Sarvastivada
Get Sarvastivada essential facts below. View Videos or join the Sarvastivada discussion. Add Sarvastivada to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Sarvastivada

Depiction of the Buddha, bodhisattvas, a monk and a layperson, from Shotorak monastery in Kapisa, Afghanistan. Kapisa was one of the western capitals of emperor Kaniska, who was a great supporter of Sarv?stiv?da. [1]

The Sarv?stiv?da (Sanskrit; Chinese: ; pinyin: Shu? Y?qièy?u Bù) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Asoka (third century BCE).[2] It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven Abhidharma works.[3]

The Sarv?stiv?dins were one of the most influential Buddhist monastic groups, flourishing throughout North India (especially Kashmir) and Central Asia until the 7th century.[2] The orthodox Kashmiri branch of the school composed the large and encyclopedic Mah?vibha stra around the time of the reign of Kanishka (c. 127-150 CE).[3] Because of this, orthodox Sarv?stiv?dins who upheld the doctrines in the Mah?vibha were called Vaibhikas.[3]

The Sarv?stiv?dins are believed to have given rise to the M?lasarv?stiv?da sect as well as the Sautr?ntika tradition, although the relationship between these groups has not yet been fully determined.

Name

Sarv?stiv?da is a Sanskrit term that can be glossed as: "the theory of all exists". The Sarv?stiv?da argued that all dharmas exist in the past, present and future, the "three times". Vasubandhu's Abhidharmako?ak?rik? states, "He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarv?stiv?din."[4]

Although there is some dispute over how the word "Sarv?stiv?da" 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, Shu?y?qièy?u bù (Chinese: ),[5] which is literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything," as used by Xuanzang and other translators.

The Sarv?stiv?da 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.

Origination and history

Fragment of a Buddha stele in the name of a "Kshatrapa lady" named Na?da (Mathura Katra fragment A-66 inscription 'Namdaye Kshatrapa'.jpg Na?daye Kshatrapa), from the Art of Mathura.[6][7][8] The stele is dedicated to the Bodhisattva "for the welfare and happiness of all sentient beings for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadas". Northern Satraps period, 1st century CE.[6][9]
Copper-plate inscription mentioning the Sarvastivadas, in the year 134 of the Azes era, i.e. 84 CE, Kalawan, Taxila.[10]

Early history

According to Charles Prebish, "there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the Sarv?stiv?din school."[11] According to Dhammajoti, "its presence, as well as that of its rival -- the Vibhajyav?da lineage -- in the time of Emperor A?oka is beyond doubt. Since A?oka's reign is around 268-232 B.C.E., this means that at least by the middle of the 3rd century B.C.E., it had already developed into a distinct school."[12]

In Central Asia, several Buddhist monastic groups were historically prevalent. According to some accounts, the Sarv?stiv?dins emerged from the Sthavira nik?ya, a small group of conservatives, who split from the reformist majority Mah?sghikas at the Second Buddhist council. According to this account, they were expelled from Magadha, and moved to northwestern India where they developed into the Sarv?stiv?din school.[11]

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, Sarv?stiv?da, and the M?lasarv?stiv?da,[13] and the origins of the Sarv?stiv?da have also been related to Ashoka sending Majjhantika (Sanskrit: Madhy?ntika) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early presence of the Sarv?stiv?da.[11] The Sarv?stiv?dins in turn are believed to have given rise to the M?lasarv?stiv?da sect, although the relationship between these two groups has not yet been fully determined. According to Prebish, "this episode corresponds well with one Sarv?stiv?din tradition stating that Madhyantika converted the city of Kasmir, which seems to have close ties with Gandhara."[11]

A third tradition says that a community of Sarv?stiv?din monks was established at Mathura by the patriarch Upagupta.[11] In the Sarv?stiv?din tradition Upagupta is said to have been the fifth patriarch after Mah?ka?yapa, ?nanda, Madhy?ntika, and akav?sin, and in the Ch'an tradition he is regarded as the fourth.

