it, she entered
the Blind Men’s Grove. She sat at the foot of a tree in
order [to spend] the day’s abiding based there.219

215
Up 9014 at B 3323, mngon pa, nyu 948,4–10; C, mngon pa, nyu 84a6–7;
D 4094, mngon pa, nyu 82a2–4; G 3598, mdzod ’grel, thu 154b1–3; N,
mngon pa, thu 128b6–129a1; P 5595, mngon pa’i bstan bcos, thu 128a3–5.
216
In passing, SĀ2 218 at T 454c16 simply says that she entered the town
to beg for food, 入城乞食, pace the translation in Bingenheimer 2008:
17: “[she] entered Sāvatthī”.
217
For a different verbal form in the module lhung bzed phyogs gcig tu bzhag,
expressed as lhung bzed gyu in Up 2042 (parallel to SĀ 57), see the
discussion in Dhammadinnā 2014: 104–105 note 81.
218
Adopting the reading nags tshal in CDNP; G reads: nag for nags.
219
For an instance of this module in Sanskrit see, e.g., the Mūlasarvāstivāda
Vinaya, Gnoli 1977: I 149,21–22: anyatarad vṛkṣamūlaṃ niśritya niṣaṇṇo
568 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

The formulaic differences that are worth noticing are that here and
in the repetition of the same passage below (as part of Māra’s rumi-
nations), SĀ 1202 explicitly notes that she returned to the monas-
tery,220 a detail that, even though not mentioned, is implicit in both
Up 9014 and SĀ2 218, and that similarly, here and in the below repe-
tition of the same passage (again part of Māra’s ruminations), SĀ
1202 mentions that she had placed the sitting mat over her shoul-
der,221 a detail that is not noted explicitly in Up 9014 and SĀ2 218.
These differences are hardly striking, yet they might be significant
to some extent from a quantitative perspective, adding to the exten-
sive inventory of the range of variations from the mini- to the micro-
and the nano-levels that I began to compile in the foregoing pages.

II.5 Abbreviation Patterns

A categorisation and comparison of the numerous types and pat-
terns of abbreviation found in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse quo-
tations in the Upāyikā in relation to their counterparts (or lack thereof)
in the received Saṃyukta-āgama in Chinese translation would be a
topic on its own, as shown by Bhikkhu Anālayo’s (2020a) detailed
inspection of these practices in the discourses in the Skandha-
saṃyukta in light of their parallels included in the present volume.
Just so as to give an impression of the patterns in comparison to
the relevant discourses in the Saṃyukta-āgama, in Table 2 below I
summarise in the form of a table the overall consistency or lack
thereof that appears by juxtaposing all the passages that are abbre-
viated in either version with their counterpart in the respective par-
allel. The table is based on a juxtaposition of the discourse quotations

divāvihārāya.
220
SĀ 1202 at T II 327a22+27 (this detail is not given in SN 5.10).
221
SĀ 1202 at T II 327a22–23 (this detail is not given in SN 5.10).
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 569
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

with parallels in the Skandha-saṃyukta, Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta, Dhātu-

saṃyukta, Vedanā-saṃyukta, Aniruddha-saṃyukta, Smṛtyupasthāna-
saṃyukta and Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta. On comparing each passage with
its counterpart, they may be both abbreviated, in a similar manner
or differently, or else one of them may not be abbreviated at all.
A glance at the table indicates that abbreviation practices were
applied in different manners not only by different traditions of re-
citers, but also within the same macro-group, in this case the Mūla-
sarvāstivāda. This is not surprising considering that such editorial
practices display variations even within one and the same textual tradi-
tion, as a comparison of different editions of the Theravāda Saṃyutta-
nikāya shows (Anālayo 2020a).

Table 2. Abbreviation Patterns in the Upāyikā

vis-à -vis the Saṃyukta-āgama

Abbreviation
Discourse Parallel in
Pattern(s)
the Saṃyukta-āgama
Upāyikā [≡ mostly congruent; ≠
or Reference to
Discourse Quotation different; n.a. not ab-
Saṃyukta-āgama
breviated in the
Discourse
Upāyikā/ not applicable]

