.jpg)
TheSarvāstivāda (Sanskrit:𑀲𑀭𑁆𑀯𑀸𑀲𑁆𑀢𑀺𑀯𑀸𑀤;Pali:𑀲𑀩𑁆𑀩𑀢𑁆𑀣𑀺𑀯𑀸𑀤,romanized: SabbatthivādaChinese:說一切有部; pinyin:Shuōyīqièyǒu Bù; Japanese:せついっさいうぶ; Korean:설일체유부; Vietnamese:Nhất thiết hữu bộ;Thai:สรวาสติวาท) was one of theearly Buddhist schools established around the reign ofAshoka (third century BCE).[2] It was particularly known as anAbhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven canonical Abhidharma texts.[3]
The Sarvāstivādins were one of the most influential Buddhist monastic groups, flourishing throughoutNorth India, especiallyKashmir andCentral Asia, until the 7th century CE.[2] The orthodox Kashmiri branch of the school composed the large and encyclopedicAbhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra around the time of the reign ofKanishka (c. 127–150 CE).[3] Because of this, orthodox Sarvāstivādins who upheld the doctrines in theMahāvibhāṣa were calledVaibhāṣikas.[3]
There have been debates about the exact chronology of the Sarvastivādin emergence from theSthavira Nikāya. According to theTheravādinDīpavaṃsa, the Sarvāstivādins coalesced out of the olderMahīśāsaka school, but theŚāriputraparipṛcchā and theSamayabhedoparacanaćakra state the opposite (i.e., that the Mahīśāsaka emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, rather).[4][5] The Sarvāstivādins are believed to have given rise to theMūlasarvāstivāda andSautrāntika schools, although the relationship between these groups has not yet been fully determined. It has been suggested that some yogic Sarvāstivādins, underearly Mahāyāna influence, gave rise toYogācāra, one of the most important and influential traditions ofMahāyāna Buddhism.[6][7]
Theravāda Buddhists have, at times, tendered accusations that the Sarvāstivādins were heavily influenced by the non-BuddhistSāṅkhya school of philosophy.[8][9] Nevertheless, the important Buddhist philosopherAśvaghoṣa, who may have been associated with Sarvāstivāda,[10][11] states—in his influentialBuddhacaritam—thatĀḷāra Kālāma, the first of the young Buddha's teachers, followed an archaic form of Sāṅkhya.[12]
| Part ofa serieson |
| EarlyBuddhism |
|---|
 |
| Buddhism |
*This list is a simplification. It is likely that the development of Buddhist schools was not linear. |
Sarvāstivāda is aSanskrit term that can be glossed as: "the theory of all that exists". The Sarvāstivāda argued that alldharmas (phenomena) exist in the past, present and future, the "three times".Vasubandhu'sAbhidharmakośa-bhāsya 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."[13]
Although there is some dispute over how the word "Sarvāstivāda" is to be analyzed, the general consensus is that it is to beparsed into three parts:sarva-, "all" or "every";-asti-, "exist"; and-vāda, "speak", "say", or "theory". This agrees neatly with the Chinese term for the school—Shuōyīqièyǒu bù (Chinese:說一切有部),[14] literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything"—as used byXuanzang and other translators.
The Sarvāstivāda path was also known by other names, such as—particularly in the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika branch—Hetuvāda andYuktivāda. The former comes from the roothetu-, "cause", which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality; the latter, fromyukti-, meaning "reason" or "logic", which may derive from their predilection for the use of rational argument andsyllogism.
