Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c35.s3: The Sarvāstivāda

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c35.s3

Language
English

Contents

The Sarvāstivāda

v2.c35.s3.1

At the outset, it should be pointed out that the wide popularity of the Sarvāstivāda has put into shade all other schools, and that, particularly, for its propagation all over Northern India and in countries outside India, like Central Asia and China. Its origin should be placed some time after the Mahīśāsakas and the Mahāsaṅghikas. There is no doubt that it branched off from the Mahīśāsakas and not from the Theravādins directly as stated by Vasumitra and other writers of later days. These Sarvāstivādins should be distinguished from the Mūlasarvāstivādins,¹ who probably modified certain doctrines of the Sarvāstivādins, as also from the Vaibhāṣikas, in which name this school was latterly known from the time of Kaniṣka.²

v2.c35.s3.2

¹ I-tsing speaks of the Mūlasarvāstivādins. See Takakusu pp. xxiii-iv, 7-14, 20.

v2.c35.s3.3

² In Kashmir there were both Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas (ye vinayavidādayaḥ Sautrāntikā bhadantādayaḥ). The latter are described

v2.c35.s3.4

Vasubandhu, in his *Abhidharmakośa*, has the Kashmir Vaibhāṣikas more in view than the early Sarvāstivādins. This is due to the fact that the Vaibhāṣikas became more popular since the days of Kaniṣka and became predominant in Kashmir and Gandhāra.¹ The popularity of the early Sarvāstivādins was confined to Northern India around Mathurā, where it had its origin.

v2.c35.s3.5

¹ Prof. Takakusu writes (*JPTS.* 1904-5, p. 119) that the Sarvāstivādins were also distinguished in the *Vibhāṣā* as Kashmiri and Gandharian, but after compilation of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* the former eclipsed the latter and became known as Kāśmira-vaibhāṣikas, or simply Vaibhāṣikas.

v2.c35.s3.6

Prof. Przyluski² rightly traces the origin of the Sarvāstivāda school in the grouping of monks, shown in the account of the Second Council. He says that the monks collected by Yasa hailed mainly from two centres, of which one was Kausambī-Avanti and the other Mathurā. The former developed into the Theravāda and Mahīśāsaka schools while the latter into Sarvāstivāda, and both were opposed to the Mahāsaṅghikas whose centre was at Pāṭaliputra and Vesāli.

v2.c35.s3.7

² Przyluski *op cit.* p. 308

Succession of Teachers

v2.c35.s3.t1.1

If we turn to the succession of teachers (*ācariyaparamparā*) as given in almost all Sanskrit traditions, preserved in Tibetan, it will be observed that after Sambhūta Śāṇavāsi, the succession is recorded differently from that in Pāli. Buston and Tāranātha,³

v2.c35.s3.t1.2

³ See Buston, II, p. 108 He derived his information from the *Vinayakṣudraka* of the Mūlasarvāstivādins

v2.c35.s3.t1.3

in the *Kośa-Vyākhyā* (VIII. 32) as Vinaya-vid. There were also Vaibhāṣikas who lived outside Kashmir referred to in the *Kośa* as "bahir-deśakā Vaibhāṣikā."

v2.c35.s3.t1.4

tell us that Mahākassapa entrusted the guardianship of the Sangha to Ānanda, who in turn entrusted the same to Sambhūta Śāṇavāsi. The latter gave over the guardianship to Upagupta of Mathurā.¹ It is well-known that in the Sanskrit Avadānas, Upagupta is made the spiritual adviser of Aśoka as against Moggaliputta Tissa of the Pāli texts. This also lends support to the view that Mathurā became the first seat of the Sarvāstivādins soon after the Second Council, and that it was from Mathurā that the influence of the Sarvāstivādins radiated all over Northern India, particularly over Gandhāra and Kashmir.

v2.c35.s3.t1.5

¹ Upagupta was followed by Dhitika.

v2.c35.s3.t1.6

The propagation of Buddhism in Gandhāra and Kashmir has an independent history of its own. Both the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions state that Madhyāntika (Majjhantika) was responsible for the propagation of the religion in these two countries. Madhyāntika was a disciple of Ānanda and so he was a contemporary of Sambhūta Śāṇavāsi and senior to Upagupta. Madhyāntika is recognised as a teacher by the Sarvāstivādins. That Madhyāntika preached there Sarvāstivāda Buddhism in Kashmir is corroborated by the testimony of Hiuen Tsang who tells us that Aśoka not only sent Buddhist monks to Kashmir but also built monasteries at that place.² He writes that during Aśoka's reign there was in Magadha "a subtle investigator of name and reality, and who put his extraordinary thoughts in a treatise which taught heresy." An attempt was made to drown into the Ganges these monks who however saved themselves by flying through the air to Kashmir where they settled on the hills and the valleys. On hearing this, Aśoka felt remorse and requested them to return, and on their refusal, built for them 500 monasteries and "gave up all Kashmir for the benefit of the Buddhist church."' The fact underlying this story is that the "investigators of name and reality" were none other than the Sarvāstivādins, whose principal tenet is that nāma and rūpa are real and are divisible into 64 elements which exist for ever (sarvam asti), and it is for this they had the appellation of Sarvāstivāda.² Then the statement that they resorted to the hills and valleys of Kashmir corroborates the flight of the Sarvāstivādin monks to the north in Kashmir.

v2.c35.s3.t1.7

² Watters, I, p. 269.

v2.c35.s3.t1.8

² See Infra.

v2.c35.s3.t1.9

Yuan Chwang must have fallen into confusion in regard to the name Mahādeva. There were very probably two persons of this name "one an influential abbot of Pāṭaliputra"³ who preached the Devadūta-sūtra,⁴ and the other a monk who introduced the tenets relating to the imperfections of an Arhat.⁵ Mahādeva the investigator of name and reality must have been a Sarvāstivādin while the other Mahādeva, who attributed imperfections to an Arhat, was a Mahāsanghika. Yuan Chwang further confused the Theravādins with the Mahāsanghikas when he wrote that Aśoka supported the Mahāsanghikas against the Theravādins, and that 500 Arhats left Pāṭaliputra and propagated the Sthavira School in Kashmir, while the majority of the inferior brethren at Pāṭaliputra began the Mahāsanghika school.⁶ The Mahāsanghikas, as we know, lived originally at Vesālī and later on passed on to the south, making their principal centre in the Andhra country at Dhanakaṭaka (present Guntur District).

v2.c35.s3.t1.10

³ Watters, I, p. 269

v2.c35.s3.t1.11

⁴ Majjhima, III, 179.

v2.c35.s3.t1.12

⁵ Watters, I, p. 268. See above, pp 64, 84-8.

v2.c35.s3.t1.13

⁶ Watters, I, p. 269.

v2.c35.s3.t1.14

The statement that Aśoka became later on repentant and wanted the monks who fled to Kashmir to return to Magadha may be an indirect reference to the fact recorded in the *Divyāvadāna*¹ and *Aśokāvadāna*² that Aśoka made an attempt towards the end of his life to reconcile the monks of the different schools of Buddhist thought by convening a council to which he particularly invited the monks living at Tamasāvana in Kashmir. The Ceylonese chronicles maintain a discreet silence over this incident, and this is not unusual in view of the sectarian spirit permeating the chronicles.

v2.c35.s3.t1.15

¹ Watters, I, p. 267

v2.c35.s3.t1.16

¹ *Divyā.*, p. 399 वसन्ति काश्मीरपुरे म्याये ये चापि धोरणमसावनेऽवसन् । *IA*, 1895, pp. 241 ff.

