Sarvastivada!

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Akuma
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:56 pm
Location: NRW, Germany

Re: Sarvastivada!

Post by Akuma »

alex123 wrote: If anyone is interested to read this long article on Sarvastivada

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/bastow.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any comments about it? They do seem to have their reasons for asserting what they do.
Been a while since I read that. I'm from time to time enjoying Sarvastivada Abhidharma from Bhikkhu Dhammajoti which is a 550+ pages info-heap densely packed with all the relevant aspects of the sect.
I personally find Sarvastivada itself is quite cool; if youre someone drawn to further inquiry its prolly better than Theravada since first of all at least some of the commentarial material is actually available and secondly because it can answer questions that the Theravada cannot. Apart from the ones already mentioned this would for example be ones related to the workings of karma and of what f.e. distinguishes an arya from a putthujana, which becomes explained by the appropriation (prapti) of certain dharmas to the mind-stream; the latter obviously cant be explained by Theravadins because of their lack of atemporal existents. On the other hand side, while the Sarvastivadins explanation of prapti for example shows their honesty and interest in creating a useable and meaningful philosophy out of the snippets of information in the suttas, its enhancements like this which also show the big drawback of religious philosophy so typical for it - namely that the seeming explanations are just extensions of a fixed system based on not much more than unproven premises. This is more obvious in mystical traditions like f.e. the jewish Kabbalah or the Vajrayana where layers and layers of symbols and interconnections are produced which in their complexity and apparent perfection seem to point to some (mystical) truth or law while in fact only being the outcome of a wishful mind making the parts fit or - as in the example of dhammic appropriation - just creating new parts.

But if one ignores this maybe necessary drawback the school has some interesting teachings and answers; it mightve even survived up until today in enhanced form if the Yogacarins wouldnt have marched in with their easier-to-swallow alaya-vijnaana idea which probably was also more appealing to the people not interested / trained in abhidhammic analysis. Funnily of course nowadays many people cant even grasp that concept ;)
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Sarvastivada!

Post by daverupa »

:coffee:
Akuma wrote:its prolly better than Theravada since first of all at least some of the commentarial material is actually available and secondly because it can answer questions that the Theravada cannot... interest in creating a useable and meaningful philosophy out of the snippets of information in the suttas...
:jawdrop:

Apparently, for you, Sarvastivada commentary can answer questions the Suttas cannot, and apparently the Suttas on their own don't have, for you, the designation "useable". Do I misunderstand? After all, this is the Early Buddhism sub-forum, and I want to be sure to understand what you mean before I make a detailed response.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Akuma
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:56 pm
Location: NRW, Germany

Re: Sarvastivada!

Post by Akuma »

Apparently, for you, Sarvastivada commentary can answer questions the Suttas cannot, and apparently the Suttas on their own don't have, for you, the designation "useable". Do I misunderstand?
You do. Im giving credit to the schools like Sarvastivada for example to systematize the teachings in the sutras into a philosophy, including reactions to outside criticisms. This in my opinion is no small feat.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Sarvastivada!

Post by daverupa »

Akuma wrote:systematize... reactions to outside criticisms. This in my opinion is no small feat.
I don't think it is a small feat, either. But while any abhidhamma might be credited with protecting and propogating the Dhamma in a meme-hostile environment, I distinguish the protection from the protected. Despite the abhidhamma serving a historical purpose of some importance, that the SuttaVinaya differs marginally between these early schools while their abhidhammas differ in many respects ought to encourage skepticism of all abhidhamma alongside a concomitant rise in confidence in the SuttaVinaya.

:soap:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Sarvastivada!

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Lazy_eye wrote:Hi all:

I'm a bit curious how the Sarvastivada school justified its doctrine in relation to the Buddha's teachings on anicca and anatta. I'm assuming that (like pretty much every Buddhist school) the Sarvastivadans claimed to be representing the authentic dhamma, and yet -- on the surface of it, at least -- their notion of a permanently existing svabhava seems hard to reconcile with the teachings. Or is this because I'm retroactively applying a Mahayanist interpretation of anicca and anatta?

In any case, I'm interested to know how these folks might have explained the need for this notion -- i.e. what questions raised in the suttas does it answer, and how is it reconciled with what the Buddha taught? Also, if I remember correctly, a Sarvastivada canon of scriptures has been preserved; if so, does it differ in any significant way from the Pali Canon?

Thanks,

LE
Basically, dharmas are still anitya and anatman, because they are within the context of time.
Whatever is nitya and atman, ie. unconditioned, can be outside of time.

The need is simple, the same basic problem that Buddhists have always had:
How to resolve the notion of multiple lives in samsara, with karmic causal efficacy and result,
without positing a permanent entity that is the same through time.

You can check out the arguments in the Abhidharma-kosa, the four basic theories of the
great Vaibhasika panditas, Buddhadeva, Vasumitra, etc.

Their system is more subtle than 90% of people give them credit for,
especially nowadays, considering that few advocate their position as their own.

Their system is thus answering the same question to which the Theravadins posited the bhavanga,
the Mahasamghikas the mula-vijnana, and other schools the asamsarika-skandha,
and the adana- and alaya-vijnana systems; and the basic Sautrantika bija theories.

I recommend checking out the Karmasiddhi-prakarana on this one, for a great classic account.

As for the comparison of their canon, that is a big issue, and more than I can get into before
a class in about 20 minutes ... :tongue:

~~ Huifeng
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Post Reply