Vedic Literature | Buddhism | Abhidharma Philosophy
The Book of Discipline, Mahaavagga defines the principle of dharma reflected by the Buddha, after his enlightenment. 'This dharma, won to by me, is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic, subtle, intelligible to the learned.' The Buddhist religion is founded upon the complete and perfect enlightenment achieved by the Buddha through his awakening. All the Buddhist schools are devoted to the ascertainment of the definitive meaning of that dharma realized by the Buddha through his enlightenment.
The discourses delivered by the Buddha during his teaching career were collected by his followers as sutras. The term sutras refers both to the unique teachings of the Buddha on such matters as dependent origination or the four Noble Truths, as well as the collected preachings of the Buddha. The sutras are accounts of particular teachings made by the Buddha to unique audiences and in specific circumstances. As such, the teachings were adapted to the precise needs of the audience, and were presented in such a way that they would be readily accessible to their unique spiritual propensities.
It is this tendency toward adaptation that makes the content of the sutras intentional (aabhipraayika) or conventional (aupacaarika). In other words, one has to draw out their meaning to understand them correctly. For this reason, different sutras give divergent explanations on a variety of doctrinal questions. Because of the very circumscription of their scope and application, the sutras may not be an ideal vehicle for constructing an indefeasible system of philosophy. It is to construct such a definitive system that Abhidharma was born.
Mahayanasuutraalamkaara defines Abhidharma as 'that by which the meaning of the sutra is best understood' (abhigamyate suutraartha etenety abhidharmah). The Pali Atthasaalini states that the Abhidharma surpasses the dharma presented in the sutras. The various classifications of the elements of existence are listed haphazardly in the sutras. But the Abhidharma gives them in their definitive forms. Thus, while the sutras are preached from the standpoint of conventional truth according to specific worldly circumstances, the Abhidharma deals with absolute truth, and is concerned with analysis of mind and matter (naama-ruupapariccheda).
Vasubandhu in his work, the Abhidharmakosabhaasya alludes the same sense to the term 'abhidharma'. According to him, Abhidharma means that unsullied wisdom (prajnaa, malaa) which analyses factors (dharmapravicaya). As such, while the sutras give terms in their conventional meanings, the Abhidharma use them only in their definitive sense.
This notion of literalness suggests that the early Buddhists accepted that there were specific laws (dharmataa) by which the factors of existence (dharma) were considered to function. These laws were invariably correct as a fact of nature, and did not need to be revealed by the Buddha. A common refrain in a number of the Buddhist texts is, 'whether or not the Tathaagatas arise (in the world), this law of the elements of existence remains fixed'.
Certain presuppositions are found in all sutras, whether addressed to monks or laypersons, which are not necessarily spelled out. Incidentally, all Indian philosophical schools have similar presuppositions upon which their doctrinal edifices are constructed.
For Buddhists, the laws consisted principally of the cardinal doctrines of impermanence, frustration, and lack of an eternal self. These were supplemented by such pan-Indian ideas as the continuity of moral action and result, as well as by such uniquely Buddhist concepts as dependent origination.
The varied nature of the specific teachings in the sutras compelled the Buddhists to look for general standards by which those teachings could be evaluated. The most important of these standards was the four references to authority, which were used to verify claims that a specific teaching was authentic. The four references were the Buddha himself; a sangha of elders; groups of monks who were specialists in the sutras, the discipline, or the doctrinal lists of matrices; and individual monks who were such experts. The manner in which such claims were proved involves three separate criteria.
The Sanskrit versions state that a doctrine that claimed to have been learned from the Buddha himself should not be praised or disparaged, but, having heard and understood its words and syllables, one should see if it comes down in the sutras and compare it with the Vinaya. If it passes these texts and does not contradict the law, then let this be said: 'Truly, Noble one, these dharmas have been spoken by the Lord. Noble one, these dharmas have been well understood by you. Put against the sutra, and compared with the Vinaya, these dharmas come down in the sutras, and are reflected in the Vinaya and do not contradict the law.'
The third of these three criteria is not found in the record of this exchange in either the Digha or Anguttara Nikaayas. But it does appear in the later Nettipakarana, an extra-canonical Pali work ascribed by tradition to Mahaakaccaana, one of the Buddha's immediate disciples. In this work, the author clarifies the Theravaada interpretation of the meaning of these three criteria thus: 'those words and syllables should be put beside the sutras, compared with the Vinaya, and tested against the law.'
