The Sarvāstivāda () was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Ashoka (third century BCE).Westerhoff, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, 2018, p. 60. It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven canonical Abhidharma texts.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61.
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 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."
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 (). Because of this, orthodox Sarvāstivādins who upheld the doctrines in the Mahāvibhāṣa were called Vaibhāṣikas.
Name 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 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."
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: , "all" or "every"; , "exist"; and , "speak", "say", or "theory". This agrees neatly with the Chinese term for the school—Shuōyīqièyǒu bù (),Taisho 27, 1545. literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything"—as used by Xuanzang and other translators.
The Sarvāstivāda path was also known by other names, such as—particularly in the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika branch— and . The former comes from the root , "cause", which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality; the latter, from , meaning "reason" or "logic", which may derive from their predilection for the use of rational argument and syllogism.
Origination and history
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. pp. 42–43. According to K. L. Dhammajoti, "its presence, as well as that of its rival—the Vibhajyavāda 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."Dhammajoti (2009), p. 55.
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 Northwest India where they developed into the Sarvāstivādin school.
There have been debates about the exact chronology of the Sarvastivādin emergence from the Sthavira Nikāya. According to the Theravādin Dīpavaṃsa, the Sarvāstivādins coalesced out of the older Mahīśāsaka school, but the and the state the opposite (i.e., that the Mahīśāsaka emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, rather)., p. 50..
Theravāda Buddhists have, at times, tendered accusations that the Sarvāstivādins were heavily influenced by the non-Buddhist Sāṅkhya school of philosophy.W. Woodhill Rockhill (2000 Reprint ), The Life of the Buddha and the Early History of His Order, Routledge, , pp. 11–19.(Max Müller et al., 1999 Reprint ), Studies in Buddhism, Asian Educational Services, , pp. 9–10. The important Buddhist philosopher Aśvaghoṣa, who may have been associated with Sarvāstivāda, states—in his influential —that Āḷāra Kālāma, the first of the young Buddha's teachers, followed an archaic form of Sāṅkhya..
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. It has been suggested that some yogic Sarvāstivādins, under early Mahāyāna influence, gave rise to Yogācāra, one of the most important and influential traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism.Deleanu, F. (Ed.). (2006). The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga): A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation and Introductory Study (2 Vol.), p. 162. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies.Kragh, U.T. (editor), The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, Volume 1, pp. 30–31. Harvard University, Department of South Asian Studies, 2013.
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 of Buddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with—respectively—the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda;Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 126. and the origins of the Sarvāstivāda have also been related to Ashoka's sending of Majjhantika (Sanskrit ) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early Sarvāstivādin presence. The Sarvāstivādins, in turn, are believed to have given rise to the Mūlasarvāstivāda 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 Mahākaśyapa, Ānanda, Madhyāntika, and Śāṇakavāsin; in the Ch'an tradition, he is regarded as the fourth.
Kushan era
The Sarvāstivāda enjoyed the patronage of the emperor Kanishka (c. 127–150 CE) of the Kushan 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 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 ("Course of Knowledge"). Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many (commentaries), the new Kashmiri had a Sanskrit ("great commentary"), compiled by the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda synod.Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61. The , and its , were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by the Kashmiri Sarvāstivādins, who called themselves .
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- works, such as the * (成實論); the * (T. no. 1550) and its commentaries (T. no. 1551, no. 1552); the of Vasubandhu (who critiqued some orthodox views) and its commentaries; and the * (順正理論) of master Saṃghabhadra (c. fifth century CE), who formulated perhaps 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 Suvarṇapuṣpa, the non-Mahāyāna Buddhist King of Kucha. Xuanzang described in many details the characteristics of Kucha, and probably visited the Kizil Caves. Of the religion of the people of Kucha, he says that they were Sarvastivādins:, also available in:
Doctrine
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.Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 19. 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 () 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;Poussin; Pruden, , Vol. 3, 1991, p. 808. these were generally found acceptable by the Sarvāstivādin sangha at large, so long as they did not outright contradict the core doctrine. Many such ideas can be seen in the , which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the "four great Ābhidharmikas of the Sarvāstivāda": Dharmatrāta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra, and Ghoṣaka.Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.
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 (), conjoining () and causal simultaneity (), and conditionality ( and ); a unique presentation of the spiritual path (); 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.
Sub-schools The Sarvāstivāda were a widespread group; there were several different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential being the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika schools. According to Cox, Willemen and Dessein:
Vaibhāṣika
The Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika school was formed by adherents of the (hereafter MVŚ) 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."Dhammajoti (2009), p. 76. 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 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 Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds (bīja) Revisited: With Special Reference to the Ideological Continuity Between Vasubandhu's Theory of Seeds and Its Śrīlāta/Dārṣṭāntika Precedents, by Park, Changhwan. PhD dissertation, University of California Berkeley: 2007. p. 2.)—were widely influential in India and beyond.A Study of the Abhidharmahṛdaya: The Historical Development of the Concept of Karma in the Sarvāstivāda Thought, by Wataru S. Ryose. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1987. p. 3. The Vaibhāṣika are sometimes referred to in the MVŚ as "the Ābhidharmikas", "the Sarvāstivāda theoreticians" and "the masters of Kāśmīra."Dhammajoti (2009), p. 73. In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as (the "doctrine of logic"), as well as (the "doctrine of causes").Dhammajoti (2009), pp. 56, 164.