Naṃdaye Kshatrapa), from theArt of Mathura.[15][16][17] The stele is dedicated to theBodhisattva "for the welfare and happiness of all sentient beings for the acceptance of the Sarvastivādas".Northern Satraps period, 1st century CE.[15][17]
According to Charles Prebish, "there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the Sarvāstivādin school."[19] According toK. L. Dhammajoti, "its presence, as well as that of its rival—theVibhajyavāda lineage—in the time of Emperor Aśoka is beyond doubt. Since Aśoka's reign is around 268–232 BCE, this means that at least by the middle of the 3rd century BCE, it had already developed into a distinct school."[20]
According to some accounts, the Sarvāstivādins emerged from theSthavira Nikāya, a small group of conservatives, who split from the reformist majority Mahāsāṃghikas at theSecond Buddhist Council. According to this account, they were expelled fromMagadha, and moved toNorthwest India where they developed into the Sarvāstivādin school.[19]
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 ofBuddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with—respectively—theDharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda;[21] and the origins of the Sarvāstivāda have also been related toAshoka's sending ofMajjhantika (SanskritMadhyāntika) on a mission toGandhara, which had an early Sarvāstivādin presence.[19] The Sarvāstivādins, in turn, are believed to have given rise to theMūlasarvāstivāda 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."[19]
A third tradition says that a community of Sarvāstivādin monks was established atMathura by the patriarchUpagupta.[19] 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.
The Sarvāstivāda enjoyed the patronage of the emperorKanishka (c. 127–150 CE) of theKushan Empire, during which time they were greatly strengthened and became one of the dominant sects of Indian Buddhism for centuries; they flourished throughout Northwest India, North India, and Central Asia.
When the Sarvāstivāda school held a synod in Kashmir during the reign ofKanishka II (c. 158–176), the most important Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma text, theAstagrantha of Katyayaniputra, was rewritten and revised in Sanskrit. This revised text was now known asJñānaprasthāna ("Course of Knowledge"). Though the GandharanAstagrantha had manyvibhaṣas (commentaries), the newKashmiriJñānaprasthāna had a SanskritMahāvibhaṣa ("great commentary"), compiled by the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda synod.[3] TheJñānaprasthāna, and itsMahāvibhaṣa, were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by the Kashmiri Sarvāstivādins, who called themselvesVaibhāṣikas.
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-Mahāvibhaṣa works, such as the *Tattvasiddhi Śāstra (成實論); the *Abhidharmahṛdaya (T. no. 1550) and its commentaries (T. no. 1551, no. 1552); theAbhidharmakośakārikā of Vasubandhu (who critiqued some orthodox views) and its commentaries; and the *Nyāyānusāra (順正理論) of masterSaṃghabhadra (c. fifth century CE), who formulated perhaps the most robust Vaibhāṣika response to the new criticisms.[23]
When the Chinese pilgrimXuanzang visitedKucha in theTarim Basin in 630 CE, he received the favours of Suvarṇadeva, the son and successor ofSuvarṇapuṣpa, the non-Mahāyāna Buddhist King of Kucha.[24] Xuanzang described in many details the characteristics of Kucha, and probably visited theKizil Caves.[25] Of the religion of the people of Kucha, he says that they were Sarvastivādins:[26]
There are about one hundred convents (saṅghārāmas) in this country, with five thousand and more disciples. These belong to theLittle Vehicle of the school of the Sarvāstivādas (Shwo-yih-tsai-yu-po). Their doctrine (teaching of Sūtras) 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.[26]
As their name suggests, a central doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda was that all dharmas (a term here meaning the elementary components of existence or experience) always exist; they neither come into being, nor pass away, but exist in the past and future as surely as in the present.[27] This was justified with, among other arguments, reference to canonical texts: e.g., since the Buddha said that one's good or bad (intentional) actions will ripen to bear good or bad karmic fruit as appropriate, it follows that the dharmas involved must yet be extant at the moment of this fruition—even though the cause thereof (vipā-kahetu) can only be some action taken in the past.
