Product Code Database
Vibhajyavāda (Sanskrit; Pāli: Vibhajjavāda; ) is a term applied generally to groups of early Buddhists belonging to the Sthavira Nikāya, which split from the Mahāsāṃghika (due either to the former attempting to make the Vinaya stricter, or the latter wishing to reform it; see: Sthavira Nikāya main article) into two main groups: the Sarvastivada and the Vibhajyavāda, of which the latter are known to have rejected both Sarvāstivāda doctrines (especially the doctrine of "all exists") and the doctrine of Pudgalavada (personalism).Warder, 2000, p. 264.Williams, Tribe, Wynne; Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, p. 91.Cousins, LS (2001). On the Vibhajjavadins. The Mahimsasaka, Dhammaguttaka, Kassapiya and Tambapanniya branches of the ancient Theriyas, Buddhist Studies Review 18 (2), 131–182. During the reign of Ashoka, these groups possibly took part in missionary activity in Gandhara, Bactria, Kashmir, South India and Sri Lanka. By the third century CE, they had spread in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Their doctrine is expounded in the Kathāvatthu.
According to A. K. Warder, they are called "distinctionists" because they make distinctions between dharmas that exist in the present and the past, and dharmas that don't exist in the past and the future (as opposed to Sarvastivada). This is supported by the explanation given by the 6th century Mahayana philosopher Bhavaviveka.
According to Bhante Sujato, Vibhajyavāda means that the doctrine "distinguishes" ( vibhajanto) the heterodox and orthodox views, particularly the non-Buddhist theory of a self ( atman) as well as the theory of a pudgala (or "person" similar to but distinct from the atman) of the Pudgalavādins (also known as the Pudgalavada). The characteristic method used by the Buddha and early Buddhists to break down the idea of self was the method of analysing ( vibhajjati) the components of a person and investigating them to find that they do not possess the features that one could ascribe to a self. Thus, it would make sense that the term refers to "the Abhidhamma movement as an analytic approach to Dhamma in general, and as a critique of the ‘self’ in particular".
The Vibhajyavādins rejected the Sarvastivada claim that all Dhamma theory (principles, phenomena) exist in the past, present and future. Instead, they made a distinction between dharmas that "exist" and dharmas that do not exist, hence the name "distinctionists". The Vibhajyavādins held that dharmas exist in the present, but not that they exist in the future. With regards to past dharmas, those wholesome or unwholesome dharmas that had already brought forth its fruit or effect were said not to exist, but those which had not yet brought forth a karmic effect could be said to have some efficacy. The Sarvastivada Vijnanakaya states their position as defended by Moggaliputtatissa as: "The past and future are not; the present and the unconditioned exist."
The Vibhajyavādins also held that out of all dharmas, only nirvāṇa was an unconditioned ( asaṃskṛta) dharma, against the view of the Sarvastivada which also held that space was an unconditioned dharma.Morgan, Diane, Essential Buddhism: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice, p. 52. Another difference with the Sarvastivada hinged on the issue of gradual versus sudden attainment. The Vibhajyavādins held that at stream entry, understanding of the Four Noble Truths came at once ( ekābhisamaya), while the Sarvastivada asserted that this happened only gradually ( anupubbābhisamaya).Morgan, Diane, Essential Buddhism: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice, p. 53. Vibhajyavādins also asserted that could not regress or fall back to a lower state once they attained arhatship.Berkwitz, 2012, p. 58. The Vibhajyavādins also rejected the doctrine of the intermediate state between rebirths ( Bardo).
Doctrines of the Vibhajyavādins can be seen in the Kathāvatthu, traditionally attributed to elder Moggalipputtatissa by the Theravāda . The earliest layer of this text could date as far as the reign of Ashoka. However, neither the Theravādin Kathāvatthu nor the Sarvastivada Vijnanakaya contain any reference to Vibhajyavāda as a separate school, indicating that perhaps during the time they were recorded there was not yet a formal schism between the Sarvastivada and the Vibhajyavāda.
The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, a fifth century Sri Lankan work meanwhile, mentions that the Visuddhimagga was written at the request of Sanghaphala, "a member of the lineage of the Mahaviharasins, illustrious Theriyas, best of Vibhajjavādins".
The name was applied to a variety of communities across the Indian subcontinent. The major ones were:
Bhante Sujato, in his overview of Dharmaguptaka and Mahāvihāravāsin schools, argues that the split between them was not due to any difference in doctrine or monastic discipline, but due to geographical distance.
According to L. S. Cousins, the precursor to these schools was probably involved in missionary activity around the time of Ashoka into the regions of Kashmir, Gandhara, Bactria, Andhra Pradesh and Sri Lanka. Cousins concludes:
The Sammatiya (aka Pudgalavada) also mention the Vibhajyavādins. According to the Sammatīya sect, the Vibhajyavādins developed from the Sarvastivada school.
The Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra describes the Vibhajyavādins as being the type of heretics who "make objections, who uphold harmful doctrines and attack those who follow the authentic Dharma."
The Mahāsāṃghika saw the Vibhajyavādins as being offshoots from the root schism in Buddhism, which according to them produced three sects: the , the Mahāsāṃghikas, and the Vibhajyavādins. The Mahāsāṃghikas list the Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Kāśyapīya, and Tāmraparnīya (Theravāda) sects as having descended from the Vibhajyavādins. The Mahāsāṃghika branch itself, together with the Prajñaptivāda, preferred to be called Bahusrutiya-Vibhajyavādins.
|
|