Which sutras are they to be put beside? The four Noble Truths! With which Vinaya are they to be compared? With the pacification of passion, ill will and ignorance! With which law are they to be tested? With the doctrine of dependent origination!
Because of the varied nature of the teachings found in the sutras, the incipient Abhidharma schools sought to delineate these general rules of interpretation, so as to outline a coherent, systematic approach to Buddhist doctrine. In this context, Abhidharma claims to supersede the sutras by deriving its authority from its own adherence to the overriding standard of the law, thereby establishing itself as superior to the sutras. In its attempts to establish definitive general rules, Abhidharma ultimately becomes both an explanation of the sutra teachings as well as a distinct body of exegetical material in its own right.
The cornerstone of the Buddhist religion is the nature of nirvana and the path to it. The unanimity of opinion concerning the law is of great importance to avoid disputes, for the successful dissemination of the religion. The Buddha himself had warned in the Saamagaamasutta of the dangers that would result if controversies about the fundamental principles of teachings were to develop. 'Of little concern, Ananda, are quarrels respecting the rigors of regimen or the code of discipline. It is possible quarrels in the Order about the Path or the course of training that really matter.'
Such controversies did actually result owing to the differences in the sutra-collections of the developing early schools, and their interpretive laws. Haribhadra records in his Abhisamayaalamkaaraloka thus. 'There is no concordance between different versions of the Sutra and Vinaya Pitikas. The dharmataa established in one school is not identical with that of the other schools. With eighteen different schools, each having its own separate version of Tripitika, it is improper to hold up the mahaapadesas as a standard for judging the authenticity of the words of the Buddha.'
The above passage of Haribhadra refers to the split of the early Buddhism into eighteen contending schools, which is considered to have taken place by the time of Asoka (3rd Century BC). An examination of the process by which the different sectarian schools of Abhidharma are traditionally said to have developed reveals interesting data. Considerable scholarly controversy has raged concerning the historicity of the various synods that are said to have been convened to deal with the disputes within the order. Here is an outline of the traditional accounts of both the derivation of the principal Abhidharma schools and the methods that they adapted to legitimize their treatises.
After the Buddha's parinirvaana (486 BC), controversies began to develop over points of discipline and doctrine among the followers of the Buddha. The Mahaaparinibhaanasutta records the comments of rejoice of the elderly Subhadda on the death of the Buddha. 'Enough, sirs! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told 'this beseems you, this beseems you not.' But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do!'
The attempt to guard against dissension in the order by establishing a definitive collection of the discourses of the Buddha was the motivation behind the convocation of the first council, which took place in Rajagrha in the rainy season following the Buddha's death. Mahaakaasyapa, the Buddha's senior disciple convened the council. Ananda and Upali recited the sutra and Vinaya texts respectively. The historicity of the council has been challenged virtually by all modern scholars. It is even suggested that the account of the first council was directly inspired by the history of the second, in order to justify the authenticity of the canon that was compiled at that latter convocation.
According to the tradition, even after this synod, however, there was at least one renowned elder, Punna by name, who refused to be bound by the discourses and the rules of discipline agreed upon at the council, preferring to remember the Buddha's words as he himself had heard them. Such differences in the renditions of specific sutras eventually led to varying recensions of the scriptures, and ultimately to distinct canonical collections.
According to the narrative included in the Vinayas of various schools, the second council was held at Vaisali, about one hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana. It was prompted by ten lax practices of the Vajjaputtaka monks of Vaisali such as storing salt in a horn, accepting gold and silver, etc. Seven hundred elders convened to decide on the propriety of the practices, Revata presiding, and finally rejected them.
Some scholars have concluded that the refusal of the Vaisali monks to accept this judgment led to the first schism in the order. The schism was between the Sthaviras (Elders) who are alleged to have relied upon the stricter original Vinaya in rejecting the new practices, and the majority group, who labeled themselves the Mahaasamghikas (the Great Assembly), who were more flexible in their interpretation of the Vinaya. M.Hofinger debunked this theory and concluded that the Council dispersed in concord. Andre Bareau proposed a second theory concerning this second council. According to him, there was instead a separate synod held at Pataliputra in 349 BC, 137 years after the Buddha's parinirvana, which resulted in the first major schism.