Skandha-saṃyukta
Up 9001 SĀ 8 ≠
Up 6005 SĀ 9 ≠
Up 2071 SĀ 11 ≡
Up 9004 SĀ 11 & SĀ 12 n.a.
Up 1021 SĀ 17 ≡
Up 2078 SĀ 28 ≡
Up 4084 SĀ 265 n.a.
570 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Up 1016 SĀ 61 ≠
Up 2047 SĀ 61 ≠
Up 5006 SĀ 71 + reference to ≡
*[Bhikṣuṇī-]Dharma-
dinnā-sūtra (SĀ 71 also
refers to other four dis-
courses)
Up 9023 SĀ 73 n.a.
Up 2074 SĀ 77 ≡
Up 5016 SĀ 79 (SĀ 79 refers to ≠
other three discourses)
Up 6016 SĀ 81 ≡
Up 1024 SĀ 39 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 3012 SĀ 39 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 6019 SĀ 39 ≡
Up 6038 SĀ 42 ≠
Up 5006(a) SĀ 45 ≡
Up 1014 SĀ 46 ≠
Up 1009 SĀ 55 ≡
Up 1004 SĀ 56 ≡
Up 2042 SĀ 57 ≡
Up 7006 SĀ 58 ≠
Ṣaḍāyatana-saṃyukta (partial: parallels to fasc. 8–9 in T 99)
Up 6061 SĀ 212 ≠
Up 5017 SĀ 214 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 6057 SĀ 214 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 9002 SĀ 214 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 1018(a) SĀ 222 + SĀ 223 ≡
Up 1018(b) SĀ 224 + SĀ 225 ≠
Up 9007 SĀ 225 (cross-reference) n.a.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 571
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Up 1035 SĀ 229 ≡
Up 4008 SĀ 229 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 8022 SĀ 229 (cross-reference) n.a.
Up 1010 SĀ 231 ≠
Up 9003 SĀ 238 ≠
Up 3053 SĀ 240 ≡
Up 5025 SĀ 240 ≡
Up 1047 SĀ 245 ≠
Up 2013 SĀ 252 n.a.
Up 1048 SĀ 255 ≡
Dhātu-saṃyukta
Up 8011 SĀ 463 n.a.
Vedanā-saṃyukta
Up 6008 (nihil) SĀ 467 n.a.
Up 6012 SĀ 467 n.a.
Up 6010 SĀ 473 and SĀ 474 ≠
Up 6013 (nihil) SĀ 473 n.a.
Up 8020 SĀ 482 ≠
Up 6007 SĀ 485 n.a.
Up 3070 SĀ 486–489 (cross-refer.) n.a.
Aniruddha-saṃyukta
Up 6029 SĀ 535 ≠
Smṛtyupasthāna-saṃyukta
Up 6027 SĀ 605 ≡
Up 6028 SĀ 610 ≡
Up 6031 SĀ 609 n.a.
Bhikṣuṇī-saṃyukta
Up 9014 SĀ 1202 ≠
572 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Conclusion
The examples surveyed in this study show such a copious quantity
and quality of variation that these impinge, as it were, on the
possibility of drawing neat conclusions in terms of lineages of
transmission in light of comparisons and triangulations between
different textual witnesses.
To summarise, the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse citations in the
Upāyikā comprise of several textual interrelations:
· the relationship between the discourse quotations in the Upāyikā
and their Greater Sarvāstivāda (including both Sarvāstivāda and
Mūlasarvāstivāda) discourse parallels;
· the relationship between the Vinaya quotations in the Upāyikā and
the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas;
· the relationship between the Abhidharma quotations in the Upāyikā
and the Greater Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma;
· the relationship between the para-canonical narrative materials
in the Upāyikā and the narrative collections circulating within
Greater Sarvāstivāda environments of transmission.
The findings resulting from the textual analysis yield the con-
clusion that the recensions of the Saṃyukta-āgama represented by
the Upāyikā and the complete Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-
āgama (T 99) respectively are quite closely related yet not identical.
This pattern confirms, based on closer inspection of the content,
the earlier structural findings by Japanese scholars at the level of
the assemblage of the collections as macro-units of transmission.
In this regard, Sakurabe Hajime’s 櫻部 建 (1956: 160) observations
made by way of conclusion to his pioneering study of the Madhyama-
āgama quotations in relation to the Chinese Madhyama-āgama dis-
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 573
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

courses hold all the more true for the case of the Saṃyukta-āgama. I
quote him here:222

taking these previously mentioned facts into considera-

tion, it is possible to remark, with considerable certainty,
what follows. One can witness a great deal of correspon-
dences between [the Tibetan translation of] the Madhyama-
āgama quoted by Śamathadeva and the Chinese Madhyama-
āgama, even though they are not really to be seen as
‘different translations from the same original text.’ It is a
completely different type of relationship from the one
between the Chinese Madhyama-āgamas and the Pali
Majjhima-nikāya that shows a significant difference. In
my opinion, both of these two Madhyama-āgamas should
be considered, at least, as the outcomes of the different
transmissions by the Sarvāstivādins or by an affiliation
of the Sarvāstivādins, if not as ‘different versions of the
same tradition’.

