[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/sarvastivada-wikipedia\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/sarvastivada-wikipedia\/","headline":"Sarvastivada – Wikipedia","name":"Sarvastivada – Wikipedia","description":"before-content-x4 Early school of Buddhism, circa 3rd century BCE Seated Buddha from the Sarvastivadin monastery of Tapa Shotor, 2nd century","datePublished":"2019-03-18","dateModified":"2019-03-18","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/4\/40\/Tapa_Shotor_seated_Buddha_%28Niche_V1%29.jpg\/220px-Tapa_Shotor_seated_Buddha_%28Niche_V1%29.jpg","url":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/4\/40\/Tapa_Shotor_seated_Buddha_%28Niche_V1%29.jpg\/220px-Tapa_Shotor_seated_Buddha_%28Niche_V1%29.jpg","height":"325","width":"220"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/sarvastivada-wikipedia\/","about":["Wiki"],"wordCount":9542,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4Early school of Buddhism, circa 3rd century BCE  Seated Buddha from the Sarvastivadin monastery of Tapa Shotor, 2nd century CE[1]       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da (Pali: \ud804\udc32\ud804\udc29\ud804\udc46\ud804\udc29\ud804\udc22\ud804\udc46\ud804\udc23\ud804\udc3a\ud804\udc2f\ud804\udc38\ud804\udc24, Chinese: \u8aaa\u4e00\u5207\u6709\u90e8; pinyin: Shu\u014d Y\u012bqi\u00e8y\u01d2u B\u00f9) was one of the early Buddhist schools established around the reign of Ashoka (3rd century BCE).[2] It was particularly known as an Abhidharma tradition, with a unique set of seven Abhidharma works.[3]The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins were one of the most influential Buddhist monastic groups, flourishing throughout North India (especially Kashmir) and Central Asia until the 7th century.[2] The orthodox Kashmiri branch of the school composed the large and encyclopedic Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63a \u015a\u0101stra around the time of the reign of Kanishka (c. 127\u2013150 CE).[3] Because of this, orthodox Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins who upheld the doctrines in the Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63a were called Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas.[3]       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4According to the Therav\u0101din Dipavamsa, the Sarvastivada emerged from the older Mah\u012b\u015b\u0101saka school; but the \u015a\u0101riputraparip\u1e5bcch\u0101 and the Samayabhedoparacanacakra state that the Mah\u012b\u015b\u0101saka emerged from the Sarvastivada.[4][5] The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins are believed to have given rise to the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da sect as well as the Sautr\u0101ntika tradition, although the relationship between these groups has not yet been fully determined.Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da is a Sanskrit term that can be glossed as: “the theory of all that exists”. The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da argued that all dharmas exist in the past, present and future, the “three times”. Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmako\u015bak\u0101rik\u0101 states, “He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din.”Although there is some dispute over how the word “Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da” is to be analyzed, the general consensus is that it is to be parsed into three parts: sarva “all” or “every” + asti “exist” + vada “speak”, “say” or “theory”. This equates perfectly with the Chinese term, Shu\u014dy\u012bqi\u00e8y\u01d2u b\u00f9 (Chinese: \u8aaa\u4e00\u5207\u6709\u90e8),[7] which is literally “the sect that speaks of the existence of everything,” as used by Xuanzang and other translators.The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da was also known by other names, particularly hetuvada and yuktivada. Hetuvada comes from hetu \u2013 ’cause’, which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality. Yuktivada comes from yukti \u2013 ‘reason’ or even ‘logic’, which echoes their use of rational argument and syllogism.       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Table of ContentsOrigination and history[edit]Early history[edit]Kushan era[edit]Tarim Basin[edit]Sub-schools[edit]Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika[edit]D\u0101r\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntikas and Sautr\u0101ntikas[edit]M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins[edit]Vinaya[edit]\u0100gamas[edit]Abhidharma[edit]Later Abhidharma manuals[edit]Appearance and language[edit]Appearance[edit]Language[edit]Influence[edit]References[edit]Sources[edit]Further reading[edit]Origination and history[edit]    Early history[edit]According to Charles Prebish, “there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din school.”[12] According to Dhammajoti, “its presence, as well as that of its rival \u2014 the Vibhajyav\u0101da lineage \u2014 in the time of Emperor A\u015boka is beyond doubt. Since A\u015boka’s reign is around 268\u2013232 B.C.E., this means that at least by the middle of the 3rd century B.C.E., it had already developed into a distinct school.”