Chapter 2

THE SARVĀSTIVĀDA SCHOOL

AND THE ABHIDHARMAKOŚA ŚĀSTRA

2.1 Introduction

Several centuries after passing away of the Buddha, Buddhist communities split into a
number of distinct schools. These schools attempted to explain the Buddha‟s teachings in
various manners and established their own methods to clarify the Buddha‟s teachings. Their
differing philosophical views resulted in the production of the Abhidharma, the part of the
Buddhist Tripiṭaka (that is, the three bodies of teaching of the Buddha) which deals with
philosophy in a detailed way.

In his Abhidharmakośa Śāstra, one of the most famous Abhidharma compositions,

Vasubandhu describes the Abhidharma as pure wisdom (prajñā) with its accompanying
elements. Wisdom is the discernment of dharma. Wisdom, the object of speculation in the
Abhidharma, is then expounded as analytical, systematic understanding of all dharmas.
Buddhaghosa, the 5th century Theravāda master, explains that the Abhidharma is the
instruction in the absolute nature of things. Many Theravāda schools later produced
Abhidharma compositions in order to represent their theoretical understanding of all
dharmas. They also attempted to classify their own doctrinal positions. Among these
Abhidharmic schools, the Sarvāstivāda school was the most influential in India.

This is attested by the fact that the Abhidharmakośa, one of the Sarvāstivādins‟ texts,
has been studied as a basic text for Buddhist scholars and students in many countries such as
Tibet, China, Japan and Vietnam. This text has been one of the most thoroughly examined
works in the history of Buddhism. Therefore, it is said that:

“The Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu (C. 5th century A.D) is a Buddhistic work well-known for its
harmonious synthesis of all the great doctrines accepted in general by all the contemporary schools of
Buddhism. The text is looked upon as an authoritative treatise of the Vaibhāṣikas (specially the
Vaibhāṣikas of Kashmir), but the three other principal schools of Buddhism viz., the Sautrāntikas, the
Yogācāras and the Mādhyamikas also are agreeable to accept it in spite of the difference in their
sectarian viewpoints. In the Buddhistic circle much importance has been attached to this text because
of the fact that it contains not only the fundamental principles of Buddhism, but also gives an
exhaustive and systematic exposition of the Abhidharma doctrines of the ancient schools of Buddhism
that came into being within a period of eight hundred years after the Mahāparinirvāṇa of Buddha. It
is, therefore, quite in the fitness of things that it occupies a place of eminence in the whole range of
Buddhistic thought and literature.”1

The Sarvāstivāda split from the Sthavira. As the name indicates (sarva asti:
everything exists), the Sarvāstivāda school established itself as an independent sect with a
distinct philosophical view which had a great impact on the development of Mahāyāna
Buddhism. The Sthavira, otherwise known as the Vibhajyavādin, became the Theravāda.
Paul Griffiths evaluates the separation of these two schools in the following manner:

“It is certainly true, in any case, that the separation of the Sarvāstivāda from the school which later
became the Theravāda was effective from the second century B.C onwards. We know this because the
Sūtra and Vinaya literature of the two schools is substantially identical and must have been based on
a common original, whereas the Abhidharma literature of the two schools has only identical parallels,
and must therefore have developed independently, subsequent to the separation of the schools.”2

When we refer to the Abhidharma, we often refer to some version of the Sarvāstivāda
Abhidharma, usually the Vaibhāṣika and the Abhidharmakośa, if reference is specific. The
Sarvāstivāda, like the Theravāda, has seven canonical Abhidharma texts. As Paul Griffits
mentions, the resemblance of the two bodies of literature, however, indicates only incidental
parallels.3

However, as we know, the rise and development of various Buddhist schools or sects
is shrouded by mystery due to lack of historical evidence. The Sarvāstivāda school is no
exception. In spite of this, there have been scholars such as Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti, E.
Conze and N. Dutt who have made progress in clarifying the history of the Sarvāstivāda
school.4 We will make no attempt here to completely review their works, but instead will
refer to the sources available which shed light on this school‟s the origin and development as
well as its treatise, the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra.

19
2.2 Buddhism and Its Schools

Buddhism is considered as one of the greatest religions in the world, not only in terms of its
worldwide existence, but also due to its great and peaceful Saṃgha. During the last twenry-
six centuries, the invaluable and noble teachings of the Buddha have been applied in many
human societies as moral lessons that have helped people solve all their suffering and attain
real happiness. Therefore, it is necessary for us to know about the history as well as the
development of Buddhism through general introduction to Buddhism, the origin and
development of different Buddhist schools.

2.2.1 General Introduction to Buddhism

Buddhism was founded, in the sixth century B.C., by Siddattha Gotama, who became known
as the Buddha and spent many years proclaiming his insights into the predicament of the
cycle of births and deaths and the route to release into Nirvāṇa.

As a secular man in the world, the Buddha prior to become an enlightened person - a
Buddha, he was a prince named Siddhattha. His father was King Suddhodana of Khattiya
clan, the aristocratic Śākya tribe with its capital at Kapilavastu. His mother, the Queen
Mahāmāyā, died seven days after the birth of the prince. 5 After that, he was raised and
brought up by her younger sister - his aunt, Mahāprajāpati Gotami. The prince was born in
circa 566 B.C or 563 B.C6 at the Lumbini Park in Kapilavastu of Northern India, what is now
called Nepal.7

According to the Discourse of Nālaka of Suttanipata it is recorded that with the birth of
Siddhattha, the Gods were delighted: “That Boddhisatta, excellent jewel incomparable, has been
born in the world of men for (their) benefit and happiness in the village of the Śākyans, in the
Lumbimi country. Therefore we are exultant exceedingly happy.”8 At that time, there was a
prophetic sage named Asita who accosted the King Suddhodana‟s mansion and said: “This is one,
unsurpassed, is supreme among two-legged (men).” He further added that: “This young prince
will reach the highest point of enlightenment. Seeing what is supremely purified having sympathy
for the benefit of the great majority, he will turn the wheel of the doctrine. His holy living will be
widely famed.”9

At the age of sixteen, he married Yasodharā, the most beautiful girl at time and they
had a son, named Rāhula. One of the most important events made Siddhattha decide to
leave the royal household to live a homeless life was that he saw directly static realities of
20
life. One day the prince went out of the palace to see the outside world. It is said that the
first sight, he saw an old man; on the second, he saw a diseased man; on the third, he saw a
corpse; and on the fourth, he saw a wandering holy hermit. After seeing these four sights, he
realized that the truthful essence of life is suffering, and he decided to leave his throne and
become a wandering ascetic monk in search of the truth to cease the suffering. At that time,
he was twenty-nine years of age. 10

First, he came to a famous teacher named Ālāka Kālāma. The latter taught him how
to attain the meditation of nothingness, the third Arupa Jhana. After a short period of time,
he also achieved what Ālāka Kālāma had it.11 However, since he realized that this dharma
was not leading to the cessation of suffering and attaining enlightenment, Nibbāna, he
abandoned it. Thereafter, he went to another well-known teacher named Uddaka Rāmaputta
who taught him how to attain meditation of neither perception nor non - perception.
Nevertheless, he also forsook this dharma, because it is not a path that leading to the absolute
- a truth or Nibbāna. Finally, when ascetic Siddhattha was not happy with final overcome of
the above teaching, he came to Uruvela near Neranjarā river, modern Bodh Gayā, six miles
south of Gayā town.12

Here he spent six years for practicing rigid austerities with five austerities
companions.13 At the end of that time, he realized that body torture is not the best way to
attain enlightenment, and he decided to change his path and started taking food again as it is
said „took material nourishment - boiled rice and sour milk.‟14 After having food, the five
austerities turned on him in disgust and said: “The recluse Gotama lives in abundance, he is
wavering in his striving, he has reverted to a life of abundance.”15

After taking food again, little by little Siddhattha ascetic formally regained his health
and he deeply practised meditation of his own unique middle path, and eventually he attained
the Four Trances. Basing on the four meditations, he contemplated deeply and attained three
visions of knowledge:

First, he remembered many of his previous lives and their details.

Secondly, he noticed differences in human beings as a result of good or bad Karma in

their previous existence.

And finally, he attained the highest knowledge of the destruction of defilement. They
are the canker of sense-pleasures, the canker of becoming and the canker of ignorance.

The „Fear and Dread‟ Sutta16 describes the three perfect knowledges in which, the
21
third knowledge, he realized the Four Noble Truths: This is anguish, this is the arising of
anguish, this is the stopping of anguish and this is the course leading to the stopping of
anguish in the last night of third watch. Siddhattha attained enlightenment under the Boddhi
tree and became Buddha when he was thirty-five years old.17

After that the Buddha wanted to preach Dharma for benefit of all human being. He
thought about the two of his former teachers - Ālāka Kālāma, Uddaka Rāmaputta, but both of
them had passed away by then.18 He then decided to go to his former five ascetic companions
so as to show them dharma; they were staying in deer park at Isipatana (modern Sarnath)
near Benares by that time.

When the Buddha came to Isipatana and met the group of five ascetics. He preached
the First Sermon to them, namely: Dhammacakkappavattana. It means “The Wheel of
Truth”, “The Exposition of the Establishment of Wisdom”, or “The Kingdom of
Righteousness.”19 The Discourse on the Analysis of the Truths (Saccavibhangnsutta),
explains the content of the first sermon as below:

“And what, your reverences, is the ariyan truth of anguish? Birth is anguish and ageing is anguish
and dying is anguish; and grief, sorrow, suffering, misery and despair are anguish. And not getting
what one desires, that too is anguish. In brief, the five groups of grasping are anguish.

And what, your reverences, is the ariyan truth of the arising of anguish? Whatever craving is
connected with again-becoming, accompanied by delight and attachment, finding delight in this and
that, namely the craving for sense-pleasures, the craving for becoming, the craving for annihilation-
this, your reverences, is called the ariyan truth of the arising of anguish.

And what, your reverences, is the ariyan truth of the stopping of anguish? Whatever is the stopping,
with no attachment remaining, of that self-same craving, the relinquishment of it casting aside of it,
release from it, independence of it this, your reverences, is called the ariyan truth of the stopping of
anguish.

And what your reverences, is the ariyan truth of the course leading to the stopping of anguish? It is
this ariyan Eightfold Way itself, that is to say: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action,
right mode of livelihood, right endeavour, right mindfulness, right concentration.”20

Thus, the Buddha preached the Four Noble Truth: birth, age, decay, death, and the
Way leading to cessation of suffering, i.e., the Eightfold Way. It is also called The Middle
Way, because these Ways avoid two extremes: self-mortification, self-indulgence and lead to
knowledge, insight, enlightenment, and Nibbāna.

22
 After hearing this dharma, the five ascetics attained „The Eye of Truth‟
(Dhammacakkhu) and became the first disciples of the Buddha. From here onwards
Buddhism has The Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha or Triple Gem. The Buddha is a man that
attained Truth, enlightenment-Nibbāna. The Dharma is the teachings of the Buddha of the
Truth including Tipiṭaka: Sutta Piṭaka, Vinaya Piṭaka and Abhidharma Piṭaka. The Sutta
contains words of the Buddha to monks, nuns and laypersons and so forth. The Vinaya Piṭaka
is prescribed to monks and nuns as injunctions for the Order. The Abhidharma Piṭaka is
interpretations of the Sutta and Vinaya with special attention to the classification of „Mind‟;
and Saṅgha is the renunciated members of the Order who follow and practice the Buddha‟s
teachings so that they can attain enlightenment like the Buddha and preach to the lay disciples
again what the Buddha taught for human being in order to attain liberation in present life or in
future as well.

Ever since the Gotama Buddha attained enlightenment as has been described above,
was teaching the Dharma during forty-five long years for the welfare, happiness for living
beings until he passed away at Kusinārā at the age of eighty-years old.21 Out of the salient
theories of the Dharma, the doctrine of Karma of paramount importance which the author
will one after the other introduce in due course.

The Buddha taught a system of ideas that was in stark contrast to the earlier orthodox
Vedic tradition, rejecting any reliance on those texts, on the priestly caste (the Brahmins), and
on the orthodox depiction of salvation. The Buddha‟s system is supposedly based upon
observation, both of the world outside him and of the inner workings of his mental world.
Crucially, he could not observe an eternal Ātman. Instead, he reports as his fundamental
discovery that all the ingredients observed obey a general principle of “Dependent Co-
arising” (Pratītya-samutpāda). Whatever comes into existence is the causal consequence of
previous existents. Causal generation has a complex form where a number of such previous
existents produce together the new existent. And each and every existent is momentary.

Thus, the Buddhist idea of Causality and Karma is basically theories concerned with
the human world. The human experience in the world, for Buddhism, is that of suffering. And
the prime focus of the Buddhist causal and Karma theory is the explanation of human
suffering, not principally as a social fact but as an existential feature of human life.
Fundamentally, this theory is known as the “Theory of Dependent Co-arising” and it asserts
that “any object of experience depends for its existence or occurrence on the necessary and
sufficient presence of its cause”.22

23
 The principle of Dependent Co-arising is only one part of the truth (Dharma) which
Buddha is said to have discovered intuitively during his supreme experience of
enlightenment. The other aspect of the truth is what is called Nirvāṇa. While Dependent Co-
arising elucidates the nature of reality and the fundamental relatedness of things, Nirvāṇa
deals with the absence of empirical reality, the realization of which leads to cessation of the
stream of consciousness. At this point it becomes very imperative to point out that the
doctrines of “impermanence” (Anitya), “no self” (Anātman), and human suffering (Duḥkha)
are the central themes of Buddhism. The doctrine involved here is that, everything in life is in
perpetual flux and subject to the changes which occur through the cycle of birth, growth,
decay and death. Thus, “all things are only processes, not entities. Identities are nothing but
analyzable sequences and independence, an illusion”.23

Therefore, the Buddhist principle of causality and Karma is quite fundamental to

Buddhist philosophy. It could be used to explain everything in the universe – including the
evolution and dissolution of the world process, natural phenomena. It could be applied to
psychic processes, moral, social and spiritual behaviour.

After the death of the Buddha, some differences arose in Buddhist monastic
communities; the first schism was that between the Mahāsaṅghika and the Sthavira. The
former, the Mahāsaṅghika (meaning „great groupists‟) were characterized as rather lax in
their discipline, and the later, the Sthaviras (meaning „elders‟) prided themselves on their
seniority and orthodoxy. The Mahāsaṅghika developed as Mahāyāna Buddhism in the second
period. The Sthavira became the Theravāda. Each of these two groups experienced further
sub-divisions; ultimately resulting in the traditional eighteen or twenty schools of thought
came into existence. And tensions developed into doctrinal disputes around the time of King
Aśoka. According to traditional accounts, King Aśoka sent Buddhist missionaries to various
regions of India and Ceylon. As a result, many Buddhist monastic communities were
established in disparate areas. From the edicts of Aśoka we know of the various Buddhist
missions he sent to far-off countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. It is to a large extent due to
these missionary activities that Buddhism became the ruling religion of a large part of
mindkind.