To my mind, the main research thrust at present is not so much one

of remaining in search of an univocally and neatly defined lineage of
transmission within the Mūlasarvāstivāda or Greater Sarvāstivāda.
Rather, a close comparative reading in light of Sarvāstivāda and
Mūlasarvāstivāda parallels throws into relief the fluctuating, local-
222
Sakurabe 1956: 160: すなはち、シャマタデーヷ依用の中阿含（のチべ
ット譯）と漢譯中阿含との間には、「同一原本よりの異譯」と見得る程
ではないけれども、かなりに大なる一致が見出される。それは、漢譯
中阿含とパーリ傳 Majjhima-nikāya との間における様な、大きな差違の
ある關係とは全く異る。思ふに、これら兩阿含は「同一系統の異本」
といった關係にあるものの如く、おそらく共に有部或ひは有部系統の
異流の所傳と見るべきであらう (translation following a draft provided
by Choi Jin-kyoung).
574 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

ised, particularised nature of Greater Sarvāstivāda textuality at large

– here illustrated by the case of the Saṃyukta-āgama. In the words
of Peter Skilling (2012: 433):

… several recensions of the Saṃyuktāgama may have

evolved and may have been transmitted within the broader
and far-flung spheres of influence of the Sarvāstivāda –
there may have been temporal (older, middle, later), and
regional (Central Indian, Northwestern, Central Asian) re-
censions, rather than one single version.

My survey has provided evidence for a multiplicity of localised Sūtra

(and thereby Āgama) traditions in Mūlasarvāstivāda communities
within the Greater Sarvāstivāda textual horizon. In addition, present-
day philology’s understanding of early Buddhist textuality as being
fundamentally oral in nature furnishes a much more appropriate frame-
work to recognise, and comprehend, textual variance and change (see
also Anālayo 2020b in this volume).
When taking into account the similarities and discrepancies high-
lighted by such cross-comparisons, the salient feature that emerges
is micro-variance. A ‘variance’ that is the ‘norm’. This is only to be
expected given that these traditions are spread over a remarkably
broad geographical area.
However, geography alone is perhaps not the only explanation.
Perhaps the simultaneous occurrence of both universalising and
particularising tendencies in the Buddhist monastic institutions of
Greater Sarvāstivāda and in their textual formation is a more organic
explanation. That is, possibly a characteristically multiple and varied
transmission is the textual reflection of specific features of the in-
stitutional and identitarian structure of Greater Sarvāstivāda.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 575
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

What I have in mind is the historical tide, observable from around

the middle of the fourth century AD, of consolidation and spread of
Greater Sarvāstivāda monastic institutions, reaching Southern Central
Asia from northwest India, Kashmir and Bactria. Textual trans-
mission – as an identity token – serves as a sub-institution within
this grand institutional construct. The insightful suggestion of a
(Greater) Sarvāstivāda ‘ecclesiastical model’ by Antonello Palumbo
(2012) might be able to contribute some historical perspective on
the intrinsically multiple and varied textual fabric of the Mūlasar-
vāstivāda Āgama transmission studied above (as well as on the
similar situation found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas). That is,
the numerous sub-lineages of transmission that are evidenced may
reflect the structure of fragmented and spread-out textual commun-
ities that would nevertheless coalesce under a unifying umbrella,
that of Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda qua Greater Sarvāstivāda.
This dual dimension – distinctive localisation and a higher level
of shared affiliation – would enable locality-specific identities and
at the same time constancy of broader institutional identification (and,
crucially, patronage). Such a model could well have been one of
the key factors behind the great and lasting success of Greater
Sarvāstivāda textual culture and ideology, and it could at the same
time account for some of the key traits apparent in the remnants of
its version(s) of the early Sūtras and Āgamas.

I thank Paul Harrison for corrections on a draft of this study, and Bhikṣuṇī
Deyuan 釋德圓 for our ongoing collaboration on a digital collated edition
of the Upāyikā, on which my work relies. I am especially beholden to the
late Karashima Seishi 辛嶋 靜志 for his constant support in my study of
the Upāyikā and eagerness to exchange (and never give up) on difficult
textual passages.
576 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Abbreviations and Symbols

AN Aṅguttara-nikāya
B Beijing collated Tanjur edition (bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma)
C Cone edition
Ce Ceylonese edition (Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka)
CBETA Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association 中華電
子佛典協會
D Derge edition (Tōhoku)
DĀ Dīrgha-āgama (T 1)
DN Dīgha-nikāya
EĀ Ekottarika-āgama (T 125)
Ee European (Pali Text Society) edition
G Golden Tanjur
It Itivuttaka
Jā Jātaka-aṭṭhavaṇṇanā
MĀ Madhyama-āgama (T 26)
MN Majjhima-nikāya
Mp Manorathapuraṇī
N Narthang edition
P Peking edition (Ōtani)
SĀ Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99)
SĀ2 Saṃyukta-āgama (T 100)
SN Saṃyutta-nikāya
Sp Samantapāsādikā
SHT Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden
SN Saṃyutta-nikāya
Spk Sāratthappakāsinī
SWTF Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 577
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Turfanfunden
T Taishō edition 大正 (CBETA, 2016)
Th-a Theragāthā-aṭṭhakathā
ult ulterior/subsequent lines/pages
Up Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā
<> emendation
[] supplementation

