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.

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

The Sarvāstivāda were an early school of Buddhism that held to 'the existence of all dharmas in the past, present and future, the 'three times'. The Abhidharma Kosa-bhaṣya, a later text, states:

“

25c-d. He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarvastivadin.

”

The Sarvāstivāda comprised two subschools, the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika. The Vaibhāṣika was formed by adherents of the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra, comprising the orthodox Kasmiri branch of the Sarvāstivāda school. The Vaibhāśika-Sarvāstivāda, which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the early Buddhist schools, was widely influential in India and beyond.

According to scholar Charles Prebish,

There is a great deal of mystery surrounding the rise and early development of the Sarvastivadin school. On the one had, we have the tradition of Asoka’s council, stating that the schismatic group in the Sangha was expelled from Magadha, migrating to northwestern India and evolving into the Sarvastivadin school. On the other hand, we have the attempts of several scholars to ascribe the rise of the school to one of Asoka’s missions—that sending Majjhantika to Gandhara, an early seat of the school. This episode corresponds well with one Sarvastivadidn tradition stating that Madhyantika (the Sanskrit counterpart of the Pali Majjhantika) converted the city of Kasmir, which seems to have close ties with Gandhara. Still another tradition established a community of Sarvastivadin monks at Mathura, founded by the patriarch Upagupta. Be that as it may, until the reign of King Kanishka, around the turn of the Christian era, the history of the school is at best sketchy.

They enjoyed the patronage of Kanishka, during which time they were greatly strengthened, and became one of the dominant shravaka sects for the next thousand years.

Relation to the Mulasarvastivada

A number of theories have been posited by academics as to how the two are related, which Bhikkhu Sujato summaries as follows:

The uncertainty around this school has led to a number of hypotheses. Frauwallner’s theory holds that the MūlasarvāstivādaVinaya is the disciplinary code of an early Buddhist community based in Mathura, which was quite independent in its establishment as a monastic community from the Sarvāstivādins of Kaśmir (although of course this does not mean that they were different in terms of doctrine). Lamotte, opposing Frauwallner, asserts that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was a late Kaśmīr compilation made to complete the Sarvāstivādin Vinaya. Warder suggests that the Mūlasarvāstivādins were a later development of the Sarvāstivāda, whose main innovations were literary, the compilation of the large Vinaya and the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra, which kept the early doctrines but brought the style up to date with contemporary literary developments. Enomoto pulls the rug out from all these theories by asserting that Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin are really the same. Meanwhile, Willemen, Dessein, and Cox have developed the theory that the Sautrantikas, a branch or tendency within the Sarvāstivādin group of schools, emerged in Gandhāra and Bactria around 200 CE. Although they were the earlier group, they temporarily lost ground to the Kaśmīr Vaibhāśika school due to the political influence of Kaṇiṣka. In later years the Sautrantikas became known as Mūlasarvāstivādins and regained the ascendancy. I have elsewhere given my reasons for disagreeing with the theories of Enomoto and Willemen et al. Neither Warder nor Lamotte give sufficient evidence to back up their theories. We are left with Frauwallner’s theory, which in this respect has stood the test of time.

Sarvastivada is a Sanskrit term, which can be glossed as: "the theory of all exists". The Pali equivalent is sabbatthivāda.

Although there is some dispute over how the word "sarvastivada" is to be analyzed, the general consensus is that it is to be parsed into three parts: sarva "all" or "every" + asti "exist" + vada "speak", "say" or "theory". This equates perfectly with the Chinese term, shuōyīqièyǒu bù^[7], which is literally "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything", as used by Hsuan Tsang and other translators.

Though the sarvastivadins would themselves claim that their teaching of ‘all exists’ (sarvasti) is a direct teaching of the Buddha himself, as shown by their attributing the earliest abhidharma texts to direct disciples of the Buddha, notably to Sariputra and constant reference to the sutras throughout, the school in its entirety is more rightly to be considered as part of the age of scholastic Buddhism. It was the most influential school in the northwestern part of India. In a Chinese context, the word abhidharma refers to the sarvastivada abhidharma, although at a minimum the Dharmaguptaka, Pudgalavada and Theravada also had abhidharmas. During the first century BC, in the Gandharan cultural area (consisting of Oddiyana, Gandhara and Bactria, Tokharistan, across the Khyber Pass), the sthaviriyas used Gandhari to write their literature in the Kharoṣṭhī script. During this time, the sarvastivada abhidharma primarily consisted of the Abhidharmahrdaya authored by Dharmashresthin, a native from Tokharistan, and the Ashtagrantha authored/compiled by Katyayaniputra. Both texts were translated by Samghadeva in 391 A.D. and in 183 A.D. respectively, but they were not completed until 390 in Southern China. Although the sarvastitva was the central thesis, there were different theories on how ‘sarvam’ and even ‘asti’ were actually to be explained and understood among the Gandharan diverse sarvastivadins. Vasubandhu’s Koshabhasya, an elaborate yoga manual based on the Hrdaya, describes four main theses on sarvasti: ‘There are four types of sarvastivadins accordingly as they teach a difference in existence (bhavanyathatva), a difference in characteristic (laksananyathatva), a difference in condition (avasthanyathatva), and mutual difference (anyonyathatva).