24
2.2.2 The Origin of Different Schools

There were dissensions in the Saṃgha at the time of the Buddha. Though they did not last
long and were resolved by the Buddha, they were still the germs of arising schools later. So, it
is necessary for us to learn about this at the time of the Buddha.

a. At the time of the Buddha

During the life time of Gotama Buddha himself there were indications of the existence of
some who would not accept his leadership or obey his instructions. The first dissension
occurred in a monastery at Kauśāmbi, where a monk committed a breach of discipline. First
he regarded it as a breach (āpātti), while others regarded it as a non-breach (anāpātti). After
some time, however, the situation suffered a reverse change; the former began to regard it as
a non-breach for he committed it through ignorance of the Law, while the latter regarded it
as a breach. The monks attached undue gravity to the offence and punished him by
excommunication or ukkhepāna. The accused, on the other hand, ascribed the breach to his
ignorance, which did not make him liable to such a severe punishment. The justifiability of
the cause won him several supporters, who tried to have his penalty set aside. This caused a
division not only among the monks but also among the laity, which ultimately led to the
Buddha‟s mediation. At first some monks even refused to accept the mediation of their
Master, and although the dissension did not last long owing to the presence of the Buddha,
who removed the doubts of both the parties by his lucid exposition of the Vinaya, yet it
indicates the presence of the germs of dissensions, which bore fruits of far-reaching
consequences in later times.24

The second division was brought about by the Buddha‟s cousin, Devadatta, who, out
of jealousy for the Buddha, conspired with Ajātaśatru and made attempts on his life. He also
tried to create division in the Saṅgha by demanding the introduction of stricter conditions of
life for the monks. He advocated that the monks should:

1. Live all their life in the forest;

2. Subsist solely on doles collected out-doors (piṇḍapātika), and the

acceptance of an invitation should be regarded as a breach;

3. Dress themselves in rags picked out of the dust-heaps (pāmsukūlika), and the
use of the robes (chvara) given by the lay-followers should be regarded as a breach;

25
 4. Dwell always under the trees (rukkha-mūla) and never under a roof; and

5. Never eat fish or meat.25

The Buddha refused to make the observance of these rules obligatory upon all the
monks, as in his view it would be more conducive to their welfare to make these rules
optional. Devadatta took this opportunity to create a division in the Saṅgha and with his five
hundred followers broke from the Order. It seems that this secession of Devadatta from the
Order gave rise to a sect, which existed upto the fourth century A.D., and a remnant of which
was still to be found in three Saṅghārāmas of Karṇasuvarṇa in the seventh century A.D.
These two instances of division in the Order during the Buddha‟s life-time show that the
Buddhist Brotherhood could not keep itself intact in spite of his impressive personality and
his efforts to prevent the division from finding its way into the Saṅgha.

These dissentient tendencies became stronger with the death of the Buddha, who, left
no one to replace him as the supreme authority and told his personal attendant Ānanda that
the Dharma and the Vinaya would be the supreme authority in future. 26 Different Buddhist
Councils were held from time to time to settle the disputes that arose among monks after the
demise of Buddha with regard to the interpretation of the principles of the Dharma and
Vinaya. These led to the origin of as many as twenty schools or more within a few hundred
years of the Parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, all claiming to have preserved, his original
teachings.

b. The First Buddhist Council

The First Council was held at Saptaparni cave in Rājagṛha in the second month of the first
rainy season, about 90 days after the Parinirvāṇa of the Buddha and was supported by King
Ajātasattu. It is accepted by critical scholarship that the First Council settled the Dharma and
the Vinaya and there is no ground for the view that the Abhidharma formed part of the canon
adopted at the First Council. It is held that Mahākassapa presided over the assembly in
which Upāli and Ānanda took an important part. There was seldom dissension over doctrinal
matters but the Council was necessitated by the pious determination of the disciples of the
Lord to preserve the purity of his teaching.

It is asserted in the Cullavagga that Mahākassapa was not present at the

Mahāparinirvāṇa of the Buddha at Kushinagara. While he was proceeding from Pāvā to
Kushinagara with a large retinue, the news of the decease of the Master was brought to him
26
by a naked ascetic of the Ājīvika sect. It is recorded that a Thera called Subhadra, who had
joined the Order in old age (Vuḍḍhapabbajita), on hearing of the Buddha‟s demise said,
“they were well-freed from the Great Ascetic and could now do or not do as they liked;” and
exhorted the monks, who were lamenting for their Master, to refrain from expressing grief. 27

This irreverent remark filled the Venerable Mahākassapa with alarm for the future
safety and purity of the Dharma preached by the Master. This remark of Subhadda was a
clear indication of the necessity of convening a Council for the fulfillment of this noble
objective.

It may be observed in this connection that Subhadra was not the only person to have
such thoughts. There were many others who felt that with the passing of the Master the
Dharma, he had taught, would disappear. The account in the Tibetan Dulva and also that of
Yuan Chwang refer to this general feeling of doubt and consternation as having been the
motive for the convocation of the First Council. 28

There is general agreement that the number of the monks selected was five hundred.
“The procedure followed at the Council was a simple one. With the permission of the
Saṅgha, the Venerable Mahākassapa asked questions on the Vinaya of the Venerable Upāli.
All these questions related to the four Pārājikās, the matter, the occasion, the individual
concerned, the principal rule, the amended rule as well as to the question as to who would
be guilty and who innocent of these Pārājikās. In this way the Vinaya text was agreed upon
at the Council.

The turn of Ānanda came next. The subject matter of the Sūtra-piṭaka, in all the five
Nikāyas, was formulated as questions for Ānanda who gave appropriate answers. These
questions followed the lines adopted in those on the Vinaya - the occasion of the sermons
and the person or persons with reference to whom they were given. The answers given by
Ānanda settled the corpus of Sūtra-piṭaka.”29

We know that Ānanda told the Council that before his departure into Nirvāṇa the
Buddha had instructed him that if the Saṅgha so wished, it could abrogate the minor rules.
Ānanda had however, forgotten to ask the Master what these minor rules were, and as
Mahākassapa pointed out that the people would say that the Buddha had laid a code which
was followed by the monks so long as the former was alive and discarded as soon as he
expired, the Council decided to retain the Vinaya intact.

27
 Thus the proceedings of the First Council achieved the settlement of the Vinaya
under the leadership of Upāli and the settlement of the texts of the Dharma under the
leadership of Ānanda. However Prof. Oldenberg is sceptical about the historical authenticity
of the First Council. The irreverent remark of Subhadra is also found in the
Mahāparinibbana-sutta, but there is not the slightest allusion to the holding of the Council.
This doubt based on omission is at best an argumentum ex silentio. The unanimous tradition
among all the schools of Buddhism cannot therefore be brushed aside as a pious fabrication.
In spite of the minor discrepancies there is a substantial core of agreement regarding the
convention of the First Council, which was a logical and ecclesiastical necessity. It was
natural that the creed of the Order should be determined in a systematic way after the
passing of the Master. Fortunately, Prof. Oldenberg appears to plough a lonely furrow.
Scholars, both Eastern and Western, are all united in their rejection of this scepticism. 30

c. The Second Buddhist Council

The Ceylonese Chronicles place the Council at Vaisali in the tenth year of the Śaiśunaga
king Kālāśoka, a century after the passing away of the Buddha. The reason for convening the
Second Council is stated to lie in the following ten indulgences (Dasavatthuni) which the
Vaiśālian monks had permitted themselves, but were condemned by Yaśas, the son of
Kākaṇḍaka and other Western and Southern monks:

1. Siṅgiloṇakappa, or the custom of putting salt in a horn vessel, in order to

season unsalted foods, when received, which is contrary to pāchittiya 38,
prohibiting the storage of food.

2. Dvaṅgulakappa, or the custom of taking mid-day meal, even after the

prescribed time, as long as the sun‟s shadow had not passed the meridian by
more than two fingers‟ breadth. This is against pāchittiya 37.

3. Gāmantarakappa, or the practice of going into some other village after meal,
and there eating again, if invited, which is opposed to pāchitiiya 35.

4. Āvāsakappa, or the practice of holding Uposatha-feast separately by the

monks dwelling in the same parish, which contravenes the Vinaya rules of-
residence in a parish.

28
 5. Anumatikappa, or carrying out official acts by an incomplete assembly on the
supposition that the consent of the absent monks would be obtained
afterwards.

6. Achiṇṇakappa, or the practice of doing something because of the preceptor‟s

practice.

7. Amathitakappa, or taking butter-milk even after meal-time, which is against

pāchittiya 35 forbidding over-eating.

8. Jalogikappa, or drinking toddy, which is opposed to pāchittiya 51

prohibiting the use of intoxicants.

9. Adasakaṁ nisidanaṁ, or the use of mats which are not of prescribed size, if
they were without fringe, which contravenes pāchittiya 89.

10. Jātarūparajataṁ, or accepting gold and silver which is against the rule 18 of
the Nissaggiyapāchittiya.31

According to the orthodox monks these ten points were opposed to the rules of
Vinaya. The monks from the Western regions like Pāvā, Kausambi and Avanti disapproved
these practices and brought this matter before the meeting of 700 monks under the
presidency of Revata. These ten points for discussion were interpreted differently by
different scholars. As it could not be decided in an open meeting the matter came to sub-
committee of which four members represented each side. Matter was decided against the
Vajjian monks who did not accept the verdict. Thus a very large body of monks seceded
from original group and styled themselves as the Mahāsāṁghikas (members of great group)
which claimed superiority in numbers or in its keenness in reforming the existing state of
affairs and improving upon the conservative attitude exhibited by the orthodox group of
monks who came to be called Sthaviravādins or Theravādins from Sthavira or Thera which
in Pāli means old or senior.

Both the Southern and the Northern traditions agree on the point that the Ten Practices
of the Vajjian monks were the starting point of the great movement which in due course
divided the Original Saṅgha into two principal schools - Theravāda and Mahāsaṅghika;
these were further sub-divided into numerous sects and sub-sects. In regard to the details,
however, there is some discrepancy between different traditions. In the Tibetan tradition only
the last four practices agree with those preserved in the Southern tradition. 32 Yuan Chwang
also mentions the ten points but, differing from the Pāli tradition, states that the Vajjian
29
monks renounced all their deviations from the orthodox rules of discipline and followed those
that were approved by the Second Council. Together with Bhavya, Vasumitra, Vinītadeva and
Tārānātha he traces the origin of the Mahāsaṅghika school to the five points enunciated by
Mahādeva, which are as follows:

1. An Arhat may commit a sin by unconscious temptations.

2. One may be an Arhat and not know it.

3. An Arhat may have doubts on matters of doctrine.

4. One cannot attain Arhathood without the help of a preceptor.

5. The noble ways may begin by a shout, i.e. one meditating seriously on
religion may make such an exclamation as „How sad! How sad! and by so
doing attain progress towards the perfection - the path is attained by an
exclamation of astonishment.33

In short, once the unity and solidarity of the Buddhist Saṅgha was broken, there set in
the process of further sub-divisions. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries after the death of
Buddha with the result of different Councils which led to different interpretations of the same
rule of Vinaya and Dharma as much as twenty schools appeared from two main subdivisions
each school claiming to have preserved original teachings of the master.

d. The Third Buddhist Council

The Third Council was held at Pāṭaliputra under the patronage of the celebrated Buddhist
monarch, Priyadarśi Aśoka who was won over to the Buddhist faith within a few years of his
accession to the throne. The adoption of the faith by Aśoka ushered a new era in the fortunes
of Buddhism. His lavish patronage and well-planned strenuous missionary activity
transformed what was so far a regional sect into an international religion.

We learn from the Pāli tradition that in order to enjoy his generous largesse, heretics
were in a large number attracted towards the Buddhist Order, with their own doctrines and
precepts, which they propagated in the name of the Buddha. The true believers could not
prevent them on account of their large number from preaching their false doctrines. The
Uposatha and the Pavāranā ceremonies also could not be held for seven years. In order to
settle the dispute and to bring about a situation in which the Uposatha could be performed,
Aśoka dispatched a minister to the Saṅgha. However, he misunderstood the emperor‟s

30
intention and beheaded several monks, who were true believers of the doctrine. On hearing
of this news, Aśoka was much grieved, and he sent for Moggaliputta Tissa, the great Thera
of that time, who declared that Aśoka was not responsible for the offence. Under him an
assembly was convened at Aśokārāma, in the 18th regnal year of Aśoka (256 B. C.) or 236
years after the Buddha‟s death. The Bhikkhus were one by one asked as to what the
teachings of the Buddha were. Those who sided with Vibhajyavāda were allowed to remain,
and those with views contrary to it were driven out after being clad in white robes. Then the
Uposatha could be performed. In this very assembly Moggaliputta Tissa is said to have
compiled the Kathāvattkuppakaraṇa refuting the doctrines that were, according to him,
contrary to the teachings of the Buddha-Theravāda.34 Thus ended the Third Council in which
a thousand Bhikkhus took part.

Although the only source from which our knowledge regarding the Third Council is
derived is the Ceylonese Chronicles, yet there is no reason to doubt its historicity, which
receives partial confirmation from some inscriptions. One of the momentous results of this
Council was the despatch of missionaries to the different countries of the world for the
propagation of the Saddhamma such as in Kashmir and Gandhāra, Mahisha-maṇḍala,
Vanavāsī, Aparāntak, Mahārāshra, Yavana country, Suvarṇabhūmi, Himavanta region and
Laṅkā. Mahindra, the son of Aśoka, and Saṅghamitrā, his daughter, were charged with
missionary work in the island of Ceylon. We have already mentioned the singular success of
this mission in that island. From the edicts of Aśoka we know of the various Buddhist
missions he sent to far-off countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. It is to a large extent due to
these missionary activities that Buddhism became the ruling religion of a large part of
mankind. The Dīpavaṁsa (VIII. 10) gives the names of the five missionaries sent to the
Himalayan region as Kassapagota, Majjhima, Duṁdubhissara, Sahadeva and Mūlakadeva.
Two of these missionaries, Kassapagota and Majjhima, are referred to in the short ins-
criptions engraved on the caskets containing their bodily relics discovered from the Stūpas at
Sanchi and Sonari. Kassapagota is styled „Saca-Hema- vatāchariya‟, i. e. teacher of the
whole community of the Haimavatas. The Haimavata Schools of Theravāda obviously
originated in the Himalayan region under the inspiring guidance of the missionaries sent
there by the Third Council, especially Kassapagota. The name of the third missionary
Dumdubhissara also appears as Dudubhisara in a relic-casket label from Sonari Stūpa No. 2.
As this Council is not mentioned in the Northern tradition, it seems certain that it was
attended by the Theravādins alone.35

31
 In short, at the time of Aśoka several schools were existing but the Buddhism in
vogue was Theravāda though Mahāsaṁghikas also had influence. During his time the Third
Council was held. It is said that monks other than Theravādins had to leave Magadha and
went to Kāshmir-Gandhāra. They occupied a prominent place there and later on came to be
known as the Sarvāstivādins. An account of the flight of the Theravādins from Magadha
to Kāshmir is recorded in Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra and Hiuen tsang‟s records of the
Western Land.