References

Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 1930–1931: Indo bukkyō koyū meishi

jiten 印度佛教固有名詞辭典 / Dictionary of Buddhist Proper
Names, Nagoya: Hajinkaku Shobō 破塵閣書房.
Anālayo, Bhikkhu 2003: Satipaṭṭhāna, The Direct Path to Realiza-
tion, Birmingham: Windhorse Publications.
——— 2011a: A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya (Dhar-
ma Drum Buddhist College Research Series, 3), 2 vols., Tai-
pei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation.
——— 2012a [2011b]: “Cūḷavedalla-sutta (MN 44)”, in id., Madhyama-
āgama Studies (Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research
Series, 5), Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 39–
66 [or. publ. “Chos sbyin gyi mdo, Bhikṣuṇī Dharmadinnā
Proves Her Wisdom”, Zhonghua foxue yanjiu suo 中華佛學
研究所 / Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 24 (2011): 3–33].
——— 2012b: “A Translation of Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 1 to
32”, Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓佛學學報 / Dharma Drum Jour-
nal of Buddhist Studies, 11: 1–61.
——— 2013a: “On the Five Aggregates (3) – A Translation of
Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 59 to 87”, Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓
佛學學報 / Dharma Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies, 13: 1–66.
578 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

——— 2013b: Perspectives on Satipaṭṭhāna, Cambridge: Windhorse

Publications.
——— 2014: “On the Five Aggregates (4), A Translation of
Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 33 to 58”, Fagu foxue xuebao
法鼓佛學學報 / Dharma Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies,
14: 1–71.
——— 2016a: “On the Six Sense-spheres (1), A Translation of
Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 188 to 229 (Fascicle 8)”, Fagu
foxue xuebao 法鼓佛學學報 / Dharma Drum Journal of Bud-
dhist Studies, 18: 1–61.
——— 2016b: Ekottarika-āgama Studies (Dharma Drum Institute
of Liberal Arts Research Series, 4), Taipei, Dharma Drum
Publishing Corporation.
——— 2017: “The ‘School Affiliation’ of the Madhyama-āgama”,
in Dhammadinnā (ed.), Research on the Madhyama-āgama
(Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 5),
Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 55–76.
——— 2019: “Comparing the Tibetan and Chinese Parallels to the
Cūḷavedalla-sutta”, in Lalji ‘Shravak’ and Supriya Roy (ed.),
Investigating Principles, International Aspects of Buddhist
Cultures, Hong Kong: The Buddha-Dharma Centre of Hong
Kong, 1–36.
——— 2020a: “Peyāla in the Skandha-saṃyukta Contraction and
Expansion in Textual Transmission”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.),
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute
of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma Drum
Publishing Corporation, 53–108.
——— 2020b “‘Mūlasarvāstivādin and Sarvāstivādin’: Oral Trans-
mission Lineages of Āgama Texts”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.),
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 579
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma Drum

Publishing Corporation, 387–426.
Barua, Benimadhab 1945: “Buddhadatta and Buddhaghosa: Their
Contemporaneity and Age”, University of Ceylon Review, 3.1:
77–88.
Bendall, Cecil 1897–1902: Çikshāsamuccaya, A Compendium of Bud-
dhistic Teaching Compiled by Çāntideva chiefly from Earlier
Mahāyāna-sūtras (Bibliotheca buddhica, 1), St. Pétersbourg:
Commissionnaires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences.
Bingenheimer, Marcus 2008: “The Bhikṣuṇī Saṃyukta in the Shorter
Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama”, Buddhist Studies Review, 25.1:
5–26.
——— 2020: “A Study and Translation of the Yakṣa-saṃyukta in the
Shorter Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.),
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of
Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma Drum Pub-
lishing Corporation, 763–841.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu 2000: The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, A
New Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, Translated from the
Pāli (Teachings of the Buddha), Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Chandra, Lokesh 1959: Bod dang legs sbyar kyi mdzod / Boḍasaṃ-
skṛtādhānam / Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary, Based on a Close
Comparative Study of Sanskrit Originals and Tibetan Trans-
lations of Several Texts, New Delhi: International Academy
of Indian Culture.
Choong Mun-keat 鍾秉潔 [Wei-keat 煒傑] 2000: The Fundamental
Teachings of Early Buddhism, A Comparative Study Based on
the Sūtrāṅga Portion of the Pāli Saṃyutta-Nikāya and the
Chinese Saṃyuktāgama (Beiträge zur Indologie, 32), Wies-
baden: Otto Harrassowitz.
580 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