[13]In Central Asia, several Buddhist monastic groups were historically prevalent. According to some accounts, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins emerged from the Sthavira nik\u0101ya, a small group of conservatives, who split from the reformist majority Mah\u0101s\u0101\u1e43ghikas at the Second Buddhist council. According to this account, they were expelled from Magadha, and moved to northwestern India where they developed into the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din school.[12]A number of scholars have identified three distinct major phases of missionary activity seen in the history of Buddhism in Central Asia, which are associated with respectively the Dharmaguptaka, Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da, and the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da,[14] and the origins of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da have also been related to Ashoka sending Majjhantika (Sanskrit: Madhy\u0101ntika) on a mission to Gandhara, which had an early presence of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da.[12] The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins in turn are believed to have given rise to the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da sect, although the relationship between these two groups has not yet been fully determined. According to Prebish, “this episode corresponds well with one Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din tradition stating that Madhyantika converted the city of Kasmir, which seems to have close ties with Gandhara.”[12]A third tradition says that a community of Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din monks was established at Mathura by the patriarch Upagupta.[12] In the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din tradition Upagupta is said to have been the fifth patriarch after Mah\u0101ka\u015byapa, \u0100nanda, Madhy\u0101ntika, and \u015a\u0101\u1e47akav\u0101sin, and in the Ch’an tradition he is regarded as the fourth.Kushan era[edit]  A Kushan era votive stupa from Mohra Muradu, Taxila, where Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da groups are known to have lived by the end of the first century BCE[15]The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da enjoyed the patronage of Kanishka (c. 127\u2013150 CE) emperor of the Kushan Empire, during which time they were greatly strengthened, and became one of the dominant sects of Buddhism in north India for centuries, flourishing throughout Northwest India, North India, and Central Asia.When the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school held a synod in Kashmir during the reign of Kanishka II (c. 158\u2013176), the most important Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Abhidharma text, the Astagrantha of Katyayaniputra was rewritten and revised in Sanskrit. This revised text was now known as J\u00f1\u0101naprasth\u0101na (“Course of Knowledge”). Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many vibha\u1e63as (commentaries), the new Kashmiri J\u00f1\u0101naprasth\u0101na had a Sanskrit Mah\u0101vibha\u1e63a, compiled by the Kashmir Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da synod.[3] The J\u00f1\u0101naprasth\u0101na and its Mah\u0101vibha\u1e63a, were then declared to be the new orthodoxy by Kashmiris, who called themselves Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas.  This new Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by all Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins. Some “Western masters” from Gandhara and Bactria had divergent views which disagreed with the new Kashmiri orthodoxy. These disagreements can be seen in post-Mah\u0101vibha\u1e63a works, such as the *Tattvasiddhi-\u015a\u0101stra  (\u6210\u5be6\u8ad6), the *Abhidharmah\u1e5bdaya (T no. 1550) and its commentaries (T no. 1551, no. 1552), the Abhidharmako\u015bak\u0101rik\u0101 of Vasubandhu and its commentaries (who critiqued some orthodox views), and the *Ny\u0101y\u0101nus\u0101ra (Ny) of master Sa\u1e43ghabhadra (ca fifth century CE) who formulated the most robust Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika response to the new criticisms.[16]Tarim Basin[edit]When the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited Kucha in 630 CE, he received the favours of Suvarna-deva, the son and successor of Suvarna-puspa, and Hinayana king of Kucha. Xuanzang described in many details the characteristics of Kucha, and probably visited the Kizil Caves.[18] Of the religion of the people of Kucha, he says that they were Sarvastivadas and writes:[19]“There are about one hundred convents (sa\u1e45gh\u0101r\u0101mas) in this country, with five thousand and more disciples. These belong to the Little Vehicle of the school of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101das (Shwo-yih-tsai-yu-po). Their doctrine (teaching of S\u016btras) and their rules of discipline (principles of the Vinaya) are like those of India, and those who read them use the same (originals).