More Suttas on Sakka and why the Shorter Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama should not be attributed to the Kāśyapīya school Marcus Bingenheimer Dharma Drum Buddhist College, Taiwan
[email protected] Abstract: This article is part of a series on the Shorter Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (BZA).1 Continuing the investigation from previous research on the provenance of the BZA, it is concluded that the attribution of the BZA to the Kāśyapīya school is mistaken. A comparison of the BZA’s Śakra-saṃyukta with the Pāli Sakka-saṃyutta shows that, with minor exceptions, the narrative content of both saṃyuttas is identical though the number of suttas varies. Finally, the article completes the translation of the Śakra-saṃyukta, the first part of which appeared in BSR 25 (2). CONCERNING THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE SHORTER CHINESE SAṂYUKTA-ĀGAMA TO THE KĀŚYAPĪYA SCHOOL In the past the BZA has been variously attributed to the Dharmaguptaka, the Mahīśāsaka, the Kāśyapīya and the (Mūla-)Sarvāstivāda school. Several recent studies, however, have shown that the BZA is best considered to be belonging to the same textual tradition as the Za ahan jing (T.99) (ZA), that of (Mūla-)Sarvāstivāda literature.2 Having commented on the merits of the Dharmaguptaka-Mahīśāsaka attribution in a previous article (Bingenheimer 2008b), in what follows I would like to assess the attribution of the BZA to the Kāśyapīya school. This attribution has, to my knowledge, never actually been disproved, but rather has been superseded by the mounting evidence in favour of a Sarvāstivādin designation. Faced with good evidence that the BZA belongs with Sarvāstivādin literature, one might consider a refutation of the Kāśyapīya attribution superfluous.