It can be said that the Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda attained sufficient importance
during the days of Aśoka and Kaniṣka. Both of them are of outstanding importance for the
history of Buddhism in India and abroad. Adherents of the schools could produce a vast
literature and with the royal patronage brought the Buddhism to the forefront of Indian
religions. The geographical distribution of the schools also throws light on their
development. The Sarvāstivādins were chiefly confined to Northern India their chief seat
being Kashmir and the Theravādins to Magadha and Kosala. Dr. N. Datta says, “The
Sarvāstivāda had its sphere of activity in Northern India extending from Kāshmir to Mathura
and was responsible for the propagation of Hīnayāna Buddhism in Central Asia from where
it was earned to China.”36

2.2.3 The Development of Buddhist Schools

There are differences about the number of schools among Buddhist traditions. So, it is
necessary for us to discuss the different traditions of the development of Buddhist schools
here.

a. Different Traditions of the Development of Buddhist Schools

Both the Southern and the Northern traditions mention several schools, most of which are
stated to have arisen in the second century after the Buddha‟s death. Their standard number
is eighteen, but many more are referred to and the Ceylonese Chronicles supply the list and a
brief account of the rise of the seventeen Buddhist schools from the Theravāda. According
to the Mahāvaṁsa the origin of the different sects may be shown in a tabular form thus:
served in the Bstanhgyur, which contains the work of Bhavya, Vasumitra and Vinītadeva.
Bhavya first distinguishes the first two schools: (I) the Sthaviravāda and (II) the
Mahāsāṅghika.
32
 The Sthaviravāda school gradually divided itself into twelve fractions which are as
follows: (1) The Sthavira proper, also known as the Haimavata, (2) the Sarvāstivādina (3)
the Vaibhajyavādina, (4) the Hetuvidya or Muduntaka or Maruntaka, (5) Vātsīputrīya, (6)
the Dharmottariya, (7) the Bhadrāyanīya, (8) the Sammatiya, which is also known as
Avantaka or Kurukullaka, (9) the Mahīśāsaka, (10) the Dharmaguptaka, (11) the
Saddharmavarshaka, or Suvarshaka, or Kāśyapīya, and (12) the Uttarīya or the
Saṅkrāntivādina.

The Mahāsāṅghika school was gradually divided into eight fractions: (1) the
Mahāsānghika proper, (2) the Ekavyavahārika, (3) the Lokottaravādina, (4) the
Bahuśrutīya, (5) the Prajñaptivādinā (Pradshnaptivādina), (6) the Tchaityika, (7) the
Pūrvaśasaila, and (8) the Avaraśaila.37

Two main groups as said above split into twenty sects as Yuan Chwang‟s translation of
Vasumitra‟s book indicates the emergence of schools approximately a century after the death of
Buddha. Mahāsāṅghika was divided into 9 more schools: (1) Ekavyavahārikas, (2)
Lokottaravādins, (3) Kukkutiyas, (4) Bahuśrutīyas, (5) Prajñaptivādins, (6) Mūla-
Mahāsāṁghikas, (7) Caitya-Sailas, (8) Apara-Sailas, and (9) Uttara-Sailas; Sthaviravādin‟s
split up into two main schools, Haimavata and Sarvāstivādin, in third century and then at the end
of third and in fourth century 9 more schools were sprang up: (1) Vātsīputrīyas, (2)
Dharmottariyas, (3) Bhadrāyanīkas, (4) Sammītiyas, (5) Sannagārikas, (6) the Mahīśāsakas,
(7) Dharmaguptas, (8) Kāśyapiyas also called Srāvakas, (9) Sautrātikas.

Some other versions of Vasumitra‟s work do not agree with the above and we find
difference in the development of schools.38

According to Mahāyāna scriptures in Chinese twenty schools were developed as

follows:

Sthaviravāda (上座部) was split into 11 sects. These were: Sarvāstivādin

(説一切有部), Haimavata (雪山部), Vatsīputrīya (犢子部), Dharmottara (法上部),
Bhadrayānīya (賢冑部), Sammitīya (正量部), Channagirika (密林山部), Mahisasaka
(化地部), Dharmaguptaka (法蔵部), Kāśyapīya (飲光部), Sautrāntika (経量部).

Mahāsāṃghika (大衆部) was split into 9 sects. There were: Ekavyahārika (一説部),
Lokottaravādin (説出世部), Gokulika (鶏胤部), Bahuśrutīya (多聞部), Prajñaptivāda
(説仮部), Caitika (制多山部), Aparaśaila (西山住部), and Uttaraśaila (北山住部).39

33
 Hindu and Jaina philosophical works mention only four schools from two main
branches Hinayāna and Mahāyāna namely the former is divided into Vaibhāṣika and
Sautrāntika and later into Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. In Buddhist tradition the Vaibhāṣikas
were so called on account of their dependence on Vibhāṣā (Commentary on the Abhidharma).
They attached themselves exclusively to the Abhidharmapiṭaka and refused to accept the
authority of the Sūtrapiṭaka and Vinayapiṭaka, as Sautrāntikas for recognizing the Sūtras, the
Mādhyamikas for laying emphasis on Madhyamā Pratipadā only as authoritative, The
Yogācāra were known as the Vijñānavādins on account of their holding Vijñāna as ultimate
reality. Vaibhāṣika school was at first known as the Sarvāstivāda, The Vaibhāṣikas were
considered to be continuators of the earlier Sarvāstivādins. “In later times the so-called
Vaibhāṣikas came to be identified with the Sarvāstivādins, the two names became
interchangeable although properly speaking the Sarvāstivādins originally formed a section of
the Vaibhāṣika.”40

According to Ceylonese tradition Buddhism was divided into two primitive schools.
Theravāda and Mahāsaṁghika while according to Bhikshuvara Sagraprccha and records of I-
tsing there were four original schools (1) Ārya-Mūlasarvāstivāda, (2) Ārya-Mahāsaṁghika,
(3) Ārya-Sammitiya and (4) Ārya-Sthavira.

Traditions differ with regard to origin and development of schools but history tells us
that except Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra all disappeared shortly after
their appearance. These schools have their adherents in large numbers.41

b. The Account of the Different Schools

It is not possible to give an account of all the different schools. Only a few important ones
among these will therefore be considered as follows:

The Sthaviravāda School

The Sthaviravāda School is the most orthodox school of Buddhism. The earliest available
teaching of the Buddha to be found in Pāli literature belongs to this school which admits the
human character of the Buddha and he is often represented as having human foibles, though
he is recognized as possessing certain superhuman qualities. The life of an Arhat is the ideal
of the followers of this school, a life where all (future) birth is at an end, where the holy life is

34
fully achieved, where all that had to be done has been done, and there is no more return to
worldly life.

Following this school we are taught to abstain from all kinds of evil, to accumulate all
that is good and to purify our mind. These things can be accomplished by the practice of what
are called Śīla, Samādhi, and Prajñā. Moreover, we are also taught the Four Noble Truths
and the Law of Dependent Co-arising, which tries to explain the phenomenon of life by
showing the interrelation of causal relation. Karma, the actions of an individual, regulates all
life, and the whole universe is bound by it, so that Karma is like the axle of a rolling chariot.

According to this school all worldly phenomena are subject to three characteristics:
Anitya (impermanent); Duḥkha (sufferings); and Ānatma (no-self). All compound things
are made up of two elements: Nāma (the non-material part) and Rūpa (the material part).
They are further described as consisting of nothing but five constituent groups (skandhas),
namely, Rūpa (the material quality), and four non-material qualities - sensation (Vedanā),
perception (Saṃjñā), mental formatives (Saṃskāra), and lastly consciousness (Vijñāna).
These elements are also classified into twelve organs and objects of sense (Āyatana) and
eighteen Dhātus. The twelve sense (Āyatana) consist of the six internal organs of sense - the
eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind corresponding six objects of sense,
namely, material objects, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles and those things that can be
apprehended only by the mind (dharmayatana). The eighteen Dhātus include six
consciousnesses and twelve Āyatanas i.e. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-
consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness.

Thus, this school has a pluralistic conception of the constituent elements of the
universe. The number of the constituents increases gradually from two to five, then to
twelve, and finally to eighteen. This number increases still further in the case of other
schools. According to Pāli sources, at the Council of Pāṭaliputra, the teachings of this school
were certified to be those of the Vibhajyavāda school.

The Mahīśāsaka School

According to Pāli sources, this school branched off from the Sthaviravāda school and gave
rise to the Sarvāstivāda school while Vasumitra tells that this school was derived from the
Sarvāstivāda school. Like the Theravāda, the earlier Mahīśāsaka school believed in the
simultaneous comprehension of truths and thought that the past and the future did not exist,

35
while the present and the nine Asaṃskṛta Dharmas did. These nine Asaṃskṛta Dharmas
were “(1) Pratisaṅkhyā-Nirodha, cessation through knowledge; (2) Apratisaṅkhyā-
Nirodha, cessation without knowledge, i.e. through the natural cessation of the causes; (3)
Ākāśa, space; (4) Āneñjatā, immovability; (5) Kuśala-dharma-tathatā; (6) Akuśala-
dharma-tathatā, and (7) Avyakṛtā-dharma-tathatā, that is, suchness of the dharmas that are
meritorious, unmeritorious and neither the one nor the other; (8) Mārgaringa-tathatā; and
(9) Pratitya-samutpāda-tathatā, or suchness of the factors of the Path and suchness of the
Law of Dependent Co-arising. The last corresponds to that in the list of the
Mahāsāṅghikas.”42

The Mahīśāsakas also believed that “the Arhats were not subject to retrogression.
However, they held that those who were in the first stage, srotāpaṇṇas, were subject to such
retrogression. No deva or god could lead a holy life, nor a heretic attain miraculous powers.
There was no antarā-bhāva, or interim existence between this life and the next. The Saṇgha
included the Buddha and therefore charities given to the former were more meritorious than
those given to the Buddha only. Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, Right
Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood were not to be considered real factors since they
were not mental actions. These were therefore to be excluded from the factors of the Noble
Path.”43

Like the Sarvāstivāda school, they believed in the existence of the past, the future
and Antarā-Bhāva, and held that the Skandhas, the Āyatanas and the Dhātus always existed
in the form of seeds.

The Haimavata School

The very name suggests that the Haimavata school was originally located in the Himalayan
regions. In his book on the Eighteen Sects, Vasumitra calls the Haimavatas the inheritors of
the Sthaviravādins, but Bhavya and Vinītadeva look upon this school as a branch of the
Mahāsaṅghikas. The Haimavatas believed that the Bodhisattvas had no special eminence,
the gods could not live the holy life of Brahmacharya and heretics could not have
miraculous powers.

36
The Dharmaguptika School

The Dharmaguptika school broke away from the Mahīśāsaka school. This school proffered
gifts to the Buddha and greatly revered the Stūpas of the Buddha as is clear from their rules
of the Vinaya. Like the Mahīśāsakas, they believed that an Arhat was free from passion and
heretics could not gain supernatural powers. This school was popular in Central Asia and
China, and had its own Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma literature.

The Kāśyapiya School

According to the Ceylonese chronicles this school branched off from the Sarvāstivāda school
before the time of Aśoka while the Tibetan tradition informs us that the school derived from
its founder Kaiyapa.44 The Kāśyapiyas differed on minor points from the Sarvāstivādins and
the Dharmaguptikas and were closer to the Sthaviravādins. Therefore, they are also called
the Sthavariyas. The Kāśyapiyas believed that “the past which has borne fruit ceases to exist,
but that which has not yet ripened continues to exist, thus partially modifying the position of
the Sarvāstivādins, for whom the past also exists like the present. The Kāśyapiyas are
sometimes represented as having effected a compromise between the Sarvāstivādins and the
Vibhajyavādins and also claim a Tripiṭaka of their own.”45

The Sautrāntika School

According to Pāli sources the school of the Sankrantivada school is derived from the
Kāśyapiya school and the Sautrāntikas school from that of the Sankrantivada school, while
according to Vasumitra the two are identical. This school believed in sankranti or the
transmigration of a substance from one life to another. Among the five skandhas of an
individual, this school believed that there is only one subtle skandha which transmigrates, as
against the whole of the pudgala of the Sammitīyas. This subtle skandha according to the
Kāśyapiya school is the real pudgala. The latter is the same as the subtle consciousness which
permeates the whole body according to the Mahāsaṅghikas, and is identical with the ālaya-
vijñāna of the Yogācārins. It is possible that this school borrowed its doctrine of subtle
consciousness from the Mahāsaṅghikas and lent it to the Yogācāra school. It also believed
that every man had in him the potentiality of becoming a Buddha, a doctrine of the
Mahāyānists. On account of such views his school is considered to be a bridge between the
Śrāvakayāna often, though not justifiably, called the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna.”46
37
The Mahāsaṅghika School

The Mahāsaṅghikas were the earliest seceders, and the forerunners of the Mahāyāna. This
had a complete canon of their own which they divided into five parts, viz. the Sūtra, the
Vinaya, the Abhidharma, the Dharaṇis and Miscellaneous. The Vinaya of the
Mahāsaṅghikas is the same as that compiled at Mahākassapa‟s Council. The original work
of the Mahāsaṅghika sect available to us is the Mahāvastu, which is written partly in
Sanskrit and partly in Prakrit or mixed Indian dialect allied to Sanskrit. The work was
probably composed between the 2nd century B.C. and the 4th century A.D.

During the second century after the Buddha‟s passing away, the Mahāsaṅghika
school was split up into Ekayvāhārika, Lokottaravāda, Kukkuṅika (Gokulika), Bahuśrutīya
and Prajñaptivāda and shortly afterwards appeared the Śaila schools. The general doctrines
of the Mahāsaṅghikas with all their branches are contained in the Kathavatthu, the
Mahāvastu and the works of Vasumitra, Bhavya and Vinītadeva. The Bahuśrutīyas and the
Caityakas were later offshoots of the Mahāsaṅghika school and differed somewhat from the
original Mahāsaṅghikas in their views.

The Mahāsaṅghikas, like the Theravādins, accepted the cardinal principles of

Buddhism such as the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the non-existence of the soul,
the theory of Karma, the theory of Pratītya samutpāda, the thirty-seven Bodhipakṣiya-
dharmas, and the gradual stages of spiritual advancement. Both Mahāsaṅghika and
Theravāda accepted that “the Buddhas are Lokottara (supramundane); they have no Sāsrava
Dharmas (defiled elements); their bodies, their length of life and their powers are unlimited;
they neither sleep nor dream; they are self-possessed and always in a state of Samādhi
(meditation); they do not preach by name; they understand everything in a moment
(Ekakṣaṇika-Citta); until they attain Parinirvāṇa, the Buddhas possess Kṣayajñāna
(knowledge of decay) and Anutpadajñāna (knowledge of non-origination). In short,
everything concerning the Buddhas is transcendental.” 47 The Mahāsaṅghika conception of
the Buddhas contributed to the growth of the later Trikāya theory in Mahāyāna and gave rise
to the conception of the Bodhisattvas. According to them, the Bodhisattvas are also
supramundane, and do not pass through the four embryonic stages of ordinary beings. They
enter their mother‟s wombs in the form of white elephants and come out of the wombs on the
right side. They never experience feelings of lust (Kāma), malevolence (Vyāpāda) or injury
(Vihiṃsā). For the benefit of all classes of sentient beings, they are born of their own free
will in any form of existence they choose. 48 We can see that all these conceptions led to the

38
deification of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This school also maintains that “Arhats also
have frailties; that they can be taught by others; that they still have a degree of ignorance,
and a degree of doubt; and that they can acquire knowledge only with the help of others.
Thus, Arhathood is not the final stage of sanctification.”49

The Bahuśrutīya School

The Bahuśrutīya school is later branch of the Mahāsaṅghikas. It owes its origin to a teacher
who was very learned in Buddhist lore (Bahuśrutīa). This school believed that “the teachings
of the Buddha concerning Anityatā (impermanence), Duḥkha (suffering), Śūnya (the absence
of all attributes), Anātman (the non-existence of the soul), and Nirvāṇa (the final bliss) were
Lokottara (transcendental), since they led to emancipation. His other teachings were Laukika
(mundane).”50 And they also accepted the five propositions of Mahādeva as their views. From
this conception the Bahuśrutīyas may be regarded as the precursors of the later Mahāyāna
teachers.

The Bahuśrutīyas are often described as „a bridge between the orthodox and the
Mahāyāna school‟, as they tried to combine the teachings of both. Like the followers of the
orthodox schools, he believed in the plurality of the universe which, according to him,
contained eigthy-four elements. Like the Mahāyānists, he maintained that there were two
kinds of truth - conventional (saṃvṛti) and absolute (paramārtha). He believed in the
theory of Buddha-kāya as well as of Dharma-kāya, which he explains as consisting of good
conduct (Śīla), concentration (Samādhi), insight (Prajñā), deliverance (Vimukti) and
knowledge of and insight into deliverance (Vimukti Jñāna-Darśana). Although he did not
recognize the absolute transcendental nature of the Buddha, he still believed in the special
powers of the Buddha, such as the ten powers (Daśa Balāni) and the four kinds of
confidence (Vaiśāradya) which are admitted even by the Sthaviravādins. He believed that
only the present was real, while the past and the future had no existence. 51

The Caityavāda School

The Caityavāda school originated with the teacher Mahādeva towards the close of the
second century after the passing away of the Buddha. Mahādeva was a learned and diligent
ascetic who received his ordination in the Mahāsaṅghika Saṅgha. He professed the five
points of the Mahāsaāghikas, and started a new Saṅgha. Since he dwelt on the mountain
39
where there was a Caitya, the name Caityaka was given to his adherents. Furthermore, this
name is also mentioned in the Amarāvati and Nāgārjunakoṇḍa inscriptions. It may be noted
here that Caityavāda was the source of the Śaila schools.

Generally speaking, the Caityavāda school shared the fundamental doctrines of the
original Mahāsaṅghika school, but differed somewhat from Mahāsaṅghika in their views.
Specially, the doctrines attributed to the Caityavāda school are as follows:

(i). One can acquire great merit by the creation, decoration, and worship of Caityas;
even a circumambulation of Caityas engenders merit.

(ii). Offerings of flowers, garlands and scents to Caityas are likewise meritorious.

(iii). By making gifts one can acquire religious merit, and can also transfer such merit
to one‟s friends and relatives for their happiness - a conception quite unknown in primitive
Buddhism but, common in Mahāyānism. These articles of faith made Buddhism popular
among the laity.

(iv). The Buddhas are free from attachment, ill-will and delusion (jita-raga-dosa-
moha), and possessed of finer elements (dhātuvara- parigahita). They are superior to
Arhats by virtue of the acquisition of ten powers (balas).

(v). A person having samyak-dṛṣṭi (the right view) is not free from hatred (dveṣa)
and, as such, not free from the danger of committing the sin of murder.

(vi). Nirvāṇa is positive, faultless state (amatādhātu). 52

The Mādhyamika School

The Mādhyamika school is said to have originated with the teacher, Ārya Nāgārjuna (2nd
century A.D.) who was followed by a galaxy of Mādhyamika thinkers, such as Āryadeva (3rd
century), Buddhapālita (5th century), Bhāvaviveka (5th century), Candrakīrti (6th century)
and Śantideva (7th century). The term Mādhyamika was so called because it emphasis on
madhyamā-pratipat (the middle view). Nāgārjuna wrote a number of works of which the
Mādhyamika-kārikā is regarded as his masterpiece. It presents in a systematic manner the
philosophy of the Mādhyamika school. It teaches that Sūnyatā (the indescribable absolute) is
the absolute. There is no difference between Saṃsāra (phenomenal world) and Nirvāṇa or
Sūnyatā (reality). The Mādhyamika view holds Sūnyatā to be the central idea of its
philosophy and is therefore designated the Sūnyavāda.

40
 The Mādhyamika was divided into two schools of thought towards the beginning of
the 5th century A.D. They are: the Prāsaṅgika school and the Svatāntra school. “The
Prāsaṅgika school uses the method of reductio ad absurdum to establish its thesis, while the
Svatāntra school employs independent reasoning. The former was founded by Buddhapālita
and the latter by Bhāvaviveka.”53 The Mādhyamika philospphy spread in China and Japan.
T‟ien-t‟ai and San-lun sects of China advocated the doctrine of Sūnyatā and were thus a
continuation of the Indian Mādhyamika system. The Sanron sect in Japan also followed this
system.

The Yogācāra School

The Yogācāra school is an important branch of the Mahāyāna, and was founded by
Maitreya, or Maitreyānatha (3rd century A.D.). The teachers of this school were Asaṅga (4th
century), Vasubandhu (4th century), Sthiramti (5th century), Dinnāga (5th century),
Dharmapāla (7th century), Dharmakīrti (7th century), Śāntarakṣita (8th century) and
Kamalaśīla (8th century) who continued the work of the founder by their writings and raised
the school to a high level. The school reached the acme of its power and influence in the
days of Asaṅga and his brother, Vasubandhu. The appellation Yogācāra was given by
Asaṅga because it emphasized the practice of Yogā (meditation) as the most effective method
for the attainment of the highest truth (Bodhi). All the ten stages of spiritual progress
(daśabhumi) of Bodhisattvahood had to be passed through before Bodhi could be attained.
The term Vijñānavāda was used by Vasubandhu on account of the fact that it holds
Vijñāptimātra (nothing but consciousness) to be the ultimate reality. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra,
an important work of this school, maintains that only the mind (Cittamātra) is real, while
external objects are not. Vasubandhu‟s Vijñāptimātratā-siddhi is the basic work of this
system. It repudiates all belief in the reality of the objective world, maintaining that Citta
(Cittamātra) or vijñāna (Vijñānamātra) is the only reality, while the Ālayavijñāna contains
the seeds of phenomena, both subjective and objective.

The Yogācāra recognizes three degrees of knowledge: parikalpita (illusory),

paratantra (empirical), and pariniṣpanna (absolute). Parikalpita is the false attribution of an
imaginary idea to an object produced by its cause and conditions. It exists only in one‟s
imagination and does not correspond to reality. Paratantra is the knowledge of an object
produced by its cause and conditions. This is relative knowledge and serves the practical

41
purposes of life. Pariniṣpanna is the highest truth or tathata, the absolute. Parikalpita and
paratantra correspond to saṃvṛti- satya (relative truth), and pariniṣpanna to paramārtha-
satya (highest truth) of the Mādhyamika system. Thus the Yogācāra has three varieties of
knowledge for two of the Mādhyamika.

The Yogācāra differs from the Mādhyamika only in that it attributes qualities to
reality. The former holds that reality is pure consciousness (Vijñānamatra) while the latter
believes it is Śūnyatā.54

2.3 The Sarvāstivāda School

The Sarvāstivāda school was one of the so-called Eighteen Schools of early Buddhism. The
term Sarvāstivāda is also used to designate the body of doctrine and literature associated with
this community. The Sarvāstivāda was the only school besides the Theravāda that was known
to have had a complete canon of their own in Sanskrit in three divisions: Sūtra, Vinaya and
Abhidharma. This body of literature is an important source for the study of the so-called
Hīnayāna schools, eclipsed in this respect only by that of the Theravāda tradition. In order to
understand the Sarvāstivāda school clearly, we will present general history, the explanation of
the name and the Abhidharma literature of this school in turn.

2.3.1 General History

In the history of the secession of schools the Sarvāstivāda branched off from the Theravāda,
the most orthodox school of Buddhism. The Dīpavaṁsa records that the Sarvāstivāda
branched off from the Mahīsāsaka, a branch of orthodox group, the Theravāda. It was also
known as the Vaibhāṣika on account of its relying on the Vibhāṣās (commentaries) - the
fundamental works of the Sarvāstivāda school and specially the Mahāvibhāṣāśāstra, an
encyclopaedia of Buddhist philosophy. Yamakami Sogen writes that:

“In later times the so-called Vaibhāṣikas came to be identified with the Sarvāstivādins; and the two
names became mutually interchangeable although, properly speaking, the Sarvāstivādins originally
formed a section of the Vaibhāshikas.”55

There is, however, a tradition that the Sarvāstivāda school was divided into seven
sects Mūlasarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmagupta, Bahuśrutīya, Tāmraśāṭiya
and Vibhajjavāda.

42
 The Sanskrit tradition speaks of King Aśoka‟s support to the Sarvāstivāda school
towards the later part of his life. Aśoka, apprehending that the Theravāda school might be
supplanted by the new sects which had seceded from it, convened a Council under the
guidance of Moggaliputta Tissa, the leader of the orthodox school (Theravāda). The monks,
who subscribed to the views of the Theravāda, were recognised as orthodox and the rest as
unorthodox. The unorthodox monks left Magadha and went to Kashmir-Gandhāra. They
occupied a conspicuous position there and subsequently came to be known as Sarvāstivādins.
The Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra56 and Hiuen-tsang‟s Records of the Western World
furnish us with an account of the flight of the Theravādins from Magadha to Kashmir. From
them we also learn that the monks who fled to Kashmir from Magadha were no other than
Sarvāstivādins and, through their activities, Kashmir became the centre of Buddhist
philosophical studies in Northern India.

The Sarvāstivādins also claimed king Kaniṣka as their great patron. He was as great a
patron of Buddhism as king Aśoka and his name is familiar to the Buddhists as that of Aśoka.
He used to read Buddhist scriptures with a monk but was much puzzled at the conflicting
interpretations of the different sects. He convened a Council to reconcile the varying opinions
of the different sects and „To restore Buddhism to eminence and to have the Tripiṭaka
explained according to the tenets of the various schools‟. Monks of different sects participated
in the Council - the Sarvāstivādins, of course, forming the majority. Monks assembled there
settled the texts of the Canonical literature and also composed extensive commentaries on the
Sūtra, Vinaya and Abbhidharma texts. They are known as the Upadeśaśāstra,
Vinayavibhāṣāśāstra and Abhidharmavibhāṣāśāstra respectively.57 It is said that the texts
were engraved on copper-plates and deposited inside a tope. These plates have, however, not
yet been traced. Thus the main object of the Council was to prepare commentaries on the
Canons with a view to reconciling the varying interpretations of the different sects. It also
bears witness to the literary and religious activities of the Sarvāstivāda school and is of great
value from the point of view of the history of religion and literature.58

The Sarvāstivāda group of schools shows features identical to those of Theravādins.

Its Canon is essentially the same as Pāli Canon. Initially it was in a form of Prākrit and when
written down, was partly into Sanskrit. It is from the finding of manuscripts and also from the
quotations in the different Buddhist Sanskrit texts such as Lalitavistara, Divyāvadāna, etc., it
appears that the Sarvāstiviādins divided their Canon like the Theravādins into three Piṭakas.59
However, in the Sarvāstivāda Canon the „Āgamas‟ had replaced the „Nikāyas‟ of Theravādin.

43
 Though the Canon of the Sarvāstivādins was written in Sanskrit but the texts such as
the Prātimokṣaśūtra, the Lalitavistara and other fragments of Āgamas shows that the
language of the Sarvāstivāda Canon did not conform to the rules of the Sanskrit grammar and
hence Senart chose to call this language of the Canon as Mixed Sanskrit, while it was
described as Gāthā dialect by R.L. Mitra though M. Winternitz60 has his reservations
regarding the term Gāthā dialect.

The belief that all things exist, sarvam asti, advocated by this school perhaps goes
back to the Saṁyutta-nikāya where the expression, sabbhaṁ atthi, occurs. It is this belief that
has given the school its name. Like the Sthaviravādins, the Sarvāstivādins were the realists
among the Buddhists. They believed that it was not only the things in the present that existed,
but also the things in the past and future which were in continuity with the present. Like the
Vātsīputrīyas, the Sammitīyas and some of the Mahāsaṅghikas, they revolted against the
dominance of the Arhats who had attained a position of unsurpassed eminence among the
Sthaviravādins. They maintained that an Arhat was subject to fall or retrogression, while,
curiously enough, they maintained at the same time that a srotāpanna, or an individual in the
first stage, was not liable to such retrogression. They also said that a continuous flow of mind
might amount to concentration (samādhi) of mind. This school, like the Sthaviravādins,
denied the transcendent powers ascribed to the Buddha and the Bodhisattva by the
Mahasaṅghikas. It was their faith that holy life was possible for gods and that even heretics
could have supernatural powers. They believed in antara-bhava, an interim existence between
this life and the next. They maintained that the Bodhisattvas were still ordinary people
(prthag-jana) and that even the Arhats were not free from the effects of past actions and still
had something to learn.

They believed in nairatmya, the absence of any permanent substance in an individual,

though they admitted the permanent reality of all things. Like the Sthaviravādins, they
believed in the plurality of elements in the universe. According to them, there were seventy-
five elements, seventy-two of them saṁskṛta, compounded, and three asaṁskṛta,
uncompounded, which were ākāśa or space, pratisaṅkhyā-nirodha, or cessation through
knowledge, and apratisaṅkhyā-nirodha, or cessation, not through knowledge, but through
the natural process of the absence of required conditions. The seventy-two saṁskṛta dharmas
were divided into four groups: rūpa, or matter which was held to be of eleven kinds,
including one called avijñapti-rūpa, unmanifested action in the form of a mental impress;
citta, mind, forty-six mental concomitants (citta-saṃprayukta dharmas) and fourteen

44
dharmas which were not connected with mind (cittaviprayukta), the last being a new class of
forces which were not classed as mental or material, although they could not be active without
a mental or material basis. These seventy-five elements were linked together by causal
relations, six of which were dominant (hetu) and four subsidiary (pratyaya). 61

The Sarvāstivāda school was the most widely extended group of schools in India. It
was the school that continued t o flourish widely-long after the Theravāda school had been
cut off from its Indian home. It had also to bear the brunt of battle against the Mahāyāna
school. Nāgārjuna, the founder of the Mādhyamika system, made the main target of attack of
the Sarvāstivāda view in propounding his subtle philosophy of Śūnyatā. It flourished in
Northern India stretching from Kashmir to Mathura. It was the school which was mainly
responsible for the propagation of Buddhist doctrines in Central Asia whence they were
subsequently preached in China. A few inscriptions (2nd - 4th century A.D.) as also the
Travel-accounts of Chinese pilgrims, such as Fa-hien, Hiuen- tsang and I-tsing testify to the
wide popularity of this school all over Northern India and outside India. Thus it is seen that it
held the most important position in popularity, expansion and philosophical views in the
schools of Buddhist thought.

2.3.2 The Explanation of the Name of the School

The term Sarvāstivāda, Sarva (all) + asti (exist) + Vāda (doctrine) means all exists. In other
words, it is a doctrine advocating that all, external and internal, things are real. 62 Thus
Sarvāstivādin means one who upholds the doctrine that all things exist. According to
Winternitz‟s view, the literal meaning of Sarvāstivāda is that everything exists permanently.63
It is often rendered in English as “Realists”. Realism in the Buddhist Philosophy maintains
that “the substance of all things has a permanent existence throughout the three divisions of
time, the present, the past, and the future.”64 This term, as understood, in the Buddhist
Philosophy, conveys a sense different from its ordinary one, as usually found in the English
Philosophy. It is used as opposed to Idealism and Nominalism65.

The earlier Chinese term to designate the school is invariably 薩 婆 多 [sa-p’o-to],

M.C. [sat-ba-ta], term used by Fa-hsien (399-414), Paramārtha (499-569) and sometimes by
Hsuan-tsang (629-645) and I-ching (635-713). This term most likely is a transliteration of „sa
(-rvāsti-) vāda‟. Junjiro Takakusu explains 薩 婆 多 as rendering the Pāli „sabbathi (vāda)‟.
This is little convincing, since 婆 多 is the common translation of „-vāda‟, and 多 [to] is

45
difficult to be interpreted as transliterating „-ti-‟. Also a hypothesis of a double use of the
syllable 婆 i.e. for both [ba] and [vā] in „sabba(-thi-)vāda‟ is not completely satisfactory,
since this would leave [thi] untranslated. It is also possible that 薩 婆 多 stands for „sarva(-
astivā-)da‟, or is, in fact, a rendering of a Prākrit term, a Prākrit used in Mathurā, a
Sarvāstivāda place of origin. We also find the Chinese terms 一 切 有 部 and 說 一 切 有 部
to render the Sanskrit „Sarvāstivāda‟. These terms mean „the school that proclaims the
existence of everything.‟66

The Sarvāstivāda is represented by Vasubandhu as defining their position as follows:

“Those who hold ‘all exists’ – the past, the present and the future – belong to the
Sarvāstivāda”67.

