Long Discourses

The Chinese translation of the Long Discourses (C. 長阿含經, S. Dirgha Āgama) was the Dharmaguptaka version of the original Dīrgha Āgama of early Buddhism. It was translated to Chinese ca. 415 CE by Buddhayaśas (佛陀耶舍) and Chu Fonian (竺佛念).

Table of Contents and Parallels
Below is a list of sūtras contained in this version of the Long Discourses.

Parallels listed in are either only similar or they share common templates with the subject but don't appear to be direct parallels.

Indications of Sectarian Affiliation
It has been well documented through comparative study of parallel texts of known sectarian provenance that the Chinese Long Discourses was part of the Dharmaguptaka canon.

Gifts Made to the Buddha
One example argument made by Bareau relied on a comparison of a passage from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (DĀ 2) which depicts the laywoman Āmrapālī (P. Ambapālī) giving her Mango Grove to the Buddha. After noticing the correspondence between the passage in DĀ 2 and the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, he investigated further to find that only three sectarian canons (Dharmaguptaka, Theravāda, and Mahīśāsaka) include this episode in their version of this sūtra, and their stories all feature standardized treatments peculiar to each. This allows us to triangulate the passage found in DA 2 and determine that it closely follows the standardized treatment used by Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.

This episode carried an important doctrinal significance for three early sects of Buddhism: The Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda. This doctrinal divergence is one piece of evidence that all three canons are related and that the Dharmaguptaka and Theravada canons appear to be later descendants of the Mahīśāsaka line of transmission.

The doctrinal issue was whether gifts to the Buddha were the same as gifts given to the Saṅgha as a whole. The Dharmaguptaka parallels are quite distinct compared to the other two canons. They say that any gifts given to Buddha personally were the same as those left at a stūpa (or cetiya). They could not be used by any other sentient beings, presumably making the gift of not so much use. There's also the implication of the Buddha caring more for other sentient beings than himself.

In the passage in DĀ 2, we find that the Buddha instructs Āmrapālī to direct her gift to the Saṅgha at large as well as to the Buddha so that it could be used by other sentient beings. She accepts his request, adding the Saṅgha as recipients of her gift (in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya version, repeating the Buddha's suggestion). This procedure, Bareau notes, is replicated in the case of Bimbisāra donating the Bamboo Grove to the Buddha in the Vinaya account. Again, the Buddha tells Bimbisāra to instead direct his gift to the Saṅgha at large.

Below is a comparison of all three passages:

The story of Bimbisāra giving the Bamboo Grove is repeated at T1428.22.936c8-21 with only minor translation variations. There is also another parallel episode that can be compared to these: That of Anāthapiṇḍada's gift of Jeta's Grove (T1428.22.491b18-c1). The same basic formula is applied there as well, complete with parallel gāthās. Thus, we can see that, while simpler, the story of Āmrapālī's gift in DĀ 2 is treated in a standard way that similar gifts were treated throughout the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.

When we compared these passages to the equivalents found in the Chinese translation of the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya and the Pali of the Theravāda Vinaya and DN 16, we find (as Bareau did) that each sect appears to have had their own formulaic way of describing these events. This indicates that intentional positions were taken by each sect regarding donors giving gifts to the Buddha and his status as a member of the Saṅgha. These issues may have arisen partly because of the later shift towards docetic notions about the Buddha as he exited living memory and became an ideal rather than a person. Some sects embraced these docetic trends, while others rejected them.

Another issue that could have played a part was the increasingly popular practice of visiting stūpas to worship the Buddha's relics and give him offerings in absentia. Dharmaguptaka sources seem to address this practice directly more often than other sectarian canons do, indicating that it played a larger part in their religious culture. It may have become prudent to remind lay Buddhists to give to the Saṅgha as well as to the Buddha so that the monastics could make use of the gifts they brought for their pilgrimages. This would make some sense of the Dharmaguptaka statement that gifts given only to the Buddha are like (those left at) stūpas. No one would dare make use of them because they were given to a shrine to the Buddha. Thus, the Buddha's words in DĀ 2 may actually be the collective voice of the monastic attendants at stūpa sites speaking to the audience: "Please direct your donations to us as well when leaving them at the shrine."

The parallel episodes in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya make no mention of shrines, but they still depict the Buddha redirecting donations to the Saṅgha. In this case, however, the Buddha says that such donations garner more merit for the donors, as we can see below. They also depict the awkward moment of a zealous lay disciple needing to be told twice before getting the hint.

The parallels found in Theravāda sources lack the motifs of the Buddha correcting the donor, of gaining more merit, or gifts to stūpas. Rather, the formula used depicts donors using the proper wording for their offering that includes the Saṅgha and the Buddha as its head, which is similar to that portion of the Dharmaguptaka passages. (In the Mahīśāsaka parallels, the Buddha simply states that he is a member of the Saṅgha, so there's no reason to give a donation to him in particular.) The result is that a reader of the Pali parallels could go entirely unaware of these issues if they didn't know they existed, since the wording doesn't draw attention to itself as being particularly artificial. Perhaps we can credit a later editor for smoothing the passage over so that it sounds more natural and less sectarian.