\u2014\u2009Xuanzang, on the religion of Kucha.[19]Sub-schools[edit]Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da was a widespread group, and there were different sub-schools or sects throughout its history, the most influential ones being the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika and the Sautr\u0101ntika schools. According to Cox, Willemen and Dessein: we have, basically, to differentiate the original Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins originating from Mathura, the Ka\u015bm\u012bri Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas, the Western Masters of Gandhara and Bactria (the D\u0101r\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntika-Sautr\u0101ntika Masters) who were also referred to as Bahirdesaka, Apar\u0101ntaka and P\u0101\u015bc\u0101ttya, and the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins. As the various groups influenced one another, even these sub-schools do very often not form homogeneous groups.[20]Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika[edit]The Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika was formed by adherents of the Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63a \u015a\u0101stra (MV\u015a) during the council of Kashmir. Since then, it comprised the orthodox or mainstream branch of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school based in K\u0101\u015bm\u012bra (though not exclusive to this region). The Vaibh\u0101\u015bika-Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da, which had by far the most “comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics” of the early Buddhist schools,[21] was widely influential in India and beyond.[22]As noted by KL Dhammajoti, “It is important to realize that not all of them necessarily subscribed to each and every view sanctioned by the MV\u015a compilers. Moreover, the evolving nature of the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika views must be recognized as well.”[23]The Vaibh\u0101\u015bika-Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins are sometimes referred to in the MV\u015a as “the \u0100bhidharmikas”, “the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da theoreticians” and “the masters of K\u0101\u015bm\u012bra.”[24] In various texts, they also referred to their tradition as Yuktav\u0101da (the doctrine of logic), as well as Hetuv\u0101da (the doctrine of causes).[25]The Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika school saw itself as the orthodox Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da tradition, and they were united in their doctrinal defense of the theory of  “all exists” (sarv\u0101m asti). This is the doctrine which held that dharmas, past present and future, all exist.[3] This doctrine has been described as an eternalist theory of time.[26]While the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas held that dharmas of the three times all exist, they held that only present dharmas have “efficacy” (karitra), thus they were able to explain how the present seems to function differently than the past or future.[27] Among the different Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da thinkers, there were different ideas on how this theory was to be understood.[28] These differences were accepted as long as they did not contradict the doctrine of “all exists” and can be seen in the MV\u015a, which outlines the four different interpretations of this doctrine by the \u2018four great \u0100bhidharmikas of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da\u2019: Dharmatr\u0101ta, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra and Gho\u1e63aka.[29]The doctrines of Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da were not confined to ‘all exists’, but also include the theory of momentariness (ksanika), conjoining (samprayukta) and causal simultaneity (sahabhu), conditionality (hetu and pratyaya), a unique presentation of the spiritual path (marga), and others. These doctrines are all inter-connected and it is the principle of ‘all exists’ that is the axial doctrine holding the larger movement together when the precise details of other doctrines are at stake.In order to explain how it is possible for a dharma to remain the same and yet also undergo change as it moves through the three times, the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika held that dharmas have a constant essence (svabh\u0101va) which persists through the three times.[30] The term was also identified as a unique mark or own characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma and remained unchangeable throughout its existence.[30] According to Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas, svabhavas are those things that exist substantially (dravyasat) as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus only have a nominal existence (praj\u00f1aptisat).