The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda (; ; ; ) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Ashoka (third century BCE). It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven canonical Abhidharma texts.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins 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 MahÃÂvibhÃÂá¹£a à ÂÃÂstra around the time of the reign of Kanishka (). Because of this, orthodox SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins who upheld the doctrines in the MahÃÂvibhÃÂá¹£a were called VaibhÃÂá¹£ikas.
There have been debates about the exact chronology of the SarvastivÃÂdin emergence from the Sthavira NikÃÂya. According to the TheravÃÂdin Dëpavaá¹Âsa, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins coalesced out of the older Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka school, but the and the state the opposite (i.e., that the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka emerged from the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, rather). The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins are believed to have given rise to the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda and SautrÃÂntika schools, although the relationship between these groups has not yet been fully determined. It has been suggested that some yogic SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, under early MahÃÂyÃÂna influence, gave rise to YogÃÂcÃÂra, one of the most important and influential traditions of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism.
TheravÃÂda Buddhists have, at times, tendered accusations that the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins were heavily influenced by the non-Buddhist SÃÂá¹ khya school of philosophy. Nevertheless, the important Buddhist philosopher Aà Âvaghoá¹£a, who may have been associated with SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, statesâÂÂin his influential âÂÂthat ÃÂḷÃÂra KÃÂlÃÂma, the first of the young Buddha's teachers, followed an archaic form of SÃÂá¹ khya.
is a Sanskrit term that can be glossed as: "the theory of all that exists". The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda 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 SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin."
Although there is some dispute over how the word "SarvÃÂstivÃÂda" 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 schoolâÂÂShuà ÂyëqièyÃÂu bù (), literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything"âÂÂas used by Xuanzang and other translators.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda path was also known by other names, such asâÂÂparticularly in the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda-VaibhÃÂá¹£ika branchâ 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.
According to Charles Prebish, "there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin school." According to K. L. Dhammajoti, "its presence, as well as that of its rivalâÂÂthe VibhajyavÃÂda lineageâÂÂin the time of Emperor Aà Âoka is beyond doubt. Since Aà Âoka's reign is around 268âÂÂ232 BCE, this means that at least by the middle of the 3rd century BCE, it had already developed into a distinct school."
According to some accounts, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins emerged from the Sthavira NikÃÂya, a small group of conservatives, who split from the reformist majority MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas at the Second Buddhist Council. According to this account, they were expelled from Magadha, and moved to Northwest India where they developed into the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin school.
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 withâÂÂrespectivelyâÂÂthe Dharmaguptaka, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, and the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda; and the origins of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda have also been related to Ashoka's sending of Majjhantika (Sanskrit ) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin presence. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, in turn, are believed to have given rise to the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda sect, although the relationship between these two groups has not yet been fully determined. According to Prebish, "this episode corresponds well with one SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin 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 SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin monks was established at Mathura by the patriarch Upagupta. In the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin tradition, Upagupta is said to have been the fifth patriarch after MahÃÂkaà Âyapa, ÃÂnanda, MadhyÃÂntika, and à ÂÃÂá¹ÂakavÃÂsin; in the Ch'an tradition, he is regarded as the fourth.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda enjoyed the patronage of the emperor Kanishka (c. 127âÂÂ150 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 SarvÃÂstivÃÂda school held a synod in Kashmir during the reign of Kanishka II (c. 158âÂÂ176), the most important SarvÃÂstivÃÂda 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 SarvÃÂstivÃÂda synod. The , and its , were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by the Kashmiri SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, who called themselves .
This new VaibhÃÂá¹£ika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by all SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins: 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 * (æÂÂ實è«Â); 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 * (é Âæ£çÂÂè«Â) of master Saá¹Âghabhadra (c. fifth century CE), who formulated perhaps the most robust VaibhÃÂá¹£ika response to the new criticisms.
When the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited Kucha in the Tarim Basin in 630 CE, he received the favours of Suvará¹Âadeva, the son and successor of Suvará¹Âapuá¹£pa, the non-MahÃÂyÃÂna 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 SarvastivÃÂdins:<br>
As their name suggests, a central doctrine of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda 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. 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 fruitionâÂÂeven though the cause thereof () can only be some action taken in the past.
