Sarvastivada is still exist?

[confusedlayman]

It seems Sarvastivada take existance view in subtle aspect and they cotnradict many dhamma when investigated. is people still following it? if so why? i read many book by many arhant defeated Sarvastivada view as its a form of corruption. is it true?

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,


Sarvastivada is just a variant of the realist strand of thought in Buddhism. It is a variant of those who take of the view-point of existence. Orthodox Theravada is another variant. As a school it is extinct, but I have seen some people online agreeing with and sharing some of their views.

[mikenz66]

I'm no expert on the details, but as I understand it, Sarvastivada Abhidharma plays an important part in some Mahayana schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastiv ... 1y%C4%81na

Many of the texts that were translated into Chinese in the first few centuries CE were from the Sarvastivada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada


Mike

[Dhammanando]

is people still following it?

The school still exists and in Tibet it's still followed in the following senses:

1. The country's bhikṣu ordination lineage is of the Mūlasarvāstivāda school.

2. The Vaibhāṣika Abhidharma system of the Sarvāstivāda school is typically the first thing to be studied in Tibetan monastic curricula.

3. The Tibetan laypeople consider themselves to be lineally (though not doctrinally) Sarvāstivādin upāsakas and upāsikās. (This has to do with the Tibetan notion that refuges and precept vows are things that need to be "transmitted" to you by an authorised "lineage-holder" before you can be said to "have" them. According to this sacramentalist conception, reciting the refuges merely out of faith in the Triple Gem and abstaining from killing, stealing, etc. merely because you've made a decision to do so, won't suffice to make you an upāsikā if the refuges and precept vows haven't yet been ritually transmitted to you). The lineage-holders from whom the Tibetans receive the refuges and precepts are Sarvāstivādin ones.

if so why?

The school's Vaibāṣika Abhidharma teachings are regarded by Tibetans as foundational, inasmuch as they serve as the source of relative truth (saṃvṛtti-satya) and mundane right view.

i read many book by many arhant defeated Sarvastivada view as its a form of corruption. is it true?

In the Theravāda the cardinal doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda (that dharmas persist through the three periods of time) is considered to have been successfully refuted at the Third Council.

Of Everything as Persistently Existing

Even the Tibetan followers of the Sarvāstivāda regard its central tenets as only provisionally true, hence its traditional classification as the lowest of the four tenet systems.

[mikenz66]

Thank you for that, Bhante,

In the Theravāda the cardinal doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda (that dharmas persist through the three periods of time) is considered to have been successfully refuted at the Third Council.
Of Everything as Persistently Existing

This sabbamatthīti "all exists" https://suttacentral.net/kv1.6/pli/ms
is an often-discussed line in the Kaccānagotta Sutta:

‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘Sabbamatthī’ti kho, kaccāna, ayameko anto.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato#3.1

However, it is is missing in the Sarvāstivāda version: https://suttacentral.net/sf168/en/jayarava
See the discussion here: viewtopic.php?t=26456

As I recall, Sarvāsti is the Sanskrit version of sabbamatthī, so it is, interesting that that line does not occur in the Sarvāstivāda version of the sutta.


Mike

[ToVincent]

Sarvāstivāda - (a reasoning approach)
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35846&p=538053&hil ... da#p538053

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35846&p=538053&hil ... da#p538685
.
.

[Milinda]

But wasnt the doctrine Akaliko in the Pali language means “Timeless.”? So only exist the present Dhammas so to speak or this is a Theravada point of view?
So how this from the Sarvastivada be possible saying that all Dhammas exist in the same moment.

Do Mahayana groups and sects, have some kind of Sarvastivada inffluence?

[Enam]

Sarvāstivāda

The Paṭisambhidāmagga says:

So he knows, sees, recognizes, penetrates, the four generalizations [of past cause, present result, present cause, future result], the three periods of time, and the dependent origination with three links, doing so in these twenty modes [with five modes in each generalization].

https://suttacentral.net/ps1.1/en/nyana ... ight=false

Is this the core characteristic of Sarvastivada?

[adelebrown68]

Sarvāstivāda (All-exist School) is an Abhidharma school of Buddhist thought whose adherents are generally known as the Sarvāstivādins.
papa's games

[thomaslaw]

The Chinese SA belongs to Sarvastivada. E.g. SA 79 (T2, p. 20a; CSA i, pp. 126-7, and note 1, p. 127; no SN counterpart) states that each of the five aggregates exists in the past, in the future, in the present.

