The Sarvāstivāda (Sanskrit; Chinese: 說一切有部; pinyin: Shuō Yīqièyǒu Bù) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Asoka (third century BCE). It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven Abhidharma works.
The Sarvāstivādins were one of the most influential Buddhist monastic groups, flourishing throughout North India (especially Kashmir) and Central Asia until the 7th century. The orthodox Kashmiri branch of the school composed the large and encyclopedic Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra during the reign of Kanishka (c. 127–150 CE). Because of this, orthodox Sarvāstivādins who upheld the doctrines in the Mahāvibhāṣa were called Vaibhāṣikas.
Sarvāstivāda is a Sanskrit term that can be glossed as: "the theory of all exists". The Sarvāstivāda argued that all dharmas exist in the past, present and future, the "three times". Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośakārikā states, "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: sarva "all" or "every" + asti "exist" + vada "speak", "say" or "theory". This equates perfectly with the Chinese term, Shuōyīqièyǒu bù (Chinese: 說一切有部), which is literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything," as used by Xuanzang and other translators.
The Sarvāstivāda was also known by other names, particularly hetuvada and yuktivada. Hetuvada comes from hetu – 'cause', which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality. Yuktivada comes from yukti – 'reason' or even 'logic', which shows their 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 Sarvāstivādin school."
In Central Asia, several Buddhist monastic groups were historically prevalent. 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 northwestern India where they developed into the Sarvāstivādin school.
A number of scholars have identified three distinct major phases of missionary activity seen in the history of Buddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with respectively the Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda, and the origins of the Sarvastivada have also been related to Asoka sending Majjhantika on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early presence of the Sarvastivada. 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 (the Sanskrit counterpart of the Pali Majjhantika) converted the city of Kasmir, which seems to have close ties with Gandhara."
The Sarvāstivāda enjoyed the patronage of Kanishka (c. 127–150 CE) of the Kushan Empire, during which time they were greatly strengthened, and became one of the dominant sects of Buddhism for the next thousand years, flourishing 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 Gandharan most important text, the Astagrantha of Katyayaniputra was rewritten in Sanskrit making necessary revisions. This revised text was now known as Jñānaprasthāna "Course of Knowledge". Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many vibhaṣas (commentaries), the new Kashmiri Astagrantha i.e. the Jñānaprasthāna had a Sanskrit Mahāvibhaṣa, compiled by the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda synod. The Jñānaprasthāna and its Mahāvibhaṣa, which took more than a generation to complete, were then declared the Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, said to be "Buddha’s word", Buddhabhāṣita.
This new Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by the Gandharan Sarvāstivādins, though gradually they adapted their views to the new Kashmiri orthodoxy. The Gandharan Sarvāstivādins used the same vinaya from Mathura. As a matter of fact, their abhidharma was meant for meditational practices. They made use of the Hṛdaya, a manual for attaining arhatship. However, the long Gandharan Vinaya was abridged to a Sanskrit Dashabhanavara in the Kashmir synod by removing the avadanas and Jātaka tales, stories, and illustrations. After the declaration of the vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, the Gandharan non-vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins, the majority, were called Sautrāntikas "those who uphold the sutras".
The Sarvāstivāda comprised two subschools, the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika. Pioneering work on the subject was undertaken by Ch. Willemen in 1975, and more recently in 2006 (Abhidharmahṛdaya) and in 2008 in the Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies (Tokyo). The Vaibhāṣika was formed by adherents of the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra, comprising the orthodox Kasmiri branch of the Sarvāstivāda school. The Vaibhāśika-Sarvāstivāda, which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the early Buddhist schools, was widely influential in India and beyond. In contrast to the Vaibhāṣikas, the Sautrāntika Sarvāstivādins did not uphold the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra, but rather emphasized the Buddhist sūtras. The name Sautrāntika means "those who uphold the sūtras."
