A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya Vol.1 Vol.2
中部尼柯耶比較研究第一冊 第二冊

Foreword
This book presents a comparative study of the discourses that make up the Pali Majjhima-nikaya, alongside their known parallels transmitted in other reciter traditions and
preserved in various languages, mainly in Chinese translations.
The field of comparative Nikaya-Agama studies dates back a century to the groundbreaking work of Anesaki Masaharu.1 It has recently entered a period of rapid growth, and in the present book the venerable Analayo contributes substantially to this newly invigorated branch of Buddhist Studies. The only real forerunner to this study is The Chinese Madhyama Agama and the Pali Majjhima Nikaya, by Thich Minh Chau.2 Whereas Minh Chau’s book is organised according to the Chinese Madhyama-agama, the present study is organised according to the Pali Majjhima-nikaya. It differs further in dealing with all the Majjhima-nikaya discourses and in taking account of a maximally wide range of known parallel discourses. These include not only discourses contained in the Chinese Agamas, but also individual Chinese translations, Tibetan translations,
fragmentary Sanskrit remains, and some quotations found in later texts - together with full or partial parallels from within the Pali TipiFaka. Thus, the present work, despite having a broadly similar objective to Minh Chau’s study, ffers from it significantly in covering an entire Nikaya in light of all its known parallels.The main bulk of the book is made up of chapters 1 to 15, which correspond to the fifteen vaggas of the Majjhima-nikaya. In these chapters, each of the discourses making up those vaggas is examined alongside its parallel(s), with regard to structure, contents, and other essential features. Generally, this comparison reveals broad agreement among the different versions, but often enough it brings to light significant differences in detail. Such differences are then discussed in terms of their possible historical causes:
sectarian doctrinal slant, the vicissitudes of oral transmission, insertion of commentarial material, translation errors, and so on. Where possible, a judgement is then made
on which of the versions is most likely to have accurately preserved this or that component of the message.
Such analytical procedures raise some crucial issues of methodology, which are duly discussed in the book’s Preface. There the author draws attention to the traditional criterion of coherence and consistency, which is invoked repeatedly in the Buddha’s discourses. With good reason he adopts this criterion as a basic methodological principle for the study. Any perceived instance of incoherence in the texts being studied (for example, mutually contradictory statements within a discourse or between versions of a discourse) is deemed to require explanation in terms of faulty oral transmission or some other historical process. At the same time, the author acknowledges the difficulty of deciding what constitutes an instance of incoherence or inconsistency; for example, statements that seem to contradict each other could instead be complementing each other.

Explanation in terms of transmission errors requires at least a preliminary concept of how the discourses might have been committed to memory and then passed on within the SaCgha. The author provides the basis for such a concept by discussing characteristics of oral transmission within Buddhist traditions.
Having initiated this discussion of oral transmission in the Introduction, the author subsequently develops it in the Conclusion. He also brings into consideration outcomes of relevant psychological research. An example is the proposition that, whereas the Vedic style of memorization would have been conducive to accurate verbatim replication, the Buddhist style would have been conducive to inference-drawing and consequent
restructuring of the memorized material. Such observations reveal a characteristic of the oral transmission that has not previously received due recognition: not all of the variations between different versions of a discourse can be attributed to conscious editing. By thus drawing attention to the role of the reciters, this section incidentally provides a welcome human context for the findings of the text-comparative side of the project.
Particularly instructive is the discussion of the probable role of commentary in modifying memorized discourses. Here the author examines how the distinction between discourse and commentary appears to have become blurred. The examples cited
demonstrate how a discrepancy between a Pali sutta and its Chinese parallel can be explained in terms of unconscious incorporation of commentarial material.
The Conclusion, and with it the entire work, finishes up with a simple but significant observation: the study has revealed no evidence that any particular line of transmission has preserved the discourses more faithfully than the others. An implication of this is that the researcher should not rely exclusively on any one version of the Nikayas/Agamas.
In particular, study of the Pali Nikayas alone can yield only a partial and imperfect picture. For a maximally complete and clear picture, the Pali suttas must be compared with their available Chinese and other parallels. In carrying out this project, the venerable Analayo has established a challenging precedent. It is to be hoped that this book will inspire the production of similarly comprehensive studies based on the remaining Pali Nikayas and their Chinese counterparts.
Roderick S. Bucknell
University of Queensland
August 2010