v2.c35.s3.t1.17

² Prof. Przyluski writes in his *Légende de l'Empereur Aśoka*, pp. 101, 117 that a council of 30,000 monks was held by Aśoka, his sources of information being the *Aśokāvadāna* and Tāranātha (Schiefner p. 38) but we do not find any such reference in Tāranātha.

v2.c35.s3.t1.18

The Sarvāstivādins also claim Aśoka as their patron. They ignore the name of Moggaliputta Tissa and put in its stead the name of Upagupta as the spiritual adviser of Aśoka. The Avadāna literature of the Sarvāstivādins is full of episodes dealing with the life and munificence of Aśoka. Tāranātha also speaks of his lavish gifts to the Sarvāstivāda monks of Aparantaka, Kashmir and Tukhāra.³ Kalhaṇa⁴ writes that Aśoka not only built Śrīnagarī but also covered Suskaletra and Vitastrā with numerous stūpas, one of which was so high that its pinnacle could not be seen. Yuan Chwang noticed four Aśoka topes, each of which contained relics of Buddha's body. The Avadānas record that Aśoka's liberality to the Buddhist monks was carried to such an excess towards the end of his life that his grandson Sampadi⁵ who was in charge of his treasury refused to carry out his commands and even reduced his food to a myrobalan, half of which was the last gift made by him to the Buddhist Saṅgha.

v2.c35.s3.t1.19

³ Schiefner, p. 38.

v2.c35.s3.t1.20

⁴ Stein, I, p. 19.

v2.c35.s3.t1.21

⁵ *Divyā.*, p. 430. Tib སཾཔདི། It has been restored by Schiefner as Vāsavadatta, but it may also be Dhanadā or Sampadi.

v2.c35.s3.t1.22

Through the activities of the Sarvāstivādins, Kashmir became a centre of Buddhist philosophical studies¹ and was, according to Tāranātha, also the scene of the activities of Vatsa, the propounder of the Ātmaka theory (pudgalavāda) and the founder of the Vātsīputrīya or Sammitīya school.²

v2.c35.s3.t1.23

¹ See *Gilgit Ms.*, vol I, Intro

v2.c35.s3.t1.24

² Schiefner, p. 44. See *Infra*

Geographical Expansion

v2.c35.s3.t2.1

At the time of Aśoka, therefore, we may hold that there were two centres of the Sarvāstivādins, one at Mathurā with Upagupta as the head of the Saṅgha and the other in Kashmir with Madhyāntika as its founder. It may be that the latter centre became in course of time the seat of the Mūlasarvāstivādins and the Vaibhāṣikas. On account of the popularity of this school in the north, there is no reference to it in the early inscriptions of Central India. Among the donees mentioned in the Barhut and Sañcī inscriptions, the name of this sect does not appear.³ Its name appears in the inscriptions of later dates, like Kamasi inscription,⁴ Set Mahet Image inscription⁵ of the time of Kaniṣka or Huviṣka and inscriptions on the Mathurā Lion Capital.⁶ In the Sārnāth inscription it is incidentally stated that the Sarvāstivādins ousted the Theravādins there and they in turn were overrun by the Sammitīyas in 300 A.D.⁷ There is no reference to the Sarvāstivādins in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and the Amarāvati inscriptions.

v2.c35.s3.t2.2

³ See *JRAS.* 1892, p. 597

v2.c35.s3.t2.3

⁴ *EI.* II, p. 212.

v2.c35.s3.t2.4

⁵ *EI.* VIII, p. 111; IX, p. 29

v2.c35.s3.t2.5

⁶ *EI.*, IX, p. 135

v2.c35.s3.t2.6

⁷ See *Infra*

v2.c35.s3.t2.7

Very likely its progressive career had a set-back for some time during the reign of Puṣyamitra as is evidenced by the *Divyāvadāna* a text of this school but the several donations made during this period by the devotees prove that it was professed by a large section of the people. Its revival came with the invasions of the Græco-Bactrians, Śakas, Pahlavas, Parthians and Yavanas. The *Milindapañha*, the original of which was in Sanskrit, very likely belonged to this school.¹ The existence of this text shows that the Græco-Bactrian kings like Menander were interested in this religion. Its complete revival took place during the reign of the Śakas, and the popularity of this sect reached its climax in the reign of Kaniṣka.

v2.c35.s3.t2.8

¹ *Abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā*, ix, 12 (Jap ed.), p 708 refers to Nāgasena as *pūrvaka-sthavira*.

v2.c35.s3.t2.9

Fahien (319-414 A.D.) noticed the existence of this school at Pāṭaliputra while Yuan Chwang (629-645 A.D.) found it "chiefly in Kashgar, Udyana, and several other places in the Northern Frontier, in Matipur, Kanauj, and a place near Rājagṛha and also in Persia."² I-tsing came across the adherents of this school in Lāṭa, Sindhu, Southern and Eastern India, Sumatra, Java, China, Central Asia and Cochin China.³ From the above evidences it is apparent how widely popular was this school all over Northern India and outside India, but little known in Southern and Western India.

v2.c35.s3.t2.10

² *IPTS*., (Prof. Takakusu), 1904-5, p 71; Legge's *Fahien*, p. 99. *JRAS*., 1891, p. 420; Takakusu's *I-tsing*, pp. xxii-xxiv.

v2.c35.s3.t2.11

³ I-tsing, Intro.

Buston's information about the School

v2.c35.s3.t3.1

According to Buston, the founder of this school was Rāhulabhadra of the Kṣatriya caste "renowned for his devotion to discipline." The mantle worn by the members of this school had 25 to 29 fringes, and their badge had an *utpala* (a lotus), a jewel, and the leaf of a tree.⁴

v2.c35.s3.t3.2

⁴ Buston, II, p 100.

v2.c35.s3.t3.3

He further writes "Just as the high classes establish the mundane laws and customs of a country or race, in a similar manner the Sarvāstivādins as they spoke in Sanskrit, the language of the higher classes, represent the foundation of the other sect."¹

v2.c35.s3.t3.4

¹ Buston, II, pp 99-100

v2.c35.s3.t3.5

It cannot be definitely stated whether Buston had the Sarvāstivādins or the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins in mind.²

v2.c35.s3.t3.6

² Hiuen Tsang states that the Sarvāstivādins had a peculiar mode of wearing and colouring their robes not approved by the followers of several schools (Watters, I, pp 150 ff Takakusu, I-tsing)

Language and Literature

v2.c35.s3.t4.1

The Tibetan traditions corroborated by the recent finds of manuscripts in Eastern Turkestan leave no room for doubt about the fact that the Sarvāstivādins adopted grammatical Sanskrit (and not mixed Sanskrit) as the medium of their literature and that they possessed a complete canon of their own in three divisions Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma. The sub-divisions of these three piṭakas were also substantially the same as those in Pāli.

v2.c35.s3.t4.2

Our main source of information regarding the literature of this school is the Chinese and occasionally Tibetan versions of the Tripiṭaka, supplemented by the find of manuscripts in Central Asia, Eastern Turkestan, Gilgit and Nepal, and by quotations found in works like the Lalitavistara, Mahāvastu, Madhyamaka-vṛtti, Sūtrālaṅkāra of Asaṅga, Divyāvadāna, Abhidharmakośa with its Bhāṣya and Vyākhyā. It may be questioned whether the informations available about the literature of this school are of the Sarvāstivādins or of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins. For the present it is not possible to distinguish between the two.