A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related, which Bhikkhu Sujato summaries as follows:
The uncertainty around this school has led to a number of hypotheses. Frauwallner’s theory holds that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is the disciplinary code of an early Buddhist community based in Mathura, which was quite independent in its establishment as a monastic community from the Sarvāstivādins of Kaśmir (although of course this does not mean that they were different in terms of doctrine). Lamotte, opposing Frauwallner, asserts that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was a late Kaśmīr compilation made to complete the Sarvāstivādin Vinaya. Warder suggests that the Mūlasarvāstivādins were a later development of the Sarvāstivāda, whose main innovations were literary, the compilation of the large Vinaya and the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra, which kept the early doctrines but brought the style up to date with contemporary literary developments. Enomoto pulls the rug out from all these theories by asserting that Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin are really the same. Meanwhile, Willemen, Dessein, and Cox have developed the theory that the Sautrantikas, a branch or tendency within the Sarvāstivādin group of schools, emerged in Gandhāra and Bactria around 200 CE. Although they were the earlier group, they temporarily lost ground to the Kaśmīr Vaibhāśika school due to the political influence of Kaṇiṣka. In later years the Sautrantikas became known as Mūlasarvāstivādins and regained the ascendancy. I have elsewhere given my reasons for disagreeing with the theories of Enomoto and Willemen et al. Neither Warder nor Lamotte give sufficient evidence to back up their theories. We are left with Frauwallner’s theory, which in this respect has stood the test of time.
The Kasmira orthodoxy, the Vaibhāṣikas disappeared in the later part of the 7th century. Subsequently, the old Gandharan Sarvāstivādins, the non-Vaibhāṣika Sautrantikas, were named Mūlasarvāstivādins, who then at a later date went to Tibet. It has been suggested that the minority Vaibhāṣikas were absorbed into the majority Sautrantika Sarvāstivādins as a possible result of the latter's adaptations.
Moreover, Mishrakabhidharmahrdaya, a title which means that 'sautrantika views were mixed with Vaibhāṣika views' was composed by Dharmatrata in the 4th century in Gandharan area. Vasubandhu (ca.350-430), a native from Purusapura in Gandhara, composed his Kosa based on this text and the Astagrantha. While in Kasmira, he wrote his karikas which were well received there but he faced intense opposition, notably from Samghabhadra, a leading Sarvāstivāda pundit, when he composed his bhasya. By his bhasya, Vasubandhu made it clear to the Vaibhāṣikas that he was a sautrantika, which is why he was fiercely opposed by the Sarvāstivāda vaibhasikas in Kasmira.
In reply to Vasubhandhu's bhasya, Samghabhadra wrote a text, the Nyayanusara 'according to reason'. This work is presently only extant in Chinese (from Xuanzang's translation and little is known of it in English).
The name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past present and future, all exist. This doctrine has been described as an eternalist theory of time. According to Westerhoff, one reason they had for holding this theory was that moments of consciousness are intentional (are about something) and thus if there are no past entities which exist, thoughts about them would be objectless and could not exist. Another argument is that to account for past actions (karma) which have effects at a later time. If an act of karma no longer exists, it is difficult, argues the Vaibhāṣika, to see how they can have fruits in the present or future. Finally, past, present and future are mutually interdependent ideas. If past and future are non-existent, argued the Vaibhāṣikas, how can one make sense of the existence of the present?
In the Samyukta-abhidharma-hrdaya, a fourth century Gandharan Sarvāstivāda text, the core Sarvāstivāda theory is defended thus:
"If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala). Do not state that there is a mistake. When stating that [the fact that] what is remote is past and that what will exist is future, does not exist, and that there only is the present, this is not right. Why? Because there is retribution (vipaka) of action. The World-honored One has been saying: "There is action and there is retribution". It is not the case that this action and retribution are both present. When action is present, it should be known that retribution is future; when retribution is present, it should be known that action is already past. [ ... ] As has been said: "If there are no such five faculties as faith (sraddhendriya), I say that this is the generation of worldlings (prthagjana)". When the seeker (saiksa) is the one who is bound by envelopers (paryavasthana), such five faculties as faith are not present; because the path is not together with defilement (klesa). That is why it should be known that there is past and future. If it were different, noble persons (aryapudgala) would have to be worldlings."
