[Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: Theravada +ACY- Sarvastivada

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Richard & Kate,

>> Taking this further, my notes say that Sautrantika is a development of
>> Sarvastivada, and that Sautrantika in turn gave rise to Yogacara.
> Sautrantika was a reaction to, and rejection of, scholasticism in
> general, one of the types of scholasticism being Sarvastivada.
There are other alternative explanations for the relationship between Sv and 
Sau.  To my mind the most likely hypothesis is that at an early stage the Sv 
split into two branches, due in part to their separate geographical 
centres -- Kashmir and Mathura.  The Kashmiri branch was the one which 
introduced doctrinal developments through their extensive commentorial 
literature culiminating in the Maha-vibhasa.  In contrast, it seems that the 
Sv branch centred on Mathura rejected this doctrinal overlay derived from 
commentaries.  At a certain stage of their history, the latter also called 
themselves the Mula-sarvastivada -- the "original" Sarvastivada.  In their 
rejection of the Kashmiri commentorial innovations, it would have been quite 
natural for them, or some of them, to also call themselves "sautrantika" 
with respect to their stance on doctrinal matters.

> There is no sense in which Yogacara grew out of Sautrantika.
Au contraire, Richard.  There is considerable evidence that there is a 
stronge connection between the two -- though, of course, other factors and 
influences were at work.  Take another look at Schmidthausen's several 
papers on the subject, as well as Robert Kritzer's recent book, "Vasubandhu 
and the Yogācārabhūmi" (IIBS 2005).   Another telling factor is the Agama 
(sutra )set used by the Yogacarins:  the Mula-sarvastivadin version, which 
can also be linked to the Sautrantikas as the Abhidharmakosa sutra quotes 
illustrate.

> Quite honestly, it's not worth the bother. The attempt to place people
> into schools is artificial in the extreme.
This is good advice -- also note that the Tibetan doxological tradition is 
especially unhelpful in this respect.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge