[Buddha-l] Are the Pali Sutta's really ancient?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Bankei,

You may want to look at E. Lamotte's History of Indian Buddhism. There are a 
variety of traditions preserved that claim that some of the followers of the 
original disciples, such as of Ananda and Sariputra, transmitted many 
teachings that were lost early on. Lamotte discusses some of that, with 
references for further exploration.

Vasubandhu, in his Vyakyayukti, famously makes reference to these traditions 
while arguing that the Hinayanists cannot reject Mahayana sutras on the 
basis of a lack of concordance with their own scriptures, since they 
themselves admit much of their own original sources were lost, and these 
just might be what is in the Mahayana texts.

You might want to also look at Peter Skilling, "Vasubandhu and the 
Vyakyayukti Literature," JIABS, 23, 2, 2000, 297-350, where this comes up in 
passing, with additional references.

The Kathaa-vatthu, the Pali Abhidhamma debate text, has a number of 
occasions where the opponent (i.e., the non-Theravadin) cites a proof text 
rejected by the Theravadins as not in their own canon, but these are very 
few.

That there was variance between canons is clear from the Chinese versions of 
the Agamas, which come from a variety of non-Theravada sources. To see how 
differently they are arranged (suttas in one or another Pali Nikaya can 
occur in a different Agama, e.g., what is in the Samyutta Nikaya might occur 
in the Dirgha Agama) go to
http://www.suttacentral.net/
and play around with sutta numbers, to see what the corresponding items, if 
any, are in the Chinese and (when available) Sanskrit, etc.

If you can read the various languages, some of the links bring you to the 
actual texts, so you could compare, e.g., the Chinese version of the 
Madhyama-Agama with the Majjhima Nikaya. I believe Numata will soon publish 
an English translation of one of the Agamas, so the comparative work will 
get easier soon.

Dan