Kushan era

A Kushan era votive stupa from Mohra Muradu, Taxila, where Sarv?stiv?da groups are known to have lived by the end of the first century BCE.[14]

The Sarv?stiv?da enjoyed the patronage of Kanishka (c. 127-150 CE) emperor of the Kushan Empire, during which time they were greatly strengthened, and became one of the dominant sects of Buddhism in north India for centuries, flourishing throughout Northwest India, North India, and Central Asia.

When the Sarv?stiv?da school held a synod in Kashmir during the reign of Kanishka II (c. 158-176), the most important Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma text, the Astagrantha of Katyayaniputra was rewritten and revised in Sanskrit. This revised text was now known as Jñ?naprasth?na ("Course of Knowledge"). Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many vibha?as (commentaries), the new Kashmiri Jñ?naprasth?na had a Sanskrit Mah?vibha?a, compiled by the Kashmir Sarv?stiv?da synod.[3] The Jñ?naprasth?na and its Mah?vibha?a, were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by Kashmiris, who called themselves Vaibhikas.

The Dharmarajika Stupa and monastery ruins, a major Buddhist site in Taxila, one of the capitals of the Kushan empire.

This new Vaibhika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by all Sarv?stiv?dins. Some "Western masters" from Gandhara and Bactria had divergent views which disagreed with the new Kashmiri orthodoxy. These disagreements can be seen in post-Mah?vibha?a works, such as the *Tattvasiddhi-stra (), the *Abhidharmah?daya (T no. 1550) and its commentaries (T no. 1551, no. 1552), the Abhidharmako?ak?rik? of Vasubandhu and its commentaries (who critiqued some orthodox views), and the *Ny?y?nus?ra (Ny) of master Sa?ghabhadra (ca fifth century CE) who formulated the most robust Vaibhika response to the new criticisms.[15]

Sub-schools

Sarv?stiv?da was a widespread group, and there were different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential ones being the Vaibhika and the Sautr?ntika schools.

Vaibhika

The Vaibhika was formed by adherents of the Mah?vibha stra (MV?) during the council of Kashmir. Since then, it comprised the orthodox or mainstream branch of the Sarv?stiv?da school based in Km?ra (though not exclusive to this region). The Vaibhika-Sarv?stiv?da, which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the early Buddhist schools,[16] was widely influential in India and beyond.[17]

As noted by KL Dhammajoti, "It is important to realize that not all of them necessarily subscribed to each and every view sanctioned by the MV? compilers. Moreover, the evolving nature of the Vaibhika views must be recognized as well."[18]

The Vaibhika-Sarv?stiv?dins are sometimes referred to in the MV? as "the ?bhidharmikas", "the Sarv?stiv?da theoreticians" and "the masters of Km?ra."[19] In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as Yuktav?da (the doctrine of logic), as well as Hetuv?da (the doctrine of causes).[20]

The Vaibhika school saw itself as the orthodox Sarv?stiv?da tradition, and they were united in their doctrinal defense of the theory of "all exists" (sarv?m asti). This is the doctrine which held that dharmas, past present and future, all exist.[3] This doctrine has been described as an eternalist theory of time.[21]

While the Vaibhikas 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.[22] Among the different Sarv?stiv?da thinkers, there were different ideas on how this theory was to be understood.[23] These differences were accepted as long as they did not contradict the doctrine of "all exists" and can be seen in the MV?, which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the 'four great ?bhidharmikas of the Sarv?stiv?da': Dharmatr?ta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra and Gho?aka.[24]

The doctrines of Sarv?stiv?da were not confined to 'all exists', but also include the theory of momentariness (ksanika), conjoining (samprayukta) and causal simultaneity (sahabhu), conditionality (hetu and pratyaya), a unique presentation 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.

