Product Code Database
The Sarvāstivāda (; ; ; ) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Ashoka (third century BCE).Westerhoff, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, 2018, p. 60. It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven canonical Abhidharma texts.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61.
The Sarvāstivādins were one of the most influential Buddhist monastic groups, flourishing throughout North India, especially Kashmir and Central Asia, until the 7th century CE. The orthodox Kashmiri branch of the school composed the large and encyclopedic Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra around the time of the reign of Kanishka (). Because of this, orthodox Sarvāstivādins who upheld the doctrines in the Mahāvibhāṣa were called Vaibhāṣikas.
There have been debates about the exact chronology of the Sarvastivādin emergence from the Sthavira Nikāya. According to the Theravada Dīpavaṃsa, the Sarvāstivādins coalesced out of the older Mahīśāsaka school, but the and the state the opposite (i.e., that the Mahīśāsaka emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, rather)., p. 50.. The Sarvāstivādins are believed to have given rise to the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika schools, although the relationship between these groups has not yet been fully determined. It has been suggested that some yogic Sarvāstivādins, under early Mahāyāna influence, gave rise to Yogācāra, one of the most important and influential traditions of Mahayana.Deleanu, F. (Ed.). (2006). The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga): A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation and Introductory Study (2 Vol.), p. 162. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies.Kragh, U.T. (editor), The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, Volume 1, pp. 30–31. Harvard University, Department of South Asian Studies, 2013.
Theravāda Buddhists have, at times, tendered accusations that the Sarvāstivādins were heavily influenced by the non-Buddhist Sankhya school of philosophy.W. Woodhill Rockhill (2000 Reprint 1884), The Life of the Buddha and the Early History of His Order, Routledge, , pp. 11–19.(Max Müller et al., 1999 Reprint 1888), Studies in Buddhism, Asian Educational Services, , pp. 9–10. Nevertheless, the important Buddhist philosopher Aśvaghoṣa, who may have been associated with Sarvāstivāda, states—in his influential —that Āḷāra Kālāma, the first of the young Buddha's teachers, followed an archaic form of Sāṅkhya..
is a [[Sanskrit]] term that can be glossed as: "the theory of all that exists". The Sarvāstivāda argued that all [[dharmas|Dhamma theory]] (phenomena) exist in the past, present and future, the "three times". [[Vasubandhu]]'s states that "He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarvāstivādin."
Although there is some dispute over how the word "Sarvāstivāda" is to be analyzed, the general consensus is that it is to be Parsing into three parts: , "all" or "every"; , "exist"; and , "speak", "say", or "theory". This agrees neatly with the Chinese term for the school— Shuōyīqièyǒu bù (),Taisho 27, 1545. literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything"—as used by Xuanzang and other translators.
The Sarvāstivāda path was also known by other names, such as—particularly in the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika branch— and . The former comes from the root , "cause", which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality; the latter, from , meaning "reason" or "logic", which may derive from their predilection for the use of rational argument and syllogism.
According to some accounts, the Sarvāstivādins emerged from the Sthavira Nikāya, a small group of conservatives, who split from the reformist majority Mahāsāṃghikas at the Second Buddhist Council. According to this account, they were expelled from Magadha, and moved to Northwest India where they developed into the Sarvāstivādin school.
In Central Asia, several Buddhist monastic groups were historically prevalent. A number of scholars have identified three distinct major phases of missionary activity in the history of Buddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with—respectively—the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda;Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 126. and the origins of the Sarvāstivāda have also been related to Ashoka's sending of Majjhantika (Sanskrit ) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early Sarvāstivādin presence. The Sarvāstivādins, in turn, are believed to have given rise to the Mulasarvastivada sect, although the relationship between these two groups has not yet been fully determined. According to Prebish, "this episode corresponds well with one Sarvāstivādin tradition stating that Madhyantika converted the city of Kasmir, which seems to have close ties with Gandhara."