While the Vaibhāṣikas held that dharmas of the three times all exist, they held that only present dharmas have "efficacy" (karitra), thus they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.
There are four types of Sarvāstivādins accordingly as they teach a difference in existence (bhavanyathatva), a difference in characteristic (laksananyathatva), a difference in condition (avasthanyathatva), and mutual difference (anyonyathatva).
In the Abhidharmakosha Vasubandhu argues that "the best system is that of Vasumitra". The Samyukta-abhidharma-hrdaya agrees. Later Sarvāstivāda takes a combination of the first and third theses as its model. It was on this basis that the school's doctrines were defended in the face of growing external, and sometimes even internal, criticism.
The doctrines of Sarvāstivāda were not confined to 'all exists', but also include the theory of momentariness (ksanika), conjoining (samprayukta) and simultaneity (sahabhu), conditionality (hetu and pratyaya), the culmination of the spiritual path (marga), and others. These doctrines are all inter-connected and it is the principle of 'all exists' that is the axial doctrine holding the larger movement together when the precise details of other doctrines are at stake.
Orthodox Sarvāstivāda also defended the theory of moments (kṣaṇavada). This doctrine held that dharmas last only for a moment, this measure of time is the smallest measure of time possible, it is described in the Samyukta-abhidharma-hrdaya as:
The smallest [period of] time is one kṣaṇa. Time is extremely small with one instant. That is why a kṣaṇa is said to be the limitation in time. Concerning the measure of a kṣaṇa., some say that it is as a powerful man who, looking around hurriedly, observes the multitude of stars: according to the going of time, one star is one kṣaṇa.. Moreover, some say that it is as a powerful man who, during a long time, snaps with the fingers: sixty-four kṣaṇas pass! Moreover, some say that it is as a powerful man who cuts thin silk thread of Kasi with a very sharp knife: cutting one thread is one kṣaṇa. Moreover, some say that the World-honored One did not pronounce [the word] kṣaṇa."
In order to explain how it is possible for a dharma to remain the same and yet also undergo change as it moves through the three times, the Vaibhāṣika held that dharmas have a constant essence (svabhāva) which persists through the three times. The term was also identified as a unique mark or own characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma and remained unchangeable throughout its existence. According to Vaibhāṣikas, svabhavas are those things that exist substantially (dravyasat) as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus only have a nominal existence (prajñaptisat).
Regarding divisions of practice, the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins are known to have employed the outlook of Buddhist practice as consisting of the Three Vehicles:
Sarvāstivādins viewed the Buddha's physical body (Skt. rūpakāya) as being impure and improper for taking refuge in, and they instead regarded taking refuge in the Buddha as taking refuge in the Dharmakāya of the Buddha.
Some people say that to take refuge in the Buddha is to take refuge in the body of the Tathāgata, which comprises head, neck, stomach, back, hands and feet. It is explained that the body, born of father and mother, is composed of defiled dharmas, and therefore is not a source of refuge. The refuge is the Buddha's fully accomplished qualities (aśaikṣadharmāḥ) which comprise bodhi and the dharmakāya.
According to A.K. Warder, the Sarvāstivādins held the same position as the Mahāsāṃghika branch regarding arhats, considering them to be imperfect and fallible. In the Sarvāstivādin Nāgadatta Sūtra, the Mahīśāsaka view of women is criticized in a narrative about a bhikṣuṇī named Nāgadatta. Here, the demon Māra takes the form of her father, and tries to convince her to work toward the lower stage of an arhat, rather than that of a fully enlightened buddha (Skt. samyaksambuddha).
Māra therefore took the disguise of Nāgadatta's father and said thus to Nāgadatta: "Your thought is too serious. Buddhahood is too difficult to attain. It takes a hundred thousand nayutas of koṭis of kalpas to become a Buddha. Since few people attain Buddhahood in this world, why don't you attain Arhatship? For the experience of Arhatship is the same as that of nirvāṇa; moreover, it is easy to attain Arhatship...."
