GetWiki

{{short description|Early school of Buddhism, circa 3rd century BCE}}{{Italic title}}{{EngvarB|date=January 2014}}{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2014}}File:Tapa Shotor seated Buddha (Niche V1).jpg|thumb|Seated Buddha from the Sarvāstivādin monastery of (Tapa Shotor]], 2nd century CEJOURNAL, The Geography of Gandhara Art, Differences and similarities in Gandhāran art production: the case of the modelling school of Haḍḍa (Afghanistan), Alexandra, Vanleene, 2019, Archaeopress Archaeology, 978-1-78969-186-3, 143–163,www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/PublicFiles/media/Geography%20of%20Gandharan%20Art%20published%20files/10_32028-9781789691863P143-163.pdf, {{rp|158}})The Sarvāstivāda (; {{cjkv|c=說一切有部|p=Shuōyīqièyǒu Bù|j=せついっさいうぶ|k=설일체유부}};) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Ashoka (third century BCE).Westerhoff, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy in the First Millennium CE, 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 (c. 127–150 CE). Because of this, orthodox Sarvāstivādins who upheld the doctrines in the Mahāvibhāṣa were called Vaibhāṣikas.According to the Theravādin Dīpavaṃsa, the Sarvāstivādins emerged from the older Mahīśāsaka school, but the Śāriputraparipṛcchā and the Samayabhedoparacanacakra state that the Mahīśāsaka emerged from the Sarvāstivāda.BOOK, Baruah, Bibhuti, Buddhist sects and sectarianism,archive.org/details/bub_gb_s1PZAMD13SMC, 2000, Sarup & Sons, New Delhi, 978-8176251525, 1st, , p. 50{{Citation | last1 =Buswell | first1 =Robert E. | last2 =Lopez | first2 =Donald S. | year =2013 |title =The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism | publisher =Princeton University Press}} 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.

Name

{{EarlyBuddhism}}Sarvāstivāda is a Sanskrit term that can be glossed as: “the theory of all that exists”. The Sarvāstivāda argued that all dharmas (phenomena) exist in the past, present and future, the “three times”. Vasubandhu’s AbhidharmakoÅ›a-bhāsya states, “He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarvāstivādin.“{{sfn|Vasubandhu|de La Vallée-Poussin|1990|p=807}}Although there is some dispute over how the word “Sarvāstivāda” is to be analyzed, the general consensus is that it is to be parsed into three parts: sarva “all” or “every” + asti “exist” + vada “speak”, “say” or “theory”. This equates perfectly with the Chinese term, ShuōyÄ«qièyÇ’u bù ({{zh|c=說一切有部}}),Taisho 27, n1545 which is literally “the sect that speaks of the existence of everything,” as used by Xuanzang and other translators.The Sarvāstivāda was also known by other names, particularly hetuvada and yuktivada. Hetuvada comes from hetu – ‘cause’, which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality. Yuktivada comes from yukti – ‘reason’ or even ‘logic’, which echoes their use of rational argument and syllogism.

Origination and history

File:Mathura Katra fragment A-66.jpg|thumb|Fragment of a Buddha stele in the name of a “Kshatrapa lady” named Naṃda ((File:Mathura Katra fragment A-66 inscription ‘Namdaye Kshatrapa’.jpg|70px) Naṃdaye Kshatrapa), from the Art of Mathura.For a modern image see Figure 9 in JOURNAL, Myer, Prudence R., Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathurā, Artibus Asiae, 1986, 47, 2, 121–123, 10.2307/3249969, 0004-3648, 3249969, BOOK, Lüders, Heinrich, Mathura Inscriptions, 1960, 31–32,archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.108369, The stele is dedicated to the Bodhisattva “for the welfare and happiness of all sentient beings for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadas”. (Northern Satraps]] period, 1st century CE.JOURNAL, Myer, Prudence R., Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathurā, Artibus Asiae, 1986, 47, 2, 111–113, 10.2307/3249969, 0004-3648, 3249969, )File:Kalawan copper-plate inscription of the year 134.jpg|thumb|Copper-plate inscription mentioning the Sarvastivadas, in the year 134 of the Azes era, i.e. 84 CE, Kalawan, (Taxila]]BOOK, Sastri, Hirananda, Epigraphia Indica vol.21, 1931, 259,archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9580, )

