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

[L.S. Cousins]

Stephen,

I know these are not your ideas, but cannot forbear to disagree.

>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.

This is based upon a single mention of a separate Vinaya recension in 
those two areas. There is no reason to connect that with doctrinal 
differences.

>  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.

This is all a  theory based on almost no evidence. Those who accepted 
abhidharma certainly continued to develop that type of theory (surely 
much older in essence). THose who partially rejected the authority of 
abhidharma developments did so because they were influenced by 
Madhyamaka and similar teachings and made there own series of 
innovations.

>  At a certain stage of their history, the latter also called 
>themselves the Mula-sarvastivada -- the "original" Sarvastivada.

There is no evidence that there were ever any Sarvaastivaadins who 
did not call themselves Muulasarvaastivaadins. In other words there 
was certainly never any Mulasarvaastivaadin school or sect as such.

>  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.

This term is used sometimes by Vasubandhu, but it is not clear that 
anybody called themselves that previously.

>  > 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 YogÇcÇrabh•mi" (IIBS 
>2005).

I would say rather that in those Sarvaastivaadin monasteries which 
accepted Mahaayaana suutras there eventually developed a tradition of 
abhidharma study which ultimately culminated after centuries in the 
creation of the Yogaacaara which can be seen in part as a type of 
Mahaayaana abhidharma.

>   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.

We have no idea who used that particular recension, nor when it first 
came into use, nor even where in India it was used. We have only 
isolated examples. For example, in order to show that this recension 
(which was certainly used in the Gilgit region) has special links 
with such schools it would be necessary to show that it is not used 
in the Abhidharmadiipa. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Lance Cousins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051016/f11c9256/attachment.htm