v2.c35.s3.t4.3

but it seems that the Āgamas were common to both, so also were the Abhidharma texts. It is only in regard to Vinaya and a few Avadāna texts there might have some differences.

v2.c35.s3.t4.4

SŪTRAS: The Sūtra-Piṭaka of the Sarvāstivādins was divided into Āgamas corresponding to Nikāyas of the Pāli school. There were four Āgamas called Dīrgha, Madhyama, Saṃyukta and Ekottara. In the Kośa there are references to the Kṣudraka implying thereby the existence of a Kṣudrakāgama too. Prof. Akanuma has compared the Āgamas in Chinese with the Pāli Nikāyas' in detail and has come to the following conclusions: The Dīrghāgama contains 30 Sūtras as against 34 of the Dīgha Nikāya. Of the 13 suttas in the first volume of the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya, 3 only are omitted in the Dīrghāgama viz., Mahāli (no. 6), Jāliya (no. 7) and Subba (no. 10). All the suttas of the other two volumes are contained in this Āgama with a few in the Madhyamāgama. The order of arrangement of the sūtras in the Āgamas and Nikāyas differs widely, e.g., Mahāpadāna is the first sutta in the Āgama in place of Brahmajāla of the Nikāya. In the Āgama the order of sūtras is as follows: Mahāpadāna, Mahāparinibbāna, Mahāgovinda, Janavasabha, Aggañña, Cakkavatti, Sīhanāda, Pāyāsi, Udumbarika-Sīhanāda, Saṅgīti, Dasuttara, Mahānidāna, Sakka-pañha, Pāṭika, Siṅgālovāda, Pāsādika, Sampasādanīya, Mahāsamaya, Ambaṭṭha, Brahmajāla, Sonadaṇḍa, Kūṭadanta, Kevaṭṭa, Kassapa-sīhanāda, Tevijja, Sāmaññaphala, Poṭṭhapāda, Lohicca. The Āgama contains two other suttas.

v2.c35.s3.t4.5

Of these suttas, fragments of the Āṭānāṭiya and Saṅgīti have been discovered in Eastern Turkestan² and quotations from the Brahmajāla and Saṅgīti appear in the Abhidharmakośa.

v2.c35.s3.t4.6

¹ The Comparative Catalogue of Chinese Āgamas & Pāli Nikāyas. Japan. (1929).

v2.c35.s3.t4.7

² Hoernle, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist literature found in Eastern Turkestan.

v2.c35.s3.t4.8

The relation of the sūtras of the *Madhyamāgama* to those of the *Majjhima Nikāya* is similar to the *Dīgha*. Of the 152 suttas in the three volumes of the *Majjhima*, only 19 suttas are omitted in the Āgama, viz., *Cūḷasāropama* (no. 30), *Mahāsaccaka* (no. 36), *Sāleyyaka* (no. 41), *Verañjaka* (no. 42), *Kandaraka* (no. 51), *Jīvaka* (no. 55), *Kukkuravatika* (no. 57), *Abhayarājakumāra* (no. 58), *Apaṇṇaka* (no. 60), *Tevijja-Vacchagotta* (no. 71), *Ghoṭamukha* (no. 94), *Caṅkī* (no. 95), *Vāseṭṭha* (no. 98), *Saṅgārava* (no. 100), *Pañcattaya* (no. 102), *Kiṃtī* (no. 103), *Sunakkhatta* (no. 105), *Anupada* (no. 111) and *Bhaddekaratta* (no. 131). In the *Madhyamāgama*, there are in all 222 sūtras, 82 of which correspond to the suttas in the *Aṅguttara*, 10 to suttas in the *Saṃyutta*, 9 to those in the *Dīgha* and rest to suttas in the *Majjhima*. There are a few of these suttas in Pāli not found in the Āgama., while a few stray suttas correspond to passages in the *Suttanipāta*, *Thera-theri-gāthā* and Vinaya (*Mahāvagga*). In view of the mixture of the suttas from two or three Nikāyas in this Āgama we can hardly expect much agreement in the order of the arrangement of the sūtras.

v2.c35.s3.t4.9

Fragments of two sūtras of the *Madhyamāgama*, viz., *Upāli* and *Suka*, have been discovered in Eastern Turkestan.¹

v2.c35.s3.t4.10

¹ Hoernle, *op. cit.*

v2.c35.s3.t4.11

The agreement between the *Saṃyukta-Āgama* and *Saṃyutta Nikāya* is similar to that of the *Madhyamāgama* and *Majjhima Nikāya*. The *Sagāthavagga* (Sec. I) of the two piṭakas has much in common but not the *Nidānavagga* (Sec. II); the 8th and 9th chapters of *Nidāna*, viz., *Samaṇa-brāhmaṇa* and *Antarapeyyāla* are wanting in the Āgama, while the 1st and 5th chapters (*Buddha* and *Gahapati*) show marked differences. In the same section, *Abhisamaya*, *Dhātu* and other saṃyuttas are almost passed over in the Āgama, but there is much commonness in the following five Saṃyuttas: *Anamatagga*, *Kassapa*, *Lakkhana*, *Opamma* and *Bhikkhu*. In the *Khandha-vagga* (Section III) of the Āgama, the following saṃyuttas are wanting: *Okkan-tika*, *Uppāda*, *Kilesa*, *Sāriputta*, *Nāga*, *Gandhabbakāya*, *Valāha*, *Vacchagotta* and *Jhāna*. In the *Salāyatana-vagga* (Section IV), the following are absent: *Mātugāma*, *Moggallāna*, *Asaṅkhata*, *Sammappadhāna*, *Bāla* and *Iddhipāda*, while major portions of the *Magga*, *Indriya* and *Sacca* omitted.

v2.c35.s3.t4.12

The *Saṃyuktāgama*, as it exists in Chinese, is divided into 50 sections and incorporates a large number of suttas of the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* and a few of the other texts. There are also a few sūtras which have no parallels in Pāli.

v2.c35.s3.t4.13

A fragment of the *Śroṇasūtra* of this Āgama has been discovered in Eastern Turkestan while Prof. Sylvain Lévi traced a few quotations from this Āgama in the *Sūtrālaṃkāra* of Asaṅga,¹ and identified the following fragments from the collection of Grünwedel: *Kokanada-sūtra* (= *Aṅguttara*, V, pp. 196-198), *Anāthapiṇḍada-sūtra* (= *Aṅguttara*, V, pp. 185-189); *Dīrghana-kha sūtra* (= *Majjhima*, I, pp. 497-501), *Sarabha-sūtra* (= *Aṅguttara*, I, pp. 185-188); *Pravrājaka Sthavirasūtra* and *Brāhmaṇasatyāni sūtra* (= *Aṅguttara*, II, p. 185) — all included in the Chinese translation of the *Saṃyuktāgama*.²

v2.c35.s3.t4.14

¹ See Winternitz. p. 234 fn.

v2.c35.s3.t4.15

² *Toung Pao*, V. p 299.

