Comparing Chinese Agama the ? Bundles of Reeds Simile with Pali Nalakalapiyo Sutta 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.
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.