This council was said to have been convened because of five points of dissension raised by Mahadeva, who challenged the very foundations of Buddhism. According to Mahadeva, the perfected beings even after their enlightenment (1) remain subject to temptation, (2) may have residual ignorance, (3) may continue to entertain doubts, (4) gain knowledge through others' help, and (5) the path may be attained by an exclamation such as 'Aho!' Bareau further proposes that after an unsuccessful attempt by King Mahapadma to mediate the crisis, the Sthaviras and Mahasamghikas split into sanghas, and eventually compiled their own distinct canons.
Nattier and Prebish have challenged both the above theories regarding the second council. According to them, the schism between the Sthaviras and the Mahasamghikas at the second council was not caused either by the disciplinary excesses of the Vajjiputtaka monks or by the five propositions of Mahadeva. In their hypothesis, 'the sole cause of the initial schism in Buddhist history pertained to matters of Vinaya… it represents a reaction on the part of the future Mahasamghikas to unwarranted expansion of the root Vinaya text on the part of the future Sthaviras'. According to several other scholars, the Mahasamghika Vinaya was the most ancient and conservative of the Vinaya recensions, and the schism with the Sthaviravadins seems to have been prompted by attempts of the Elders to expand the Saiksadharma sections of the Vinaya.
Pali sources alone mention a putative third council, which is alleged to have taken place also at Pataliputra in 247 BC during the reign of King Asoka. The Elder Tissa-Moggaliputta presided over it. He is said to have compiled the Kathaavatthu in order to present the definitive Sthaviravada conclusions as to the doctrinal debates that took place during the convocation. In the Kathaavatthu, the Sthaviravadins target two schools. First is the Sammitiyas who, along with the Vajjiputakas, were said to have advocated that there was persisting personal entity (pudgala). Second is the Sarvaastivaadins who were named for their unique doctrine that dharmas existed throughout the past, present and future. It appears that the Sthaviravaadins and the Sarvaastivaadins shared a similar set of scriptures, but differed in their interpretation of those texts. In other words, their laws were distinct. Their differing interpretative positions eventually led to the bifurcation of the Abhidharma tradition into these two great schools.
Bareau has concluded that it was at the time of this council that the final division of the Theravaadins and Sarvaastivaadins took place. A complete Tripitaka of the Sthaviravaadins was apparently compiled during this council. Missionaries were sent out under Asoka's direction to all parts of the known world. It was at that time that Buddhism eventually made its way to Sri Lanka, which, after the demise of the Sthaviravaadins in the Indian heartland, eventually became the center of the school where it was known as Theravaada. It was principally the Sarvaastivaadins among the early Buddhist schools that survived on the Indian subcontinent and continued to exert dominant influence over the subsequent development of Buddhist and Indian philosophy.
Before the third Century BC, the term sarvaastivaada is not attested in the Buddhist literature. The canon of the school certainly postdates Asoka. Both the Sthaviravaadins and the Sarvaastivaadins claim the patronage of Asoka. Both claim that their most eminent representatives namely, Tissa-Moggalliputta and Upagupta, respectively, served as Asoka's personal teacher.
But the Brahmanical advisors to Asoka and followed later by the Sungas, who overthrew the Mauryan empire, worked to establish Brahmanical hegemony in Pataliputra, which had been the stronghold of Sarvaastivaadins. This apparently prompted a mass migration of followers of that school first to Mathura, and later to northwest India, from whence, the school eventually spread throughout central and east Asia. It was in Kashmir, under the sponsorship of King Kanishka, that a separate third council, that of the Sarvaastivaadins, was said to have been held, allegedly in the first century AD. It was at this council that the Sarvaastivaadins' canon was codified, and their massive exegesis of Abhidharma, the Mahaavibhaasa, written.
At this stage, the two major schools of Abhidharma were of the Theravaada and the Sarvaastivaada. They attempted to prove that their treatises were the authentic words of the Buddha. The Abhidharma books were the first major extension of the scope of Buddhist literature to take place in India.