Early history

According to Charles Prebish, “there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the Sarvāstivādin school.”Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Charles S. Prebish. Penn State Press: 1975. {{ISBN|0-271-01195-5}} pg 42-43 According to Dhammajoti, “its presence, as well as that of its rival — the Vibhajyavāda lineage — in the time of Emperor AÅ›oka is beyond doubt. Since AÅ›oka’s reign is around 268–232 B.C.E., this means that at least by the middle of the 3rd century B.C.E., it had already developed into a distinct school.“Dhammajoti (2009), p. 55.In Central Asia, several Buddhist monastic groups were historically prevalent. 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 northwestern India where they developed into the Sarvāstivādin school.A number of scholars have identified three distinct major phases of missionary activity seen in the history of Buddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with respectively the Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda, and the MÅ«lasarvāstivāda,Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 126 and the origins of the Sarvāstivāda have also been related to Ashoka sending Majjhantika (Sanskrit: Madhyāntika) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early presence of the Sarvāstivāda. The Sarvāstivādins in turn are believed to have given rise to the MÅ«lasarvāstivāda 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 MahākaÅ›yapa, Ä€nanda, Madhyāntika, and Śāṇakavāsin, and in the Ch’an tradition he is regarded as the fourth.

Kushan era

File:Dharmarajika_stupa_taxila.jpg|thumb|right|A Kushan era votive stupa from Mohra Muradu, TaxilaTaxilaThe Sarvāstivāda enjoyed the patronage of Kanishka (c. 127–150 CE) emperor of the Kushan Empire, during which time they were greatly strengthened, and became one of the dominant sects of Buddhism in north India for centuries, flourishing throughout Northwest India, North India, and Central Asia.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 Jñānaprasthāna (“Course of Knowledge“). Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many vibhaá¹£as (commentaries), the new Kashmiri Jñānaprasthāna had a Sanskrit Mahāvibhaá¹£a, compiled by the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda synod.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61. The Jñānaprasthāna and its Mahāvibhaá¹£a, were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by Kashmiris, who called themselves Vaibhāṣikas.File:Dharmarajika_stupa,Taxila.jpg|thumb|The Dharmarajika Stupa and monastery ruins, a major Buddhist site in TaxilaTaxilaThis new Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by all Sarvāstivādins. Some “Western masters” from Gandhara and Bactria had divergent views which disagreed with the new Kashmiri orthodoxy. These disagreements can be seen in post-Mahāvibhaá¹£a works, such as the *Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra (成實論), the *Abhidharmahá¹›daya (T no. 1550) and its commentaries (T no. 1551, no. 1552), the AbhidharmakoÅ›akārikā of Vasubandhu and its commentaries (who critiqued some orthodox views), and the *Nyāyānusāra (Ny) of master Saṃghabhadra (ca fifth century CE) who formulated the most robust Vaibhāṣika response to the new criticisms.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 57.

Tarim Basin

When the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited Kucha in the Tarim Basin in 630 CE, he received the favours of Suvarṇadeva, the son and successor of Suvarṇapuá¹£pa, the non-Mahayana Buddhist king of Kucha.BOOK, Grousset, René, René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia,archive.org/details/empireofsteppes00grou, registration, 20 November 2016, 1970, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 978-0-8135-1304-1, 99, Xuanzang described in many details the characteristics of Kucha, and probably visited the Kizil Caves.WEB, Waugh, Daniel (Historian, University of Washington), Kizil,depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/religion/buddhism/tarim/kizil.html, depts.washington.edu, Washington University, 30 December 2020, Of the religion of the people of Kucha, he says that they were Sarvastivadins:BOOK, Beal, Samuel, Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World : Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), 2000, Psychology Press, 978-0-415-24469-5, 19,books.google.com/books?id=kmISY_Z7bEgC&pg=PA19, en, , also available in: WEB, Kingdom of K’iu-chi (Kucha or Kuche) [Chapter 2],www.wisdomlib.org/south-asia/book/buddhist-records-of-the-western-world-xuanzang/d/doc220147.html#note-e-86576, www.wisdomlib.org, 30 December 2020, 27 June 2018, {{blockquote|There are about one hundred convents (saá¹…ghārāmas) in this country, with five thousand and more disciples. These belong to the Little Vehicle of the school of the Sarvāstivādas (Shwo-yih-tsai-yu-po). Their doctrine (teaching of SÅ«tras) and their rules of discipline (principles of the Vinaya) are like those of India, and those who read them use the same (originals).|Xuanzang, on the religion of Kucha.}}