v2.c35.s3.t4.16

The *Ekottarāgama* and the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* have very little in common. This is partly due to the fact that a large number of the suttas of the *Aṅguttara* is included in the *Madhyama* and *Saṃyukta Āgamas*. The Pāli text is much more extensive than the Sanskrit and it seems that the growth of this part of the Piṭaka took place independently of each other. From Akanuma’s comparative studies, the following may be pointed out as being more or less common in the two piṭakas: *Samacitta* (I, pp. 61-9), *Devadūta* (I, pp. 132-150), *Brāhmaṇa* to *Loṇaphala* (I, pp. 155-258), *Cakka* (II, pp. 32-44), *Muṇḍarāja* (III, pp. 45-62), *Nīvaraṇa* (III, pp. 63-79), *Āghāta* (III, pp. 185-202), *Devatā* to *Mahā* (III, pp. 329-420), *Avyākata* to *Mahā* (IV, pp. 67-139), *Gahapati* (IV, pp. 208-235), *Savitta* (V, pp. 92-112), *Upāsaka* (V, pp. 176-210), *Jānussoṇi* (V, pp. 249-273), and *Anussati* (V, pp. 328-358). This is not an exhaustive list, for there are stray agreements in other sections.

v2.c35.s3.t4.17

A fifth Āgama was not recognised by the schools other than the Theravāda. In the *Divyāvadāna* (pp. 17, 331, 333) and elsewhere the Āgamas are referred to as *Āgamacatuṣṭayam*. In the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions also, four Nikāyas are spoken of and not five. The Pāli *Khuddaka Nikāya* is really a collection not of discourses, short or long, but of a number of independent works which could not be included in one of the four Nikāyas. By *Khuddaka*, the Pālists probably meant "other works" or "miscellaneous works." Though the Sarvāstivādins did not have a fifth Nikāya, they had a few texts like the *Udānavarga*, *Suttanipāta* (*Aṭṭhaka* and *Pārāyaṇa* vaggas), *Sthavira-gāthā*, *Dharmapada*, *Vimānavastu*, and *Buddhavamsa*, which came later on to be collectively called *Kṣudrakāgama* (see above, p. 125).

v2.c35.s3.t4.18

VINAYA: Our information about the Vinaya texts of the Sarvāstivādins is derived solely from the catalogues of Chinese canonical literature. In Nanjio's Catalogue, we came across the following titles:—

v2.c35.s3.t4.19

(i) *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-mātṛkā*, translated by Saṅghavarman (445 A.D.): Ta'sho, xxii, 1441; Nanjio 1132.

v2.c35.s3.t4.20

(ii) *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā*, translator unknown (350-431 A.D.): Taisho xxiii, 1440; Nanjio 1135, 1136.

v2.c35.s3.t4.21

(iii) *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-saṅgraha*, compiled by the venerable Jinamitra, translated by I-tsing (700 A.D.); Nanjio 1127.

v2.c35.s3.t4.22

(iv) *Daśādhyāya-vinaya-nidāna*, translated by Vimalākṣa (being the preface to the *Daśādhyāya-vinaya*), Nanjio 1144.

v2.c35.s3.t4.23

(v) *Daśādhyāya-vinaya-bhikṣu-prātimokṣa*, translated by Kumārajīva (404 A.D.): Taisho xxiii, 1436; Nanjio 1160.

v2.c35.s3.t4.24

(vi) *Daśādhyāya-vinaya-bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa*, compiled by Fa-yin (420-479 A.D.): Taisho xxiii, 1437; Nanjio 1161.

v2.c35.s3.t4.25

(vii) *Daśādhyāya-vinaya* or the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, translated by Punyatara together with Kumārajīva (404 A.D.): Taisho xxiii, 1435; Nanjio 1115.

v2.c35.s3.t4.26

The principal text of the Sarvāstivādins was the *Daśādhyāya-vinaya*. Fa-hien writes that he came across a Sarvāstivāda-vinaya in verses, but the Chinese translation of the *Daśādhyāya-vinaya* attributed to the Sarvāstivādins is in prose. The *Daśādhyāya* (Taisho ed., xxiii, 1435) is divided into 14 sections. It opens with the eight sections of the Prātimokṣa-sūtra. The ninth section deals with “seven dharmas” viz., *śikṣāpada, poṣadha, pāpadeśanā, varṣāvāsa, carmavastu, bhaiṣajyavastu* and *cīvara* (precepts, fortnightly ceremonies, confession, dwelling in the rainy season, use of leather-shoes, use of medicines, and robes of monks). The tenth section contains “eight dharmas”, viz., *Kaṭhina, Kauśāmbi, Campā, Pāṇḍulohitaka, Saṅghāvaśeṣaparivāsa, Paṭicchādana, Śayanāsana* and *Āsamudācārika-dharma* (rules re. making of Kaṭhina-robes, dispute at Kauśāmbi, events at Campā, deeds of Pāṇḍulohitaka-monks, atonement for Saṅghāvaśeṣa-offences, concealment of irreligious acts, rules regarding bed and seat, and rules regarding proper conduct of monks).¹ The eleventh section entitled "saṃyutta", i.e. miscellaneous rules, deals with the dhūta and other extra-ordinary precepts observed by monks. The twelfth section is devoted to Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa containing, as it does, 8 Pārājikā, 17 Saṅghāvaśeṣa, 30 Naiḥsargikā, 78 Pāyantika, 8 Prātideśanīyā and Aṣṭa-dharmā. The thirteenth section re-arranges the preceding rules in the Ekottara style, from one to eleven dharmas. The concluding section, the fourteenth, contains the Upāli-paripṛcchā, a well-known text on disciplinary rules.²

v2.c35.s3.t4.27

¹ The titles of vastus (chapters) in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya are as follows: Pravrajyā, Poṣadha, Pravāraṇā, Varṣā, Carma, Bhaiṣajya, Cīvara, Kaṭhina, Kośāmbaka, Karma, Pāṇḍulohitaka, Pudgala, Pārivāsika, Poṣadhasthāpana and Saṃghabheda.

v2.c35.s3.t4.28

² See Bodhisattva-prātimokṣa-sūtra, Intro, p. 3 (IHQ., VII. 2).

v2.c35.s3.t4.29

This text contains almost all the chapters of the vinaya of the Theravādins and the Mūlasarvāstivādins,³ and apears to be a much shorter version of the text of the latter. From the title, one expects ten chapters, but actually there are fourteen, and so we have to assume that four of the fourteen chapters were later additions or were originally treated as supplements. The 11th, 13th and 14th chapters are no doubt later additions, but it is difficult to ascertain the fourth additional chapter. A close study of the Chinese translation along with the Sanskrit text of the Mūlasarvāstivādins will reveal the actual position.

v2.c35.s3.t4.30

³ For further details, see introduction to the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya, Gilgit Manuscripts, vol. III, pt. ii.

v2.c35.s3.t4.31

ABHIDHARMA: The Abhidharma literature of the Sarvāstivādins is fairly extensive. Apart from the well-known seven texts belonging to this school and the famous Vibhāṣā-śāstras of the Vaibhāṣikas, this school had to its credit a few other philosophical works written by Vasubandhu, Saṃghabhadra, Dharmatrāta and Dharmottara. None of these valuable works are available in original Sanskrit except the *Abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā* of Yaśomitra. The *Vyākhyā* is no doubt a mine of information and contains most of the philosophical topics discussed in the Abhidharma literature of the Sarvāstivādins. It may also be regarded as a quintessence of the seven Abhidharma texts. For a general idea of the several texts at the present moment, we shall have to depend on the valuable analysis of the Chinese translations of the texts made by Prof. Takakusu in the *J.P.T.S.*, 1904-5 and the notes left by Prof. Louis de la Vallée Poussin in his introduction to the French translation of the *Abhidharmakośa*. With the publication of the *Vyākhyā* it has become possible to comprehend the terms and nomenclatures suggested by Takakusu on the basis of the Chinese renderings and form a better idea of the contents of the texts. The seven texts claimed by the Sarvāstivādins as constituting their original Abhidharmapiṭaka are as follows¹:—

v2.c35.s3.t4.32

¹ *Kośa*, I, 9 & 11.