In her reply, Nāgadatta rejects arhatship as a lower path, saying, "A Buddha's wisdom is like empty space of the ten-quarters, which can enlighten innumerable people. But an Arhat's wisdom is inferior."
Regarding divisions of practice, the Mahāvibhāṣā is known to employ the outlook of Buddhist practice as consisting of the Three Vehicles. The Sarvāstivādins also did not hold that it was impossible, or even impractical to strive to become a fully enlightened buddha (Skt. samyaksaṃbuddha), and therefore they admitted the path of a bodhisattva as a valid one. References to Bodhisattvayāna and the practice of the Six Pāramitās are commonly found in Sarvāstivāda works as well.
The Mahāvibhāṣā of the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins includes a schema of four pāramitās: generosity (dāna), discipline (śīla), energy (vīrya), and wisdom (prajñā), and it says that the four pāramitās and six pāramitās are essentially equivalent.
Foreign teachers hold that there are six pāramitās, adding patience (kṣānti) and meditation (dhyāna). But the teachers of Kaśmīra say that the last two are included in the first four. Patience is included in discipline and meditation in intuitive knowledge; they are accomplished upon completion of discipline and wisdom.
The complete Sarvāstivāda Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the Sarvāstivāda 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 Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang'an), and that the Sarvāstivāda 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, Daoan gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the saṃgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.
Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of sūtras from the Sarvāstivāda school" thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of the Dīrgha Āgama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama Āgama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Saṅghadeva) and Saṃyukta Āgama (T99, Chinese trans. Guṇabhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarvāstivāda is therefore the only early school besides the Theravada for which we have a roughly complete sutra collection, although unlike the Theravada it has not all been preserved in the original language.
During the first century, the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma primarily consisted of the Abhidharmahrdaya authored by Dharmashresthin, a native from Tokharistan, and the Ashtagrantha authored/compiled by Katyayaniputra. Both texts were translated by Samghadeva in 391 AD and in 183 AD. respectively, but they were not completed until 390 in Southern China.
The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma consists of seven texts. The texts of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma are:
Following these, are the texts that became the authority of the Vaibhāṣika:
All of these works have been translated into Chinese, and are now part of the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the word abhidharma refers to the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had abhidharmas.
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. kāṣāya) utitized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (大比丘三千威儀). Another text translated at a later date, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information. In the earlier source, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing dark red robes, while the Dharmaguptas are described as wearing black robes. However, in the corresponding passage found in the later Śāriputraparipṛcchā, the Sarvāstivāda are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptas as wearing dark red robes. In traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, which follow the Mūlasarvāstivāda 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 Sthaviriyas used the Gāndhārī language to write their literature using the Kharosthi.
The Sarvāstivādins of Kāśmīra held the Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra as authoritative, and thus were given the moniker of being Vaibhāṣikas. The Mahāvibhāṣā is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time of Kaniṣka (127–151 CE) of the Kuṣāṇa Empire. This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities to Mahāyāna doctrines. The Mahāvibhāṣā is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna traditions, as well as the means by which Mahāyāna doctrines would become accepted. The Mahāvibhāṣā also defines the Mahāyāna sūtras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described as Vaipulya doctrines, with "Vaipulya" being a commonly used synonym for Mahāyāna. The Mahāvibhāṣā reads:
What is the Vaipulya? It is said to be all the sūtras corresponding to elaborations on the meanings of the exceedingly profound dharmas.
According to a number of scholars, Mahāyāna Buddhism flourished during the time of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, and this is illustrated in the form of Mahāyāna influence on the Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra. The Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa also records that Kaniṣka presided over the establishment of Prajñāpāramitā doctrines in the northwest of India. Étienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a Sarvāstivāda master is known to have stated that the Mahāyāna Prajñā sūtras were to be found amongst their Vaipulya sūtras. According to Paul Williams, the similarly massive Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa also has a clear association with the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins.
The Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika subschools are both classified in the Tibetan tenets system as the two tenets of the Hinayana, ignoring other early Indian Buddhist schools, which were not known to the Tibetans.
Sarvāstivādin meditation teachers also worked on the Dhyāna sutras (Chinese: 禪經), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.