Later sarvastivada takes a combination of the first and third theses as its model. It was on this basis that the school’s doctrines were defended in the face of growing external, and sometimes even internal, criticism.

The doctrines of sarvastivada were not confined to ‘all exists’, but also include the theory of momentariness (ksanika), conjoining (samprayukta) and simultaneity (sahabhu), conditionality (hetu and pratyaya), the culmination of the spiritual path (marga), and others. These doctrines are all inter-connected and it is the principle of ‘all exists’ that is the axial doctrine holding the larger movement together when the precise details of other doctrines are at stake. The sarvastivada was also known by other names, particularly hetuvada and yuktivada. Hetuvada comes from hetu – ‘cause’, which indicates their emphasis on causation and conditionality. Yuktivada comes from yukti – ‘reason’ or even ‘logic’, which shows their use of rational argument and syllogism. When the sarvastivada school held a synod in Kashmira during the reign of Kanishka II (ca. 158-176), the Gandharan most important text, the Astagrantha of Katyayaniputra was rewritten in Sanskrit making necessary revisions. This revised text was now known as Jbanaprasthana, Course of Knowledge. Though the Gandharan Astagrantha had many vibhasas, the new Kashmira Astagrantha i.e. the Jnanaprasthana had a Sanskrit Mahavibhasa, compiled by the Kashmira sarvastivada synod. The Jnanaprasthana and its Mahavibhasa, which took more than a generation to complete, were then declared the Vaibhasika orthodoxy, said to be ‘Buddha’s word’, Buddhabhasita. This new Vaibhasika orthodoxy, however, was not readily accepted by the Gandharan sarvastivadins, though gradually they adapted their views to the new Kawmira orthodoxy. The Gandharan sarvastivadins used the same Vinaya from Mathura. As a matter of fact, their abhidharma was meant for meditational practices. They made use of the Hrdaya which is a manual for attaining arhat. However, the long Gandharan Vinaya was abridged to a Sanskrit Dashabhanavara in the Kashmira synod by removing the avadanas and jatakas, stories and illustrations. After the declaration of the Vaibhasika orthodoxy, the Gandharan non-vaibhasika sarvastivadins, the majority, were called ‘sautrantikas’(those who uphold the sutras) . Interestingly, the Kawmira orthodoxy, the Vaibhasikas disappeared in the later part of the 7th century. Subsequently, the old Gandharan sarvastivadins, the non-vaibhasika sautrantikas, were named ‘mulasarvastivadins’, who then at a later date went to Tibet. It has been suggested that the minority Vaibhasikas were absorbed into the majority sautrantika sarvastivadins as a possible result of the latter’s adaptations. Moreover, Mishrakabhidharmahrdaya, a title which means that ‘sautrantika views were mixed with vaibhasika views’ was composed by Dharmatrata in the 4th century in Gandharan area. Vasubandhu (ca.350-430), a native from Purusapura in Gandhara, composed his Kowa based on this text and the Astagrantha. While in Kawmira, he wrote his karikas which were well received there but he faced intense opposition, notably from Samghabhadra, a leading sarvastivada pundit, when he composed his bhasya. By his bhasya, Vasubandhu made it clear to the Vaibhasikas that he was a sautrantika, which is why he was fiercely opposed by the sarvastivada vaibhasikas in Kawmira. In reply to Vasubhandhu’s bhasya, Samghabhadra wrote a text, the Nyananusara ‘according to reason’. This work is presently only extant in Chinese (from Xuanzang’s translation and little is known of it in English).

For a critical examination of the Sarvastivadin interpretation of the Samyuktagama, see David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. For a Sautrantika refutation of the Sarvastivadin use of the Samyuktagama, see Theodore Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma.

