VibhajyavÃÂda (Sanskrit; Pali: VibhajjavÃÂda; ) is a term applied generally to groups of early Buddhists belonging to the Sthavira NikÃÂya, which split from the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika (due either to the former attempting to make the Vinaya stricter, or the latter wishing to reform it; see: Sthavira NikÃÂya main article) into two main groups: the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda and the VibhajyavÃÂda, of which the latter are known to have rejected both SarvÃÂstivÃÂda doctrines (especially the doctrine of "all exists") and the doctrine of PudgalavÃÂda (personalism). During the reign of Ashoka, these groups possibly took part in missionary activity in Gandhara, Bactria, Kashmir, South India and Sri Lanka. By the third century CE, they had spread in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Their doctrine is expounded in the KathÃÂvatthu.
The word VibhajyavÃÂda may be parsed into vibhajya, loosely meaning "dividing", "analysing"; and vÃÂda, corresponding to the semantic field "doctrine", "teachings". According to Andrew Skilton, the analysis of phenomena (Skt. dharmas) was the doctrinal emphasis and preoccupation of the VibhajyavÃÂdins.
According to A. K. Warder, they are called "distinctionists" because they make distinctions between dharmas that exist in the present and the past, and dharmas that don't exist in the past and the future (as opposed to the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda view that all such dharmas exist). This is supported by the explanation given by the 6th century MahÃÂyÃÂna philosopher Bhavaviveka.
According to Bhante Sujato, VibhajyavÃÂda means that the doctrine "distinguishes" (vibhajanto) the heterodox and orthodox views, particularly the non-Buddhist theory of a self (atman) as well as the theory of a pudgala (or "person", similar to but distinct from the atman) of the PudgalavÃÂdins (also known as the VÃÂtsëputrëya). The characteristic method used by the Buddha and early Buddhists to break down the idea of self was the method of analysing (vibhajjati) the components of a person and investigating them to find that they do not possess the features that one could ascribe to a self. Thus, it would make sense that the term refers to "the Abhidhamma movement as an analytic approach to Dhamma in general, and as a critique of the âÂÂselfâ in particular".
The VibhajyavÃÂdins are a group of early Buddhist schools. According to the TheravÃÂda account, this group rejected the SarvastivÃÂda teachings at the Third Buddhist Council (however modern scholars question the council narratives). The name means "those who make distinctions," and include the KÃÂà Âyapëya, Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka and Dharmaguptaka. The VibhajyavÃÂdins were strongly represented in South India, where they called themselves Theriyas. They survived until the seventeenth century in South India, and in Sri Lanka they became the TheravÃÂdins.
The VibhajyavÃÂdins rejected the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda claim that all dharmas (principles, phenomena) exist in the past, present and future. Instead, they made a distinction between dharmas that "exist" and dharmas that do not exist, hence the name "distinctionists". The VibhajyavÃÂdins held that dharmas exist in the present, but not that they exist in the future. With regards to past dharmas, those wholesome or unwholesome dharmas that had already brought forth its fruit or effect were said not to exist, but those which had not yet brought forth a karmic effect could be said to have some efficacy. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂda VijñÃÂnakÃÂya states their position as defended by Moggaliputtatissa as: "The past and future are not; the present and the unconditioned exist."
The VibhajyavÃÂdins also held that out of all dharmas, only nirvÃÂá¹Âa was an unconditioned (asaá¹Âská¹Âta) dharma, against the view of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda which also held that space was an unconditioned dharma. Another difference with the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda hinged on the issue of gradual versus sudden attainment. The VibhajyavÃÂdins held that at stream entry, understanding of the Four Noble Truths came at once (ekÃÂbhisamaya), while the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda asserted that this happened only gradually (anupubbÃÂbhisamaya). VibhajyavÃÂdins also asserted that arhats could not regress or fall back to a lower state once they attained arhatship. The VibhajyavÃÂdins also rejected the doctrine of the intermediate state between rebirths (antarabhava).
Doctrines of the VibhajyavÃÂdins can be seen in the KathÃÂvatthu, traditionally attributed to elder Moggalipputtatissa by the TheravÃÂda. The earliest layer of this text could date as far as the reign of Ashoka. However, neither the TheravÃÂdin KathÃÂvatthu nor the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda VijñÃÂnakÃÂya contain any reference to VibhajyavÃÂda as a separate school, indicating that perhaps during the time they were recorded there was not yet a formal schism between the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda and the VibhajyavÃÂda.
The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, a fifth century Sri Lankan work meanwhile, mentions that the Visuddhimagga was written at the request of Sanghaphala, "a member of the lineage of the MahÃÂvihÃÂrasins, illustrious Theriyas, best of VibhajjavÃÂdins".
The VibhajyavÃÂdins are not recorded uniformly by early Buddhist traditions as being a distinct sect, nor being associated with any one period of time. Some scholars believe that there was no separate VibhajyavÃÂda sect, but that the term vibhajyavÃÂda was sometimes affixed to the name of a school to indicate that it differed from the main school on some doctrines. In this sense, they would be vibhajyavÃÂdins of that particular school.
The name was applied to a variety of communities across the Indian subcontinent. The major ones were:
Bhante Sujato, in his overview of Dharmaguptaka and MahÃÂvihÃÂravÃÂsin schools, argues that the split between them was not due to any difference in doctrine or monastic discipline, but due to geographical distance.
According to L. S. Cousins, the precursor to these schools was probably involved in missionary activity around the time of Ashoka into the regions of Kashmir, Gandhara, Bactria, Andhra and Sri Lanka. Cousins concludes:
The MahÃÂvihÃÂra TheravÃÂdins of Sri Lanka are descendants of the Sthavira VibhajyavÃÂdins in South India who used the Pali language, differing somewhat from the northern Sthavira schools. The TheravÃÂdins hold that VibhajyavÃÂda was the favored doctrine during a Buddhist council that took place in Pataliputra under Ashoka. As Gethin notes, the sources are rather confused on this matter however.
The Sammatëyas (aka PudgalavÃÂdins) also mention the VibhajyavÃÂdins. According to the Sammatëya sect, the VibhajyavÃÂdins developed from the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda school.
The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin Abhidharma MahÃÂvibhÃÂá¹£a à ÂÃÂstra describes the VibhajyavÃÂdins as being the type of heretics who "make objections, who uphold harmful doctrines and attack those who follow the authentic Dharma."
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika saw the VibhajyavÃÂdins as being offshoots from the root schism in Buddhism, which according to them produced three sects: the Sthaviras, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas, and the VibhajyavÃÂdins. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas list the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka, Dharmaguptaka, KÃÂà Âyapëya, and TÃÂmraparnëya (TheravÃÂda) sects as having descended from the VibhajyavÃÂdins. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch itself, together with the PrajñaptivÃÂda, preferred to be called Bahuà Ârutiya-VibhajyavÃÂdins.