v2.c35.s3.t4.33

(i) *Jñānaprasthānasūtra* of Ārya Kātyāyaṇī-putra with its six supplements, (*ṣaṭ pādāḥ*), viz.,
(ii) *Prakaraṇapāda* of Sthavira Vasumitra
(iii) *Vijñānakāya* of Sthavira Devaśarmā
(iv) *Dharmaskandha* of Ārya Śāriputra
(v) *Prajñaptiśāstra* of Ārya Maudgalyāyana
(vi) *Dhātukāya* of Pūrṇa and
(vii) *Saṅgīti-paryāya* of Mahākauṣṭhila.

v2.c35.s3.t4.34

(1) The *Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra* is attributed to Ārya Kātyāyaṇīputra. In the *Kośa* it is stated that the actual author of the work is Buddha but the arrangements of chapters and topics had been made by Kātyāyaṇīputra and so its authorship is attributed to him. It was twice translated into Chinese, by Gotama Saṃghadeva of Kashmir and Chu Fo-nien, in the 4th century A.D. and by Hiuen-tsang in the 7th century. It is divided into eight sections. The first section contains exposition of laukikā-gradharmas, jñāna, pudgala, śraddhā, ahrīkatā, rūpa and its lakṣaṇa, anartha (?), and caitasikas (=supramundane topics,¹ knowledge, individuality, faith and reverence, lack of modesty, material constituents of the body and their characteristics, anartha (?) and mental states). The second section details the saṃyojanas or defilements which hinder the spiritual progress of an adept, and the causes of defilements. The third section is devoted to the acquisition of the knowledge (jñāna) (a) of doctrinal matters by which a sekha becomes an asekha, (b) of right and wrong views, (c) of the means of attaining six abhijñās, (d) of the four truths and of the acquisitions to be made in the four stages of sanctification. The fourth section details the evil words and acts with their consequences as also explains the vijñaptis and avijñapti². The fifth section gives an exposition of rūpaskandha, i.e., the four great elements and of things originating out of them, both internal and external. The sixth section analyses the 22 indriyas (predominant faculties) and the three spheres of existence viz., kāma, rūpa and arūpa, and explains in detail the sparśendriya, mūla-citta, etc. The seventh section is devoted to the mental states developed by an adept while he is in samādhi, and gradually advances from Sakadāgāmi to Anāgāmi stage. The last, the eighth section explains the four smṛtyupasthānas, the various wrong views, and such other matters.

v2.c35.s3.t4.35

¹ Kośa (Fr transl), Intro, p. xxx. See Infra. p. 153-4

v2.c35.s3.t4.36

² Kośa, I, 11.

v2.c35.s3.t4.37

Dr. Barua suggests that this work may be paralleled with the Pāli text *Paṭisambhidāmagga*.¹ There may be a verbal resemblance between the two texts, but the *Jñānaprasthāna* is written more on the lines of Buddhaghosa’s *Visuddhimagga* than on the *Paṭisambhidāmagga*. The title also suggests that the work is expected to contain topics leading to the highest knowledge, which, in other words, is purity or emancipation.

v2.c35.s3.t4.38

¹ Law, *History of Pāli Lit.*, I, p. 337.

v2.c35.s3.t4.39

The second book is entitled *Prakaraṇapāda*. Its authorship is attributed to Sthavira Vasumitra, who, according to the Chinese tradition, composed it in a monastery, at Puṣkarāvatī. It was translated into Chinese by Guṇabhadra and Bodhiyaśas of Central India (A.D. 435-443) and also by Hiuen-tsang (A.D. 659). The work is divided into eight chapters. The first defines *rūpa*, *citta*, *caitasikas*, *cittaviprayuktas* and *asaṃskṛtas*² (material constituents, mind, mental states, non-mental states, and the unconstituted). The second deals with the same topics as those discussed in the last two chapters of the third section of the *Jñānaprasthānasūtra*. The third explains the sense-organs and their spheres of action while the fourth defines several terms, such as *dhātu*, *āyatana*, *skandha*, *mahābhūmikas*² (cf. *Kośa*, II, 23, III, 32), etc. The fifth chapter analyses the *anuśayas* (dormant passions), while the sixth touches the *vijñeya*, *anumeya* and *anāsrava dharmas* (things to be known and inferred, and pure dharmas). The concluding chapter, the seventh, appears to be an index, containing all the technical terms with their meanings in short.

v2.c35.s3.t4.40

² See *Infra*, pp 135, 141-2

v2.c35.s3.t4.41

The third book, *Vijñāna-kāya* is attributed to Devaśarmā, who, according to Hiuen-tsang, compiled it at Viśoka near Śrāvastī, about a century after Buddha’s death. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-tsang (649 A.D.). It is divided into six chapters. It contains an exposition of *pudgala*, *indriya*, *citta*, *kleśa*, *vijñāna*, etc. as given by Maudgalyāyana, enumerates the different classes of beings, persons, etc., defines the function of mental states as *hetu* (cause) and *ālambana* (basis) of spiritual progress¹ and also of mental states of a perfect and an imperfect adept.² Prof. La Vallée Poussin remarks in his *Etudes Asiatiques* 1925 (i. 343-376) that the first two chapters contain the controversies relating to the existence of past and future, and of *pudgala* (soul).³

v2.c35.s3.t4.42

¹ *Kośa*, ii, 61-62

v2.c35.s3.t4.43

² *Kośa*, vii, 12

v2.c35.s3.t4.44

³ Cf. *Infra*, p. 137 f.

v2.c35.s3.t4.45

The fourth book is entitled *Dharmaskandha*. Its authorship is attributed to Śāriputra. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-tsang (659 A.D.). In the colophon of the Chinese translation this text is described as "the most important of the Abhidharma works, and the fountain-head of the Sarvāstivāda system". This book it seems appealed to the Chinese not for its subtleness and depth of philosophical discussions but for its comprehensiveness as outlining the general course of spiritual training prescribed for a Buddhist monk. This work also can be paralleled to the *Visuddhimagga* of Buddhaghosa. Its 21 sections are as follows: *Śikṣāpadas* or *Śīlas*; attainments leading to Srotaāpatti; development of faith in the Triratna; the fruits of four stages of sanctification, four *ariya-pudgalas*; *samyak-samkalpa* of the eight-fold path; attainment of *ṛddhipādas*; practice of *smṛtyupasthānas*; exposition of the *āryasatyas*; four *dhyānas*; four *apramāṇas*; four higher *samāpattis* (*ārūpyas*), practice of *bhāvanā*; exposition of *bodhyaṅgas*, and then an exposition of *indriyas*, *āyatanas*, *skandhas* and *dhātus*. Its concluding chapter explains the twelve terms of the formulæ of causation (*pratītyasamutpāda*).

v2.c35.s3.t4.46

The fifth book, *Dhātukāya*, is attributed to Pūrṇa in the Sanskrit and Tibetan tradition, and to Vasumitra by the Chinese writers. Prof. Takakusu remarks that the original Sanskrit had probably more than one recension. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-tsang (663 A.D.). The object of the treatise is to enumerate the dharmas, considered as ‘reals’ by the Sarvāstivādins. The dharmas are classified under the heads: 10 *mahābhūmikas*, 10 *kleśa-mahābhūmikas*, 10 *parittakleśas*, 5 *kleśas*, 5 *dṛṣṭis*, 5 *dharmas*, etc. This classification differs slightly from that found in Pāli texts or the *Abhidharmakośa*.¹ Prof. La Vallée Poussin thinks that this must be a very old text, which may be regarded as the source of the Pāli *Dhātukathā* also, as it discusses the *sampayutta* and *vippayutta* relations of the dharmas as has been done in the *Dhātukathā*.