There were differences of opinion among the Sarvāstivāda teachers on the

interpretation of the existence of the objects in regard to the past, present and future.
Prominent among those exponents were Dharmatrāta, Ghoṣaka, Vasumitra and Buddhadeva.
The Sarvāstivāda, originated from the Theravāda. It had, therefore, a fair agreement with the
Theravāda in regard to the doctrinal matters. Like the Theravāda, it believed in the plurality
of elements in the universe. According to it, there were seventy five elements, seventy two of
them were divided into rūpa, citta, cittasaṃpprayuktadharmas and cittaviprayuktadharmas,
while asaṁskṛtadharmas were ākāśa, pratisaṅkhyānirodha and apratisaṅkhyānirodha.
Lastly, like the Theravāda, it believed in doctrine of Karma and Nirvāṇa, a state to be
attained by transcendental knowledge through the giving up of lusts (kleśa).68

2.3.3 The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma Literature

The differing philosophical views of the Buddhist schools resulted in the production of
Abhidharma which are the repository of all Buddhist teachings and provide the theoretical
foundation for all Buddhist doctrines. Among those Abhidharma schools, the Sarvāstivāda -
Vaibhāṣika school was the most influential and prolific in India. This school was the only
school besides Theravāda that was known to have had a complete Abhidharma canon, based
upon central text, the Jñānaprasthāna and its six subsidiary treatises called the Pādasāstra.
The Abhidharma literature of the Sarvāstivāda school can be presented as follows:

46
a. Abhidharma Literature

The word Abhidharma is firstly known as the third collection of the Buddhist canonical
books, it is also a name for the specific method in which all special teaching of the Buddha
are set forth in those books, not only highest issue thereof but also the literature connected
with it.69 The Abhidharma, that expounds the word of the Buddha in terms of an ethical
realism is a philosophy with an essentially religious basis.70 In Mahāyānasūtralaṇkāra,
Abhidharma is considered to be as the special matters of all the Buddha‟s teaching which are
best understood. In the Abhidharmakośa, having referred to the word of „abhidharma’,
Vasubandhu notes that Abhidharma means the pure wisdom (prajñā) with its following that
is unsullied wisdom which analyzes factors (dharmapravicaya). Hence, it can be said that
the dharma presented in Abhidharma surpasses those composed in the Sūtras because the
various classifications of the elements of existence are listed haphazardly in the Sūtras while
the Abhidharma mentions them with their definitive forms. Thus, the Sūtras are preached
from the standpoint of conventional truth according to the specific world circumstances, but
the Abhidharma deals with the absolute truth, and is concerned with the analysis of mind
and matter (nāma- rūpapariccheda).

The characteristics of the Abhidharma are distinguished from those of the other two
Piṭakas as follows:

“The Sūtra-Piṭaka is the emanation (niṣyanda) of the Buddha’s power (bala), for none can refute the
doctrines therein.

The Vinaya-Piṭaka is the emanation of great compassion (mahākaruṇā), for it advocates morality
(śīla) for the salvation of those in the unfortunate planes of existence (durgati).

The Abhidharma is the emanation of fearlessness, for it properly establishes the true characteristics of
dharma-s, answering questions and ascertaining fearlessly.”71

The growth of Abhidharma studies and their subsequent incorporation into books can
be divided roughly, into three phases:

1. the first covers the period of original or primitive Buddhism and goes back to
the time of the Buddha himself.

2. the second is the period during which Abhidharma became an independent

collection, detached from the two other collections: Sūtra and Vinaya.

3. the third is the period of the compilation of the fundamental texts of the

47
 Abhidharma and may be assigned chronologically to extend from the
beginning of the first century, this time roughly coincides with the period of
the differentiation of the Buddhist schools.

But the Abhidharma texts were the first major extension of the scope of Buddhist
literature to take place in India and the approach to legitimization was taken by the Buddhist
masters adumbrates that adopted later by the Mahāyāna school. Three major concerns were
apparent in their attempts to establish the authenticity of their new books:

1. Firstly, to prove that the Buddha himself had personally taught the
Abhidharma;

2. Secondly, to prove that it had been formally transmitted to eminent disciples

of the Buddha by whom it was then collected; and

3. Thirdly, to prove that the Abhidharma works had in fact been recited and
codified at the time of the putative first council. In this wise, both Theravādin
and Sarvāstivādin attempted to justify the inclusion of their Abhidharmas as
part of the canon.

According to the Theravāda tradition, Śāriputra transmitted the Abhidharma to the

disciples. All of the seven canonical Abhidharma texts are said to be by the Buddha, the first
Ābhidhammika. The Buddha first taught it to the Gods in the Thirty-three (tāva-tiṃsa)-
Heaven; and it was studied and transmitted through Śāriputra by a succession of teachers.72

For the Sarvāstivādins, the Abhidharma consisted of a variety of teachings of the

Buddha scattered throughout the canon, which were systematized by the elders to whom
these treatises were attributed. The Vaibhāsikās maintain that:

“The Abhidharmapiṭaka, which deals with the nature and the characteristics of elements and belongs to the
Upadesa class, was preached by the Buddha to his disciples and remains scattered here and there. Just as
Dharmatrāta compiled several Udānās of the Master in the work Udānavargīya, similarly, the Elders
Kātyāyanīputra and others collected the Abhidharma together in these Sāstras.”73

It is very interesting to know that the fortuitous similarity between the name of
Kātyāyanīputra the Elder mentioned in Yasomitra‟s quote who was considered to be the
author of their central Abhidharma book, the Jñānaprasthāna and that of the Buddha‟s
serious disciple, Mahākātyāyana, who participated in the Council at Rajagraha, allowed the
Sarvāstivādins to say further that the Jñānaprasthāna, compiled from various teachings of
the Buddha, was sanctioned as his own words by the Buddha himself during his own
48
lifetime.74 Moreover, the Sarvāstivādins also said finally that this Abhidharmapiṭaka was
recited by Ānanda during the first council.

Acctually, the Sarvāstivāda was the only school besides the Theravāda 75 that was
known to have had a complete Abhidharma canon, based upon central text, the
Jñānaprasthāna and its six subsidiary treatises called the Pādasāstra.76 A great commentary
to the Jñānaprasthāna was known as the Mahāvibhāsa. 77 According to Takakusu, the text
Vibhāsa was compiled on Kātyāyanīputra’s work probably in the second century A.D. The
meaning of Vibhāsa is an extensive annotation of various opinions. The title Vibhāsa
indicates that many opinions of that time were gathered and criticized in detail that some
opinional ones were selected and recorded. The main object of the Vibhāsa commentary was
to transmit the correct exposition of the Abhidharma school which have since then come to
be called the Vaibhāsika school. Then there appeared a compendium of the Abhidharma
doctrine called the Abhidharma-hrdaya written by Dharmottara, who belonged to the
Gandhāra branch. A commentary on it called Samyukta-abhidharma-hrdaya was compiled
by Dharmatrāta, a student of Dharmottara. This work became the fundamental text of the
Gandhāra branch. The Abhidharma literature of the Sarvāstivāda school can be presented
as following part.

b. Seven Abhidharma Texts of the Sarvāstivāda School

From the Chinese and Tibetan translations as also from the manuscript fragments discovered
in Central Asia, Nepal and Gilgit (Pakistan) and from the quotations found in the
Lalitavistara, Mahāvastu, Divyavadāna, Abhidharmakośa, Mādhyamakavṛtti and such other
works, it appears that the Sarvāstivādins had a Canon of their own in Sanskrit (Buddhist
Sanskrit) in three divisions - Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma. But a complete copy of this
Canon is still a desideratum - some of them existing in manuscript fragments and others
beyond recall.

Manuscript fragments of the Sūtra and Vinaya literature of this school are now
available in original Sanskrit, but unfortunately, no fragment of any of the Abhidharma texts
in Sanskrit, excepting a small fragment of the Saṅgītiparyāya has as yet been discovered.
Until the discovery of the original Sanskrit works, the Chinese translations are the only source
of our information. Yaśomitra’s Sphuṭārthābhidarmakośavyākhyā and the French translation

49
with introduction and notes of the Abhidharmakośa by Louis de La Vallee Poussin also
supplement greatly our knowledge of the Abhidharma of this school.

The Sūtrapiṭaka of the Sarvāstivādins had four divisions: Dīrghāgama,

Madhyamāgama, Saṃyuktāgama and Ekottarāgama corresponding to the four Pāli Nikāyas,
viz., Dīghanikāya, Majjimanikāya, Saṃyuttanikāya and Aṅguttaranikāya. The Sarvāstivādins
had no fifth Āgama answering to the Pāli Khuddakanikāya. But the texts such as the
Sūtranipāta, Udāna, Dharmapada, Sthaviragāthā, Therīgāthā, Vimānavattbu and
Buddhavaṃsa were subsequently collected and designated as the Kṣudrakāgama. The
Chinese Dīrghāgāma contains thirty sūtras as against thirty four of the Pāli Dīghanikāya. But
the order of arrangement of the Sūtras differs in the two versions. The manuscript fragments
of the Saṃgītisūtra and Āṭānāṭiyasūtra of the Dīrghāgama have been discovered in Eastern
Turkestan. The Madhayamāgama contains two hundred and twenty two Sūtras as against one
hundred and fifty two of the Pāli text, and nineteen of them are wanting in the Chinese
version. The fragments of the Upāli Sūtra, and Śuka Sūtra of the Madhyamāgama have also
been discovered in Eastern Turkestan. The Saṃyuktāgama is divided into fifty chapters as
against five Saṃyuttas or Vaggas of the Pāli text. The fragments of the Pravāraṇāsūtra,
Candropamasūtra and Śaktisūtra of the Saṃyuktāgama have further been discovered in
Eastern Turkestan. The Ekottarāgama contains fifty two chapters while the Aṅguttaranikāya
contains eleven Nipātas containing hundred and sixty nine chapters. There is noticeable
disagreement between the Sūtras of Ekottarāgama and Aṅguttaranikāya. This is probable
because many sūtras of the Ekottarāgama have been included in the Madhyamāgama and
Saṃyuktāgama. The Ekottarāgama is thus much shorter than the Pāli Aṅguttaranikāya.
Anesaki, who has compared the four Āgamas of the Sarvāstivādins with the corresponding
Pāli Nikāyas, observes that materials of both are much the same but the arrangement is
different.

The Vinayapiṭaka of the Sarvāstivāda school contains the following four divisions:
Vinayavibhaṅga, Vinayavastu, Vinayakṣudrakavastu, and Vinaya-uttaragrantha.

The original Sanskrit text of the Sarvāstivādins is lost and we have to depend on the
Chinese translation for our information, in Chinese, there are four divisions as mentioned
above. This order of arrangement is almost identical with that of the Theravāda school. This
shows that the Sarvāstivādins adopted the same general arrangement as the Theravādins. The
Vinayavibhaṅga corresponds to the Suttavibhaṅga, the Vinayavastu to the Khandakas, i.e., the

50
Mahāvagga and portions of Cullavagga, the Vinayakṣudrakavastu and Vinayauttaragrantha
to the Cullavagga and the Parivārapāṭha respectively.

The discovery of the manuscript fragments of the Prātimokṣasūtra,

Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣasūtra as also other texts in Eastern Turkestan and Nepal has proved the
existence of the Sanskrit Vinaya texts similar to the Pāli ones. A large number of Vinaya
fragments discovered at Gilgit (Pakistan) have also added knowledge to the stock of our
Vinaya literature. The fragments of the Vinaya discovered there contain the Vinayavastu,
Prātimokṣasūtra, Karmavāya and the like. Some of the texts have already been published and
others await publication. Further the manuscript fragments of the Vinaya-sūtra,
Vinayasūtraṭīkā, Prātimokṣasūtraṭīkā, Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka, Śrāmaṇeraṭīkā, Upasampadājñapti
and others, copies of which are available in the K.P. Jayaswal Institute, Patna, have been
brought down from Tibet Rahul Sankrityayana.78

Among other Theravāda schools, the Sarvāstivāda developed characteristic

philosophical ideas in its Abhidharma literature. When we refer to the Abhidharma, we often
refer to some version of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, usually the Vaibhāṣika, if reference is
specific. The Sarvāstivāda, like the Theravāda, has seven canonical Abhidharma texts. The
seven canonical Sarvāstivāda texts are: (i) Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra; (ii) Prakaraṇapāda; (iii)
Vijñānakāya; (iv) Dharmaskandha; (v) Prajñāptiśāstra; (vi) Dhātukāya and (vii)
Saṃgītiparyāya 79
The Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra is attributed to Ārya Kātyāyanīputra. In the Kośa it is
stated that the actual author of the work was Buddha but the arrangement of chapters and
topics were made by Kātyāyanīputra and so its authorship is attributed to him. It was
translated twice into Chinese, by Gotama Saṃghadeva of Kashmir and Chu Fo-nien, in the
4th century A.D., and by Hiuen-Tsang in the 7th century. It is divided into eight sections.
The Prakaraṇapāda is attributed to Sthavira Vasumitra, who, according to the
Chinese tradition, composed it in a monastery at Puṣkalāvatī. It was translated into Chinese
by Guṇabhadra and Bodhiyaśas of Central India (435-443 A.D.) and also by Hiuen-Tsang
(659 A.D.). The work is divided into eight chapters.
The Vijñānakāya is attributed to Devaśarmā, who, according to Hiuen-Tsang,
compiled it at Viśoka near Sravasti, about a century after Buddha‟s death. It was translated
into Chinese by Hiuen-Tsang (649 A.D.). It is divided into six chapters.
The Dharmaskandha is attributed to Śāriputra. It was translated into Chinese by
Hiuen-Tsang (659 A.D.). In the colophon of the Chinese translation this text is described as

51
„„the most important of the Abhidharma works, and the fountain-head of the Sarvāstivāda
system.” This book, it seems, appealed to the Chinese not for its subtlety and depth of
philosophical discussions as for its comprehensiveness outlining the general course of
spiritual training prescribed for a Buddhist monk. This work can also be paralleled to the
Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa.
The Dhātukāya is attributed to Pūrṇa in the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, and to
Vasumitra by the Chinese writers. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-Tsang (663 A. D.).
The object of the treatise is to enumerate the dharmas, considered as „reals‟ by the
Sarvāstivādins.
The Prajñāptiśāstra is attributed to Maudgalyāyana. It was translated into Chinese
at a very late date (1004- 1055 A. D.) by Dharmapala of Magadha. The Chinese text is
incomplete. In the Tibetan version this treatise is divided into three parts, viz. Lokaprajñapti,
Kāraṇaprajñapti and Karmaprajñapti. In the Lokaprajñāpti the cosmological ideas of the
Buddhists are given, in the Kāraṇaprajñapti the characteristics that make a Bodhisattva are
discussed, while in the Karmaprajñapti there are enumeration and classification of different
kinds of deeds.
The Saṃgītiparyāya is attributed to Mahākauṣṭhila by Yaśomitra and Bu-ston and to
Śāriputra by the Chinese writers. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-Tsang (660-663 A.
D.). This text was compiled, according to the introductory remarks, immediately after
Buddha‟s death to avert disputes among the disciples regarding the Buddhist teachings and
disciplinary rules. The scene of this text is laid at Pāvā, where dissensions among the
Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputtas started after the death of their teacher. It arranges the dharmas, both
doctrinal and disciplinary, numerically in the Ekottra style, i.e., gradually increasing the
number of dharmas from one to ten. The contents of this text agree to a large extent with
those of the Saṃgīti and Dasuttara suttontas of the Dīghanikāya.