[30]D\u0101r\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntikas and Sautr\u0101ntikas[edit]The Sautr\u0101ntikas (“those who uphold the s\u016btras”), also known as D\u0101r\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntikas (who may or may not have been a separate but related group), did not uphold the Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63a \u015a\u0101stra, but rather emphasized the Buddhist s\u016btras as being authoritative.[31]Already by the time of the MV\u015a, the early D\u0101r\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntikas such as Dharmatr\u0101ta and Buddhadeva, existed as a school of thought within the fold of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da who disagreed with the orthodox views.[32] These groups were also called “the western masters” (p\u0101\u015bc\u0101tya), the foreign masters (bahirde\u015baka; also called \u2018the masters outside Ka\u015bm\u012bra\u2019, and the \u2018G\u0101ndh\u0101rian masters\u2019).[29] They studied the same Abhidharma texts as other Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, but in a more critical way. According to KL Dhammajoti, they eventually came to repudiate the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine of “all exists.”[33]It is this group, i.e. those who rejected the most important Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine (along with numerous other key Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika views), which came to be called Sautr\u0101ntika (those who rely on sutras).[34] The Sautr\u0101ntikas did not reject abhidharma however, in fact they were the authors of several abhidharma manuals, like the *Abhidharmah\u1e5bdaya.  The most important Sautr\u0101ntika was Vasubandhu (ca. 350\u2013430), a native from Purusapura in Gandhara. He is famous for his Abhidharmako\u015ba, a very influential abhidharma work, with an auto commentary that defends Sautr\u0101ntika views. He famously later converted to the Yogacara school of Mahayana, a tradition that itself developed out of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Abhidharma.Vasubandhu’s Ko\u015ba led to a vigorous reaction from his contemporary, the brilliant Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika master Sa\u1e43ghabhadra, who is said to have spent 12 years composing the *Ny\u0101y\u0101nus\u0101ra (a commentary to Vasubandhu’s verses) to refute Vasubandhu and other Sautr\u0101ntikas such as Sthavira \u015ar\u012bl\u0101ta and his pupil R\u0101ma.[35]The Ko\u015ba was so influential that  it became the Abhidharma text par excellence in both East Asian Buddhism and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Even today, it remains the main text for the study of Abhidharma in these traditions.The later Buddhist tradition of pram\u0101\u1e47a founded by Dign\u0101ga and Dharmak\u012brti is also associated with the Sautr\u0101ntika school.M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins[edit]There is much uncertainty as to the relationship of the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da (meaning root or original Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da) school and the others. They were certainly influential in spreading their M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya, as it remains the monastic rule used in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism today. Also, they seem to have been influential in Indonesia by the 7th century, as noted by Yijing.[36]A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related including:[37]Frauwallner holds that M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da was the community of Mathura, which was an independent group from the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins of Ka\u015bmir. According to Bhikkhu Sujato, this theory has “stood the test of time”.Lamotte thought that the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya was a late compilation from Ka\u015bm\u012br.Warder suggests that the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins was a late group who compiled a Vinaya and the Saddharmasm\u1e5btyupasth\u0101na S\u016btra.Enomoto holds that the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din and M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101din were the same.Willemen, Dessein, and Cox hold that this group is really the Sautr\u0101ntika school who renamed themselves in the later years of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school history.Vinaya[edit]The Dharmaguptaka are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da pratimok\u1e63a rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.[38]The complete Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In its early history, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya was the most common vinaya tradition in China. However, Chinese Buddhism later settled on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. In the 7th century, Yijing wrote that in eastern China, most people followed the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while the Mah\u0101s\u0101\u1e43ghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang’an), and that the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya was prominent in the Yangzi River area and further south.