Among the different SarvÃÂstivÃÂda thinkers, there were different ideas as to how this "all dharmas exist" theory was to be understood; these were generally found acceptable by the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin 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 ÃÂbhidharmikas of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda": DharmatrÃÂta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra, and Ghoá¹£aka.
The teachings of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda 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.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda were a widespread group; there were several different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential being the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika and the SautrÃÂntika schools. According to Cox, Willemen and Dessein:
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda-VaibhÃÂá¹£ika school was formed by adherents of the (hereafter MVà Â) during the council of KashmirâÂÂthough, 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 MVà  compilers. Moreover, the evolving nature of the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika views must be recognized as well." After its emergence, it comprised the orthodox or mainstream branch of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda in KÃÂà Âmëra, though it was not exclusive to this region.
The VaibhÃÂá¹£ikaâÂÂwhich had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the early Buddhist schoolsâÂÂwere widely influential in India and beyond. The VaibhÃÂá¹£ika are sometimes referred to in the MVà  as "the ÃÂbhidharmikas", "the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda theoreticians" and "the masters of KÃÂà Âmëra." In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as (the "doctrine of logic"), as well as (the "doctrine of causes").
The VaibhÃÂá¹£ika school saw itself as the most orthodox SarvÃÂstivÃÂda tradition, and its adherents were united in their defense of the core SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin principle of "all exists" (); that is, the doctrine that all dharmasâÂÂpast, present, and futureâÂÂexist, which has been described as an eternalist theory of time. While the VaibhÃÂá¹£ikas held that the dharmas of the "three times" all had some form of existence, they taught also that only present dharmas have "efficacy" (); thus, they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.
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 VaibhÃÂá¹£ika held that dharmas have a constant "essence" () which persists through all three. The term was also identified as a unique mark or self-characteristic () that differentiated a dharma, and which remained unchangeable throughout its existence. According to the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika, are those things that exist substantially (), as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus have only a nominal existence ().
The SautrÃÂntika ("those who uphold the sà «tras"), also known as the (who may or may not have been a separate but related group), did not uphold the primacy of the but rather emphasized the sà «tras as being authoritative.
Already by the time of the MVà Â, the early DÃÂrá¹£á¹ÂÃÂntika monksâÂÂsuch as DharmatrÃÂta and BuddhadevaâÂÂexisted as a school of thought within the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin fold, which disagreed with the orthodox views of the larger sect. The adherents of this nascent school were also referred to as the "western masters" () or the "foreign masters" (; also called the "masters outside Kaà Âmëra" and the "GandhÃÂran masters"). They studied the same Abhidharma texts as the rest of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, but in a more critical way; according to Dhammajoti, they eventually came to repudiate the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda doctrine of "all exists."
It is this groupâÂÂi.e., those who rejected that most important SarvÃÂstivÃÂda doctrine (along with numerous key VaibhÃÂá¹£ika views)âÂÂwhich came to be called the SautrÃÂntika ("those who rely on the sà «tras"). However, the SautrÃÂntikas did not reject the Abhidharma method; in fact, they were themselves the authors of several Abhidharma manuals, such as the . The later Buddhist tradition of , founded by the Buddhist monks DignÃÂga and Dharmakërti, is also associated with the SautrÃÂntika school.
The most important SautrÃÂntika was Vasubandhu (c. 350âÂÂ430), a native of Purusapura in Gandhara. He is famous for being the author of the (4âÂÂ5th century CE), a very influential Abhidharma work, with an auto-commentary that defends the SautrÃÂntika views. He famously later converted to the YogÃÂcÃÂra school of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism, a tradition that itself developed out of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Abhidharma.
Vasubandhu's led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant VaibhÃÂá¹£ika master Saá¹Âghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the *, a commentary upon Vasubandhu's verses meant to refute his views and those of other SautrÃÂntika monks (such as Sthavira à ÂrëlÃÂta and his pupil RÃÂma). The was so influential that it became the Abhidharma text par excellence in both Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and East Asian Buddhism, and remains the primary source for Abhidharma studies.