——— 2020: “Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on

the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts”, in Dhamma-
dinnā (ed.), Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum
Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma
Drum Publishing Corporation, 883–931.
Chung Jin-il 2008: A Survey of the Sanskrit Fragments Corre-
sponding to the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama / Zōagonkyō sōtō
bonbun danpen ichiran 雜阿含經相當梵文斷片一覽, Tokyo:
The Sankibo Press.
——— 2017: “Sanskrit Fragments from Eastern Turkestan, Xin-
jiang, Corresponding to the Śaikṣadharma Section of the Shi-
song-lü: Pelliot Sanskrit Rouge 10.1–6 & Bleu 44, Biblio-
thèque nationale de France”, in Susan Andrews, Jinhua Chen
and Cuilan Liu (ed.), Rules of Engagement, Medieval Tradi-
tions of Buddhist Monastic Regulation (Hamburg Buddhist
Studies, 9), Bochum/Freiburg: Projektverlag, 27–65.
Cowell, E.B. and R.A. Neil 1886: The Divyâvadâna, A Collection
of Early Buddhist Legends, Now First Edited from the Nepalese
Sanskrit Mss. in Cambridge and Paris, Cambridge: Univer-
sity Press.
Deeg, Max 2005: Das Gaoseng-Faxian-Zhuan als religionsgeschicht-
liche Quelle, Der älteste Bericht eines chinesischen buddhisti-
schen Pilgermönchs über seine Reise nach Indien mit Über-
setzung des Textes (Studies in Oriental Religions, 52), Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Dhammadinnā, Bhikkhunī 2013: “A Translation of the Quotations
in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā Parallel to Chinese
Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 61, 71, 73, 77, 79 and 81”, Dharma
Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies / Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓佛
學學報, 13: 123–151.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 581
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

——— 2014: “A Translation of a Discourse Quotation in the Tibe-

tan Translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Parallel to
Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama Discourse 36 and of the Discourse
Quotations in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā Parallel
to Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama Discourses 39, 42, 45, 46, 55,
56, 57 and 58”, Dharma Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies /
Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓佛學學報, 14: 73–128.
——— 2016: “A Translation of the Quotations in Śamathadeva’s
Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā Parallel to the Chinese Saṃyukta-
āgama Discourses 212, 222, 223, 224, 225 and 229”, Dharma
Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies / Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓
佛學學報, 18: 63–82.
——— 2018a: “A Translation of the Quotations in Śamathadeva’s
Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā Parallel to the Chinese Saṃyukta-
āgama Discourses 231, 238, 240, 245, 252 and 255”, Dharma
Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies / Fagu foxue xuebao 法鼓
佛學學報, 22: 85–109.
——— 2018b: “Discourses on the Establishment of Mindfulness
(Smṛtyupasthāna) Quoted in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośo-
pāyikā-ṭīkā”, Journal of Buddhist Studies, 15: 23–38.
——— 2019a: “Discourses on Feeling Tones (Vedanā) in Śamatha-
devaʼs Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā”, The Indian International
Journal of Buddhist Studies, 20: 159–184.
——— 2019b: “Co-textuality of Sūtra and Early Abhidharma in
the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā’s Discourse Quotations”, Jour-
nal of Buddhist Studies, 16: 1–32.
——— 2021: “The Monk Śamathadeva and the Oral Transmission
of Mūlasarvāstivāda Āgama and Vinaya Texts”, Annual Report
of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhol-
ogy at Soka University / Sōkadaigaku kokusai bukkyōgaku kōtō
582 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学国際仏敎学高等硏究所年報, 24.

Dietz, Siglinde 1984: Fragmente des Dharmaskandha, Ein Abhid-
harma-Text in Sanskrit aus Gilgit (Abhandlungen der Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische
Klasse, 3; Folge, 142), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Dutt, Nalinaksha 1984 [1947]: Gilgit Manuscripts, vol. 3, part 1:
Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavastu (Manuscripta Indo-buddhica,
16), second edition (first edition Srinagar, 1947).
Enomoto, Fumio 2000: “‘Mūlasarvāstivādin’ and ‘Sarvāstivādin’”,
in Christine Chojnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Volker Tschannerl
(ed.), Vividharatnakaraṇḍaka, Festgabe für Adelheid Mette
(Indica et Tibetica, 37), Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica
Verlag, 239–250.
——— 榎本 文雄 2004: “Bukkyō kenkyū ni okeru kanyaku butten
no yūyōsei: Zō-agongyō o chūshin ni 仏教研究における漢訳
仏典の有用性 —『雑阿含経』を中心に” (Usefulness of the
Chinese Buddhist Texts for Buddhist Studies: With Special
Reference to the Za-ahanjing), in Tokio Takata 高田 時雄
(ed.), Kyōtodaigaku 21 seiki koe puroguramu Higashiajia
sekai no jinbun jōhō-gaku kenkyū kyōiku kyoten; Chūgoku
shūkyōbunkenkenkyū kokusaishinpojiumu hōkokusho 京都大
学 21 世紀 COE プログラム東アジア世界の人文情報学研究教
育拠点: 漢字文化の全き継承と発展のために; 中國宗教文獻
研究國際シンポジウム報告書 / Toward an Overall Inheri-
tance and Development of Kanji Culture, East Asian Center
for Informatics in Humanities, the 21st Century COE, Kyoto
University; Proceedings of the International Symposium ‘Re-
ligions in Chinese Script: Perspectives for Textual Research’,
Nov. 18th–21st, 2004, Kyoto: Kyōtodaigaku jinbun kagaku ken-
kyūjo 京都大学人文科学研究所 / Institute for Research in
Humanities, Kyoto University, 37–55.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 583
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Gnoli, Raniero 1977 and 1978 (with the assistance of T. Venkata-