Sub-schools

Sarvāstivāda was a widespread group, and there were different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential ones being the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika schools. According to Cox, Willemen and Dessein: we have, basically, to differentiate the original Sarvāstivādins originating from Mathura, the Kaśmīri Vaibhāṣikas, the Western Masters of Gandhara and Bactria (the Dārṣṭāntika-Sautrāntika Masters) who were also referred to as Bahirdesaka, Aparāntaka and Pāścāttya, and the Mūlasarvāstivādins. As the various groups influenced one another, even these sub-schools do very often not form homogeneous groups.Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 19.

Vaibhāṣika

{{Buddhist Philosophy sidebar}}The Vaibhāṣika was formed by adherents of the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra (MVÅš) during the council of Kashmir. Since then, it comprised the orthodox or mainstream branch of the Sarvāstivāda school based in KāśmÄ«ra (though not exclusive to this region). The Vaibhāśika-Sarvāstivāda, 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 Sautrantika theory of seeds (bija ) revisited: With special reference to the ideological continuity between Vasubandhu’s theory of seeds and its Srilata/Darstantika precedents by Park, Changhwan, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2007 pg 2 was widely influential in India and beyond.A Study of the Abhidharmahá¹›daya: The Historical Development of the Concept of Karma in the Sarvāstivāda Thought. PhD thesis by Wataru S. Ryose. University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1987 pg 3As noted by KL Dhammajoti, “It is important to realize that not all of them necessarily subscribed to each and every view sanctioned by the MVÅš compilers. Moreover, the evolving nature of the Vaibhāṣika views must be recognized as well.“Dhammajoti (2009), p. 76.The Vaibhāśika-Sarvāstivādins are sometimes referred to in the MVÅš as “the Ä€bhidharmikas”, “the Sarvāstivāda theoreticians” and “the masters of KāśmÄ«ra.“Dhammajoti (2009), p. 73. In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as Yuktavāda (the doctrine of logic), as well as Hetuvāda (the doctrine of causes).Dhammajoti (2009), pp. 56, 164.The Vaibhāṣika school saw itself as the orthodox Sarvāstivāda tradition, and they were united in their doctrinal defense of the theory of “all exists” (sarvām asti). This is the doctrine which held that dharmas, past present and future, all exist. This doctrine has been described as an eternalist theory of time.Kalupahana, David. A history of Buddhist philosophy, continuities and discontinuities, page 128.While the Vaibhāṣikas held that dharmas of the three times all exist, they held that only present dharmas have “efficacy” (karitra), thus they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 63. Among the different Sarvāstivāda thinkers, there were different ideas on how this theory was to be understood.Poussin; Pruden, Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu, Vol 3, 1991, p. 808. These differences were accepted as long as they did not contradict the doctrine of “all exists” and can be seen in the MVÅš, which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the ‘four great Ä€bhidharmikas of the Sarvāstivāda’: Dharmatrāta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra and Ghoá¹£aka.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.The doctrines of Sarvāstivāda were not confined to ‘all exists’, but also include the theory of momentariness (ksanika), conjoining (samprayukta) and causal simultaneity (sahabhu), conditionality (hetu and pratyaya), a unique presentation of the spiritual path (marga), and others. These doctrines are all inter-connected and it is the principle of ‘all exists’ that is the axial doctrine holding the larger movement together when the precise details of other doctrines are at stake.In order to explain how it is possible for a dharma to remain the same and yet also undergo change as it moves through the three times, the Vaibhāṣika held that dharmas have a constant essence (svabhāva) which persists through the three times.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 70. The term was also identified as a unique mark or own characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma and remained unchangeable throughout its existence. According to Vaibhāṣikas, svabhavas are those things that exist substantially (dravyasat) as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus only have a nominal existence (prajñaptisat).