Of them, the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra occupies the most prominent place. The great
doctrianal house of this school is built upon the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra. The greatest
contribution of the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra is its systematization of the scheme of six causes
into what becomes one of the cardinal doctrines of the Sarvāstivādins: efficient cause,
simultaneous cause, connected cause, homogeneous cause, cause recurring in every instance,
and retributory cause, which are not found anywhere in the Āgama and in earlier the
Abhidharma texts.80 This doctrine seems to have been adopted by Kātyāyanīputra in order to
account for the law of cause - effect that pertains between the various stages of the path which

52
were his major concern in the Jñānaprasthāna. From the text of the Mahāvibhāsā, there
seems to have been considerable controversy among the early Vaibhasikas on the point
whether to accept these six causes as an authentic of the Buddha, but it was Kātyāyanīputra
who brought to the forefront of Sarvāstivādin aetiological investigations81

In his Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā, Yaśomitra has compared the

Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra to the body of a being and the other six to its legs. It is thus the
principal text of the Sarvāstivāda school, others are supplements to it. But the seven
Abhidharma texts of the Theravāda school are all independent works, there being no
interdependence between them.82

It is extremely difficult to fix a date for any of these texts at the present time. About
the chronology of these texts, Junjiro Takakusu states in the following manner:

“The seven Abhidharma works of the Sarvāstivāda do not represent one and the same period of
Buddhist philosophy, nor do they agree with one another as regards the expositions of categories and
nomenclatures in which these books abound. They must have come into existence one after another, in
the course of several centuries before they began to be recognized as a body of literature.”83

E. Frauwallner, Taiken Kimura and others, without giving the actual date for the
composition of the texts, classify three periods in the evolution of the Sarvāstivāda
Abhidharma texts. The first is the period of the composition the Saṅgītiparyāya and the
Dharmaskandha, which were composed immediately after the composition of the Nikāya and
Āgama. The second is the period of the composition of various commentaries including the
Vijñānakāya, the Prakaraṇapāda, the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra and its commentary, the
Mahāvibhāṣā and so on. The third is the composition of the works which systematized the
Sarvāstivāda doctrines and represented the final stage in the evolution of the Sarvāstivāda
school. The Abhidharmakośa is the most well-known and influential text in this last period.

Thus, the Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra, which falls in the second category, was the first
work that expounded the specific view of philosophy of the school. It was probably composed
around the first century BC. Some commentaries were produced by many scholars in
Gandhara and Kashmir. The Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra, a systematic work, had a great influence
on later texts. The Jñānaprasthāna-sūtra, like the other six texts, is extant only in Chinese.

53
c. Development of Sarvāstivāda Texts

Besides these seven recognized texts of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharmapiṭaka, there were a
few other digests and commentaries dealing with the topics of the Abhidharma.

The other works are briefly discussed below84:

i. Abhidharmakośakārikā - By Vasubandhu, an eminent Scholar of Fourth Century

A.D. The work is mainly written from the point of view of Kashmir Vibhāsā School. There
are two translations in Chinese of this work; one of them is by Paramārtha and the other by
Hiuen Tsang.

ii. AbhidharmakośaBhāṣyaṃ - By Vasubandhu.

iii. Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā - By Yaśomitra. It is a commentary on the

Bhāṣya by Vasubandhu on his Kośa. The Vyākhyā is very valuable for philosophical
discussions and well-written psychological materials. The commentary gives us references to
the different teachers like Vasumitra, Saṃghabhadra, Dharmatrāta, Vasubandhu, Śrīlāta and
others.

iv. Abhidharmanyāyānusāra - By Saṃghabhadra. This work was written by this old

teacher of Kashmir Vibhasa School as a criticism of Vasubandhu‟s Kārikā

v. Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā - By Saṃghabhadra.

vi. Abhidharmakośatika Lakṣaṇānusāriṇī - by Puṇyavardhana.

vii. Abhidharmakośavṛtti Marmapradīpa - by Dignāga.

viii. Abhidharmakośatika Aupāyikī - By Śāntisthiradeva.

ix. Sārasamuccaya Nāma Abhidharamāvatāra - by unknown author. Its Tibetan

translation was made by Jinamitra and Dānaśila.

x. Abhidharamāvatāra Prakaraṇa Nāma - by Sugandhara.

xi. Abhidharmāmṛtarasaśāstra - By Ghoṣa.

xii. Abhidharmahṛdaya Śāstra -By Dharmottara.

xiii. Abhidharmahṛdaya Śāstra - By Upaśānta.

xiv. Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra - it is attributed to Dharmatrāta. It is a

commentary on Abhidharmahṛdaya- śāstra.

54
 xv. Śārīputrābhidharmaśāstra - Author is unknown. Chinese translation of the text was
made by Dharmagupta and Dharmayaśa.

The above texts are discussed in detail in the introduction of Abhidharmakośa by Śrī
Rāhula Sāṃkṛityāyaṇa and in the Sarvāstivāda Literature by Dr. A.C. Banerjee. The former
mentions 4 more texts which are not mentioned by the latter. These are85:

i. Abhidkarmakośabhasyaṭīkā by Sthirmati.

ii. Lokaprajñāpti Abhidharmaśāstra by Annomymous.

iii. Abhidharmapraveśa by Sugandhara by Skandhila.

iv. Lakṣaṇānusāra by Guṇamati.

2.4 The Abhidharmakośa Śāstra

The Abhidharmakośa Śāstra which was composed by Vasubandhu is a manual or a

compendium of the Abhidharma treaties and is a repository of the principal Abhidharma
works of the Sarvāstivādins. So, in order to understand the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra, we
have toknow about the life of Vasubandhu first.

2.4.1 The Life of Vasubandhu

Vasubandhu is believed to be the author of the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra and many

Mahāyāna-Vijñānavāda teachings like his brother Asaṅga. He was first ordained in the
Theravāda Sarvāstivāda school but later converted to the Mahāyāna. However, it is
suggested that there were two Vasubandhu and hence two different dates. Thus, we now face
with the question of when Vasubandhu lived and with the problem of how many
Vasubandhu there were in the history of Indian philosophy. Thererfore, it is necessary for us
to learn about the early life, conversion to Mahāyāna as well as dates of Vasubandhu when
we study his life.

55
a. Early life of Vasubandhu

Vasubandhu was an eminent Indian Buddhist teacher and one of the most prominent figures
in the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. His name can be found in any history
of Buddhism or of India in the Gupta period. Said to be a younger brother of the great
Mahāyāna teacher Asaṅga, Vasubandhu was first ordained in the Theravāda Sarvāstivāda
school but later converted to the Mahāyāna. 86 Like his brother Asaṅga, Vasubandhu became
a great exponent of the Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda teachings. He is believed to be the author of
the Abhidharmakośa and many Mahāyāna treatises. Various problems continue to vex
historians concerning the biography of Vasubandhu.

The details of Vasubandhu‟s life are known from several biographies available in
Chinese and Tibetan, the earliest of which is the Chinese rendering of the life of Vasubandhu
by Paramātha (499-569), one of the main exponents of the Yogācāra doctrine in China, who
composed Bosoupandou fashi zhuan (Biography of Vasubandhu). It is preserved in the
Chinese Tripiṭaka and is the only complete biography. Apparently, there was an account by
Kumārajīva but it did not survive. Apart from this, fragmentary information is found in
various Chinese sources the most important of which are the writings of the great Chinese
translator Xuanzang (600-664). Various histories of Buddhism written by Tibetan historians
also give accounts of Vasubandhu‟s life. The earliest Tibetan biography available is that of
Bu-ston (1290-1364). In addition, there are several references to Vasubandhu in the works of
Xuanzang, Bāṇa-bhaṭṭa, Vāmana, and other writers.87

But Chinese and Tibetan sources alike disagree with the Biography of Master
Vasubandhu in many places. Moreover, two or three persons in Buddhist history bear the
same name.88 According to some texts, Vasubandhu is the twenty-first patriarch in the
transmission of the Buddha‟s Dharma; elsewhere, Puguang (one of the direct disciples of
Xuanzang) refers to an “ancient Vasubandhu” who belonged to the Sarvāstivāda school; and
both Puguang and Yaśomitra, a commentator on the Abhidharmakośa, refer to a third,
known as Sthavira-Vasubandhu. The identification of and relationship between these three
persons is still unclear.89 We shall attempt to reconstruct the main outlines of Vasubandhu‟s
life, relying most heavily on Paramārtha, and supplying dates for the main events, so that
the dating of Vasubandhu presented here can be put to the test. Some of this material is, no
doubt, legendary, but nonetheless interesting as it throws light on how Vasubandhu was
viewed by later generations.

56
 Vasubandhu was born at Puruṣapura (identified with modern Peshawar, capital of
North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan) in the state of Gāndhāra.90 According to
Tāranātha, Vasubandhu was born one year after his older brother Asaṅga became a Buddhist
monk. His father was a Brahmin Kauśika. According to Bosoupandou fashi zhuan, his
mother‟s name was Viriñci. But the Tibetan historian Bu-ston and later Tāranātha mention
the name of the mother of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu as Prasanaśīlā.

According to these two Tibetan historians, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu were half-
brothers; Asaṅga’s father being a Kṣatriya, and Vasubandhu‟s a Brāhmaṇa. Vasubandhu
also had a younger brother called Viriñcivatsa. Vasubandhu‟s father was a court priest, and
according to Tāranātha was an authority on the Vedas. In all probability, he officiated at the
court of the Śaka princes of the Śīlada clan, who at that time ruled from Puruṣapura.
During his formative years, Vasubandhu may have been introduced by his father not only to
the Brahmanical tradition but also to the postulates of classical Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, both
of which had influence on his logical thought. 91

The name “Vasubandhu”, which he never changed even upon entering the Buddhist
priesthood, may perhaps tell us something about the character of its bearer. It means “the
Kinsman of Abundance”, in particular the abundance of the Earth, and his retention of this
name, in view of his genuine concern for the well-being of others, as well as his love of
metaphors from teeming plant-life, rushing streams, and rippling lakes, is probably not
entirely coincidental.92

As a young student, he amazed his teachers with his brilliance and ready wit.
According to Paramārtha, Vasubandhu‟s teacher was called Buddhamitra. 93 At
Vasubandhu‟s time the dominant Buddhist school in Gāndhāra was the Vaibhāṣika (also
called Sarvāstivāda). Vasubandhu entered the Sarvāstivāda order, and studied primarily the
scholastic system of the Vaibhāṣikas. Initially, he was quite impressed with the
Mahāvibhāṣā. In time, however, Vasubandhu began to have grave doubts about the validity
and relevance of Vaibhāṣika metaphysics. At this time, perhaps through the brilliant teacher
Manoratha, he came into contact with the theories of the Sautrāntikas, the group of
Buddhists who wished to reject everything that was not the express word of the Buddha, and
who held the elaborate constructions of Vibhāṣā up to ridicule.94 That there was a strong
Sautrāntika tradition in Puruṣapura is likely in view of the fact that it was the birthplace of
a maverick philosopher of the second century, Dharmatrāta. In fact, the most orthodox
Vaibhāṣika seat of learning was not in Gāndhāra, but in Kashmir, whose masters looked

57
down upon the Gāndhārans as quasi-heretics. Therefore, according to Xuanzang’s pupil
Puguang, Vasubandhu decided to go to Kashmir disguised as a lunatic to investigate the
Vaibhāṣika teachings more deeply. Vasubandhu studied in Kashmir with different teachers
for four years, probably from about 342 to 346, then came back to Puruṣapura95 and began
to prepare for an enormous project Abhidharmakośa (The Treasury of Abhidharma).

b. Conversion to Mahāyāna

In the years directly following the composition of the Abhidharmakośa, Vasubandhu seems
to have spent much time in travelling from place to place. Finally, after having spent some
time at Sākala/ Sāgala (modern Sialkot in Pakistan), he shifted along with his teachers
Buddhamitra and Manoratha to Ayodhyā (now located in Uttar Pradesh, northern India), a
city far removed from Kashmir.96

According to Bosoupandou fashi zhuan, Vasubandhu, now proud of the fame he had
acquired, clung faithfully to the Theravāda doctrine in which he was well-versed and,
having no faith in Mahāyāna, denied that it was the teaching of the Buddha. Vasubandhu
had, up to this time, but little regard for the Yogācāra treatises of his elder brother. He had
perhaps seen the voluminous Yogācārabhūmi compiled by Asaṅga, which may have simply
repelled him by its bulk. According to Bu-ston, he is reported to have said, “Alas, Asaṅga,
residing in the forest, has practiced meditation for twelve years. Without having attained
anything by this meditation, he has founded a system, so difficult and burdensome, that it can
be carried only by an elephant.”97 Asaṅga heard about this attitude of his brother and feared
that Vasubandhu would use his great intellectual gifts to undermine Mahāyāna. By feigning
illness he was able to summon his younger brother to Puruṣapura, where he lived.

However, Xuanzang differs with some of these details and the place provided by
Paramārtha regarding Vasubandhu‟s conversion. According to Xiyu yi, the conversion of
Vasubandhu took place at Ayodhyā. 98 At the rendezvous, Vasubandhu asked Asaṅga to
explain the Mahāyāna teaching to him, whereupon he immediately realized the supremacy
of Mahāyāna thought. According to Paramārtha, Bu-ston and Xuanzang, Asaṅga sent two
of his students with Mahāyāna texts, Akṣayamati-nirdeśa-sūtra and Daśabhumika-sūtra,
to Vasubandhu. The evening they arrived, they recited the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa-sūtra. In this
Sūtra, a creature from the higher plane teaches the terrestrial denizens about the absence of
own-being, the absence of existing and ceasing, and the absence of any detriment or

58
excellence, in all events and “personalities”. This sūtra seems to have greatly appealed to the
critical mind of Vasubandhu. He told Asaṅga’s students that he thought the logical principles
of Mahāyāna were well-founded, but that it seemed to have no practice. The next morning,
Asaṅga’s student recited the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, which relates to the path of the
Bodhisattva, who remains active in the world for the removal of suffering. Hearing this text,
Vasubandhu realized that the Mahāyāna had a well-founded practice, too.99

After that, Vasubandhu went to visit Asaṅga in Puruṣapura. After further study, we
are told, the depth of his realization came to equal that of his brother. Deeply ashamed of his
former abuse of the Mahāyāna, Vasubandhu wanted to cut out his tongue, but refrained
from doing so when Asaṅga told him to use it for the cause of Mahāyāna. Vasubandhu
regarded the study of the enormous Aṣtasāhasrikāprajnā-pāramitā-sūtra as of utmost
importance.

In view of the fact that they were the texts that converted him to Mahāyāna,
Vasubandhu‟s commentaries on the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa-sūtra and the Daśabhūmika-sūtra
may have been his earliest Mahāyāna works. These were followed by a series of
commentaries on other Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, including the Avataṃsaka-sūtra,
Nirvāṇa-sūtra, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, and Srīmālādevī-sūtra. He himself composed a
treatise on Vijñaptimātra (cognition only) theory and commented on the
Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Triratna-gotra, Amṛta-mukha, and other Mahāyāna treatises.

