Sarvastivada School

The Hinayana is subdivided into Vaibhasika and Sautrantika where the Vaibhasika equals to the Sarvastivadaschool. The Sarvastivadins were like the Theravadins, a conservative school of the Hinayana. The president of the Council of Kanishka was Vasumitra, a Sarvastivadin. It is the Sarvastivadins who formed the majority in this Council. In this Council the Vibhasas (commentaries or discussions) were compiled, this includes the opinions of the different schools on the sutra, vinaya and Abhidharma. The Vibhasa denoted the literature of the Sarvastivadins. After this Council the Sarvastivada school rose to its highest importance. They held almost the same views about the human life and the universe as the Theravadins, and believed in the non-existence of soul, impermanence, law of Karma etc. The only difference between the doctrines of the Sarvastivadins and those of the Theravadins lies in that the former admitted the reality of the elements (Skandhas) that compose a being as against the latter's view of their unreality. Both the schools admitted the continual flux of elements i.e. the momentary existence of the elements. One school believed that the elements of the past as disappearing to give rise to the present and the present as giving rise to the future. The other school believed that the elements of the past underwent changes to develop into the present and the present developed into the future. Thus the Sarvastivadins admitted the reality of elements as existing in all times --- past, present and future. In Buddhalogical speculations, the Sarvastivadins looked upon Buddha as a man possessing divine attributes. Sarvastivadins believe that an arhat could fall and that heretics could also attain miraculous powers. In the movement North and West, the Sarvastivada maintained establishments in Kosala (Sravasti), Varanasi as well as Mathura (their main center at first) but tended to concentrate in Gandhara and Kasmira. The Sarvastivadins in the region produced the Samkrantikas, the Sautrantikas (a trend which began about 50 A.D. and was consolidated into a school probably early in the 2nd century A.D.) and the Mulasarvastivada (in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. mainly in the countries as Gandhara and Kasmira). In a relatively late period we find the Sarvastivadins in Central Asia and China. If different languages were used - Paisaci (of which Pali is a dialect) by the Sthaviravada group of schools, Prakit by the Mahasanghika, Apabhramsa by the Sammitiya (Vatsiputriya) group and Sanskrit by the Sarvastivada. Samkrantikas All those schools of Buddhism which make this distinction of principles in time into categories those which "exist" and those which do not "exist" are sometimes called vibhajyavadins. The Samkrantikas support the concept of past principles that had not yet produce their results could be said in any sense to exist (being still in a sense effective) and continue to exist. This implies eternalism. The Sarvastivada school has quite often been accused of holding a view indistinguishable from the Brahmanical Samkhya philosophy (a form of "eternalism"). Mahisasakas Probably towards the end of the 3rd century B.C. the school known as Mahisasakas seceded over some points in the Abhidhamma in which they agreed with the Sarvastivadins. According to Pali sources, this school branched off from the Sthaviravadins and gave rise to the Sarvastivadins. The name of the school seems to be a corruption of an original name indicating their origin in the Mahisa country (the Central Narmada valley). The Sthaviravada and the Mahisasaka adhere to the view that an arhat is beyond the reach of any seduction, cannot relapse, whereas the Sarvastivada and Kasyapiya adopt the Mahasanghika opinion that the arhat's perfection is not absolute. The confusion regarding this school among various authorities is largely due to the fact that there were 2 groups of this school at 2 different periods. The earlier Mahisasakas may probably be traced back to Purna who withheld his consent to the decisions arrived at the First Buddhist Council. The later Mahisasakas held views contrary to those held by the earlier followers of the sect. For the former they believed that the past and future did not exist while the present did. The later believed in the existence of past, future and present like the Sarvastivadians.