| Part ofa serieson |
| EarlyBuddhism |
|---|
 |
| Buddhism |
*This list is a simplification. It is likely that the development of Buddhist schools was not linear. |
| Part ofa series on | ||||||||
| Theravāda Buddhism | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| Buddhism | ||||||||
Key figures
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Vibhajyavāda (Sanskrit;Pali:Vibhajjavāda;traditional Chinese:分別說部; ; pinyin:Fēnbiéshuō Bù; Vietnamese:Phân biệt thuyết bộ, Phân tích bộ) is a term applied generally to groups ofearly Buddhists belonging to theSthavira Nikāya, which split from theMahāsāṃghika (due either to the former attempting to make theVinaya stricter, or the latter wishing to reform it; see:Sthavira Nikāya main article) into two main groups: theSarvāstivāda and the Vibhajyavāda, of which the latter are known to have rejected both Sarvāstivāda doctrines (especially the doctrine of "all exists") and the doctrine ofPudgalavāda (personalism).[1][2][3] During the reign ofAshoka, these groups possibly took part in missionary activity inGandhara,Bactria,Kashmir,South India andSri Lanka. By the third century CE, they had spread inCentral Asia andSoutheast Asia.[3] Their doctrine is expounded in theKathāvatthu.
The wordVibhajyavāda may beparsed intovibhajya, loosely meaning "dividing", "analysing" andvāda holding thesemantic field: "doctrine", "teachings".[4] According to Andrew Skilton, the analysis of phenomena (Skt.dharmas) was the doctrinal emphasis and preoccupation of the Vibhajyavādins.[4]
According toA. 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 toSarvāstivāda).[5] This is supported by the explanation given by the 6th century Mahāyāna philosopherBhavaviveka.[6]
According toBhante 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 apudgala (or "person" similar to but distinct from theatman) of the Pudgalavādins (also known as theVātsīputrīya). 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".[6]
.jpg)
The Vibhajyavādins are a group of early Buddhist schools. According to theTheravāda account, this group rejected the Sarvastivāda teachings at theThird Buddhist Council (however modern scholars question the council narratives).[7][8] The name means "those who make distinctions," and include theKāśyapīya,Mahīśāsaka andDharmaguptaka.[7] The Vibhajyavādins were strongly represented in South India, where they called themselvesTheriyas. They survived until the seventeenth century in South India, and inSri Lanka they became theTheravādins.[9]
The Vibhajyavādins rejected theSarvāstivāda claim that alldharmas (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".[5] 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.[2] TheSarvāstivādaVijñānakāya states their position as defended by Moggaliputtatissa as: "The past and future are not; the present and the unconditioned exist."[10]
The Vibhajyavādins also held that out of all dharmas, onlynirvāṇa was an unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) dharma, against the view of theSarvāstivāda which also held that space was an unconditioned dharma.[11] Another difference with theSarvāstivāda hinged on the issue of gradual versus sudden attainment. The Vibhajyavādins held that atstream entry, understanding of theFour Noble Truths came at once (ekābhisamaya), while theSarvāstivāda asserted that this happened only gradually (anupubbābhisamaya).[12][13] Vibhajyavādins also asserted thatarhats could not regress or fall back to a lower state once they attained arhatship.[12][14] The Vibhajyavādins also rejected the doctrine of the intermediate state between rebirths (antarabhava).[14]
Doctrines of the Vibhajyavādins can be seen in theKathāvatthu, traditionally attributed to elderMoggalipputtatissa by the Theravāda. The earliest layer of this text could date as far as the reign ofAshoka.[7][6] However, neither the TheravādinKathāvatthu nor theSarvāstivādaVijñānakāya 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 theSarvāstivāda and the Vibhajyavāda.[15][16]
TheVisuddhimagga ofBuddhaghosa, a fifth century Sri Lankan work meanwhile, mentions that theVisuddhimagga was written at the request of Sanghaphala, "a member of the lineage of the Mahāvihārasins, illustrious Theriyas, best of Vibhajjavādins".[3]
The Vibhajyavādins are not recorded uniformly by early Buddhist traditions as being a distinct sect, nor being associated with any one period of time.[15] Some scholars believe that there was no separate Vibhajyavāda sect, but that the termvibhajyavāda was sometimes affixed to the name of a school to indicate that it differed from the main school on some doctrines.[17] In this sense, they would bevibhajyavādins of that particular school.[17]
The name was applied to a variety of communities across the Indian subcontinent. The major ones were:[3]
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.[18]
According toL. S. Cousins, the precursor to these schools was probably involved in missionary activity around the time ofAshoka into the regions ofKashmir,Gandhara,Bactria,Andhra andSri Lanka.[3] Cousins concludes:
Vibhajjavadins really were the school predominant in Ceylon and Gandhara at an early date, as well as being present, if not predominant, in other parts of Central Asia, China, South India and South-East Asia by around the third century CE at the latest. No other school had a comparable spread at this date.[3]
TheMahāvihāraTheravādins ofSri Lanka are descendants of theSthavira Vibhajyavādins inSouth India who used thePali language, differing somewhat from the northern Sthavira schools.[17] TheTheravādins hold that Vibhajyavāda was the favored doctrine during aBuddhist council that took place inPataliputra underAshoka. As Gethin notes, the sources are rather confused on this matter however.[19]
TheSammatīyas (akaPudgalavādins) also mention the Vibhajyavādins.[15] According to the Sammatīya sect, the Vibhajyavādins developed from theSarvāstivāda school.[15]
The SarvāstivādinAbhidharma 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."[20][21]
TheMahāsāṃghika saw the Vibhajyavādins as being offshoots from the root schism in Buddhism, which according to them produced three sects: theSthaviras, the Mahāsāṃghikas, and the Vibhajyavādins.[15] The Mahāsāṃghikas list theMahīśāsaka,Dharmaguptaka,Kāśyapīya, andTāmraparnīya (Theravāda) sects as having descended from the Vibhajyavādins.[15] The Mahāsāṃghika branch itself, together with thePrajñaptivāda, preferred to be calledBahuśrutiya-Vibhajyavādins.[20]
.svg)