A third tradition says that a community of Sarvāstivādin monks was established at Mathura by the patriarch Upagupta. In the Sarvāstivādin tradition, Upagupta is said to have been the fifth patriarch after Mahākaśyapa, Ānanda, Madhyāntika, and Śāṇakavāsin; in the Ch'an tradition, he is regarded as the fourth.
When the Sarvāstivāda school held a synod in Kashmir during the reign of Kanishka II (c. 158–176), the most important Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma text, the Astagrantha of Katyayaniputra, was rewritten and revised in Sanskrit. This revised text was now known as ("Course of Knowledge"). Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many (commentaries), the new had a Sanskrit ("great commentary"), compiled by the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda synod.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61. The , and its , were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by the Kashmiri Sarvāstivādins, who called themselves .
This new Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by all Sarvāstivādins: some "Western masters", from Gandhara and Bactria, held to views which diverged from the new Kashmiri orthodoxy. These disagreements can be seen in post- works, such as the * (成實論); the * (T. no. 1550) and its commentaries (T. no. 1551, no. 1552); the of Vasubandhu (who critiqued some orthodox views) and its commentaries; and the * (順正理論) of master Saṃghabhadra (c. fifth century CE), who formulated perhaps the most robust Vaibhāṣika response to the new criticisms.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 57.
Among the different Sarvāstivāda thinkers, there were different ideas as to how this "all dharmas exist" theory was to be understood;Poussin; Pruden, , Vol. 3, 1991, p. 808. these were generally found acceptable by the Sarvāstivādin sangha at large, so long as they did not outright contradict the core doctrine. Many such ideas can be seen in the , which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the "four great Ābhidharmikas of the Sarvāstivāda": Dharmatrāta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra, and Ghoṣaka.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.
The teachings of the Sarvāstivāda were, however, by no means confined to this sole doctrine (of "all exists"), but also included: the theories of momentariness (), conjoining () and causal simultaneity (), and conditionality ( and ); a unique presentation of the spiritual path (); and others. These doctrines are all inter-connected; the "all exists" principle was given pride of place because it was seen as being the "axial" teaching, which held the larger movement together when the precise details of other doctrines were at issue.
The Vaibhāṣika—which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the early Buddhist schools,"One does not find anywhere else a body of doctrine as organized or as complete as theirs . Indeed, no other competing schools have ever come close to building up such a comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics as the Vaibhāśika." ( The Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds (bīja) Revisited: With Special Reference to the Ideological Continuity Between Vasubandhu's Theory of Seeds and Its Śrīlāta/Dārṣṭāntika Precedents, by Park, Changhwan. PhD dissertation, University of California Berkeley: 2007. p. 2.)—were widely influential in India and beyond. A Study of the Abhidharmahṛdaya: The Historical Development of the Concept of Karma in the Sarvāstivāda Thought, by Wataru S. Ryose. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1987. p. 3. The Vaibhāṣika are sometimes referred to in the MVŚ as "the Ābhidharmikas", "the Sarvāstivāda theoreticians" and "the masters of Kāśmīra."Dhammajoti (2009), p. 73. In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as (the "doctrine of logic"), as well as (the "doctrine of causes").Dhammajoti (2009), pp. 56, 164.
The Vaibhāṣika school saw itself as the most orthodox Sarvāstivāda tradition, and its adherents were united in their defense of the core Sarvāstivādin principle of "all exists" (); that is, the doctrine that all Dhamma theory—past, present, and future—exist, which has been described as an eternalist theory of time.Kalupahana, David. A History of Buddhist Philosophy, Continuities and Discontinuities, p. 128. While the Vaibhāṣikas held that the dharmas of the "three times" all had some form of existence, they taught also that only present dharmas have "efficacy" (); thus, they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 63.
Similarly, in order to explain how it is possible for a dharma to remain the same and yet also undergo change, as it moves through time, the Vaibhāṣika held that dharmas have a constant "essence" () which persists through all three.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 70. The term was also identified as a unique mark or self-characteristic () that differentiated a dharma, and which remained unchangeable throughout its existence. According to the Vaibhāṣika, are those things that exist substantially (), as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus have only a nominal existence ().
