user10304: In commenting a post, I have just been introduced to the "two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted.
From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse: 

...譬如：三蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。識 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。
Translation
...For example, three reeds standing on the floor, they
  relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the
  other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only]
  by relying on each other they are able to stand up. Consciousness
  correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each
  other then are able to develop. ~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288

Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind


However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta: Sheaves of Reeds reads: 

"Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” ~ SN 12.67

The Chinese Agama said three reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali  Nalakalapiyo said two reeds can lean against each other. My questions are:

Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1 
If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?
They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds? 

I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated.  

Footnote: 
1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka.
1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

user254: The rest of the sutta talks about pairs of things e.g. ...

From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.

... so I suppose that "vinnana" and "namarupa" are also seen as a pair, not as a triplet.
Anyway I don't think it's trying to explain the details of what namarupa is  -- and so, e.g. this comment, "does it infer that consciousness cannot interact (leaning up against) with nama only, nor with rupa only?", was beside the point of the sutta.
Actually I think that's true of several nidanas, i.e. the definitions of several are a bit fuzzy and people interpret them or analyse each one differently.
I'm not sure that (precise analysis and definition of each nidana) is the point, though -- I think the point was:

Explaining a "codependent origination" relationship (which I think is cleverer than or at least a welcome addition to the doctrine of "causal" relationships, e.g. that "A causes B" which isn't symmetric i.e. "B doesn't cause A")
Saying that all the various concerns or things exist because of such relationship[s]
Perhaps suggesting that if you break that chain anywhere then they all cease


I guess the difference (between the Chinese and Pali versions) is possibly-interesting but minor or unimportant? Does the difference help to make the Chinese clearer or more idiomatic, for example ...

Does the Chinese include the word for "reed" (or could it making a different simile, e.g. to a Ding)?
Is this phrase ...

若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立

... clearer when it's explained as "three" instead of "two", because if it were two then the phrase would be ...

若去其一，一亦不立；若去其一，一亦不立

... which would be pure repetition, not distinguishing one and then the other? The latter would seem to me to imply a reflexive relationship, not the symmetric relationship described in the Pali -- though the suttas also/elsewhere to some extent describes the relationships as directional, asymmetric, cyclic, causal -- maybe "one" and two" is a way to distinguish them (like "first" and "second" would be)?

I can't discuss the Chinese but I'm suggesting that theory: i.e. that it's a minor change to clarify the meaning of or in the translation.

namarupa is a compound noun. I suppose it has one or more orthodox definitions. If you do want to verify the translation and decide the exact meaning for yourself, e.g. from the etymology, perhaps that's difficult or ambiguous -- because There are six types of compounds found in Pali literature, so I think that the mere fact that two nouns are compounded doesn't unambiguously describe the relationship between them.

user471: 
OP: Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?

Yes, I think so. According to SuttaCentral, SA 288 and SN 12.67 are equivalent. I could find "三蘆立於空地" from your quote inside SuttaCentral's SA 288, so I guess it is the same.

OP: If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?

SuttaCentral links the Chinese agama SA 288 to the Pali sutta SN 12.67 and the Sanskrit sutra SF 155. Only the Pali sutta has English translations from Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi.
The Sanskrit sutra comes from "TRIPĀṬHI, Chandrabhal 1962. Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidānasaṃyukta ( = Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden VIII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag."
Let me quote the other versions below.
From Pali sutta SN 12.67 named "Naḷakalāpīsutta":

Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.
Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.

From Sanskrit sutra SF 155 named "Naḍakalāpikasūtra":

tadyathā dvau naḍakalāpāv ākāśe ucchṛtau syātām anyonyaṃ niśṛta

I don't really know Sanskrit, but I guess that the two bolded terms above in Pali and Sanskrit mean TWO in reference to the bundles of reed.
So, the Pali and Sanskrit versions agree with each other, but not the Chinese version.
Based on the above evidence, I would say that most likely the Chinese agama version was modified from the original version which was probably in Sanskrit, or otherwise, in Pali. So, the Pali version is likely to be more accurate and reliable than the Chinese version, in my personal opinion.
But then again, I'm not a professional scholar of Buddhist Studies. So, I should quote the opinion of one. Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo is not just a monk, but also an academic scholar in the field of "comparative studies of Early Buddhist Texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions" (according to Wikipedia).
Prof. Analayo wrote the following in the book "Three Chinese Dīrgha-āgama Discourses without Parallels". While this is not related to the Bundles of Reed Sutta/ Sutra, it definitely proves that there has been a precedent for the Chinese Agama to add to or modify the original version.