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 Vaibhika held that dharmas have a constant essence (svabh?va) which persists through the three times.[25] The term was also identified as a unique mark or own characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma and remained unchangeable throughout its existence.[25] According to Vaibhikas, 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).[25]

D?rntikas and Sautr?ntikas

The Sautr?ntikas ("those who uphold the s?tras"), also known as D?rntikas (who may or may not have been a separate but related group), did not uphold the Mah?vibha stra, but rather emphasized the Buddhist s?tras as being authoritative.[26]

Already by the time of the MV?, the early D?rntikas such as Dharmatr?ta and Buddhadeva, existed as a school of thought within the fold of the Sarv?stiv?da who disagreed with the orthodox views.[27] These groups were also called "the western masters" (pc?tya), the foreign masters (bahirde?aka; also called 'the masters outside Ka?m?ra', and the 'G?ndh?rian masters').[28] They studied the same Abhidharma texts as other Sarv?stiv?dins, but in a more critical way. According to KL Dhammajoti, they eventually came to repudiate the Sarv?stiv?da doctrine of "all exists."[29]

It is this group, i.e. those who rejected the most important Sarv?stiv?da doctrine (along with numerous other key Vaibhika views), which came to be called Sautr?ntika (those who rely on sutras).[30] The Sautr?ntikas did not reject abhidharma however, in fact they were the authors of several abhidharma manuals, like the *Abhidharmah?daya.

Vasubandhu: Wood, 186 cm height, about 1208, Kofukuji Temple, Nara, Japan

The most important Sautr?ntika was Vasubandhu (ca.350-430), a native from Purusapura in Gandhara. He is famous for his Abhidharmako?a, a very influential abhidharma work, with an auto commentary that defends Sautr?ntika views. He famously later converted to the Yogacara school of Mahayana, a tradition that itself developed out of the Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma.

Vasubandhu's Ko?a led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant Vaibhika master Sa?ghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the *Ny?y?nus?ra (a commentary to Vasubandhu's verses) to refute Vasubandhu and other Sautr?ntikas such as Sthavira ?r?l?ta and his pupil R?ma.[31]

The Ko?a was so influential that it became the Abhidharma text par excellence in both East Asian Buddhism and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Even today, it remains the main text for the study of Abhidharma in these traditions.

The later Buddhist tradition of prama founded by Dign?ga and Dharmak?rti is also associated with the Sautr?ntika school.

M?lasarv?stiv?dins

There is much uncertainty as to the relationship of the M?lasarv?stiv?da (meaning root or original Sarv?stiv?da) school and the others. They were certainly influential in spreading their M?lasarv?stiv?da Vinaya, as it remains the monastic rule used in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism today. Also, they seem to have been influential in Indonesia by the 7th century, as noted by Yijing.[32]

A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related including:[33]

  • Frauwallner holds that M?lasarv?stiv?da was the community of Mathura, which was an independent group from the Sarv?stiv?dins of Ka?mir. According to Bhikkhu Sujato, this theory has "stood the test of time."
  • Lamotte thought that the M?lasarv?stiv?da Vinaya was a late compilation from Ka?m?r.
  • Warder suggests that the M?lasarv?stiv?dins was a late group who compiled a Vinaya and the Saddharmasm?tyupasth?na S?tra.
  • Enomoto holds that the Sarv?stiv?din and M?lasarv?stiv?din were the same.
  • Willemen, Dessein, and Cox hold that this group is really the Sautr?ntika school who renamed themselves in the later years of the Sarv?stiv?da school history.

Texts

Vinaya

The Dharmaguptaka are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarv?stiv?da pratimok?a rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.[34]

The complete Sarv?stiv?da Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the Sarv?stiv?da 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 Mah?sghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang'an), and that the Sarv?stiv?da Vinaya was prominent in the Yangzi River area and further south.[35] 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 sa?gha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.[36]

?gamas

Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of s?tras from the Sarv?stiv?da school"[37] thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of the D?rgha ?gama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama ?gama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Sa?ghadeva) and Sa?yukta ?gama (T99, Chinese trans. Gu?abhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarv?stiv?da 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.

Abhidharma

During the first century, the Sarv?stiv?da 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 Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma consists of seven texts:

Following these, are the texts that became the authority of the Vaibhika:

  • Mah?vibh ("Great Commentary" on the Jñ?naprasth?na) (T. 1545)

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 Sarv?stiv?da abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had abhidharmas.