Sutra pitika

Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of sutras from the Sarvāstivāda school" thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of Dīrgha-Agama in Sanskrit. The Madhyama (T26, Chinese trans. Gotama Saṅghadeva) and Saṁyukta Agamas (T99, Chinese trans. Guṇabhadra) have long been available in Chinese translation. The Sarvāstivāda is therefore the only early school besides the Theravada for which we have a roughly complete sutra collection, although unlike the Theravada it has not all been preserved in the original language.

Abhidharma

The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma consists of seven texts. The texts of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma are:

• Sangitiparyaya ('Discourses on Gathering Together')
• Dharmaskandha ('Aggregation of Dharmas')
• Prajnaptisastra ('Treatise on Designations')
• Dhatukaya ('Body of Elements')
• Vijnanakaya ('Body of Consciousness')
• Prakaranapada ('Exposition')
• Jnanaprasthana ('Foundation of Knowledge')

Following these, are the texts that became the authority of the Vaibhashikas, the Kasmiri Sarvastivada Orthodoxy:

• Mahavibhasa ("Great Commentary", on the Jnanaprasthana)

• Sangitiparyaya or Samgiti-paryaya-sastra ("recitation together") is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures. It was composed by Mahakausthila (according to the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources) or Sariputra (according to the Chinese sources). The Chinese recension was translated by Xuanzang: T26, No. 1536, in 20 fascicles.

  Structurally, the Samgiti-paryaya is similar to the Dharma-skandha, though earlier, as the latter is mentioned in the former. It is basically a matrka on the early teachings, arranged in groups of dharmas by number, similar to the Ekottarikagama.

  This text, as the name implies, is essentially a commentary on the Samgiti-sutra (T 9, Digha-nikaya no. 33). This also indicates that the contents are more a gathering together and assemblage of the Buddha's Dharma, than any new theory or discussion. The background to the first recital of the Samgiti-sutra, as the Jains fell into disarray after the death of the Mahavir, and the Buddhist Samgha gathered together to recite the core teachings of the Dharma to prevent such a split in their own religion, perhaps indicates the fear of present or impending schism arising in the Samgha on the part of those who compiled this Abhidharma work, some time later. The Samgiti-sutra is also the basis of a commentarial work, in the later Yogacara-bhumi-sastra, some several hundred years later.

  Yin Shun notes it being mentioned in the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya-vyakaraṇa, indicating its early inclusion in the Sarvastivada canon. As this text has some 14 references to the Dhatu-skandha, "as the Dhatu-skandha states", it is also clear that this is post-Dhatu-skandha in composition. The Chinese Taisho reverses the order of the two. Obviously they are very closely related

  Dharmaskandha or Dharma-skandha-sastra is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures. Dharmaskandha means "collection of dharmas". It was composed by Sariputra (according to the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources) or Maudgalyayana (according toChinese sources). The Chinese edition was translated by Xuanzang, and appears as: T26, No. 1537, in 12 fascicles.

  It begins with a matrka as a summary of the topics, showing its antiquity, as these were supposedly only assigned by the Buddha himself. It presents 21 subjects, the first 15 of which concern the practice of the spiritual path, and the realization of its fruits. The 16th deals with "various issues". Subjects 17 to 20 deal with the enumeration of the ayatanas, dhatus and skandhas as encompassing "all dharmas". The 21st is regards dependent origination.

  Frauwallner concludes that the Dhatuskandha is from a period before then split between the Sanskrit and Pāli Abhidharma traditions, based on its correlation with the Pāli Vibhanga. He thus dates it to pre-Ashoka Buddhism. Yin Shun notes it being mentioned in theMulasarvastivada Vinaya-vyakaraṇa, indicating its early inclusion in the Sarvastivada canon. These two combined, would suggest the Mulasarvastivada having its own canon at quite an early date.

  Yin Shun also cites three points for considering this text to be sourced in a pre-sectarian Abhidharma. It similar analysis of rupa to the Sariputta Abhidhamma and the Dhammapariyaya (considered to be the oldest Abhidharma texts of any tradition). No mention of avijnapti-rupa, as per the Sariputta Abhidhamma; and Yin Shun . The emphasis on the five indriya and five bala, as paramount in the spiritual path

  Prajnaptisastra or Prajnapti-sastra is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures. The word Prajnaptisastra means "designation" (of dharmas). It was composed by Maudgalyayana (according to the Sanskrit, Tibetan and MPPU) or Mahakatyayana(according to Puguang). The Chinese translation is by Dharma-rakṣita: T26, No. 1538, in a somewhat shorter 7 fascicles.

  The importance of this text is shown in its being quoted 135 times by the MVS , though these references are not exclusively Sarvastivadain nature. The format is of matrka, followed by question and answer explanations, with references to the sutras for orthodoxy.