[39] In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticized by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing and Dao’an (654\u2013717). In the early 8th century, Daoan gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the sa\u1e43gha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.[40]\u0100gamas[edit]Scholars at present have “a nearly complete collection of s\u016btras from the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school”[41] thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of the D\u012brgha \u0100gama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama \u0100gama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Sa\u1e45ghadeva) and Sa\u1e43yukta \u0100gama (T99, Chinese trans. Gu\u1e47abhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da is therefore the only early school besides the Theravada for which we have a roughly complete sutra collection, although unlike the Theravada it has not all been preserved in the original language.Abhidharma[edit]During the first century, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da abhidharma primarily consisted of the Abhidharmahrdaya authored by Dharmashresthin, a native from Tokharistan, and the Ashtagrantha authored\/compiled by Katyayaniputra. Both texts were translated by Samghadeva in 391 AD and in 183 AD. respectively, but they were not completed until 390 in Southern China.The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Abhidharma consists of seven texts:Following these, are the texts that became the authority of the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika:All of these works have been translated into Chinese, and are now part of the Chinese Buddhist canon. In the Chinese context, the word abhidharma refers to the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had abhidharmas.Later Abhidharma manuals[edit]Various other Abhidharma works were written by Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da masters, some are more concise manuals of abhidharma, others critiqued the orthodox Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika views or provided a defense of the orthodoxy. Dhammajoti provides the following list of such later abhidharma works that are extant in Chinese: 108 109*Abhidharm\u0101m\u1e5bta(-rasa)-\u015b\u0101stra (T no. 1553), by Gho\u1e63aka, 2 fasc., translator unknown. 2.*Abhidharmah\u1e5bdaya (T no. 1550) by Dharma\u015br\u012b, 4 fasc., tr. by Sa\u1e45ghadeva et al. 3.*Abhidharmah\u1e5bdaya-s\u016btra (? T no. 1551) by Upa\u015b\u0101nta, 2 fasc., tr. by Narendraya\u015bas.*Abhidharmah\u1e5bdayavy\u0101khy\u0101 (? T no. 1552), by Dharmatr\u0101ta, 11 fasc., tr. by Sanghabh\u016bti.Abhidharmako\u015ba-m\u016bla-k\u0101rik\u0101 (T no. 1560) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang. 6.Abhidharmako\u015babh\u0101\u1e63yam (T no. 1558) by Vasubandhu, 1 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang; (there is also an earlier translation by Param\u0101rtha: T no. 1559).*Abhidharmako\u015ba\u015b\u0101stra-tattv\u0101rth\u0101-\u1e6d\u012bk\u0101 (T no. 1561) by Sthiramati, 2 fasc., translator unknown.*Abhidharma-ny\u0101y\u0101nus\u0101ra (T no. 1562) by Sa\u1e43ghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.*Abhidharma-samayaprad\u012bpik\u0101 (T no. 1563) by Sa\u1e43ghabhadra, 40 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.*Abhidharm\u0101vat\u0101ra (T no. 1554) by Skandhila, 2 fasc., tr. by Xuan Zang.Appearance and language[edit]Appearance[edit]Between 148 and 170 CE, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which described the color of monastic robes (Skt. k\u0101\u1e63\u0101ya) utilized in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (\u5927\u6bd4\u4e18\u4e09\u5343\u5a01\u5100).[42] Another text translated at a later date, the \u015a\u0101riputraparip\u1e5bcch\u0101, contains a very similar passage with nearly the same information.[42] In the earlier source, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da are described as wearing dark red robes, while the Dharmaguptas are described as wearing black robes.[43] However, in the corresponding passage found in the later \u015a\u0101riputraparip\u1e5bcch\u0101, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da are described as wearing black robes and the Dharmaguptas as wearing dark red robes.[43] In traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, which follow the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Vinaya, red robes are regarded as characteristic of their tradition.