Dārṣṭāntika and Sautrāntika

The Sautrāntika (“those who uphold the sÅ«tras“), also known as Dārṣṭāntika (who may or may not have been a separate but related group), did not uphold the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra but rather emphasized the Buddhist sÅ«tras as being authoritative.Westerhoff, Jan, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 73.Already by the time of the MVÅš, the early Dārṣṭāntika monks such as Dharmatrāta and Buddhadeva, existed as a school of thought within the fold of the Sarvāstivāda who disagreed with the orthodox views.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 74. These groups were also called “the western masters” (pāścātya) or “the foreign masters” (bahirdeÅ›aka; also called ‘the masters outside KaÅ›mÄ«ra’, and the ‘Gāndhārian masters’). They studied the same Abhidharma texts as the other Sarvāstivādins, but in a more critical way. According to K. L. Dhammajoti, they eventually came to repudiate the Sarvāstivāda doctrine that “all exists”.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 77.It is this group, i.e. those who rejected the most important Sarvāstivāda doctrine (along with numerous other key Vaibhāṣika views), which came to be called the Sautrāntika (“those who rely on the sÅ«tras“).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 the authors of several Abhidharma manuals, such as the Abhidharmahá¹›daya. The later Buddhist tradition of pramāṇa, founded by the Buddhist monks Dignāga and DharmakÄ«rti, is also associated with the Sautrāntika school.File:Seshin_Vasubandhu_Kofukuji.jpg|thumb|Vasubandhu: wood, 186 cm height, about 1208, Kofukuji Temple, Nara, JapanJapanThe most important Sautrāntika was Vasubandhu (ca. 350–430), a native from Purusapura in Gandhara. He is famous for being the author of the AbhidharmakoÅ›a (4–5th century CE), a very influential Abhidharma work, with an auto-commentary that defends the Sautrāntika views. He famously later converted to the Yogācāra school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, a tradition that itself developed out of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.Vasubandhu’s KoÅ›a led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant Vaibhāṣika master Saṃghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the Nyāyānusāra, a commentary to Vasubandhu’s verses to refute his views and those of other Sautrāntika monks, such as Sthavira ÅšrÄ«lāta and his pupil Rāma.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 110. The KoÅ›a was so influential that it became the Abhidharma text par excellence in both Indo-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.

Mūlasarvāstivādins

There is much uncertainty as to the relationship of the Mūlasarvāstivāda (meaning root or original Sarvāstivāda) school and the others. They were certainly influential in spreading their Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, as it remains the monastic rule used in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism today. Also, they seem to have been influential in Indonesia by the 7th century, as noted by Yijing.Coedes, George. The Indianized States of South-East Asia. 1968. p. 84A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related including:BOOK, Sujato, Bhikkhu,santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sects__Sectarianism_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf, Sects & Sectarianism: The origins of Buddhist Schools, Santipada, 2012, 135, Bhikkhu Sujato,

• Frauwallner holds that MÅ«lasarvāstivāda was the community of Mathura, which was an independent group from the Sarvāstivādins of KaÅ›mir. According to Bhikkhu Sujato, this theory has “stood the test of time”.
• Lamotte thought that the MÅ«lasarvāstivāda Vinaya was a late compilation from KaÅ›mÄ«r.
• Warder suggests that the MÅ«lasarvāstivādins was a late group who compiled a Vinaya and the Saddharmasmá¹›tyupasthāna SÅ«tra.
• Enomoto holds that the Sarvāstivādin and MÅ«lasarvāstivādin were the same.
• Willemen, Dessein, and Cox hold that this group is really the Sautrāntika school who renamed themselves in the later years of the Sarvāstivāda school history.