There is much uncertainty as to the relationship between the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda (meaning root- or original-SarvÃÂstivÃÂda) school and the others. They were certainly successful in spreading their Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda 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 by Yijing.
A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related, including:
The Dharmaguptaka are known to have rejected the authority of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda rules, on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.
The complete SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya was the most common Vinaya tradition in China. However, Chinese Buddhism later settled on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. In the 7th century, Yijing wrote that in Eastern China, most people followed the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang'an), and that the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya was prominent in the Yangzi River area and further south. In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticized by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing and Dao'an (654–717). In the early 8th century, Dao'an gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the Saá¹Âgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.
Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of sà «tras from the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda school" thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of the Dërgha ÃÂgama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama ÃÂgama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Saá¹ ghadeva) and Saá¹Âyukta ÃÂgama (T99, Chinese trans. Guá¹Âabhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda is therefore the only early school besides the TheravÃÂda for which we have a roughly complete sà «tra collectionâÂÂalthough, unlike the TheravÃÂda, it has not all been preserved in the original language.
During the first century, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Abhidharma primarily consisted of the authored by Dharmashresthin, a native from Tokharistan, and the Ashtagrantha authored or compiled by Katyayaniputra. 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 SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Abhidharma consists of seven texts:
Following these are the texts that came to be taken as authoritative by the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika:
All of these works have been translated into Chinese, and are now part of the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the word refers to the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, PudgalavÃÂda and TheravÃÂda also had Abhidharmas.
Various other Abhidharma works were written by SarvÃÂstivÃÂda masters, some are more concise manuals of Abhidharma, others critiqued the orthodox VaibhÃÂá¹£ika 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, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which described the color of monastic robes (Skt. ) utilized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (). Another text translated at a later date, the , contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information. In the earlier source, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins are described as wearing dark red robes, while the Dharmaguptakas are described as wearing black robes. However, in the corresponding passage found in the later , the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmagupta as wearing dark red robes.
In Tibetan Buddhism monasticism, which follows the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya, red robes are regarded as characteristic of their tradition.
During the first century BCE, in the Gandharan cultural area (consisting of Oddiyana, Gandhara and Bactria, Tokharistan, across the Khyber Pass), the Sthaviras used the GÃÂndhÃÂrë language to write their literature using the Kharosthi script.
The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas used PrÃÂkrit, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins used Sanskrit, the Sthavira NikÃÂya used Paià ÂÃÂcë, and the Saá¹Âmitëya used Apabhraá¹Âà Âa.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins of KÃÂà Âmëra held the as authoritative, and thus were given the moniker . The is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time of Kaniá¹£ka (127âÂÂ151) of the Kushan Empire. This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities to MahÃÂyÃÂna doctrines. The is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the HënayÃÂna and MahÃÂyÃÂna traditions, as well as the means by which MahÃÂyÃÂna doctrines would become accepted. The also defines the MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described as doctrines, with "Vaipulya" being a commonly used synonym for MahÃÂyÃÂna. The reads:
According to a number of scholars, MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism flourished during the time of the Kuá¹£ÃÂá¹Âa Empire, and this is illustrated in the form of MahÃÂyÃÂna influence on the . The also records that Kaniá¹£ka presided over the establishment of PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàdoctrines in the northwest of India. ÃÂtienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a SarvÃÂstivÃÂda master is known to have stated that the MahÃÂyÃÂna were to be found amongst their own Vaipulya sà «tras. According to Paul Williams, the similarly massive Da Zhidu Lun also has a clear association with the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins.
The VaibhÃÂá¹£ika and SautrÃÂntika subschools are both classified in the Tibetan tenets system as the two tenets of the HënayÃÂna, ignoring other early Indian Buddhist schools, which were not known to the Tibetans.
SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin meditation teachers also worked on the DhyÃÂna sà «tras (), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.