The  three  discourses  in  the  Chinese  Dīrgha-āgama that  are 
  without  parallels in other early discourse collections appear to be
  later additions  to  the  collection.  They  share  in  common  an 
  attempt  to  map  doctrinal  terminology.  While  the  Discourse 
  Increasing  by  One  (DĀ11)  and  the  Discourse  On  the  Three 
  Groups  (DĀ  12)  still  seem  to  belong to an early stage in the
  developing of such maps, the Discourse On a Record of the World (DĀ
  30) appears to reflect a later stage.  The circumstance that all three
  discourses in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama that are without parallels
  appear to be later additions should not  be  taken  to  reflect  a 
  general  rule,  however,  assuming  that  any  discourse without
  parallels must be a later addition. It is always possible that a
  discourse is now extant from only one textual lineage due to  the 
  vicissitudes  of  transmission.  An  example  would  be  the 
  Jīvaka-sūtra  of  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda Dīrgha-āgama. 
  Until  the  recent discovery of fragments of the Jīvaka-sūtra, only
  the Majjhima-nikāya version  of  this  discourse  was  known.  This 
  was  because  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda  reciters  had 
  allocated  this  discourse  to  their  long  discourse  collection, 
  whereas  the  Theravāda  reciters  placed  their  version  of  this 
  discourse  in  their  middle  length  collection. So lack of a
  parallel may simply be the result of differences in the  distribution 
  of  discourses  among  the  four  discourse  collections,  transmitted
  by various Buddhist schools.

Whether name-and-form should be together or separate I think is out of the scope of this question and could be asked in another question.

OP: They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

Maybe two reeds cannot lean on each other, but surely two bundles of reed can lean on each other just like these two cards below. It just depends on how the bundles of reed are tied together.

Here are two books leaning on each other:


EDIT:
I removed the statement that the Pali Suttas do not separate nama from rupa. There is actually such a separation in DN 15:

‘Name and form are conditions for contact’—that’s what I said. And
  this is a way to understand how this is so. Suppose there were none of
  the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of
  mental phenomena is found. Would linguistic contact still be found in
  the category of physical phenomena?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were
  none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the
  category of physical phenomena is found. Would impingement contact
  still be found in the category of mental phenomena?” “No, sir.”
  “Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and
  details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are
  found. Would either linguistic contact or impingement contact still be
  found?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were none of the features,
  attributes, signs, and details by which name and form are found. Would
  contact still be found?” “No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause,
  source, origin, and condition of contact, namely name and form.

Nama and rupa is also separated in AN 10.27:

“When it was said: ‘A question about two, a concise statement about
  two, an explanation of two,’ with reference to what was this said?
  When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with two things, completely
  dispassionate toward them, completely liberated from them, completely
  sees their delimitations, and completely breaks through their meaning,
  in this very life he makes an end of suffering. What two things? Name
  and form. When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with these two
  things … in this very life he makes an end of suffering.


user43: In my understanding of Mahayana doctrine, the term namarupa does not refer to individual's mind-and-body. In my opinion, this traditional Theravadin interpretation is incorrect.
Instead, namarupa means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea of self.
This is confirmed by SN 12.19:

For the fool, bhiksus, covered by ignorance, associated with
  craving, this body has thus resulted. There is
  this pair: just this body [with consciousness] and the outer (bahiddha) namarupam. Conditioned by this pair there is contact.

The corresponding SA 294 states:

For the fool, the untaught common person, covered by ignorance,
  associated with craving, this consciousness-body has resulted. Internally there is this consciousness-body and externally there is name-and-form. Conditioned by this pair there arises contact.