charya): The Gilgit Manuscript of the Saṅghabhedavastu,
Being the 17th and Last Section of the Vinaya of the Mūla-
sarvāstivādin, part 1 (1977) and part 2 (Serie Orientale Roma,
49.1–2) (1978), Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente.
Harrison, Paul 2007a: Fragments of Ekottarikāgama (and Ekottari-
kāgama-style) Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, A Pre-
liminary Survey, paper presented at the XVth Congress of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, Emory Uni-
versity at Atlanta, June 23rd to 28th, 2007.
——— 2007b: “A Fragment of the *Saṃbādhāvakāśasūtra from a
Newly Identified Ekottarikāgama Manuscript in the Schøyen
Collection”, Annual Report of the International Research In-
stitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University / Sōka-
daigaku kokusai bukkyōgaku kōtō kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学
国際仏敎学高等硏究所年報, 10: 201–211.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 2020: “Sanskrit Versions of the Āgamas: Schools,
Regions and Editors”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.), Research on
the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts
Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Cor-
poration, 359–386.
Honjō Yoshifumi 本庄 良文 1981: “Śamathadeva’s Commentary to
the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Śamathadeva の倶舎論註― Some
Comments on the Structure of the Madhyama-āgama 中阿含
の組織の若干に就て”, Bukkyō ronsō 佛教論叢, 25: 60–63.
——— 1984: Kusharon shoe agon zempyō 倶舎論所依阿含全表 /
A Table of Āgama Citations in the Abhidharmakośa and the
Abhidharmakośopāyikā, Kyoto (privately publ.).
——— 1985: “Shamathadēva no tsutaeru chū-, Sōō-agon シャマタデ
ーヴァの伝える中・相応阿含 (The Madhyama and Saṃyukta
584 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Āgama as Recorded by Śamathadeva)”, Bukkyō kenyū 佛教

大学 / Buddhist Studies, 15: 63–80.
——— 1989: “Shamathadeva no tsutaeru Agon shiryō hoi: Genjō
bon シャマタデ－ヴァの伝へる阿含資料: 賢聖品 ”, Sankō
bunka kenkyūjo nenpō 三康文化硏究所年報 / Annual Bulletin
of the Sankō Research Institute, 21: 1–29.
——— 2014: Kusharon chū Upāyikā no kenkyū 倶舎論註ウパーイ
カーの研究, 2 vols., Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan 大蔵出版.
Huimin, Bhikṣu 釋惠敏 2020: “Cross-references to the Śrāvakabhūmi
in the Saṃyukta-āgama’s Mātṛkā Transmitted in the Vastu-
saṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi”, in Dhammadinnā (ed.),
Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of
Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma Drum Pub-
lishing Corporation, 653–703.
Ishihama Yumiko 石濱 裕美子 and Fukuda Yoichi 福田 洋一 1989:
A New Critical Edition of the Mahāvyutpatti / Shintei hon’yaku
myōgi taishū 新訂翻譯名義大集 , Sanskrit-Tibetan-Mongol
Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology (Materials for Tibetan-
Mongolian Dictionaries, 1; Studia tibetica, 16), Tokyo: Toyo
Bunko.
Jaini, Padhmanabh S. 1959: Abhidharmadīpa with Vibhāṣāprabhā-
vṛtti, Critically Edited with Notes and Introduction (Bhoṭa-
deśīya-saṃskṛtagranthamālā, 4), Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayas-
wal Research Institute.
Karashima Seishi 幸嶋 靜志 2020: “The Underlying Languages of
the Three Chinese Translations of the Saṃyukta-āgamas (Taishō
nos. 99, 100 and 101) and their School-Affiliations”, in Dhamma-
dinnā (ed.), Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum
Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma
Drum Publishing Corporation, 707–761.
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 585
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Ken Su [= Su Jinkun 蘇錦坤] 2020: “Notes on the Translation and