Among the different Sarvāstivāda thinkers, there were different ideas as to how this "all dharmas exist" theory was to be understood;[28] these were generally found acceptable by the Sarvāstivādinsangha at large, so long as they did not outright contradict the core doctrine. Many such ideas can be seen in theMahāvibhāṣa Śāstra, which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the "four great Ābhidharmikas of the Sarvāstivāda": Dharmatrāta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra, and Ghoṣaka.[29]
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 (kṣaṇika), conjoining (saṃprayukta) and causal simultaneity (sahabhū), and conditionality (hetu andpratyaya); a unique presentation of the spiritual path (mārga); 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 Sarvāstivāda were a widespread group; there were several different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential being theVaibhāṣika and theSautrāntika schools. According to Cox, Willemen and Dessein:
We have, basically, to differentiate the original Sarvāstivādins originating fromMathura, theKaśmīri Vaibhāṣikas, the Western Masters ofGandhara andBactria (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.[30]
The Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika school was formed by adherents of theMahāvibhāṣa Śāstra (hereafterMVŚ) during the council of Kashmir—though, as noted by K. L. Dhammajoti, "It is important to realize that not all of them necessarily subscribed to each and every view sanctioned by the MVŚ compilers. Moreover, the evolving nature of the Vaibhāṣika views must be recognized as well."[31] After its emergence, it comprised the orthodox or mainstream branch of the Sarvāstivāda in Kāśmīra, though it was not exclusive to this region.
The Vaibhāṣika—which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of theearly Buddhist schools,[32]—were widely influential in India and beyond.[33] The Vaibhāṣika are sometimes referred to in the MVŚ as "the Ābhidharmikas", "the Sarvāstivāda theoreticians" and "the masters of Kāśmīra."[34] In various texts, they also referred to their tradition asYuktavāda (the "doctrine of logic"), as well asHetuvāda (the "doctrine of causes").[35]
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" (sarvām asti); that is, the doctrine that alldharmas—past, present, and future—exist,[3] which has been described as aneternalist theory of time.[36] While the Vaibhāṣikas held that the dharmas of the "three times" all had some form of existence, they taught also that onlypresent dharmas have "efficacy" (karitra); thus, they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.[37]
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" (svabhāva) which persists through all three.[38] The term was also identified as a unique mark or self-characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma, and which remained unchangeable throughout its existence.[38] According to the Vaibhāṣika,svabhavas are those things that exist substantially (dravyasat), as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus have only a nominal existence (prajñaptisat).[38]
TheSautrāntika ("those who uphold the sūtras"), also known as theDārṣṭāntika (who may or may not have been a separate but related group), did not uphold the primacy of theMahāvibhāṣa Śāstra but rather emphasized thesūtras as being authoritative.[39]
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.[40] The adherents of this nascent school were also referred to as the "western masters" (pāścātya) or the "foreign masters" (bahirdeśaka; also called the "masters outside Kaśmīra" and the "Gandhāran masters").[29] 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."[41]
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 theSautrāntika ("those who rely on the sūtras").[42] However, the Sautrāntikas did not reject the Abhidharma method; in fact, they were themselves the authors of several Abhidharma manuals, such as theAbhidharmahṛdaya. The later Buddhist tradition ofpramāṇa, founded by the Buddhist monksDignāga andDharmakīrti, is also associated with the Sautrāntika school.
The most important Sautrāntika wasVasubandhu (c. 350–430), a native ofPurusapura inGandhara. He is famous for being the author of theAbhidharmakośa (4–5th century CE), a very influential Abhidharma work, with an auto-commentary that defends the Sautrāntika views. He famously later converted to theYogācāra school ofMahāyāna Buddhism, a tradition that itself developed out of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.