[thomaslaw]

The Chinese SA belongs to Sarvastivada. E.g. SA 79 (T2, p. 20a; CSA i, pp. 126-7, and note 1, p. 127; no SN counterpart) states that each of the five aggregates exists in the past, in the future, in the present.

See also pp. 71-2 in Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism.

[Alex123]

But wasnt the doctrine Akaliko in the Pali language means “Timeless.”?

I think it means more like "not of time", as in the Dhamma is Timeless (always true, never false).

So how this from the Sarvastivada be possible saying that all Dhammas exist in the same moment.

I don't believe that they claim that all Dhammas exist in the same moment. Past dhammas exist in the past, future dhammas exist in the future, present dhamma exists in the present.

[Alex123]

It seems Sarvastivada take existance view in subtle aspect and they cotnradict many dhamma when investigated. is people still following it? if so why? i read many book by many arhant defeated Sarvastivada view as its a form of corruption. is it true?

Exactly what contradictions? It seems to me that Sarvastivada sometimes makes even more sense of the suttas than some other ideas.



The Buddha has often said:

“Any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate. SN22.48

Same with the other 4 aggregates

2- If the past doesn't exist (in the past), than how can a person with ability to recollect former lives do it?


3- If two contradictory mental states cannot exist at the same time, then how can one have presently arisen (kusala)mindfulness and presently arisen (akusala) state coexist? If there is only one moment, then it means that mindfulness would take non-existent akusala object for its object.

[Ontheway]

Nope. The above is merely conceptual understanding of the past. To signifies everything.

Visuddhimagga clarifies:

[C. CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGGREGATES] 185. The foregoing section, firstly , is that of the detailed explanation of the aggregates according to the Abhidhamma-Bhájaniya [of the Vibhanga]. But the aggregates have been given in detail by the Blessed One [in the Suttanta-Bhájaniya] in this way: “Any materiality whatever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: all that together in the mass and in the gross is called the materiality aggregate. Any feeling whatever … Any perception whatever … Any formations whatever … Any consciousness whatever, whether past, future or present … all that together in the mass and in the gross is called the consciousness aggregate” (Vibh 1–9; cf. M III 17).

[MATERIALITY] 186. Herein, the word whatever includes without exception. Materiality prevents over-generalization. Thus materiality is comprised without exception by the two expressions. Then he undertakes its exposition as past, future and present, etc.; for some of it is classed as past and some as future, and so on. So also in the case of feeling, and so on.

Herein, the materiality called (i) past is fourfold, according to (a) extent, (b) continuity , (c) period, and (d) moment. Likewise (ii) the future and (iii) the present.

187. Herein, (a) firstly , according to extent: in the case of a single becoming of one [living being], previous to rebirth-linking is past, subsequent to death is future, between these two is present.

188. (b) According to continuity: that [materiality] which has like or single origination by temperature and single origination by nutriment, though it occurs successively , [473] is present. That which, previous to that, was of unlike origination by temperature and nutriment is past. That which is subsequent is future. That which is born of consciousness and has its origination in one cognitive series, in one impulsion, in one attainment, is present. Previous to that is past. Subsequent to that is future. There is no special classification into past continuity , etc., of that which has its origination in kamma, but its pastness, etc., should be understood according as it supports those which have their origination through temperature, nutriment, and consciousness.

189. (c) According to period: any period among those such as one minute, morning, evening, day-and-night, etc., that occurs as a continuity , is called present. Previous to that is past. Subsequent is future.

190. (d) According to moment: what is included in the trio of moments, [that is to say , arising, presence, and dissolution] beginning with arising is called present.
At a time previous to that it is future. At a time subsequent to that it is past.

191. Furthermore, that whose functions of cause and condition have elapsed is past. That whose function of cause is finished and whose function of condition is unfinished is present. That which has not attained to either function is future.

Or alternatively , the moment of the function is present. At a time previous to that it is future. At a time subsequent to that it is past.

And here only the explanations beginning with the moment are absolutely literal. The rest are in a figurative [or relative] sense.

[Alex123]

Nope. The above is merely conceptual understanding of the past.

So the past doesn't exist? Then how can past cause produce its effects in the present? If past doesn't exist