Salistamba Sutra explains it as:

That which delineate individual objects is [called] vijnana [...] [It is called] vijnana in the sense of "causing to know".

then

The four grasping-collections (upadana-skandha) that emerge in conjunction with vijnana are [called] namarupa.

then

The four immaterial collections (skandhas) emerging together with vijnana, along with physical form, is what is meant by "vijnana causes namarupa." [...] [They are called] namarupa in the sense of mutual support...

finally

That which produces the sprouts of name-and-form like reeds in a sheaf — the combination of the five collections (skandhas), together with the defiled mental consciousness [reifying the skandhas as "self"] — is called "the consciousness element".

So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our ideas of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development.
Then we learn to not only recognize objects, but to associate them with some useful knowledge about them, what they mean to us (samjna, vedana). We learn to build an entire inner representation of a world, a whole reality, large in scope and rich in detail. We also form a bunch of attitudes to all those external things we now recognize.
Then the "defiled mental consciousness" - the mano-vijnana, or the ability to distinguish between individual internal objects - develops representation of the inner phenomena and reifies them as an entity called "self".
At the end we have what seems like "I am the actor and the observer" and "The world of other people and things" while in fact it's just a collection of ideas that delineate Everything into objects and entities.
Based on this interpretation, I think we can reconstruct the Bundles of Reeds metaphor in one of two ways:

Either the two bundles are Namarupa and Vijnana - or the ideas about things on one hand and the faculty of delineation on the other, supporting each other...
Or, the three bundles are Nama, Rupa, and Vijnana - or the ideas about things, the things themselves, and the faculty of delineation.

Personally, I don't see how the three reeds metaphor can be right. It's not like Nama and Rupa are truly two separate peers of Vijnana. Remember, Rupa does not refer to an ontological external object, it refers to what Vijnana delineates (sees or cognizes) as an object based on the available information. In reality objects are not monolith things - they are parts of bigger systems and are themselves made of smaller parts. It is Vijnana that "decides" where and how to draw the lines.
Once we have an idea about an object, we start seeing that object as a separate thing, so as Nama gets more concrete the appearance of Rupa gets more concrete. And as that appearance of Rupa gets more concrete, as we see it again and again, the Nama gets more solid. But we can't say that Rupa is a separate bundle because Rupa does not really exist. It's just a momentary transient Vijnana that "seems" like Rupa.
This is also confirmed by the context of the text, which says "when name-and-form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name-and-form cease." - it does not say "when name ceases, consciousness and form ceases" etc.
Anyway, what's most important is not the metaphor of two or three bundles, but to actually understand the process that the metaphor and the other sutras are trying to describe.
Indeed, as you stop thinking in terms of objects, you stop seeing the world as objects and start seeing it "yathabhuta", and as you stop seeing the world as objects, your old ideas about objects wither and fade away.

10304: <p>In <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30977/10304">commenting a post</a>, I have just been introduced to the <em>"two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta</em>. The <a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/89680/discussion-on-answer-by-ruben2020-buddhism-on-we-are-all-one">comments</a> have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted.</p>

<p>From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...譬如：<strong>三</strong>蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。<strong>識</strong> 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。</p>
  
  <p><em><code>Translation</code></em></p>
  
  <p>...For example, <strong>three</strong> reeds standing on the floor, they
  relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the
  other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only]
  by relying on each other they are able to stand up. <strong>Consciousness</strong>
  correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each
  other then are able to develop. <em>~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288</em></p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><code>Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind</code></p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>However, Pali Sutta <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nalakalapiyo Sutta</a>: Sheaves of Reeds reads: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Suppose there were <strong>two</strong> bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” <em>~ SN 12.67</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Chinese Agama said <strong>three</strong> reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali  Nalakalapiyo said <strong>two</strong> reeds can lean against each other. My questions are:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?<sup>1</sup> </p></li>
<li><p>If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?</p></li>
<li><p>They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds? </p></li>
</ol>

<p>I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated.  </p>

<hr>

<p><sup>Footnote:</sup> </p>

<p><sup>1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka.</sup></p>

<p><sup>1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.</sup></p>
 254: <p>The rest of the sutta talks about pairs of things e.g. ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>From the cessation of name-&amp;-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... so I suppose that "<em>vinnana</em>" and "<em>namarupa</em>" are also seen as a pair, not as a triplet.</p>

