The History of Buddhist Thought c20.52

c20.52

In this classification, which is largely made up by the enumeration of empirical items, it is not surprising that there was not perfect agreement in different schools. Even the Sarvāstivādins had variant lists of the saṃskāras.¹ There is a Theravādin list of fifty-one in Dhammasaṅgaṇi, but it does not entirely correspond to the forty-six of Vasubandhu, as it contains several of the group of those not associated with consciousness. The Kathāvatthu discusses several doctrines, which show other differences in detail. It rejects the view that there are still other uncompounded elements, such as the four Truths, and the Causal Formula (vi, 1), the view that there are no mental states other than mind (vii, 3), and that morality belongs to the non-conscious (x, 7). These instances show to what a large extent the doctrines discussed by the Kathāvatthu are of a minor character, and such as might be held within the same school. On all fundamental questions Theravādins and Sarvāstivādins were agreed. Throughout the whole work there are only three distinct doctrines said to be held by the Sarvāstivādins against the Theravādins, and only one of these affects the doctrine of the Path. It is the question of the falling back of an arhat (p. 131). New doctrines, it will be seen, do make their appearance, but they are intrusions arising out of the buddhological speculations of certain schools, not out of Abhidhamma.