Later Abhidharma manuals

Various other Abhidharma works were written by Sarv?stiv?da masters, some are more concise manuals of abhidharma, others critiqued the orthodox Vaibhika views or provided a defense of the orthodoxy. Dhammajoti provides the following list of such later abhidharma works that are extant in Chinese: 108 109

  • *Abhidharm?m?ta(-rasa)-stra (T no. 1553), by Gho?aka, 2 fasc., translator unknown. 2.
  • *Abhidharmah?daya (T no. 1550) by Dharma?r?, 4 fasc., tr. by Sa?ghadeva et. al. 3.
  • *Abhidharmah?daya-s?tra (? T no. 1551) by Upanta, 2 fasc., tr. by Narendraya?as.
  • *Abhidharmah?dayavy?khy? (? T no. 1552), by Dharmatr?ta, 11 fasc., tr. by Sanghabh?ti.
  • Abhidharmako?a-m?la-k?rik? (T no. 1560) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang. 6.
  • Abhidharmako?abhyam (T no. 1558) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang; (there is also an earlier translation by Param?rtha: T no. 1559).
  • *Abhidharmako?astra-tattv?rth?-k? (T no. 1561) by Sthiramati, 2 fasc., translator unknown.
  • *Abhidharma-ny?y?nus?ra (T no. 1562) by Sa?ghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.
  • *Abhidharma-samayaprad?pik? (T no. 1563) by Sa?ghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.
  • *Abhidharm?vat?ra (T no. 1554) by Skandhila, 2 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.

Appearance and language

Appearance

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. kya) utitized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (?).[38] Another text translated at a later date, the riputraparip?cch?, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information.[38] In the earlier source, the Sarv?stiv?da are described as wearing dark red robes, while the Dharmaguptas are described as wearing black robes.[39] However, in the corresponding passage found in the later riputraparip?cch?, the Sarv?stiv?da are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptas as wearing dark red robes.[39] In traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, which follow the M?lasarv?stiv?da Vinaya, red robes are regarded as characteristic of their tradition.[40]

Language

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 G?ndh?r? language to write their literature using the Kharosthi.

The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the Mah?sghikas used Pr?krit, the Sarv?stiv?dins used Sanskrit, the Sthavira nik?ya used Paic?, and the Sa?mit?ya used Apabhraa.[41]

Influence

The Sarv?stiv?dins of Km?ra held the Mah?vibh stra as authoritative, and thus were given the moniker of being Vaibhikas. The Mah?vibh is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time of Kani?ka (127-151 CE) of the Kua Empire.[42] This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities to Mah?y?na doctrines.[43] The Mah?vibh is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the H?nay?na and Mah?y?na traditions, as well as the means by which Mah?y?na doctrines would become accepted.[44] The Mah?vibh also defines the Mah?y?na s?tras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described as Vaipulya doctrines, with "Vaipulya" being a commonly used synonym for Mah?y?na. The Mah?vibh reads:

What is the Vaipulya? It is said to be all the s?tras corresponding to elaborations on the meanings of the exceedingly profound dharmas.[45]

According to a number of scholars, Mah?y?na Buddhism flourished during the time of the Kua Empire, and this is illustrated in the form of Mah?y?na influence on the Mah?vibh stra.[46] The Mañju?r?m?lakalpa also records that Kani?ka presided over the establishment of Prajñ?p?ramit? doctrines in the northwest of India.[47]Étienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a Sarv?stiv?da master is known to have stated that the Mah?y?na Prajñ? s?tras were to be found amongst their Vaipulya s?tras.[45] According to Paul Williams, the similarly massive Mah?prajñ?p?ramit?upade?a also has a clear association with the Vaibhika Sarv?stiv?dins.[48]

The Vaibhika and Sautr?ntika 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.

Sarv?stiv?din meditation teachers also worked on the Dhy?na sutras (Chinese: ), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.