the Translator of the Shorter Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama”, in
Dhammadinnā (ed.), Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dhar-
ma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei:
Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 843–880.
de La Vallée Poussin, Louis 1913: “Documents sanscrits de la second
collection M.A. Stein”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
569–580.
——— 1980 [1923–1926]: L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, Tra-
duit et annoté; vol. 1: Introduction, Chapitres 1 et 2; vol. 2:
Chapitre 3; vol. 4: Chapitres 5 et 6; vol. 5: Chapitres 7, 8 et 9
(Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, 16), Bruxelles: Institut Belge
des Hautes Études Chinoises [or. publ. Paris: Paul Geuthner
and Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1923–1926].
Faust-Koschinger, Regina 1999: Das Bahuvedanīyasutta im Text-
vergleich, MA thesis, Mainz, Johannes-Gutenberg Universität.
Malalasekera, G.P. 1997 [1937–1938]: A Dictionary of Pāli Proper
Names, Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 3 vols., vol. 1: A – Gho-
sitārāma [or. publ. Indian Text Series, London: John Murray (for
the Government of India), 2 vols., 1937–1938].
Mukai Akira 向井 亮 1985: “‘Yogashijiron’ shōjibun to ‘Zaagonkyō’
『瑜珈師地論』摂事分と『雑阿含経』 (The Vastusaṃgrahaṇī
of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Saṃyuktāgama)”, Hokkaidōdaigaku
bungakukenkyūka kiyō 北海道大学文学研究科紀要, 33.2:1–41.
Nanjio, Bunyiu 1883: A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of
the Buddhist Tripitaka, The Sacred Canon of the Buddhists
in China and Japan, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Nattier, Jan 2007: “‘One Vehicle’ (一乘) in the Chinese Āgamas:
New Light on an Old Problem in Pāli”, Annual Report of the
International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at
586 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Soka University / Sōkadaigaku kokusai bukkyōgaku kōtō ken-

kyūjo nenpō 創価大学国際仏敎学高等硏究所年報, 10: 181–200.
Negi, J.S. et al. 1998: Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen
mo / Boḍ-Saṃskṛtakośa / Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary, vol. 5,
Sarnath, Varanasi: Dictionary Unit, Central Institute of Higher
Tibetan Studies.
Palumbo, Antonello 2012: “Models of Buddhist Kingship in Early
Medieval China”, in Yu Xin 余欣 (ed.), Zhonggu shidai de
liyi, zongjiao yu zhidu 中古時代的禮儀、宗教與制度, Shang-
hai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 287–338.
Pāsādika, Bhikkhu 1984: “Abhidharma-Zitate aus der Abhidharma-
kośavyākhyā, der Abhidharmadīpa-Vibhāṣāprabhāvṛtti und dem
Arthaviniścayasūtra-Nibandhana”, in Frank Bandurski et al.,
Untersuchungen zur Buddhistischen Literatur (Sanskrit-
Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden,
Beiheft, 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 127–154.
——— 1989: Kanonische Zitate im Abhidharmakośabhāṣya des
Vasubandhu (Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte
aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft, 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Pradhan, P. 1967: Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu, Patna:
K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
Roth, Gustav 2004: “Ayodhyā and Gaṅgā”, in Henk W. Bodewitz
and Minoru Hara (ed.), Gedenkschrift J.W. de Jong (Studia
philologica buddhica, Monograph Series, 17), Tokyo: The
International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 121–134.
Sakaki Ryōzaburō 榊 亮三郎 1916: Mahābiyuttopatti [Mahāvyut-
patti], bonzō kanwa yon yaku taikō bonzō 翻訳名義大集: 梵
蔵 漢 和 四 訳 対 校 梵 ・ 蔵 索 引 , Kyoto: Shingonshū Kyōto
Daigaku (reprint Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten 臨川書店, 1998).
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 587
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

