The SautrÃÂntika or Sà «travÃÂda (, SuttavÃÂda in Pali; ; ; ) was an early Buddhist school generally believed to be descended from the Sthavira NikÃÂya by way of their immediate parent school, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins. While they are identified as a unique doctrinal tendency, they were part of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya lineage of monastic ordination.
Their name means literally "the conclusions of the sà «tras" where sà «tra is lengthened into the vá¹Âddhi derivative sautra, and combined with the word anta, meaning end or conclusion, with a final nominal marker ika (compare with the term VedÃÂnta), meaning their philosophy is derived from the sà «tras. As stated by the commentator Yasomitra, they hold the sà «tras, but not the Abhidharma commentaries (à ÂÃÂstras), as authoritative. The views of this group first appear in the Abhidharmakoà ÂabhÃÂá¹£ya of Vasubandhu.
The name SautrÃÂntika indicates that unlike other North Indian Sthaviras, this school held the Buddhist sà «tras as central to their views, over and above the ideas presented in the Abhidharma literature. The SarvastivÃÂda scholar Saá¹Âghabhadra, in his NyÃÂyÃÂnusÃÂra, attacks a school of thought named Sautrantika which he associates with the scholars à ÂrëlÃÂta and his student Vasubandhu. According to Saá¹Âghabhadra, a central tenet of this school was that all sà «tra is explicit meaning (nitartha), hence their name.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins sometimes referred to them as the school, meaning "those who utilise the method of examples." This latter name may have been a pejorative label. It is also possible that the name "DÃÂrá¹£á¹ÂÃÂntika" identifies a predecessor tradition, or another related, but distinct, doctrinal position; the exact relationship between the two terms is unclear. Charles Willemen identifies the SautrÃÂntika as a western branch of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, active in the Gandhara area, who split from the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins sometime before 200 CE, when the SautrÃÂntika name emerged. Other scholars are less confident of a specific identification for the SautrÃÂntika; Nobuyoshi Yamabe calls specifying the precise identity of the SautrÃÂntika "one of the biggest problems in current Buddhist scholarship".
The founding of the SautrÃÂntika school is attributed to the elder KumÃÂralÃÂta (c. 3rd century CE), author of a "collection of dá¹Âá¹£tÃÂnta" (Dá¹Âá¹£tÃÂntapaá¹ kti) called the KalpanÃÂmaá¹Âá¸ÂitëkÃÂ. The SautrÃÂntikas were sometimes also called "disciples of KumÃÂralÃÂta". According to Chinese sources, Harivarman (250âÂÂ350 CE) was a student of KumÃÂralÃÂta who became disillusioned with Buddhist Abhidharma and then wrote the Tattvasiddhi-à ÂÃÂstra in order to "eliminate confusion and abandon the later developments, with the hope of returning to the origin." The Tattvasiddhi was translated into Chinese and became an important text in Chinese Buddhism until the Tang Dynasty.
Other works by SautrÃÂntika affiliated authors include the AbhidharmÃÂmá¹Âtarasa-à ÂÃÂstra attributed to Ghoá¹£aka, and the AbhidharmÃÂvatÃÂra-à ÂÃÂstra attributed to Skandhila. The elder à ÂrëlÃÂta, who was Vasubandhu's teacher is also known as a famous SautrÃÂntika who wrote the SautrÃÂntika-vibhÃÂá¹£a. Ghoá¹£aka's AbhidharmÃÂmá¹Âtarasa and Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi have both been translated into English.
The Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu wrote the famous Abhidharma work Abhidharmakoà ÂakÃÂrikàwhich presented SarvÃÂstivÃÂda-VaibhÃÂá¹£ika Abhidharma tenets, he also wrote a "bhÃÂá¹£ya" or commentary on this work, which presented critiques of the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika tradition from a SautrÃÂntika perspective. The Abhidharmakoà Âa was highly influential and is the main text on Abhidharma used in Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism up until today.
Buddhist logic (pramÃÂá¹ÂavÃÂda) as developed by DignÃÂga and Dharmakërti is also associated with the SautrÃÂntika school.
No separate Vinaya (monastic code) specific to the SautrÃÂntika has been found, nor is the existence of any such separate disciplinary code evidenced in other texts; this indicates that they were likely only a doctrinal division within the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin school.
The SautrÃÂntika criticised the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins on various matters such as ontology, philosophy of mind and perception. While the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin Abhidharma described a complex system in which past, present, and future phenomena are all held to have some form of their own existence, the SautrÃÂntika subscribed to a doctrine of "extreme momentariness" that held that only the present moment existed. They seem to have regarded the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin position as a violation of the basic Buddhist principle of impermanence. As explained by Jan Westerhoff, this doctrine of momentariness holds that each present moment "does not possess any temporal thickness; immediately after coming into existence each moment passes out of existence" and that therefore "all dharmas, whether mental or material, only last for an instant (ká¹£aá¹Âa) and cease immediately after arising."
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin Abhidharma also broke down human experience in terms of a variety of underlying phenomena (a view similar to that held by the modern TheravÃÂ<nowiki/>din Abhidhamma); the SautrÃÂntika believed that experience could not be differentiated in this manner.
Sautrantika doctrines expounded by elder à ÂrëlÃÂta and critiqued in turn by Saá¹Âghabhadra's Nyayanusara include:
According to Vasubandhu, the SautrÃÂntika also held the view that there may be many Buddhas simultaneously, otherwise known as the doctrine of contemporaneous Buddhas.