  Yin Shun relates the name prajnapti through the Chinese and to the Sariputra Abhidharma in regards the "false designation" of the bonds (saṃyojana), contact (sparsa) and mind (citta)^[2], thus indicating that it is a very early text.

  Willemen, Dessein & Cox assign this text to the next period^[3], based on its "abstract principles of organization" and "complexity of doctrinal analysis". However, though the content is different from the Samgiti and Dharma-skandha, one could scarcely consider it more abstract in nature. It simply reflects the nature of the sūtras upon which it is based. In fact, it has relatively more direct references to the sūtras for its overall size than many of the developed texts, and a similar use of questions and answers as the Samgita.

  Dhatukaya or Dhatukaya-sastra is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures.

  Dhatukaya means "group of elements". It was written by Purna (according to Sanskrit and Tibetan sources), or Vasumitra (according toChinese sources). It was translated into Chinese translated by Xuanzang: T26, No. 1540, in a short 3 fascicles.

  This comparatively short text bears similarities with the Pāli Sthaviravada text, the Dhatu-katha, in style and format, though it uses a differentmatrka. It also bears a close connection with the Prakaranapada, through several items common to both. In its sevenfold division of dharmasin particular, it does provide, a closer look at the various divisions of dharmas, in particular citta and caitasika, with its conjoined and non-conjoined aspects. As it is not mentioned in the Mahavibhasa, this also suggests it is either a later text, or originally a fragment removed from an earlier text.

  Vijnanakaya or Vijnanakaya-sastra is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures. "Vijnanakaya" means "group of consciousness". It was composed by Devasarman (according to both Sanskrit and Chinese sources), with the Chinese translated byXuanzang: T26, No. 1539, in 16 fascicles.

  Vijnanakaya is the first Abhidharma text that is not attritubted to a direct disciple of the Buddha, but written some 100 years after the Buddha's parinirvana, according to Xuanzang's disciple Puguang. Yin Shun however, concludes it was composed around the first century CE, and was influenced by the Jnanaprasthana, though differs in several aspects. In this regard, he likens it to the Prakaranapada, which is also a different position on the Sarvastivada as a whole.

  This is an esteemed Sarvastivada text wherein the Sarvastivada is upheld against Vibhajyavada objections, in the first of its six sections. It is here that the theory of sarvastivada, the existence of all dharmas through past, present and future, is first presented. Interestingly, the issue is only brought up when Moggaliputta-tissa makes the standard claim of the Vibhajyavada, "past and future (dharmas) do not exist, (only) present and unconditioned (dharmas) do exist". The Vijnana-kaya has four main theses to refute this:

  1. The impossibility of two simultaneous cittas
  2. The impossibility of karma and vipaka being simultaneous
  3. That vijnana only arises with an object
  4. Attainments are not necessarily present.

  In addition to refuting the Vibhajyavada view, the second section is a refutation of the Vatsiputriya Pudgalavada claim of: "the paramartha of the arya [truths] can be attained, can be realized by the 'pudgala', present and complete, therefore it is certainly [the case] that the 'pudgala' exists". The Sarvastivada take the title 'Sunyavada' in order to refute this claim, though this is obviously meaning "empty of pudgala", rather than the later Sunyavada of the Mahayana, i.e. the Madhyamaka. The first refutation centers around the two extremes of "absolute identity" and "absolute difference". The second hinges on the continuity of the existence of the skandhas in the past, present and future – sarvastivada – proper.

  The third and fourth sections concern the causal condition, and the conditioning object of vijnana respectively. The fifth includes the two other conditions, the immediate condition and predominant condition. These conditions are discussed in terms of their realm, nature, temporal location, etc. in a format that came to be standard for the Sarvastivada Abhidharma. Such a system also appears in Abhidharma type analysis of dharmas in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and its Upadesa. The remaining five sections are doctrinal elaborations of the Sarvāstivāda school, including issues regarding perception, dependent origination and conditionality

  Prakaranapada or Prakaranapada-sastra, composed by Vasumitra, is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhist scriptures. The Chinese was translated by Xuanzang as: T26, No. 1542, in 18 fascicles; with another partial translation by Gunabhadra and Bodhiyasa: T26, No. 1541, in 12 fascicles. Its commentary the Panca-vastu-vibhasa by Dharmatrata, was also translated by Xuanzang.

  Prakaranapada is the major text of the central Abhidharma period. It influenced other non-Sarvastivada schools, though not in the polarizing manner that the later Jnanaprasthana and Vibhasa texts did. Its format for dharma analysis is used, for example, by the Maha-prajna-paramitopadesa, which also states that the first four chapters where composed by Vasumitra, with the other four chapters by Kasmira arhats. Yin Shun considers this Vasumitra to be the same Vasumitra who appears in the Mahavibhasa later.