v2.c35.s3.t4.47

¹ Cf. *Kośa* (Transl.), ii, p. 150 In *See Infra* p 141-2.

v2.c35.s3.t4.48

The sixth book *Prajñaptiśāstra* is attributed to Maudgalyāyana. It was translated into Chinese at a very late date (1004-1055 A.D.) by Fa-nu (=Dharmapāla) of Magadha. The Chinese text is incomplete. In Tibetan version this treatise is divided into three parts, viz., *lokaprajñapti*, *kāraṇaprajñapti* and *karmaprajñapti*. The *lokaprajñapti* appears in a well-digested form in the *Abhidharmakośa* (III). Prof. La Vallée Poussin has analysed the first two *prajñaptis* in the *Cosmologie bouddhique* (pp. 275-350).² In the *lokaprajñapti* the cosmological ideas of the Buddhists are given, in the *kāraṇaprajñapti* the characteristics that make a Bodhisattva are discussed while in the *karmaprajñapti* there is an enumeration and classification of different kinds of deeds.

v2.c35.s3.t4.49

² *Kośa*, Intro. p. xxxvii ff.

v2.c35.s3.t4.50

The seventh book *Saṅgītiparyāya* is attributed to Mahākauṣthila by Yaśomitra and Buston, and to Śāriputra by the Chinese writers. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-tsang (660-663 A.D.). This text was compiled, according to the introductory remarks, immediately after Buddha's death to avert disputes among the disciples regarding the Buddhist teachings and disciplinary rules. The scene of this text is laid at Pāvā, where the dissensions among the Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputtas started after the death of their teacher. It arranges the dharmas both doctrinal and disciplinary, numerically in the Ekottara style, i.e., gradually increasing the number of dharmas from one to ten. The contents of this text agree to a large extent with those of the Saṅgīti and Dasuttara suttantas¹ of the Dīghanikāya.

v2.c35.s3.t4.51

¹ Cf Dasuttara-sūtra in *Abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā* (Jap ed.), p 590

v2.c35.s3.t4.52

Besides these seven recognised texts of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharmapiṭaka, there were a few other digests and commentaries dealing with the topics of the Abhidharma. The exhaustive commentary on the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra was, of course, the Mahāvibhāṣā, compiled according to Paramārtha, by the Kātyāyaniputra himself with the assistance of Aśvaghoṣa of Sāketa. Among the digests, the most important work is Vasubandhu's *Abhidharmakośa*, which has got a bhāṣya written by Vasubandhu himself and a vyākhyā written by Yaśomitra. Then there are two other texts viz., *Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra* and *Abhidharma-samaya-pradīpikā*, attributed to Saṃghabhadra an opponent of Vasubandhu. Saṃghabhadra wrote these works to refute some of the theses of Vasubandhu, specially those which were in support of Sautrāntika views.

v2.c35.s3.t4.53

There was an earlier digest called the *Abhidharmasāra* written by Dharmaśrī. It contained eight chapters, viz., dhātu, saṃskāra, anuśaya, ārya, jñāna, samādhi, miscellaneous, śāstra-varga or vāda-varga².

v2.c35.s3.t4.54

² For details see La Vallée Poussin's Intro to the *Kośa*, p lxiii

v2.c35.s3.t4.55

Among other works of note belonging to this school we may mention *Śāriputrābhidharma*, *Abhidharmāmṛtaśāstra* of Ghoṣa, *Abhidharmahr̥daya* of Dharmottara and *Lokaprajñapti-abhidharmaśāstra* of an unknown author.

Doctrines

v2.c35.s3.t5.1

In the history of the secession of schools, it has been shown that the Sarvāstivādins belonged to the orthodox group, hence there are many points of agreement between the Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda doctrines.

v2.c35.s3.t5.2

I. Sabbam atthi

v2.c35.s3.t5.3

The principal point of difference between the two schools is that the Sarvāstivādins maintain the existence of 5 *dharmas* in their subtlest forms at all times, whether in the past, present or future, while the Theravādins deny any such existence. The former accept the fundamental creeds of Buddhism, *viz.*, *anatta* and *anicca* of all worldly things, and their contention is that the things constituted out of the *dharmas* at a particular time are subject to disintegration but not the *dharmas* themselves, which always exist in their subtlest state. *Vedanā*, for instance, may be *kuśala*, *akuśala* or *avyākr̥ta* at a particular time and place but it exists at all times.¹

v2.c35.s3.t5.4

¹ See *Points of Controversy*, Appendix pp 375-7

v2.c35.s3.t5.5

The *Kathāvatthu* (I. 6) presents the arguments and counter arguments of the Sarvāstivādins and the Theravādins thus: The Sarvāstivādins maintain that all *dharmas* exist but not always and everywhere and in the same form. In reply to the question whether khandhas which are all different by nature exist uncombined (*ayogam*), they answer in the negative. This, however, gives an opportunity to the Theravādins to show the fallacy that if all exist then both micchādiṭṭhi and sammādiṭṭhi exist together. Then again by equating past and future to present, the Theravādins show that if past and future exist then their existence should be predicated in the same way as of the present,¹ which the S. deny, saying that past and future exist but not exactly in the same way as one would speak of the present.

v2.c35.s3.t5.6

¹ This is repeated with each of the khandhas

v2.c35.s3.t5.7

The Th. take recourse to the second argument saying that let the ‘present material aggregate’ (paccuppanna-rūpa) be treated as one inseparable object; now, after some time has elapsed, this material aggregate becomes past, i.e., gives up its presentness (paccuppannabhāva) to which the S. agree; then in the same way can it be said that the material aggregate also gives up its materiality (rūpa-bhāva)? The S. deny the latter inference, reasoning thus,—let a piece of white cloth, be regarded as one inseparable object; now, when this cloth is coloured, it gives up its whiteness (like ‘paccuppannabhāva’ in the former case), but does it give up its clothness (like ‘rūpabhāva’ in the former case)? This disarms the opponents. The Th. however follow up this argument of the S. by suddhikanaya (pure logic) saying that if the material aggregate (rūpa) does not give up its materiality (rūpabhāva),² then rūpa becomes permanent, eternally existing like nibbāna—a conclusion not accepted by the S., as according to the latter rūpabhāva is different from nibbānabhāva.

v2.c35.s3.t5.8

² Cv rūpakkhandhena saṃgahitattā

v2.c35.s3.t5.9

The next question put by the Th. is whether past (atīta) gives up its pastness (atītabhāva)? The S. answer in the negative, but take care to note that when they say that atītabhāva exists they mean that anāgatabhāva (futurity) and paccuppannabhāva (presentness) do not exist like the atītabhāva, and similarly when they predicate existence of anāgatabhāva, they mean atīta- *bhāva* and *paccuppannabhāva* do not exist like *anāgatabhāva*. This general statement is then applied to each of the *khandhas*. The Th. round up the discussion by their usual *suddhikanaya* saying that *atīta* or *atītabhāva* then would be the same as *nibbāna* or *nibbānabhāva* a conclusion rejected by the S. The Th. then take to *vacanasodhana* (clearing up of verbal errors) saying that (i) if the existence of past (*atīta*) and non-past (*nātīta*) as also future (*anāgata*) and non-future (*nānāgata*) is denied then the S. should not say that past and future exist; so also (ii) if they do not accept the identity of *atīta*, *paccuppanna* and *anāgata*,¹ they cannot say that *atīta* and *anāgata* exist.