[44]Language[edit]During the first century BCE, in the Gandharan cultural area (consisting of Oddiyana, Gandhara and Bactria, Tokharistan, across the Khyber Pass), the Sthaviriyas used the G\u0101ndh\u0101r\u012b language to write their literature using the Kharosthi.The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the Mah\u0101s\u0101\u1e43ghikas used Pr\u0101krit, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins used Sanskrit, the Sthavira nik\u0101ya used Pai\u015b\u0101c\u012b, and the Sa\u1e43mit\u012bya used Apabhra\u1e43\u015ba.Influence[edit]The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins of K\u0101\u015bm\u012bra held the Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 \u015a\u0101stra as authoritative, and thus were given the moniker of being Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas. The Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 is thought to have been authored around 150 CE, around the time of Kani\u1e63ka (127\u2013151 CE) of the Ku\u1e63\u0101\u1e47a Empire.[46] This massive treatise of Abhidharma (200 fascicles in Chinese) contains a great deal of material with what appear to be strong affinities to Mah\u0101y\u0101na doctrines.[47] The Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 is also said to illustrate the accommodations reached between the H\u012bnay\u0101na and Mah\u0101y\u0101na traditions, as well as the means by which Mah\u0101y\u0101na doctrines would become accepted.[48] The Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 also defines the Mah\u0101y\u0101na s\u016btras and the role in their Buddhist canon. Here they are described as Vaipulya doctrines, with “Vaipulya” being a commonly used synonym for Mah\u0101y\u0101na. The Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 reads:What is the Vaipulya? It is said to be all the s\u016btras corresponding to elaborations on the meanings of the exceedingly profound dharmas.[49]According to a number of scholars, Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism flourished during the time of the Ku\u1e63\u0101\u1e47a Empire, and this is illustrated in the form of Mah\u0101y\u0101na influence on the Mah\u0101vibh\u0101\u1e63\u0101 \u015a\u0101stra.[50] The Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u012bm\u016blakalpa also records that Kani\u1e63ka presided over the establishment of Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101 doctrines in the northwest of India.[51]\u00c9tienne Lamotte has also pointed out that a Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da master is known to have stated that the Mah\u0101y\u0101na Praj\u00f1\u0101 s\u016btras were to be found amongst their Vaipulya s\u016btras.[49] According to Paul Williams, the similarly massive Mah\u0101praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101upade\u015ba also has a clear association with the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins.[52]The Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ika and Sautr\u0101ntika subschools are both classified in the Tibetan tenets system as the two tenets of the Hinayana, ignoring other early Indian Buddhist schools, which were not known to the Tibetans.Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din meditation teachers also worked on the Dhy\u0101na sutras (Chinese: \u79aa\u7d93), a group of early Buddhist meditation texts which were translated into Chinese and became influential in the development of Chinese Buddhist meditation methods.References[edit]^ Vanleene, Alexandra. “The Geography of Gandhara Art” (PDF): 158. ^ a b Westerhoff, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy in the First Millennium CE, 2018, p. 60.^ a b c d e Westerhoff, 2018, p. 61.^ Baruah, Bibhuti (2000). Buddhist sects and sectarianism (1st\u00a0ed.). New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. ISBN\u00a0978-8176251525., p. 50^ Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. (2013), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, Princeton University Press^ Taisho 27, n1545^ a b Myer, Prudence R. (1986). “Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathur\u0101”. Artibus Asiae. 47 (2): 111\u2013113. doi:10.2307\/3249969. ISSN\u00a00004-3648. JSTOR\u00a03249969.^ For a modern image see Figure 9 in Myer, Prudence R. (1986). “Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: Early Buddhist Images from Mathur\u0101”. Artibus Asiae. 47 (2): 121\u2013123. doi:10.2307\/3249969. ISSN\u00a00004-3648. JSTOR\u00a03249969.^ a b L\u00fcders, Heinrich (1960). Mathura Inscriptions. pp.\u00a031\u201332.^ Sastri, Hirananda (1931). Epigraphia Indica vol.21. p.\u00a0259.^ a b c d e Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Charles S. Prebish. Penn State Press: 1975. ISBN\u00a00-271-01195-5 pg 42-43^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 55.^ Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 126^ Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 103^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 57.^ Waugh, Daniel (Historian, University of Washington). “Kizil”. depts.washington.edu. Washington University. Retrieved 30 December 2020.^ a b Beal, Samuel (2000). Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World\u00a0: Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). Psychology Press. p.\u00a019. ISBN\u00a0978-0-415-24469-5., also available in: “Kingdom of K’iu-chi (Kucha or Kuche) [Chapter 2]”. www.wisdomlib.org. 27 June 2018. Retrieved 30 December 2020.