References

  1. ^ Sanghasen Singh (1994), Sarv?stiv?da and Its Traditions, p. 59.
  2. ^ a b Westerhoff, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy in the First Millennium CE, 2018, p. 60.
  3. ^ a b c d e Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61.
  4. ^ de La Vallée-Poussin 1990, p. 807.
  5. ^ Taisho 27, n1545
  6. ^ a b Myer, Prudence R. (1986). "Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathur?". Artibus Asiae. 47 (2): 111-113. doi:10.2307/3249969. ISSN 0004-3648. JSTOR 3249969.
  7. ^ For a modern image see Figure 9 in Myer, Prudence R. (1986). "Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathur?". Artibus Asiae. 47 (2): 121-123. doi:10.2307/3249969. ISSN 0004-3648. JSTOR 3249969.
  8. ^ Lüders, Heinrich (1960). Mathura Inscriptions. pp. 31-32.
  9. ^ Lüders, Heinrich (1960). Mathura Inscriptions. pp. 31-32.
  10. ^ Sastri, Hirananda (1931). Epigraphia Indica vol.21. p. 259.
  11. ^ a b c d e Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Charles S. Prebish. Penn State Press: 1975. ISBN 0-271-01195-5 pg 42-43
  12. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 55.
  13. ^ Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarv?stiv?da Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 126
  14. ^ Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarv?stiv?da Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 103
  15. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 57.
  16. ^ "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 Vaibhika." The Sautrantika theory of seeds (bija ) revisited: With special reference to the ideological continuity between Vasubandhu's theory of seeds and its Srilata/Darstantika precedents by Park, Changhwan, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2007 pg 2
  17. ^ A Study of the Abhidharmah?daya: The Historical Development of the Concept of Karma in the Sarv?stiv?da Thought. PhD thesis by Wataru S. Ryose. University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1987 pg 3
  18. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 76.
  19. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 73.
  20. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), pp. 56, 164.
  21. ^ Kalupahana, David; A history of Buddhist philosophy, continuities and discontinuities, page 128.
  22. ^ Westerhoff, 2018, p. 63.
  23. ^ Poussin; Pruden, Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu, Vol 3, 1991, p. 808.
  24. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.
  25. ^ a b c Westerhoff, 2018, p. 70.
  26. ^ Westerhoff, Jan, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 73.
  27. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 74.
  28. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.
  29. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 77.
  30. ^ Willemen, Charles; Dessein, Bart; Cox, Collett (1998). Sarv?stiv?da Buddhist Scholasticism, p. 109. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Zweite Abteilung. Indien.
  31. ^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 110.
  32. ^ Coedes, George. The Indianized States of South-East Asia. 1968. p. 84
  33. ^ Sujato, Bhikkhu (2012). Sects & Sectarianism: The origins of Buddhist Schools (PDF). Santipada. p. 135.
  34. ^ Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 52
  35. ^ Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 187
  36. ^ Heirman, Ann. Bumbacher, Stephan Peter. The Spread of Buddhism. 2007. pp. 194-195
  37. ^ Sujato, Bhikkhu. "The Pali Nik?yas and Chinese ?gamas". What the Buddha Really Taught. Retrieved 2019.
  38. ^ a b Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. p. 55
  39. ^ a b Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. pp. 55-56
  40. ^ Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 266
  41. ^ Yao 2012, p. 9.
  42. ^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 112
  43. ^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 117
  44. ^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 111
  45. ^ a b Walser, Joseph. N?g?rjuna in Context: Mah?y?na Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. 2005. p. 156
  46. ^ Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarv?stiv?da Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 123
  47. ^ Ray, Reginald. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. 1999. p. 410
  48. ^ Williams, Paul, and Tribe, Anthony. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. 2000. p. 100

Sources

Further reading

  • For a critical examination of the Sarv?stiv?din interpretation of the Samyuktagama, see David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.[1]
  • For a Sautrantika refutation of the Sarv?stiv?din use of the Samyuktagama, see Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma.[2]
  1. ^ Kalupahana 1975, pp. 76-78.
  2. ^ Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma. Asian Educational Services, 2003, page 76. This is a reprint of a much earlier work and the analysis is now quite dated; the first appendix however contains translations of polemical materials.

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Sarvastivada
 



 



 
Music Scenes