<p>Anyway I don't think it's trying to explain the details of what <em>namarupa</em> is  -- and so, e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31048/comparing-chinese-agama-the-bundles-of-reeds-simile-with-pali-nalakalapiyo-sut/31071#comment53499_31053">this comment</a>, "<em>does it infer that consciousness cannot interact (leaning up against) with nama only, nor with rupa only?</em>", was beside the point of the sutta.</p>

<p>Actually I think that's true of several nidanas, i.e. the definitions of several are a bit fuzzy and people interpret them or analyse each one differently.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that (precise analysis and definition of each nidana) is the point, though -- I think the point was:</p>

<ul>
<li>Explaining a "codependent origination" relationship (which I think is cleverer than or at least a welcome addition to the doctrine of "causal" relationships, e.g. that "A causes B" which isn't symmetric i.e. "B doesn't cause A")</li>
<li>Saying that all the various concerns or things exist because of such relationship[s]</li>
<li>Perhaps suggesting that if you break that chain anywhere then they all cease</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>I guess the difference (between the Chinese and Pali versions) is possibly-interesting but minor or unimportant? Does the difference help to make the Chinese clearer or more idiomatic, for example ...</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Does the Chinese include the word for "reed" (or could it making a different simile, e.g. to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_(vessel)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ding</a>)?</p></li>
<li><p>Is this phrase ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... clearer when it's explained as "three" instead of "two", because if it were two then the phrase would be ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>若去其一，一亦不立；若去其一，一亦不立</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... which would be pure repetition, not distinguishing one and then the other? The latter would seem to me to imply a <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=transitive+reflexive+symmetric" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reflexive</a> relationship, not the symmetric relationship described in the Pali -- though the suttas also/elsewhere to some extent describes the relationships as directional, asymmetric, cyclic, causal -- maybe "one" and two" is a way to distinguish them (like "first" and "second" would be)?</p></li>
</ul>

<p>I can't discuss the Chinese but I'm suggesting that theory: i.e. that it's a minor change to clarify the meaning of or in the translation.</p>

<hr>

<p><em>namarupa</em> is a compound noun. I suppose it has one or more orthodox definitions. If you do want to verify the translation and decide the exact meaning for yourself, e.g. from the etymology, perhaps that's difficult or ambiguous -- because <a href="https://dhamma.ru/paali/Pali_compounds.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">There are six types of compounds found in Pali literature</a>, so I think that the mere fact that two nouns are compounded doesn't unambiguously describe the relationship between them.</p>
 471: <blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think so. According to SuttaCentral, <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sa288/lzh/taisho" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SA 288</a> and <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.67</a> are equivalent. I could find "三蘆立於空地" from your quote inside SuttaCentral's <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sa288/lzh/taisho" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SA 288</a>, so I guess it is the same.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>SuttaCentral links the Chinese agama <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sa288/lzh/taisho" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SA 288</a> to the Pali sutta <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.67</a> and the Sanskrit sutra <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sf155/san/tripathi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SF 155</a>. Only the Pali sutta has English translations from Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi.</p>

<p>The Sanskrit sutra comes from "TRIPĀṬHI, Chandrabhal 1962. Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidānasaṃyukta ( = Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden VIII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag."</p>

<p>Let me quote the other versions below.</p>

<p>From Pali sutta <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.67</a> named "Naḷakalāpīsutta":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.</p>
  
  <p>Seyyathāpi, āvuso, <strong>dve</strong> naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From Sanskrit sutra <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sf155/san/tripathi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SF 155</a> named "Naḍakalāpikasūtra":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>tadyathā <strong>dvau</strong> naḍakalāpāv ākāśe ucchṛtau syātām anyonyaṃ niśṛta</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't really know Sanskrit, but I guess that the two bolded terms above in Pali and Sanskrit mean TWO in reference to the bundles of reed.</p>

<p>So, the Pali and Sanskrit versions agree with each other, but not the Chinese version.</p>

