[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> Lance,
>
> Still confusing -- and I did read what you wrote. You wrote:
>
> (1)
>   
>> The argument is that the Sanskrit version of the Dīrghāgama is
>> (Mūla-)sarvāstivādin. Its organization is related to that of the Chinese
>> Madhyamāgama in such a way that they must belong to the same recension.
>>     
>
> AND
>
> (2)
>   
>>>> A number of suttas in the Pali MN which are missing in
>>>> the Chinese version of the Madhyamāgama are precisely found in the
>>>> Sanskrit Dīrghāgama.
>>>>         
>
> Unless there is typo here somewhere, you are saying that (1) Chinese and
> Sanskrit Dirghagama are structurally the same or related, AND (2) The
> Sanskrit contains portions parallel to the Pali but missing in Chinese.
>
> Sorry, I still find that confusing, especially if the issue is sectarian
> attribution.
>
> Dan
>   
No, I didn't say that the Chinese and Sanskrit Dīrghāgama versions are 
structurally the same. The point is that a number of suttas found in the 
Pali Majjhimanikāya and not in the Chinese Madhyamāgama are found in the 
Sanskrit Dīrghāgama but not in the Chinese Dīrghāgama. These suttas are 
not found at all in Chinese and these is accounted for by the fact that 
they have fallen through the gap.

So:

School A who were responsible for the Chinese Dīrghāgama & also the 
school of the Pali Majjhimanikāya included these suttas in their Middle 
Length recension. Since their Middle Length recension is not preserved 
in Chinese, they are not found in that language.

School B who were responsible for the Chinese Madhyamāgama & also the 
school of the Sanskrit Dīrghāgama included these suttas in their Long 
recension. Since their Long recension is not preserved in Chinese, they 
are not found in that language.

Sect B is identical to the school that produced the Sanskrit texts 
identified as the (Mūla-)sarvāstivādin Vinaya.

Lance