According to the Tibetan biographers, his favorite Sūtra was either the
Aṣṭasāhasrika-prajñā-pāramitā-sūtra or the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. Considering that these texts
reveal the most profound insights into Mahāyāna thinking, it is not surprising that
Vasubandhu liked them. Since the output of Vasubandhu‟s Mahāyāna works is huge, he was
in all probability writing new treatises every year. So he could have been a very famous
Mahāyāna master by the year 360.

The year 376 brings Candragupta II, Vikramadita, to the throne of the Gupta Empire.
As famous for his liberal patronage of learning and arts, as for his successful maintenance of
the empire, his reign marks one of the high points in the classical Indian period. And
Ayodhyā, where Vasubandhu again took up his abode, became for a while the Emperor‟s
capital-in-residence. It may have been shortly after this date that a great debate occurred,
which was to stick in the minds of the Buddhist biographers.

59
 The King himself was often the judge at these debates, and loss to an opponent could
have serious consequences. One of the most stirring descriptions of such a debate is found in
the account of Paramārtha, where he describes how the Sāṅkhya philosopher Vindhyavāsin
challenged the Buddhist masters of Ayodhyā, “traveling to other countries”, and only
Buddhamitra was left to defend the Dharma. Buddhamitra was defeated, and had to
undergo the humiliating and painful punishment of being beaten on the back by the Sāṅkhya
master in front of the entire assembly.

When Vasubandhu later returned, he was enraged when he heart of the incident. He
subsequently succeeded in trouncing the Sāṅkhya, both in debate and in a treatise.
Paramārthasaptati. Candragupta II rewarded him with 300,000 pieces of gold for his
victory over the Sāṅkhya. These Vasubandhu employed for building three monasteries, one
for the Mahāyānists, another for his old colleagues the Sarvāstivādins, and the third for the
nuns. Refutations of the Vaiśeṣika and Sāṅkhya theories had been presented by Vasubandhu
already in the Kośa, but it was from this point onward that Vasubandhu was regarded as a
philosopher whose views could not be lightly challenged.100

Around the year 383, at his eighth birthday, the crown prince Govindagupta
Bālāditya was placed by the Emperor under the tutelage of Vasubandhu. 101 The Empress
Dhruvadevī also went to Vasubandhu to receive instruction. It is tempting to speculate on
the effect of Vasubandhu‟s tutorship on his royal students. He may have done much to
alleviate the conditions of the thousands subject to the Guptas. He is known to have founded
many hospitals, rest houses, and schools. That his compassion was not theoretical but
practical can also be seen by the accounts, which tell us of his helping quench the great fire
that broke out in Rājagṛha, and his doing the utmost to help stop the epidemic in
Janāntapura.

In some Tibetan accounts, Vasubandhu is associated with the University of Nālandā.

This may or may not be anachronism. He is known to have passed his technique of no-prop
meditation on to his old associate Manoratha.

In his old age, Vasubandhu seems to have taken up the wandering life again.102 Some
of his last works are known to have been written in Sākala and in Kauśāmbī. Around the
year 391, the consecration of Govindagupta as “Young King” took place. He and his mother
begged Vasubandhu to settle down in Ayodhyā and accept life-long royal support.
Vasubandhu accepted the offer. The master was creative even at his advanced age, and more

60
than a match for Vasurata, the prince‟s grammarian brother-in-law, in his favorite sport of
debate.103 With the sums of money he received as remuneration for his debating victories, he
built several rest houses, monasteries, and hospitals in Ayodhyā, Gāndhāra, and Kashmir.
But primarily, as Xuanzang tells us, Vasubandhu was going farther with his contemplative
exercises. Debate was to him mainly an Upāya: if it could lead to no one‟s interest in
Mahāyāna, he would not engage in it.

Thus, when Saṃghabhadra, who had written his two great treatises, one of which is a
furious denunciation of the Kośa-bhāṣya, challenged Vasubandhu to defend the Kośa’s
statements, and was invited to come to court for a debate by the jealous Vasurata,
Vasubandhu told his pupils that he could see no good reason for such a debate, but
diplomatically sent the official answer that Saṃghabhadra would, indeed, be hard to defeat.
He probably knew from his student days that Saṃghabhadra would not be convinced by
anything, and, besides, the Kośa itself was probably no longer very important to him at the
time. Thus, the debate never took place, but we can almost see the forms it might have taken,
by comparing the Kośa, the Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra of Saṃghabhadra, and the Discussion
for the Demonstration of Action included here.

Vasubandhu did not long survive Saṃghabhadra. In the eightieth year of his life, c.
396, he died.104 Tradition is unanimous in saying that he died at eighty, but there are various
versions as to the place of his death. Paramārtha says that he died in Ayodhyā, but Bu-ston
may be correct when he says that he died in the Northern frontier countries, which he calls
“Nepal”. For Xuanzang corroborates the information that Vasubandhu was in the northern
frontier at the time of Saṃghabhadra’s challenge to debate, which according to all tradition
was one of the last events in Vasubandhu‟s life. 105 He says that Vasubandhu was at that time
in Sākala, where the “Teaching of the Three Own-Beings”, possibly Vasubandhu‟s last
work, was written.

Bu-ston gives an interesting detail about this last journey of the master. He says that
while Vasubandhu was in the North, he went to visit a monk named Handu. Handu was
inebriated, and carrying an immense pot of wine on his shoulder. Vasubandhu upon seeing
this cried, “Alas! The Doctrine will go to ruin”, recited the Uṣṇīṣa-vijaya-dhāraṇī in reverse
order, and died. According to Tāranātha, however, Vasubandhu was prompted to recite the
dhāraṇī in reverse order when he saw a monk ploughing in his monastic robes. Such is the
account of his life, filled with prodigious activity, which can be reconstructed from the
copious data of his biographers.

61
c. Date of Vasubandhu

So much controversy has surrounded the time of Vasubandhu, we now face with not only the
question of when Vasubandhu lived, with the problem of how many Vasubandhus there were
in the history of Indian philosophy, but also the problem of the date of Abhidharmakośa.
According to Paramārtha, Vasubandhu lived 900 years after the Mahāparinirvāṇa of the
Buddha.106 At another place, Paramārtha also mentions the figure of 1100. Xuanzang and
his disciples respectively mention that Vasubandhu lived 1000 and 900 years after the
Mahāparinirvāna of the Buddha.107 Now though it is generally believed that the
Mahāparinirvāna of the Buddha took place within few years of 400 B.C, some scholars are
still hesitant to accept this date. This has led to different scholars proposing different dates
for Vasubandhu. Noul Pari and Shio Benkyoo give as Vasubandhu‟s dates the years 270 to
350 A.D. Stefan Anacker proposes his date as 316-396 A.D. Ui Hakuju places him in the
fourth century (320-400 A.D). Takakusu Junjirō and Kimura Taiken give 420 to 500,
Wogihara Unrai gives 390 to 470A.D. Hikata Ryushoo gives 400 to 480 A.D and Le Manh
That gives 315 to 395. Erich Frauwallner suggests that there were two Vasubandhus and
hence two different dates. According to him, Vasubandhu - the elder lived between about
320 and 380 A.D and Vasubandhu - the younger between around 400 and 480 A.D.
However, this hypothesis of two Vasubandhus is no longer tenable in the light of current
scholarship as many of the early Chinese documents used by Frauwallner are of spurious
nature and thus, their testimony cannot be accepted.

These problems had already been resolved by Péri and have subsequently been
108
thoroughly explained by Le Manh That, as resting on different calculation for the date of
the Buddha‟s Nirvāṇa accepted at various times by Chinese tradition. By following all that
is contained in Chinese tradition regarding the matter, both Péri and Le Manh That arrive at
the fourth century A.D. for Vasubandhu‟s approximate time.

Their conclusion seems obvious when one considers that Kumārajīva (344-413) knew
and translated the works of Vasubandhu, which fact has in turn been the subject of vast and
thoroughly sterile investigations as to the authenticity of these ascriptions, whether the “K’
ai-che Vasu” given by Kumārajīva as the author of the Śataśāstra-bhāṣya can in fact, be
taken as “Vasubandhu”, and so on. Actually, as Péri has already shown, this work in one
portion has the complete name, and “K’ ai-che Vasu” is also the only name given to the great
master Vasubandhu in the colophon of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, as well as
elsewhere in Chinese sources.

62
 From the Chinese side, we also find that Kumārajīva is said to have written a
biography of Vasubandhu (unfortunately lost today) in the year 409, and that Hui-yuan (344-
416) quotes a verse of Vasubandhu‟s Viṃśatikā. It should be noted that the Bodhisattva-
bhūmi of Vasubandhu‟s older brother Asaṅga was already translated into Chinese in the
years 414- 421.

According to Anacker,109 there is no necessity of going against any tradition

whatever. Taking into account the possibility that Vasubandhu may have lived beyond his
pupil Govindagupta’s consecration as “Young King”, we may arrive at an arbitrary but
plausible date, 316-396 for Vasubandhu. This should be taken as no more than a hypothesis,
but it is at least one, which will please all lovers of traditional history. It also places
Vasubandhu in one of the most brilliant courts. Among countless other eminent men who
may be mentioned as his contemporaries, the great Kālidāsa, the lexicographer Amarasiṃha,
and the Mīmāṃsā philosopher Śabara were in all probability at the same court that invited
Vasubandhu to his most famous debates, and to his most famous tutoring position. Whether
his pupil Govindagupta ever fully ascended the throne is doubtful, though there are allusions
in Subandhu to troublesome times after the death of Candragupta II, so perhaps a struggle
between Govidagupta and his brother Kumāragupta I, in which the later emerged victorious,
is to be assumed. On the other hand, Govindagupta may have pre-deceased his father.

2.4.2 The Origin and Development of the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra

The Abhidharmakośa, the work of Vasubandhu is a manual or a compendium of the

Abhidharma treatises and is a repository of the principal Abhidharma works of the
Sarvāstivādins. It has systematized and given a definite form to the Sarvāstivāda
Abhidharma Piṭaka. There is no denying the fact that the Abhidharmakośa occupies an
eminent position in the history of Buddhist thought and literature. It is a treasury of the
fundamental doctrines of Buddhism and contains the fullest and systematic exposition of the
Abhidharma doctrines of the ancient Buddhist schools that grew within about eight hundred
years after the Buddha‟s Mahāparinirvāna. Further the Abhidharmakośa also occupies an
important place in the development of Mahāyāna thought and principles. There is very close
relation between the Abhidharmakośa system and the Vijnaptimātra philosophy, one of the
two main philosophical systems of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Therefore, very rightly observes
that a thorough mastery of the Abhidharmakośa is the only door of entrance to the philosophy

63
of the Mahāyāna. So, it is necessary for us to learn about the origin and development of
the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra here.

a. The Origin of the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra

As we know, after having returned to his native place (346), Vasubandhu began to prepare
for an enormous project that had been in his mind for some time. At this time he was
unattached to any particular order, and lived in a small private house in the center of
Puruṣapura. Vasubandhu supported himself by lecturing on Buddhism before the general
public, which presumably remunerated him with gifts. According to tradition, during the day
he would lecture on Vaibhāṣika doctrine and in the evening distill the day‟s lectures into a
verse. When collected together over six hundred plus verses (kārikās), which gave a
thorough summary of the entire system, he constituted this work the Abhidharmakośa
(Treasury of Abhidharma). According to Paramārtha, Vasubandhu composed it in Ayodhyā,
then the capital of the Gupta dynasty, but according to Xuanzang, it was composed in the
suburbs of Puruṣapura.

The Abhidharmakośa is the highest achievement of Buddhist scholasticism of the

Sarvāstivāda school. It is a kind of Summa Buddhica, being a new and more systematic
exposition of the teachings of the school. Vasubandhu declared openly his dependence on the
earlier Abhidharma treatises. He specified his own doctrinal standpoint as for the most part
being in an agreement with the Kāśmīra Vaibhāṣika school. Besides, Vasubandhu also
elaborated upon causal theories, cosmology, practices of meditation, theories of perception,
karma, rebirth, and the characteristics of an Enlightened Being in this text.

As the Abhidharmakośa was an eloquent summary of the purport of the

Mahāvibhāṣā, the Kashmir Sarvāstivādins are reported to have rejoiced to see in it all their
110
doctrines so well propounded. Accordingly, they requested Vasubandhu to write a prose
commentary (bhāṣya) on it. However it seems that after having written the Abhidharmakośa,
Vasubandhu began to have second thoughts about the Vaibhāṣika teachings. As a
consequence, it is said, Vasubandhu prepared the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. But as it
contained a thoroughgoing critique of Vaibhāṣika dogmatics from a Sautrāntika viewpoint,
the Kashmir Sarvāstivādins soon realized, to their great disappointment, that the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya in fact refuted many Sarvāstivāda theories and upheld the doctrines
of the Sautrāntika school.111 One major point that created bad blood between the

64
Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrāntikas was concerning the status and nature of the dharmas. The
Vaibhāṣikas held that the dharmas exist in the past and future as well as the present. On the
other hand, the Sautrāntikas held the view that they are discrete, particular moments only
existing at the present moment in which they discharge causal efficacy. The Vaibhāṣikas
wrote several treatises attempting to refute Vasubandhu‟s critiques.

b. The Development of the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra

The Abhidharmakośa, one of the main works written as a critical study of the doctrine of the
Sarvāstivāda school by the great Buddhist master, Vasubandhu, during the earlier period
time of his life when he had not yet embraced Mahāyāna Buddhism, is known as a book of
intelligence or a manual the Abhidharma treatises like the Jñānaprasthāna constituted. Not
only it has been composed the basic or main source which the Abhidharma treatises like the
Jñānaprasthāna constituted; but also the Abhidharmakośa seems to be an encyclopaedia of
the essential contents of the Abhidharma Śāstra. Though it is written mostly from the point
of view of the Vaibhāsika of Kasmir, it is an authoritative text for all schools of Buddhist
thought.

The Abhidharmakośa consists of nine chapters, made up of a series of verses, the

kārikās, and a prose commentary, or bhāṣya, to explain them. Both the Abhidharmakośa-
kārikā and the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya together popularly go by the name of the
Abhidharmakośa or Abhidharmakośa Śāstra.112 The Abhidharmakośa and its commentary
are composed of the following chapters:

Chapter 1: Dhātunirdeśa – contains a treatment of the dhātus showing the nature of

the substance of all things. It consists of forty-four kārikās

Chapter 2: Indriyanirdeśa – contains a treatment of the Indriyas and of the function of

things (dharmas). It consists of seventy-four kārikās.

Chapter 3: Lokanirdeśa – contains a treatment of the Loka considered as the outcome

of Śāśrava or Saṃsāra. It contains ninety-nine kārikās.

Chapter 4: Karmanirdeśa – contains a treatment of Karma, considered as the causes of

the Śāśrava or Saṃsāra. It contains one hundred and thirty-one kārikās.

Chapter 5: Anuśayanirdeśa – contains a treatment of the Anuśayas or „latent evils‟

considered as a condition (pratyaya) of the Śāśrava or Saṃsāra. It contains sixty-nine

65
kārikās.

Chapter 6: Pudgalamārganirdeśa – contains a treatment of Arhatship considered as an

effect of Anāsrava or Nirvāṇa. It contains eighty-three kārikās.

Chapter 7: Jñānanirdeśa – contains a treatment of knowledge (prajñā), considered as

the cause (hetu) of Anāsrava or Nirvāṇa. It contains sixty-one kārikās.