<p>Based on the above evidence, I would say that most likely the Chinese agama version was modified from the original version which was probably in Sanskrit, or otherwise, in Pali. So, the Pali version is likely to be more accurate and reliable than the Chinese version, in my personal opinion.</p>

<p>But then again, I'm not a professional scholar of Buddhist Studies. So, I should quote the opinion of one. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu_Analayo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo</a> is not just a monk, but also an academic scholar in the field of "comparative studies of Early Buddhist Texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions" (according to Wikipedia).</p>

<p>Prof. Analayo wrote the following in the book "<a href="https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/three-da.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Three Chinese Dīrgha-āgama Discourses without Parallels</a>". While this is not related to the Bundles of Reed Sutta/ Sutra, it definitely proves that there has been a precedent for the Chinese Agama to add to or modify the original version.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>The  three  discourses  in  the  Chinese  Dīrgha-āgama that  are 
  without  parallels in other early discourse collections appear to be
  later additions  to  the  collection.</strong>  They  share  in  common  an 
  attempt  to  map  doctrinal  terminology.  While  the  Discourse 
  Increasing  by  One  (DĀ11)  and  the  Discourse  On  the  Three 
  Groups  (DĀ  12)  still  seem  to  belong to an early stage in the
  developing of such maps, the Discourse On a Record of the World (DĀ
  30) appears to reflect a later stage.  The circumstance that all three
  discourses in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama that are without parallels
  appear to be later additions should not  be  taken  to  reflect  a 
  general  rule,  however,  assuming  that  any  discourse without
  parallels must be a later addition. It is always possible that a
  discourse is now extant from only one textual lineage due to  the 
  vicissitudes  of  transmission.  An  example  would  be  the 
  Jīvaka-sūtra  of  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda Dīrgha-āgama. 
  Until  the  recent discovery of fragments of the Jīvaka-sūtra, only
  the Majjhima-nikāya version  of  this  discourse  was  known.  This 
  was  because  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda  reciters  had 
  allocated  this  discourse  to  their  long  discourse  collection, 
  whereas  the  Theravāda  reciters  placed  their  version  of  this 
  discourse  in  their  middle  length  collection. So lack of a
  parallel may simply be the result of differences in the  distribution 
  of  discourses  among  the  four  discourse  collections,  transmitted
  by various Buddhist schools.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Whether name-and-form should be together or separate I think is out of the scope of this question and could be asked in another question.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Maybe two reeds cannot lean on each other, but surely two bundles of reed can lean on each other just like these two cards below. It just depends on how the bundles of reed are tied together.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/PVMsH.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/PVMsH.jpg" alt="Two cards learning on each other"></a></p>

<p>Here are two books leaning on each other:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/0EKgu.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/0EKgu.jpg" alt="Two books leaning on each other"></a></p>

<hr>

<p>EDIT:</p>

<p>I removed the statement that the Pali Suttas do not separate nama from rupa. There is actually such a separation in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn15/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 15</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘Name and form are conditions for contact’—that’s what I said. And
  this is a way to understand how this is so. Suppose there were none of
  the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of
  mental phenomena is found. Would linguistic contact still be found in
  the category of physical phenomena?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were
  none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the
  category of physical phenomena is found. Would impingement contact
  still be found in the category of mental phenomena?” “No, sir.”
  “Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and
  details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are
  found. Would either linguistic contact or impingement contact still be
  found?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were none of the features,
  attributes, signs, and details by which name and form are found. Would
  contact still be found?” “No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause,
  source, origin, and condition of contact, namely name and form.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Nama and rupa is also separated in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an10.27/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 10.27</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“When it was said: ‘A question about two, a concise statement about
  two, an explanation of two,’ with reference to what was this said?
  When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with two things, completely
  dispassionate toward them, completely liberated from them, completely
  sees their delimitations, and completely breaks through their meaning,
  in this very life he makes an end of suffering. <strong>What two things? Name
  and form.</strong> When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with these two
  things … in this very life he makes an end of suffering.</p>
</blockquote>
 43: <p>In my understanding of Mahayana doctrine, the term <code>namarupa</code> does <em>not</em> refer to individual's mind-and-body. In my opinion, this traditional Theravadin interpretation is incorrect.</p>