^ Cox, Dessein & Willemen, 1998, p. 19.^ “one does not find anywhere else a body of doctrine as organized or as complete as theirs” . . .”Indeed, no other competing schools have ever come close to building up such a comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics as the Vaibh\u0101\u015bika.” The Sautrantika theory of seeds (bija ) revisited: With special reference to the ideological continuity between Vasubandhu’s theory of seeds and its Srilata\/Darstantika precedents by Park, Changhwan, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2007 pg 2^ A Study of the Abhidharmah\u1e5bdaya: The Historical Development of the Concept of Karma in the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Thought. PhD thesis by Wataru S. Ryose. University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1987 pg 3^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 76.^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 73.^ Dhammajoti (2009), pp. 56, 164.^ Kalupahana, David. A history of Buddhist philosophy, continuities and discontinuities, page 128.^ Westerhoff, 2018, p. 63.^ Poussin; Pruden, Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu, Vol 3, 1991, p. 808.^ a b Dhammajoti (2009), p. 75.^ a b c Westerhoff, 2018, p. 70.^ Westerhoff, Jan, The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 73.^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 74.^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 77.^ Willemen, Charles; Dessein, Bart; Cox, Collett (1998). Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Buddhist Scholasticism, p. 109. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Zweite Abteilung. Indien.^ Dhammajoti (2009), p. 110.^ Coedes, George. The Indianized States of South-East Asia. 1968. p. 84^ Sujato, Bhikkhu (2012). Sects & Sectarianism: The origins of Buddhist Schools (PDF). Santipada. p.\u00a0135.^ Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 52^ Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 187^ Heirman, Ann. Bumbacher, Stephan Peter. The Spread of Buddhism. 2007. pp. 194-195^ Sujato, Bhikkhu. “The Pali Nik\u0101yas and Chinese \u0100gamas”. What the Buddha Really Taught. Retrieved 8 September 2019.^ a b Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. p. 55^ a b Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. pp. 55-56^ Mohr, Thea. Tsedroen, Jampa. Dignity and Discipline: Reviving Full Ordination for Buddhist Nuns. 2010. p. 266^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 112^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 117^ Potter, Karl. Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 A.D. 1998. p. 111^ a b Walser, Joseph. N\u0101g\u0101rjuna in Context: Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. 2005. p. 156^ Willemen, Charles. Dessein, Bart. Cox, Collett. Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Buddhist Scholasticism. 1997. p. 123^ Ray, Reginald. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. 1999. p. 410^ Williams, Paul, and Tribe, Anthony. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. 2000. p. 100Sources[edit]Cox, Collett; Dessein, Bart; Willemen, Charles (1998). Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Buddhist Scholasticism. BRILL, Handbuch Der Orientalistik. Leiden, New York, Koln. ISBN 9004102310.Dhammajoti, K.L. (2009). Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Abhidharma. Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong. ISBN\u00a0978-988-99296-5-7.Kalupahana, David (2001). Buddhist Thought and Ritual. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN\u00a0978-81-208-1773-9.Kalupahana, David (1975). Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. University Press of Hawaii. ISBN\u00a0978-0-8248-0298-1.Nakamura, Hajime (1980). Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN\u00a0978-81-208-0272-8.Vasubandhu; de La Vall\u00e9e-Poussin, Louis (1 June 1990). Abhidharmako\u015babh\u0101\u1e63yam. Asian Humanities Press. ISBN\u00a0978-0-89581-913-0.Xing, Guang (2005). The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trik\u0101ya Theory. Psychology Press. ISBN\u00a0978-0-415-33344-3.Yao, Zhihua (2012). The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition. Routledge. ISBN\u00a0978-1-134-28745-1.Further reading[edit]For a critical examination of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din interpretation of the Samyuktagama, see David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.For a Sautrantika refutation of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101din use of the Samyuktagama, see Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma.. Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma. Asian Educational Services, 2003, page 76. This is a reprint of a much earlier work and the analysis is now quite dated; the first appendix however contains translations of polemical materials.     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/sarvastivada-wikipedia\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Sarvastivada – Wikipedia"}}]}]