Already by the time of the MVŚ, the early Dārṣṭāntika monks—such as Dharmatrāta and Buddhadeva—existed as a school of thought within the Sarvāstivādin fold, which disagreed with the orthodox views of the larger sect.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 74. The adherents of this nascent school were also referred to as the "western masters" () or the "foreign masters" (; also called the "masters outside Kaśmīra" and the "Gandhāran masters"). They studied the same Abhidharma texts as the rest of the Sarvāstivāda, but in a more critical way; according to Dhammajoti, they eventually came to repudiate the Sarvāstivāda doctrine of "all exists."Dhammajoti (2009), p. 77.
It is this group—i.e., those who rejected that most important Sarvāstivāda doctrine (along with numerous key Vaibhāṣika views)—which came to be called the Sautrāntika ("those who rely on the sūtras").Willemen, Charles; Dessein, Bart; Cox, Collett (1998). Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism, p. 109. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Zweite Abteilung. Indien. However, the Sautrāntikas did not reject the Abhidharma method; in fact, they were themselves the authors of several Abhidharma manuals, such as the . The later Buddhist tradition of , founded by the Buddhist monks Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, is also associated with the Sautrāntika school.
The most important Sautrāntika was Vasubandhu (c. 350–430), a native of Peshawar in Gandhara. He is famous for being the author of the (4–5th century CE), a very influential Abhidharma work, with an auto-commentary that defends the Sautrāntika views. He famously later converted to the Yogacara school of Mahayana, a tradition that itself developed out of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.
Vasubandhu's led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant Vaibhāṣika master Saṃghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the *, a commentary upon Vasubandhu's verses meant to refute his views and those of other Sautrāntika monks (such as Sthavira Śrīlāta and his pupil Rāma).Dhammajoti (2009), p. 110. The was so influential that it became the Abhidharma text par excellence in both Indian Buddhism-Tibetan Buddhism and East Asian Buddhism, and remains the primary source for Abhidharma studies.Gethin, Rupert (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism, pp. 55–56. Oxford University Press.
A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related, including:
The complete Sarvāstivāda Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was the most common Vinaya tradition in China. However, Chinese Buddhism later settled on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. In the 7th century, Yijing wrote that in Eastern China, most people followed the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang'an), and that the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was prominent in the Yangzi River area and further south.Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 187. In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticized by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing and Dao'an (654–717). In the early 8th century, Dao'an gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the Sangha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.Heirman, Ann. Bumbacher, Stephan Peter. The Spread of Buddhism. 2007. pp. 194–195.
The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma consists of seven texts:
Following these are the texts that came to be taken as authoritative by the Vaibhāṣika:
All of these works have been translated into Chinese, and are now part of the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the word refers to the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had Abhidharma.
In Tibetan Buddhism monasticism, which follows the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, red robes are regarded as characteristic of their tradition.Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 266.
The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used Prakrit, the Sarvāstivādins used Sanskrit, the Sthavira Nikāya used Paiśācī, and the Saṃmitīya used Apabhraṃśa.
According to a number of scholars, Mahāyāna Buddhism flourished during the time of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, and this is illustrated in the form of Mahāyāna influence on the .Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 123. The also records that Kaniṣka presided over the establishment of Prajnaparamita doctrines in the northwest of India.Ray, Reginald. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. 1999. p. 410. Étienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a Sarvāstivāda master is known to have stated that the Mahāyāna were to be found amongst their own Vaipulya sūtras. According to Paul Williams, the similarly massive Da Zhidu Lun also has a clear association with the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins.Williams, Paul, and Tribe, Anthony. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. 2000. p. 100.
The Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika subschools are both classified in the Tibetan tenets system as the two tenets of the Hinayana, ignoring other early Indian Buddhist schools, which were not known to the Tibetans.
Sarvāstivādin meditation teachers also worked on the Dhyāna sūtras (), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.
|
|