Sakurabe Hajime 櫻部 建 1956: “Shamatadēva no eyō suru chū-

agon ni tsuite シャマタデーワの依用する中阿含について /
The Madhyama-āgama as Recorded by Śamathadeva”, Felic-
itation Volume for the 60th Birthday of Professor Susumu
Yamaguchi / Indogaku bukkyōgaku ronsō Yamaguchi hakase
kanrekikinen 印度學佛教學論叢 山口博士還曆記念 , Kyoto:
Hōzōkan 法藏館, 155–161.
Samtani, N.H. 1971: The Arthaviniścaya-Sūtra and its Commentary
(Nibandhana), Written by Bhikṣu Vīryaśrīdatta of Śrī-Nālandā-
vihāra, Critically Edited and Annotated for the First Time with
Introduction and Several Indices, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research
Institute.
Schlingloff, Dieter 2006 [1964]: Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Hermann-
Joseph Röllicke (ed.), Ein buddhistisches Yogalehrbuch, Un-
veränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1964 unter Beigabe
aller seither bekannt gewordenen Fragmente (EKŌ Buddhismus-
Studien/Buddhist Studies, 5/2006), München: Iudicium Verlag
[or. publ. Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden 7, Deutsche Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung,
Veröffentlichung, 59), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag].
Schopen, Gregory 2004 [1997]: “If You Can’t Remember, How to
Make it up: Some Monastic Rules for Redacting Canonical
Texts”, in id., Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Still More
Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu: University
of Hawaiʻi Press, 395–407 [or. publ. in Petra Kieffer-Pülz
and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (ed.), Baudhavidyāsudhākaḥ, Studies
in Honour of Heinz Bechert, Swisttal-Oldendorf: Indica-et-
Tibetica-Verlag, 1997: 571–582].
——— 2004 [1998]: “Marking time in Buddhist Monasteries: On
Calendars, Clocks, and Some Liturgical Practices”, in id.,
588 ∙ RESEARCH ON THE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA

Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Still More Papers on

Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi
Press, 260–284.
Shi Tianxiang 釋天襄 1998: Za ahan jing shou xiangying zhi yanjiu
《雜阿含經・受相應》之研究 , Taipei: Dharma Drum Pub-
lishing Corporation / Fagu Wenhua 法鼓文化.
Skilling, Peter 1994 and 1997: Mahāsūtras, Great Discourses of
the Buddha, vol. 1 (1994): Texts, Critical Editions of the Tibetan
Mahāsūtras with Pāli and Sanskrit Counterparts as Available
(Sacred Books of the Buddhists, 54); vol. 2: Parts 1 & 2 (1997),
Oxford: The Pali Text Society.
——— 2002: review of Enomoto 2000, Indo-Iranian Journal, 45:
373–377.
——— 2012: “‘Discourse on the Twenty-two Faculties’ (Translated
from Śamathadeva’s Upāyikā-ṭīkā)”, in Lalji ‘Shravak’ and
Charles Willemen (ed.), Dharmapravicaya, Aspects of Bud-
dhist Studies, Essays in Honour of Professor Narayan He-
mandas Samtani, Delhi: Buddhist World Press, 423–458.
Su Jinkun 蘇錦坤 [= Ken Su] 2009: “《雜阿含經》攝頌初探---兼談
印順導師在《雜阿含經》攝頌研究的創見 (First Exploration
to the Uddānas of Zengyi ahan jing (T125): And Ideas High-
lighted and Inspired by Master Yin-Shun)”, Fuyan Buddhist
Journal / Fuyan foxue yanjiu 福嚴佛學研究, 4: 89–139.
Stache-Rosen, Valentina 1968: Dogmatische Begriffsreihen im Älteren
Buddhismus II, Das Saṅgītisūtra und sein Kommentar Saṅgīti-
paryāya (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden, 9; Institut für
Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung, 65), vol. 1, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Travagnin, Stefania and Bhikkhu Anālayo 2020: “Assessing the Field
of Āgama Studies in Twentieth-century China: With a Focus
on Master Yinshun’s 印順 Three-aṅga Theory”, in Dhamma-
 Highlights from a Comparative Study of the Saṃyukta-āgama ∙ 589
Quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā

dinnā (ed.), Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum

Institute of Liberal Arts Research Series, 8), Taipei: Dharma
Drum Publishing Corporation, 933–1007.
Tripāṭhī, Chandrabhāl 1962: Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidāna-
saṃyukta (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden, Veröffentli-
chung 8; Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin,
Institut für Orientforschung, 56), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Vogel, Claus 1970: The Teachings of the Six Heretics according to
the Pravrajyāvastu of the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,
Edited and Rendered into English, with an Appendix Contai-
ning an English Translation of the Pertinent Sections in the
Chinese Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (Abhandlungen für die Kunde
des Morgenlandes, 39.4), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Wang Jianwei 王建偉 and Jin Hui 金暉 2014: Zaahanjing jiao shi
雜阿含經校釋, 8 vols., Shanghai: East China Normal Uni-
versity Press / Huadong Shifan Daxue Chubanshe 華東師範
大學出版社.
Wogihara, Unrai 1971 [1932–1936]: Sphuṭârthā Abhidharmakośa-
vyākhyā by Yaśomitra, Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store
[or. publ. Tokyo: The Publishing Association of the Abhidhar-
makośavyākhyā, 2 vols., 1932–1936].
Yao Fumi 八尾 史 2007: “‘Konponsetsuissaiubu’ to iu meishō ni tsuite
「根本説一切有部」という名称について / On the Name ‘Mūla-
sarvāstivādin’”, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies / Indo-
gaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度皐傍重文皐研究, 5.2: 897–894.