Texts

Vinaya

The Dharmaguptaka are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarvāstivāda pratimoká¹£a rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 52The 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, Daoan gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the saṃgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.Heirman, Ann. Bumbacher, Stephan Peter. The Spread of Buddhism. 2007. pp. 194-195

Ä€gamas

Scholars at present have “a nearly complete collection of sÅ«tras from the Sarvāstivāda school“WEB, Sujato, Bhikkhu, Bhante Sujato,santipada.googlepages.com/whatthebuddhareallytaught, The Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Ä€gamas, What the Buddha Really Taught, September 8, 2019, thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of the DÄ«rgha Ä€gama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama Ä€gama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Saá¹…ghadeva) and Saṃyukta Ä€gama (T99, Chinese trans. Guṇabhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarvāstivāda is therefore the only early school besides the Theravada for which we have a roughly complete sutra collection, although unlike the Theravada it has not all been preserved in the original language.

Abhidharma

During the first century, the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma primarily consisted of the Abhidharmahrdaya authored by Dharmashresthin, a native from Tokharistan, and the Ashtagrantha authored/compiled by Katyayaniputra. Both texts were translated by Samghadeva in 391 AD and in 183 AD. respectively, but they were not completed until 390 in Southern China.The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma consists of seven texts:

• Jñānaprasthāna (“Foundation of Knowledge“) (T. 1543–1544)
• Prakaraṇapāda (“Exposition“) (T. 1541–1542)
• Vijñānakāya (“Body of Consciousness“) (T. 1539)
• Dharmaskandha (“Aggregation of Dharmas“) (T. 1537)
• Prajñaptiśāstra (“Treatise on Designations“) (T. 1538)
• Dhātukāya (“Body of Elements“) (T. 1540)
• Saá¹…gÄ«tiparyāya (“Discourses on Gathering Together“) (T. 1536)

Following these, are the texts that became the authority of the Vaibhāṣika:

• Mahāvibhāṣā (“Great Commentary” on the Jñānaprasthāna) (T. 1545)

All of these works have been translated into Chinese, and are now part of the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the word abhidharma refers to the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had abhidharmas.

Later Abhidharma manuals

Various other Abhidharma works were written by Sarvāstivāda masters, some are more concise manuals of abhidharma, others critiqued the orthodox Vaibhāṣika views or provided a defense of the orthodoxy. Dhammajoti provides the following list of such later abhidharma works that are extant in Chinese: 108 109

• Abhidharmāmá¹›ta(-rasa)-śāstra (T no. 1553), by Ghoá¹£aka, 2 fasc., translator unknown. 2.
• Abhidharmahá¹›daya (T no. 1550) by DharmaÅ›rÄ«, 4 fasc., tr. by Saá¹…ghadeva et al. 3.
• Abhidharmahá¹›daya-sÅ«tra (? T no. 1551) by Upaśānta, 2 fasc., tr. by NarendrayaÅ›as.
• Abhidharmahá¹›dayavyākhyā (? T no. 1552), by Dharmatrāta, 11 fasc., tr. by SanghabhÅ«ti.
• AbhidharmakoÅ›a-mÅ«la-kārikā (T no. 1560) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang. 6.
• AbhidharmakoÅ›abhāṣyam (T no. 1558) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang; (there is also an earlier translation by Paramārtha: T no. 1559).
• AbhidharmakoÅ›aśāstra-tattvārthā-á¹­Ä«kā (T no. 1561) by Sthiramati, 2 fasc., translator unknown.
• Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra (T no. 1562) by Saṃghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.
• Abhidharma-samayapradÄ«pikā (T no. 1563) by Saṃghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.
• Abhidharmāvatāra (T no. 1554) by Skandhila, 2 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.