<p>Instead, <code>namarupa</code> means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea of self.</p>

<p>This is confirmed by SN 12.19:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For the fool, bhiksus, covered by ignorance, associated with
  craving, this body has thus resulted. There is
  this pair: just this body [with consciousness] <strong>and the outer (<code>bahiddha</code>) <code>namarupam</code></strong>. Conditioned by this pair there is contact.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The corresponding SA 294 states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For the fool, the untaught common person, covered by ignorance,
  associated with craving, this consciousness-body has resulted. Internally there is this consciousness-body <strong>and externally there is name-and-form</strong>. Conditioned by this pair there arises contact.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-062-010.html" rel="noreferrer">Salistamba Sutra</a> explains it as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>That which <strong>delineate individual objects</strong> is [called] <code>vijnana</code> [...] [It is called] <code>vijnana</code> in the sense of "causing to know".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>then</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The four grasping-collections (<code>upadana-skandha</code>) <strong>that emerge in conjunction with <code>vijnana</code></strong> are [called] <code>namarupa</code>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>then</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The four immaterial collections (<code>skandha</code>s) emerging together with <code>vijnana</code>, along with physical form, is what is meant by "<code>vijnana</code> causes <code>namarupa</code>." [...] [They are called] <code>namarupa</code> <strong>in the sense of mutual support</strong>...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>finally</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>That which produces the <strong>sprouts</strong> of name-and-form <strong>like reeds in a sheaf</strong> — the combination of the five collections (<code>skandha</code>s), together with the defiled mental consciousness [reifying the <code>skandha</code>s as "self"] — is called "the consciousness element".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our <em>ideas</em> of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development.</p>

<p>Then we learn to not only recognize objects, but to associate them with some useful knowledge about them, what they mean to us (<code>samjna</code>, <code>vedana</code>). We learn to build an entire inner representation of a world, a whole reality, large in scope and rich in detail. We also form a bunch of attitudes to all those external things we now recognize.</p>

<p>Then the "defiled mental consciousness" - the <code>mano-vijnana</code>, or the ability to distinguish between individual <em>internal</em> objects - develops representation of the <em>inner</em> phenomena and reifies them as an entity called "self".</p>

<p>At the end we have what seems like "I am the actor and the observer" and "The world of other people and things" while in fact it's just a collection of ideas that delineate Everything into objects and entities.</p>

<p>Based on this interpretation, I think we can reconstruct the Bundles of Reeds metaphor in one of two ways:</p>

<ol>
<li>Either the two bundles are Namarupa and Vijnana - or the <em>ideas about things</em> on one hand and <em>the faculty of delineation</em> on the other, supporting each other...</li>
<li>Or, the three bundles are Nama, Rupa, and Vijnana - or the ideas about things, the things themselves, and the faculty of delineation.</li>
</ol>

<p>Personally, I don't see how the three reeds metaphor can be right. It's not like Nama and Rupa are truly two separate peers of Vijnana. Remember, Rupa does not refer to an ontological external object, it refers to what Vijnana <em>delineates</em> (sees or cognizes) as an object based on the available information. In reality objects are not monolith things - they are parts of bigger systems and are themselves made of smaller parts. It is Vijnana that "decides" where and how to draw the lines.</p>

<p>Once we have an idea about an object, we start seeing that object as a separate thing, so as Nama gets more concrete the appearance of Rupa gets more concrete. And as that appearance of Rupa gets more concrete, as we see it again and again, the Nama gets more solid. But we can't say that Rupa is a separate bundle because Rupa does not really exist. It's just a momentary transient Vijnana that "seems" like Rupa.</p>

<p>This is also confirmed by the context of the text, which says "when name-and-form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name-and-form cease." - it does not say "when name ceases, consciousness and form ceases" etc.</p>

<p>Anyway, what's most important is not the metaphor of two or three bundles, but to actually understand the process that the metaphor and the other sutras are trying to describe.</p>

<p>Indeed, as you stop thinking in terms of objects, you stop seeing the world as objects and start seeing it "yathabhuta", and as you stop seeing the world as objects, your old ideas about objects wither and fade away.</p>