v2.c35.s3.t5.10

¹ By taking recourse to the discussion whether *hutvā hoti hutvā hoti* and *na hutvā na hoti, na hutvā na hoti*, the Th. show logically the untenability of the assertion of the S.

v2.c35.s3.t5.11

The next argument of the Th. is that if the S. admit that *paccuppannañāṇa* (present cognition) exists and it has the function of knowing things (*paccuppannam ñāṇam atthi, tena ñāṇena ñāṇakaraṇiyam karoti*) and then why not the *atītañāṇa* and *anāgatañāṇa*, the existence of which is affirmed by the S., should not have the function of knowing things in analogy to that of *paccuppannañāṇa*?² This the Th. consider as illogical and reject the contention of the S. that ‘*atītam ñāṇam atthi*’.

v2.c35.s3.t5.12

² In the text, this argument is elaborated by the application of this general statement to each of the sense-organs, (paras 23-28) as also to *hattha, pāda, pabba, kāya, āpo, tejo* and *vāyu* (paras 47-49).

v2.c35.s3.t5.13

The Th. now take up the cases of the Arhats, Anāgāmis, etc., and show that according to the S. who state *atīta rāga* exists in an Arhat, that *atīta byāpāda* exists in an Anāgāmi and so forth, an Arhat should be *sarāgo*, an Anāgāmi should be *byāpannacitto* and so on, but this inference is not accepted by the S.

v2.c35.s3.t5.14

The last argument resorted to by the Th. is that if the existence of *atīta*, *paccuppanna* and *anāgata* khandhas, dhātus, āyatanas be admitted, then the S. should say that there are (3 × 5 or) 15 khandhas, (3 × 18 or) 54 dhātus, (3 × 12 or) 36 āyatanas which the S. reject saying that they may accept the position that *atīta* or *anāgata* exists from one standpoint and does not exist from aother standpoint (*atthi siyā atītam* or *siyā nātītam* or *nanāgatan ti*). The Th. then bring in their *suddhikanaya* by citing the instance of *nibbāna* and establishes the futility of the assertion of the S. that past and future exist. Both the Th. and S. then quote passages from the Sutta Piṭaka in support of their own contentions, one however remaining unconvinced by the other. From the controversies dealt with above the following may be taken as the opinion of the S.:

v2.c35.s3.t5.15

1 The past and future, as usually understood, do not exist, though they are perceptible in the present.¹ In the same sense, the non-past and non-future should also be taken as non-existing.

v2.c35.s3.t5.16

¹ E.g. *anāgatam hutvā paccuppannam hoti* but *anāgata* is not identical with *paccuppanna* in the ordinary sense, though in *paccuppanna* there is (the dharma of) *anāgata* so in that sense *paccuppanna* is *anāgata*.

v2.c35.s3.t5.17

2 It is the *bhāva* of each of the five khandhas and not the khandhas persist in the past, present and future.

v2.c35.s3.t5.18

3 An object (*vastu*) may lose its pastness, presentness, or futurity but not its objectness (*vastutva*) but that objectness is not identical with *nibbāna* or *nibbānabhāva*.

v2.c35.s3.t5.19

4 An Arhat e.g., for instance, has *atīta rāga* but he is not therefore to be regarded as ‘*sarāgo*’.²

v2.c35.s3.t5.20

² Cf. the views of Śaila schools re. *anusaya*, pp. 92-94

v2.c35.s3.t5.21

The S. admit impermanency (*anityatā*) of the constituted things but they contend that the “dharmas” (or *bhāvas*) of the past are transmitted into the present and likewise the "dharmas" of the future are latent in the present. This we may illustrate, by citing the example of a sweet mango—the past mango seed transmits into the present "mangoness" if not the "sweetness" and similarly the "future mango" receives its "mangoness" from the present: the mango seed can never produce any other fruit though there may be a change in the quality and shape and colour of the mango. The S. speak of a being in the same way. According to them a being is composed of five dharmas (not five khandhas), viz., (i) citta (mind), (ii) caitasika (mental states), (iii) rūpa (matter), (iv) visamprayuktasamskāra (states independent of the mind),¹ and (v) asamskṛtas (the unconstituted).² The five dharmas (not elements as usually understood) persist in a

v2.c35.s3.t5.22

¹ In Vasumitra this appears also as a separate opinion of the S.: The phenomena jāti, jarā, sthiti, anityatā are cittavisamprayuktas but included in samskāraskandha. One of these four items, viz., jarā is discussed in the Kvu, (VII. 8) in the topic "jarāmaraṇam vipāko ti?" an opinion of the Andhakas, the Kvu, supporting the opposite view that "jarāmaraṇam" is not vipāka.

v2.c35.s3.t5.23

² These five are sub-divided into seventy-five thus:—

v2.c35.s3.t5.24

| I | Rūpa (11): | (a) viṣaya (5) | (b) indriya (5) | (c) aviññapti (1) |
| | | (1) rūpa | (1) cakṣurindriya | |
| | | (ii) śabda | (ii) śrotrendriya | |
| | | (iii) gandha | (iii) ghrāṇendriya | |
| | | (iv) rasa | (iv) jihvendriya | |
| | | (v) sparśa | (v) kāyendriya | |
| II | Citta (1) | | | |
| III. | Caitasikas (46): | | | |
| | | (a) Mahābhūmika (10) | | |
| | | (i) vedanā | (vi) mati or prajñā | |
| | | (ii) saṃjñā | (vii) smṛti | |
| | | (iii) cetanā | (viii) manaskāra | |
| | | (iv) sparśa | (ix) adhimokṣa | |
| | | (v) chanda | (x) samādhi | |

v2.c35.s3.t5.25

being, the present being the resultant of the past, and potential of the future. An adept after becoming a sotāpanna remains so

v2.c35.s3.t5.26

(b) *Kuśalamahābhūmika* (10)
(i) śraddhā (vi) alobha
(ii) virya (vii) adveśa
(iii) upekṣā (viii) ahiṃsā
(iv) hrī (ix) praśrabdhi
(v) apatrāpya (x) apramāda

v2.c35.s3.t5.27

(c) *Kleśa-mahābhūmika* (6) (d) *Akuśala-mahābhūmika* (2)
(i) moha (i) ahrikatā
(ii) pramāda (ii) anapatrāpya
(iii) kauśidya
(iv) aśraddhya
(v) styāna
(vi) auddhatya

v2.c35.s3.t5.28

(e) *Upakleśa-bhūmika* (10) (f) *Aniyata-bhūmika* (8)
(i) krodha (i) kaukṛtya
(ii) mrakṣa (ii) middha
(iii) mātsarya (iii) vitarka
(iv) irṣyā (iv) vicāra
(v) pradāśa (v) rāga
(vi) vihiṃsā (vi) pratigha
(vii) upanāha (vii) māna (viii) māyā (viii) vicikitsā
(ix) śāthya
(x) mada

v2.c35.s3.t5.29

IV *Citta viprayukta* (14)
(i) prāpti (viii) jāti
(ii) aprāpti (ix) sthiti
(iii) sabhāgatā (x) jarā
(iv) asaṃjñika (xi) anityatā
(v) asaṃjñi-samāpatti (xii) nāmakāya
(vi) nirodha-samāpatti (xiii) padakāya
(vii) jīvita (xiv) vyañjana kāya

v2.c35.s3.t5.30

V *Asaṃskṛta* (3). (i) ākāśa
(ii) pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha
(iii) apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha.