Chapter 8: Samādhinirdeśa – contains a treatment of Samādhi or Dhyāna considered

as a condition of Anāsrava or Nirvāṇa. It contains thirty-nine kārikās.

Chapter 9: Pudgalapratisedhanirdeśa – contains a refutation of Ātman theories of the

Sāṁkhya, Vaiśesīka and the Vātsīputrīya schools. It is in prose.113

The last of these, possibly a later addition to the text, discusses the problem of
anātman, refuting the theories of the self held by the Sāṅkhya, Vaiṣeśika, and Vātsīputrīya
schools. The other eight chapters may be described as falling into three sections.

The first section is an exposition of the term „dharma‟. It consists of the initial two
chapters of the text, the first of these analyzing the nature and structure of form, and dividing
all elements into the categories „defiled‟ (sāśrāva) and „undefiled‟ (anāśrāva). The second
chapter deals with inner causality and the mental faculties (indriya).

The second section, composed of Chapters III-V, is concerned with saṃsāra, and the
reasons beings are subject to continuous rebirth. More specifically, Chapter III is concerned
with how the world is made out of the various defiled forms. Chapter IV deals with karma.
And Chapter V treats the emotions and latent evils that keep the actions going on.

The third section, Chapter VI-VIII, is concerned with the path which leads beings out
of saṃsāra into enlightenment. Chapter VI describes the way in which the defilements may
be removed. Chapter VII gives a detailed account of knowledge (prajñā), and the Chapter
VIII is on meditation.

Thus, we can say, the Abhidharmakośa covers the fundamental principles of Buddhist
philosophy in general as a result of which even today it is an indispensable book not only to
the Buddhists but also to the students of philosophy in general as well as comparative world
religions.

Unfortunately, the Sanskrit originals of both the Abhidharmakośa-kārikā and bhāṣya

were long lost in India, the land of their origin. However, two versions of the
Abhidharmakośa-śāstra exist in Chinese Tripiṭaka, one translated in the sixth century by

66
Paramārtha, the other in the seventh by Hsuan-tsang. A translation of the Kārikā by Hsuan-
tsang is also to be found in the Chinese Tripiṭaka. Paramārtha attributes both the
commentary and the verses to Vasubandhu. Furthermore, the Tibetan Tangyur contains one
version each of the Śāstra and the Kārikā. Finally, we may note that, in 1934 and 1936,
Sanskrit versions of the Abhidharmakośa-kārikā and bhāṣya were discovered in Tibetan
monasteries.114

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we discussed the origin and development of the Sarvāstivāda School as well
as the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra. We found that the existence of the Sarvāstivāda School can be
seen in Indian history from the time of the Buddhist Council held during King Aśoka’s reign
(240 B.C.) down to the time of I-tsing‟s travel in India (671-695 A.D.). In the Kathāvatthu
Controversy compiled in the time of King Aśoka, Sarvāstivāda seems to have occupied a
strong position among the disputing parties. The principal seat of this school was in Kashmir
where its doctrine was taught in its purity and it was finally developed into an elaborate
system known as the Vaibhāṣika.

In time another branch of the Vaibhāṣikas was established in Gāndhāra and it seems
to have differed from that of Kashmir in its opinion to some extent, for both were often cited
side by side in some texts in use.

The geographical extent of this school was much greater than that of any other school
as it was found in all India, its Northern frontier, Persia, Central Asia, and also to the South in
Sumatra, Java, Cochin-China and all of China.

The Sarvāstivāda School was closely related to the orthodox Theravāda School, from
which it was first separated probably before the Council of Aśoka. The idea that all things
exist may go back even to the time of the Buddha himself, for the word ‘sabban atthi’ (all
things exist) is found already in the Samyuttanikāya.

The principal Abhidharma text of this school was Kātyāyanīputra‟s Jñāna-prasthāna

(Source of Knowledge), otherwise called the Aṣṭa-grantha (Eight Books), probably compiled
as early as 200 B.C. The subsequent works of the school seem to have been a special exegesis
on the subject-matter contained in it. At least six pādas („Legs‟), as they are designated, have
come down to us.

67
 Then probably in the second century A.D. whether before or after the Buddhist
Council of King Kaniṣka‟s reign, we cannot tell - a great and minute commentary named
Vibhāṣā Śāstra was compiled on Kātyāyanīputra‟s work. The word „vibhāṣā’ means an
extensive annotation or various opinions, and this title indicates that many opinions of the
time were and criticized in detail and that some optional ones were selected and recorded. The
chief object of the Vibhāṣā commentary was to transmit the correct exposition of the
Abhidharma School which has since then come to be called the Vaibhāṣika School.

Then there appeared a compendium of the Abhidharma doctrine called Abhidharma-

hṛdaya („heart of the Higher Dharmas,‟ translated into Chinese in 391 A.D.) by Dharmottara
who belonged to the Gāndharā branch. A commentary on it called Samyukta-abhidharma-
hṛdaya was written by Dharmatrata, a pupil of Dharmottara. This work became the
fundamental text of the Gāndharā branch and subsequently of the Chinese Abhidharma
School.115

In writing the Abhidharmakośa, Vasubandhu seems to have followed the work of his
predecessor, Dharmatrata, called Samyukta-abhidharma-hṛdaya, and this, again, is a
commentary on Dharmottara‟s Abhidharma-hṛdaya. A careful comparison of the three works
will indicate that Vasubandhu had before him his predecessor‟s works, or else such questions
as discussed in these works must have been common topics of the school. The first eight
chapters of the work explain special facts or elements of matter and mind, while the ninth and
last chapter elucidates the general basic principle of selflessness that should be followed by all
Buddhist schools. Especially the ninth chapter seems to originate from Vasubandhu‟s own
idea, for there is no trace of this subject in the other books.

Though the Kośa thus resembles the Hṛdaya in subject-matter, there is no indication
that the former is indebted to the latter in forming opinions, for Vasubandhu was very free
and thorough in his thinking, and he did not hesitate to take the tenets of any school other than
his own when he found excellent reasoning in them.

When Vasubandhu‟s Abhidharmakośa was made public in Gāndhāra, it met with

rigorous opposition from within and from without his school. Yet the final victory seems to
have been on his side, for his work enjoyed popularity in India; it was taught widely and
several annotations of it were made in Nālandā, Valabhī and elsewhere. It was translated into
Tibetan by Jinamitra and into Chinese first by Paramārtha of Valabhī during 563-567 A .D.
and later by Hiuen-tsang who studied at Nālandā University during 651-654 A .D. In China

68
especially serious studies were made, and at least seven elaborate commentaries, each
amounting to more than twenty or thirty Chinese volumes, were written on it. 116

Thus, the Abhidharmakośa attained the status of a primary textbook to be studied by

all students of the tradition in the Northern Buddhist countries, including Tibet, China,
Vietnam, Japan, and Indonesia. As pointed out above, the Abhidharmakośa pictures the
Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We can say, the Abhidharmakośa is a prominent
contribution of Vasubandhu to the Sarvāstivāda school among 500 works in Theravāda
tradition. The merits of the work are obvious, and the fact of its only partial preservation in
Sanskrit has hampered greatly Buddhist studies. Its covers the whole field of ontology,
psychology, cosmology, the doctrine of salvation and of the saints, and a vast proportion of
its matter is common to all Buddhist belief. Hence it formed the text-book of Buddhist
generally after Vasubandhu‟s death, whether they followed the Theravāda or the Mahāyāna,
while it contains incidentally much evidence on the early Sanskrit Canon. It is rightly said
that the Abhidharmakośa is the door for entrance to the philosophy of Theravāda and
consequently also to that of the Mahāyāna.

69
Notes and References

1
Sukomal Chaudhuri, Analytical Study of the Abhidharmakośa, Calcutta: Firma KLM Private
Limited, 1983, p. v.
2
Paul Griffiths, Indian Buddhist Meditation-Theory, Development and Systematization, University of
Wasconsin-Madison: Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, 1983, p. 206.
3
Ibid.
4
Nalinaksha Dutt, Buddhist Sects in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited,
1998; Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983; C.
Willemen - B. Dessein – C. Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism, New York 1998; Bhikkhu
KL Dhammajoti, Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, 3rd Revised Edition: Hong Kong, 2007, and so on.
5
DN. II, pp. 7-11.
6
See TER, Vol. II, p.321; See Hirakawa Arika, A History of Indian Buddhism from Sakyamuni to
Early Mahayana, Delhi: Motialal Banarsidass, 1998, p. 22; See K.T.S. Sarao, The Origin and
Nature of Ancient Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1989, pp. 19-27; And also see E.
Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, Paris: Peeters Press, Louvain, pp. 13-14.
7
EB, Vol. III, p. 375.
8
Sn. II, p. 78.
9
Sn. II, p. 79.
10
DN. II, p. 167.
11
MN. I, p. 208.
12
Kanai Lal Hazra, History of Theravāda Buddhism in South-East Asia, New Delhi: Mushiram
Monoharlal Publishers, Pvt. Ltd, 1996, p. 12.
13
The names of his five austerities companions: Annata-Kondanna, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and
Assaji.
14
MN. I, p. 301.
15
MN. I, p. 302.
16
MN. I, pp. 27-29.
17
Hans Wolf gang Schumann, Buddhism-An Outline of its Teaching and Schools, London: Rider and
Company, 1973, p. 21.
18
MN. I, pp. 213-214.
19
Mahāthera Nārada, The Buddha and His Teachings, Taiwan: The Corporate Body of the Buddha
Educational Foundation Taiphi, 1998, p. 56.
20
MN. III, pp. 295-298.
21
DN. II, pp. 167-180.
22
Chris O. Akpan, “A Comparative Analysis of Causality in Buddhism and African philosophy.”
Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161), p. 723, 2011 is requoted from
http://www.interesjournals.org/ER. (Accessed on 12/04/2016)
23
Ibid., p. 723.
24
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri, An Outline of Early Buddhism, Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1965, p.
42-43.

70
25
Nalinaksha Dutt, Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools, New Delhi:
Rajesh Publications, 1980, p. 122.
26
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri (1965), Op. Cit., pp. 44-45.
27
Ibid., p. 45.
28
P.V. Bapat, 2500 Years of Buddhism, New Delhi: Publication Division, Ministry of Information and
Broading, Government of India, 2012, p. 32.
29
Ibid., pp. 33-34.
30
Ibid., p. 36
31
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri (1965), Op. Cit., pp. 48-49.
32
Ibid., p. 50.
33
P.V. Bapat (2012), Op. Cit., pp. 83-84.
34
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri (1965), Op. Cit., p. 56.
35
Ibid., pp. 56-58.
36
Ved Seth, “Origin and Development of The Sarvāstivāda” in Sanghasen Singh (Ed.), Sarvāstivāda
and Its Traditions, Delhi University: Amar Printing press, 1994, p. 159.
37
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri (1965), Op. Cit., pp. 65-66.
38
Ved Seth (1994), Op. Cit., pp. 159-160.
39
Early Buddhist Schools, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools. (Accessed on
18/04/2016)
40
Yamakami Sogen, Systems of Buddhistic Thought, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 2009, p. 105.
41
Ved Seth (1994), Op. Cit., p. 161.
42
P.V. Bapat (2012), Op. Cit., p. 88
43
Ibid., p. 88.
44
Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri (1965), Op. Cit., p. 185.
45
P.V. Bapat (2012), Op. Cit., p. 91.
46
Ibid., pp. 91-92.
47
Ibid., p. 96.
48
Ibid., p. 96.
49
Ibid., p. 96.
50
Ibid., p. 98.
51
Ibid., p. 98.
52
Ibid., p. 99.
53
Ibid., p. 102.
54
Ibid., p. 104.
55
Yamakami Sogen (2009), Op. Cit., p. 105.
56
It is now extant in Chinese.
57
These Śāstras are preserved in Chinese translations only – originals are lost.

71
58
A.C. Banerjee, “The Sarvāstivāda of Buddhist Thought” in Sanghasen Singh (Ed.), Sarvāstivāda
and Its Traditions, Delhi University: Amar Printing press, 1994, pp. 3-5.
59
Maurice Winternitz, History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint
Corporation, 1977, pp. 232.
60
Ibid., p. 226.
61
P.V. Bapat (2012), Op. Cit., pp. 89-90.
62
Ved Seth (1994), Op. Cit., p. 162.
63
Maurice Winternitz (1977), Op. Cit., p. 231.
64
Yamakami Sogen (2009), Op. Cit., p. 112.
65
Ibid., p. 112.
66
C. Willemen - B. Dessein - C. Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism, New York, 1998, pp. 16-
17.
67
Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti, Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, The
University of Hong Kong, 2007, p. 69.
68
A.C. Banerjee (1994), Op. Cit., p. 11.
69
EB, Vol I, p. 37.
70
Ibid., pp. 37-38.
71
Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti (2007), Op. Cit., pp. 12-13.
72
Ibid., p. 2.
73
Maurice Winternitz (1977), Op. Cit., p. 237.
74
EIP, Vol. VII, p. 81.
75
P.V. Bapat (2012), Op. Cit., p. 93.
76
Junjirō Takakusu, The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, New Delhi: Mushiram Manoharlal
Publishers PVT. LTD, 1975, p. 57.
77
Ibid., p. 57.
78
A.C. Banerjee (1994), Op. Cit., pp. 6-8.
79
Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti (2007), Op. Cit, p. 98.
80
EIP, p. 110.
81
EB, Vol. I, pp. 51-52.
82
A.C. Banerjee (1994), Op. Cit., p. 9.
83
Junjirō Takakusu, “On the Abhidharma Literature of the Sarvāstivādins”, (Journal of the Pāli Text
Society, 1904-5, pp. 118-119.
84
P. Pradhan (Ed.), Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975, pp. 11-
12
85
Ibid., p.12.
86
Vasubandhu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu. (Accessed on 20/04/2016)
87
Stefan Anacker, Seven Works of Vasubandhu, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private
Limited, 2013, p. 11.

72
88
Hajime Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987, p. 268.
89
ER, 9526.
90
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 11.
91
Vasubhandhu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu#Biography. (Accessed on 20/04/2016)
92
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 13.
93
Ibid., p. 14.
94
Junjirō Takakusu (1975), Op. Cit., pp. 60-62.
95
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 15.
96
Vasubandhu (fl. 4th or 5th cn. C.E.) by K. T. S. Sarao, http://www.iep.utm.edu/vasubandhu/.
(Accessed on 21/04/2016)
97
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 18.
98
ER, 9526.
99
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 18-9.
100
Ibid., p. 20.
101
Ibid., p. 21.
102
Ibid., p. 22.
103
Vasubhandhu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu#Biography. (Accessed on 22/04/2016)
104
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., p. 23.
105
ER, 9256.
106
Le Manh That, The Philosophy of Vasubandhu, Ho Chi Minh City, 2006, p. 41.
107
Ibid., p. 35.
108
Ibid., p. 37.
109
Stefan Anacker (2013), Op. Cit., pp. 7-9.
110
Sukomal Chaudhuri (1983), Op. Cit., p. 5.
111
Vasubandhu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu#And_Buddhist_logic. (Accessed on
22/05/2016)
112
Sukomal Chaudhuri (1983), Op. Cit., p. 7.
113
Yamakami Sogen (2009), Op. Cit., pp. 113-114.
114
Jame Paul McDermott, Development in the Early Buddhist Concept of Karma, New Delhi:
Mushiram Manoharlal Publishers PVT. LTD, 1984, p. 128.
115
Junjirō Takakusu (1975), Op. Cit., pp. 56-58.
116
Ibid., pp. 60-61.

73