Appearance and language

Appearance

Between 148 and 170 CE, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which described the color of monastic robes (Skt. kāṣāya) utilized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (大比丘三千威儀).Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. p. 55 Another text translated at a later date, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information. In the earlier source, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing dark red robes, while the Dharmaguptas are described as wearing black robes.Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. pp. 55-56 However, in the corresponding passage found in the later Śāriputraparipṛcchā, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptas as wearing dark red robes. In traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, which follow 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

Language

During the first century BCE, in the Gandharan cultural area (consisting of Oddiyana, Gandhara and Bactria, Tokharistan, across the Khyber Pass), the Sthaviriyas used the Gāndhārī language to write their literature using the Kharosthi.The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used Prākrit, the Sarvāstivādins used Sanskrit, the Sthavira nikāya used Paiśācī, and the Saṃmitīya used Apabhraṃśa.{{sfn|Yao|2012|p=9}}

Influence

The Sarvāstivādins of KāśmÄ«ra held the {{IAST|Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra}} as authoritative, and thus were given the moniker of being Vaibhāṣikas. The {{IAST|Mahāvibhāṣā}} is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time of Kaniá¹£ka (127–151) of the Kushan Empire.Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 112 This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities to Mahāyāna doctrines.Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 117 The {{IAST|Mahāvibhāṣā}} is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the HÄ«nayāna and Mahāyāna traditions, as well as the means by which Mahāyāna doctrines would become accepted.Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 111 The {{IAST|Mahāvibhāṣā}} also defines the Mahāyāna sÅ«tras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described as Vaipulya doctrines, with “Vaipulya” being a commonly used synonym for Mahāyāna. The {{IAST|Mahāvibhāṣā}} reads:{{blockquote|What is the Vaipulya? It is said to be all the sÅ«tras corresponding to elaborations on the meanings of the exceedingly profound dharmas.Walser, Joseph. Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. 2005. p. 156}}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 Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra.Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 123 The MañjuÅ›rÄ«mÅ«lakalpa also records that Kaniá¹£ka presided over the establishment of Prajñāpāramitā 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 Prajñā sÅ«tras were to be found amongst their Vaipulya sÅ«tras. 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. 100The 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 sutras ({{zh|c=禪經}}), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.

References

{{Reflist}}

Sources

• Cox, Collett; Dessein, Bart; Willemen, Charles (1998). Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. BRILL, Handbuch Der Orientalistik. Leiden, New York, Koln. ISBN 9004102310.
• BOOK, Dhammajoti, K.L., Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma,books.google.com/books?id=eK4PSQAACAAJ&q=Sarv%C4%81stiv%C4%81da+Abhidharma, 2009, Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong, 978-988-99296-5-7,
• BOOK, Kalupahana, David, David Kalupahana, Buddhist Thought and Ritual,books.google.com/books?id=x_FJcRDXhfQC, 2001, Motilal Banarsidass, 978-81-208-1773-9,
• BOOK, Kalupahana, David, David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism,books.google.com/books?id=GOYGAAAAYAAJ, 1975, University Press of Hawaii, 978-0-8248-0298-1,
• BOOK, Nakamura, Hajime, Hajime Nakamura, Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes,books.google.com/books?id=w0A7y4TCeVQC, 1980, Motilal Banarsidass, 978-81-208-0272-8,
• BOOK, Vasubandhu, Vasubandhu, de La Vallée-Poussin, Louis, Louis de La Vallée-Poussin, AbhidharmakoÅ›abhāṣyam,books.google.com/books?id=FWpiNAEACAAJ, 1 June 1990, Asian Humanities Press, 978-0-89581-913-0,
• BOOK, Xing, Guang, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikāya Theory,books.google.com/books?id=DTWZLMGFFgkC, 2005, Psychology Press, 978-0-415-33344-3,
• BOOK, Yao, Zhihua, The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition,books.google.com/books?id=_uYR4sSsoSIC, 2012, Routledge, 978-1-134-28745-1,

Further reading

• For a critical examination of the Sarvāstivādin interpretation of the Samyuktagama, see David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.
• For a Sautrantika refutation of the Sarvāstivādin use of the Samyuktagama, see Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma.. Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma. Asian Educational Services, 2003, page 76. This is a reprint of a much earlier work and the analysis is now quite dated; the first appendix however contains translations of polemical materials.

{{Buddhism topics}}