v2.c35.s3.t5.31

See Rosenberg, *Die probleme der buddhistischen philosophie* p 128-9. Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana, *Abhidharma-kośa*, Table III in his following existence proving thereby that his past *dharma* continues and the three *saṃyojanas*¹ remain ineffective. It may be argued by the Th. that the three *saṃyojanas* have altogether disappeared; then the Sarvāstivādins may cite the instance of the Sakadāgamin as a better illustration. A Sakadāgamin reduces *rāga*, *dosa* and *moha* to the minimum, and in his following births that state continues, proving thereby the continuity of past "dharmas". Now we may pass on to the case of Arhats. The Arhats, it will be seen, become completely free from *rāga*, *dosa* and *moha*; according to the Th. they are destroyed for ever but according to the S., these *rāga*, *dosa* and *moha* persist though in an ineffective form and these may reappear and cause an Arhat fall from the Arhathood—a topic discussed in the *Kvu.* (I. 2) and attributed by Buddhaghosa to the S., viz., *Parihāyati arahā arahattā ti*?²

v2.c35.s3.t5.32

¹ Viz., *sakkāyadiṭṭhi, sīlabbataparāmāsa, vicikicchā*

v2.c35.s3.t5.33

² For its exposition, see ante, p. 84 f.

v2.c35.s3.t5.34

In Kārikas 25-27 of the fifth Kośasthāna of the *Abhidharmakośa*,³ there is a detailed exposition of the main thesis of the Sarvāstivādins, viz., *Sarvam asti*: The contention of the S. that the dharmas exist in the past, present and future rests on certain statements found in the Āgamas, one of which is as follows:—

v2.c35.s3.t5.35

³ See Stcherbatsky, *Central Conception of Buddhism*, Appendix, pp. 76-91; La Vallée Poussin's Fr. transl. of *Kośa*, V 25-27, Rāhula Sānkrityāyana, *Abhidharmakośa*.

v2.c35.s3.t5.36

रूपमनित्यमतीतमतनागतम्। कः पुनर्वादः प्रत्युत्पन्नस्य। एवंदर्शी श्रुतवान् आर्यश्रावकोऽतीते रूपेऽनपेक्षो भवति। अनागतं रूपं नाभिनन्दति। प्रत्युत्पन्नस्य रूपस्य निर्विदे विरागाय निरोधाय प्रतिपन्नो भवति।

v2.c35.s3.t5.37

The exposition given in the *Kathāvatthu* speaks of "*bhāvanyathātva*" of Dharmatrāta, see p 145.

v2.c35.s3.t5.38

[*Rūpa* (material constituents of a being) whether past or future is impermanent, not to speak of the present. A learned *Śrāvaka*, who realises this, remains unconcerned of past *rūpa*, does not rejoice at his future *rūpa* and exerts to rid his mind of the present *rūpa*].¹

v2.c35.s3.t5.39

¹ See *M. Vr.*, p 444; cf. Bhaddekaratta-sutta in *Majjhima*, III, p 187:

v2.c35.s3.t5.40

On the authority of this statement taken literally (*kaṇṭhataḥ*) the S. contend that if past *rūpa* do not exist, there is no necessity of instructing an adept to remain unconcerned of the same. In the same way it may be said of the future and the present.²

v2.c35.s3.t5.41

² *Kośa-vyākhyā* (Jap. ed.), p. 468: अतीतं चेद्भिक्षो रूपं नाभविष्यत् श्रुतावानार्यश्रावकोऽतीते रूपेऽनपेक्षोऽभविष्यत् । यस्मात्तर्ह्यतीतं रूपम् । तस्माच्छ्रुतवानार्यश्रावकोऽतीते रूपेऽनपेक्षो भवति । अनागतं चेद्रूपं नाभविष्यत् श्रुतावानार्यश्रावकोऽनागतं रूपन्नाभिनन्दिष्यत् । यस्मात्तर्ह्यनागतं रूपम् । तस्माच्छ्रुतवानार्यश्रावकोऽनागतं रूपं नाभिनन्दति । प्रत्युत्पन्नं चेद्भिक्षो रूपं नाभविष्यदिति विस्तरः ।

v2.c35.s3.t5.42

The same statement when interpreted (*arthataḥ*) yields a further argument, *viz.*, every *vijñāna* (perception, cognition) requires the combination of two things, the sense-organ and its object. Now, one speaks of *mano-vijñāna* (mental perception, cognition) of past acts or things. This also implies the existence of past acts or objects, otherwise how could there be *mano-vijñāna* of the same. The same argument is applicable to future acts or objects.³

v2.c35.s3.t5.43

³ *Ibid.* p. 469: न ह्यं प्रतीत्य मनोविज्ञानं स्यात् । यदतीतानागतालम्बनमिति विशेषः । ततो विज्ञानमेव स्यात् चालम्बमात्वादिति ।

v2.c35.s3.t5.44

Then again if there be no past, how can one speak of an effect due to past good or bad deeds. At the moment

v2.c35.s3.t5.45

Atītaṃ nānvāgameyya, nappaṭikaṅkhe anāgataṃ
Yad atītaṃ pahīnaṃ taṃ, appattañ ca anāgataṃ
Paccuppannaṃ ca yo dhammaṃ tattha tattha vipassati
Asaṃhīraṃ asaṃkuppaṃ taṃ vidvā manubrūhaye.

v2.c35.s3.t5.46

when the effect is produced there is the *vipākabetu*, which is past.¹

v2.c35.s3.t5.47

¹ *Kośa-vyākhyā*, (Jap. ed.), p. 469: विद्यमान-लक्षणं सुभाशुभमततीतं कर्म । विपाक्काल उत्पद्यमानफलत्वात् । वर्तमान धर्मवदिति ।

v2.c35.s3.t5.48

For the reasons stated above, the S. affirm the existence of past and future *dravyas* only and not of *bhāva*, *lakṣaṇa*, or *avasthā*.

v2.c35.s3.t5.49

Among the Sarvāstivādins again, there are four different opinions, which are as follows:—

v2.c35.s3.t5.50

(i) *bhāvānyathātva*: Bhadanta Dharmatrāta maintains that the past, present and future are differentiated on account of the non-identity of *bhāva* and not of *dravya* e.g. when a vase of gold is broken and transformed into a figure of gold, colour remaining the same or when milk is transformed into whey, changing the taste, strength and digestibility but not its colour. In the same way when future *dharma* is changed to present, the *anāgata-bhāva* only is abandoned and the *vartamāna-bhāva* is acquired, *dravya* remaining identical; in the same way the change of the present into past may be explained, i.e., when the present *bhāva* is abandoned and the past *bhāva* is acquired, the *dravya* remains identical.

v2.c35.s3.t5.51

(ii) *lakṣaṇānyathātva*: Bhadanta Ghoṣaka and others maintain that the *dharmas* in their transition from past to present, and present to future, undergo changes in characteristics (*lakṣaṇas*) only. A *dharma*, when it is past, is associated (*yukta*) with the *lakṣaṇas* of the past, but it is not dissociated (*aviyukta*) from the *lakṣaṇas* of the present and future, so also a future *dharma* is associated (*yukta*) with the *lakṣaṇas* of the future but not dissociated from the *lakṣaṇas* of the present and past; in the same way one can speak of the present. By way of illustration, it may be said that when a man is attached (rakta) to a woman, he is not detached (avirakta) from other women.¹

First 154 of 300 passages. Read on

Linked texts (88)