Vasubandhu'sAbhidharmakośa led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant Vaibhāṣika masterSaṃghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the *Nyāyānusāra, 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).[43] TheAbhidharmakośa was so influential that it became the Abhidharma textpar excellence in bothIndo-Tibetan Buddhism andEast Asian Buddhism, and remains the primary source for Abhidharma studies.[44]
There is much uncertainty as to the relationship between the Mūlasarvāstivāda (meaningroot- ororiginal-Sarvāstivāda) school and the others. They were certainly successful in spreading theirMūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, which remains the monastic rule used in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism today; they seem also to have been influential in Indonesia by the 7th century, as noted byYijing.[45]
A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related, including:[46]
TheDharmaguptaka are known to have rejected the authority of the SarvāstivādaPrātimokṣa rules, on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.[47]
The complete Sarvāstivāda Vinaya is extant in theChinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was the most common Vinaya tradition in China. However,Chinese Buddhism later settled on theDharmaguptaka 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 inGuanzhong (the region aroundChang'an), and that the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was prominent in theYangzi River area and further south.[48] In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticized by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing andDao'an (654–717). In the early 8th century, Dao'an gained the support ofEmperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that theSaṃgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.[49]
Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of sūtras from the Sarvāstivāda school"[50] thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of theDīrgha Āgama in Sanskrit. TheMadhyama Āgama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Saṅghadeva) and Saṃyukta Āgama (T99, Chinese trans. Guṇabhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarvāstivāda is therefore the only early school besides the Theravāda for which we have a roughly complete sūtra collection—although, unlike the Theravāda, it has not all been preserved in the original language.
During the first century, the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma primarily consisted of theAbhidharmahrdaya authored by Dharmashresthin, a native fromTokharistan, and theAshtagrantha authored or compiled byKatyayaniputra. Both texts were translated by Samghadeva, in 391 CE and in 383 CE respectively, but they were not completed until 390, in Southern China.
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 theChinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the wordAbhidharma refers to the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, although at a minimum theDharmaguptaka,Pudgalavāda andTheravāda also hadAbhidharmas.
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:
Between 148 and 170 CE, theParthian monkAn Shigao came to China and translated a work which described the color of monastic robes (Skt.kāṣāya) utilized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, calledDa Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (大比丘三千威儀).[51] Another text translated at a later date, theŚāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information.[51] In the earlier source, the Sarvāstivādins are described as wearing dark red robes, while theDharmaguptakas are described as wearing black robes.[52] However, in the corresponding passage found in the laterŚāriputraparipṛcchā, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptas as wearing dark red robes.[52]
InTibetan Buddhism monasticism, which follows theMūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, red robes are regarded as characteristic of their tradition.[53]
During the first century BCE, in the Gandharan cultural area (consisting ofOddiyana,Gandhara andBactria,Tokharistan, across theKhyber Pass), theSthaviras used theGāndhārī language to write their literature using theKharosthi script.
The Tibetan historianButon Rinchen Drub wrote that theMahāsāṃghikas usedPrākrit, the Sarvāstivādins usedSanskrit, theSthavira Nikāya usedPaiśācī, and theSaṃmitīya usedApabhraṃśa.[54]
The Sarvāstivādins ofKāśmīra held theMahāvibhāṣā Śāstra as authoritative, and thus were given the monikerVaibhāṣikas. TheMahāvibhāṣā is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time ofKaniṣka (127–151) of theKushan Empire.[55] This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities toMahāyāna doctrines.[56] TheMahāvibhāṣā is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna traditions, as well as the means by which Mahāyāna doctrines would become accepted.[57] TheMahāvibhāṣā also defines theMahāyāna sūtras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described asVaipulya doctrines, with "Vaipulya" being a commonly used synonym for Mahāyāna. TheMahāvibhāṣā reads:
What is the Vaipulya? It is said to be all the sūtras corresponding to elaborations on the meanings of the exceedingly profound dharmas.[58]
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 theMahāvibhāṣā Śāstra.[59] TheMañjuśrīmūlakalpa also records that Kaniṣka presided over the establishment ofPrajñāpāramitā doctrines in the northwest of India.[60]Étienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a Sarvāstivāda master is known to have stated that the Mahāyānaprajñā-sūtras were to be found amongst their own Vaipulya sūtras.[58] According to Paul Williams, the similarly massiveDa Zhidu Lun also has a clear association with the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins.[61]
TheVaibhāṣika andSautrāntika subschools are both classified in theTibetan tenets system as the two tenets of theHīnayāna, ignoring other early Indian Buddhist schools, which were not known to the Tibetans.
Sarvāstivādin meditation teachers also worked on theDhyāna sūtras (Chinese: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.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
.svg)