  This seems to indicate that before the later formalization of Sarvastivada doctrines, the Vijnana-kaya and Prakaranapada were perhaps representative of several differing lines of thought, though were only later over-shadowed by the Vibhasa and its orthodoxy. It would be interesting to perhaps trace some of these differences through the likes of Buddhadeva and Dharmatrata, as they are presented in the Vibhasa.

  Prakaranapada contains two systems of dharma classification, one fivefold, the other sevenfold. It was the former fivefold system that later became the standard format, and was important for the establishment of the respective characteristics, nature and functions of the various dharmas, especially the caitasika and citta-viprayukta-dharmas. The sevenfold system bears some similarities to Pāli Abhidhamma, and seems to made of categories of dharmas that are all sutra based.

  It also expands on the traditional fourfold theory of conditionality, by introducing some 20 types of condition, in paired dharmas. Although these are not the later sixfold classification, this may have opened the door for later innovation

  Jnanaprasthana or Jnanaprasthana-sastra, composed by Katyayaniputra is one of the seven Sarvastivada Abhidharma Buddhistscriptures. Jnanaprasthana means "establishment of knowledge"

  Jnanaprasthana was translated into Chinese by Xuanzang, T26, No. 1544, in 20 fascicles. It also appears under the name Astaskandha-sastra in the Taisho, with the translation by Samghadeva, Zhu-fo—nian and Dharmapriya: T26, No. 1543 in a slightly larger 30 fascicles. There is a slight difference in format of the two, perhaps indicating that they are different recensions from various sub-schools of the Sarvastivada.

  The tradition of the Mahavibhasa states that it was taught by the Buddha himself, but differs as to the circumstances. It was laterKatyayaniputra who was responsible for the compilation thereof. The Maha-prajna-paramitopadesa (which actually refers to the Astaskandha) states that 100 years after the Buddha's demise, there arose doctrinal disputes among the great masters, giving rise to distinctly named schools.

  Xuanzang maintained that it was written some three centuries after the Buddha, which would be c. 150 BCE.

  The orthodox Vibhāṣa takes this as the ‘root’ Abhidharma, though references are sometimes made to the Prakaraṇapāda in the same terms. It became known as the ‘body’ of the Abhidharma, with the six remaining texts of the early period known as the ‘legs’ or ‘supports’. This is based on textual authority, and not a temporal definition, given the respective historical order of these seven treatises. That is, the Jñānaprasthāna is not sourced from the six legs, but neither is it directly sourced from the sūtras. This is also a reminder that these texts were all probably in a state of constant revision and update, for possibly several hundred years. There are thus mutual reference and borrowing of format and content, that cannot be summarily described by a simply sequential order.

  The outline of the text more closely approximates that earliest of models, the Sariputra Abhidharma, than those specifically Sarvastivadatreatises. This is evidenced in its use of the samyojanas, prajna, karma, indriya, mahabhuta, dhyana and drsti as main divisions. A similar system is later continued through into the Kosa, and Hrdaya texts. Prior to this is a division of "assorted issues". The analysis is of three main types, according to Yinshun:

  1. Analysis of the sutras themselves – in order to find the actual underlying principle, rather than acceptance of the content at face value, which could lead to apparent contradiction. This indicates the Abhidharmika standpoint of taking the Abhidharma as pramana in understanding the doctrine.
  2. Analysis of the nature, or characteristics, of individual dharmas. Rather than the use of sūtra categories pertaining to spiritual praxis, the tendency here is to group by type. Thus, dharmas are assigned as either rūpa, citta, caitasika or citta-viprayukta – the conditioned dharmas, and also the unconditioned dharmas. Specifics as to each type are given, as well as detailed discussions of related dharmas. These are then again categorized according to their being with or without outflows; visible or non-visible; past, present or future; as to realm; and so forth.
  3. Analysis of the relationship between various dharmas. As the preceding analysis lends itself to plurality, and the possibility of falling into independent Saṃkhya-type realities, this analysis completes the Buddhist teaching of dependent origination, preventing such an error. Using kṣanika theory, it establishes the sixfold conditionality theory, that would later be a special feature of the Sarvāstivāda. This is the earliest text in which the theory appears. It also includes some detail on citta-viprayukta-dharmas.

  The influence of the Vijnanaprasthana is seen strongly in the Vibhasa, and this influenced the subsequent Hrdaya texts, and also the Kosa and commentaries.