Three major concerns were apparent in their attempts to establish the authenticity of their new books. First was to prove that the Buddha himself had personally taught the Abhidharma. Second was that it had been formally transmitted to eminent disciples of the Buddha, by whom it was then collected. Third was that the Abhidharma works had in fact been recited and codified at the time of the putative first council. This way both the Theravaadins and the Sarvaastivaadins attempted to justify the inclusion of their Abhidharmas as part of the canon.
According to the Theravaada account in the Atthasaalini, the Buddha preached the Abhidharma first to his mother, Mahamaya, during a three-month sojourn in the Taavatimsa heaven. The Divya-avadaana relates, on the other hand, that the Buddha's mother had died soon after giving birth to the Bodhisattva, and had never received the benefit of his teaching. The Theravaadins used this legend in accounting for the time and provenance of the preaching of their Abhidharma.
A novel explanation for the transmission of the Abhidharma is given in the Atthasaalini. Leaving a phantom of himself (nimittabuddha) in heaven, the Buddha returned to Anotatta (Anavatapta) Lake in the Himalayas near Kailasa, where he taught the Abhidharma to Saariputta. Saariputta then determined the textual order of the Abhidharma books, decided upon the numerical series in the Patthaana, and finally transmitted the teachings to five hundred of his own disciples. Despite this vital role played by Saariputta in the compilation of the Abhidharma, the Theravaadins continued to claim that it was the Buddha himself who had actually first understood the Abhidharma, at the time of his final enlightenment. Saariputta's role was merely to have 'laid down the numerical series in order to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law'. Finally, Ananda rehearsed the Abhidharma during the first council, and Mahaakassapa, the head of the congregation, recited the ancient Commentary (Atthakathaa) thereon.
In spite of the attempt of the Theravaadins to make the Buddha the sole author of the Abhidhammapitaka, the commentators agree, to a large extent, that the Elders propounded the individual Abhidhamma books. They contend that the Abhidhamma of this school focused on the Kathaavatthu was complied at the third council by Tissa-Moggaliputta, long after the demise of the Buddha.
The authority of the matrices of the doctrine was central to justifying the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the canon. The matrices constitute the superstructure around which the complete edifice of the Abhidhamma was constructed. The creation of these dharma-lists was considered to be the exclusive province of the Buddha himself, not of his disciples. Accordingly, although authorship of such Abhidhamma treatises such as the Kathaavatthu might be attributed to disciples, still they could be considered the word of the Buddha as these works were built on the matrices propounded by the Lord himself.
The Theravaadins were aware that several of the scriptures included in their Suttapitaka as the Buddha's words were actually preached by Ananda, Moggallaana, Saariputta and Mahakaccayana. For example, Atthassalini cites the Madhupindikasutta in the Majjhimanikaaya as an example of such a scripture. Mahakaccayana preached this scripture on the basis of a synopsis given first by the Buddha. As such, for the Theravaadins, this qualifies as the Buddha's work.
The Sarvaastivaadins, too, follow a similar approach in attempting to establish the authenticity of their own seven Abhidharma books as a separate pitaka. For them, the Abhidharma consists of a variety of teachings of the Buddha scattered throughout the canon. The Elders are believed to have systematized them. Yasomitra records in Sphutaartha Vyaakhyaa thus.
'The Vaibhasikas maintain that the Abhidharmapitaka, which deals with nature of the characteristics of elements and belongs to the Upadesa class, was preached by the Buddha to his disciples, and remains scattered here and there. Just as Dharmatraata compiled several udaanas of the Master in the work Udaanavargiya, similarly, the Elders Kaatyaaniputra and others collected the Abhidharma together in these sastras.'
Kaatyaaniputra, the Elder, was considered to be the author of their central Abhidharma book, the Jnaanaprasthaana. The similarity between his name and that of the Buddha's disciple Mahakaatyaayana, who participated in the Council at Rajagrha, allowed the Sarvaastivaadins to claim that the Jnaanaprasthaana, compiled from various teachings of the Buddha, was sanctioned as his own words by the Buddha himself during his own lifetime. They made a similar approach to authenticating the six-branch treatises of the Sarvaastivaada Abhidharma. The Sarvaastivaadins also claimed finally that Ananda had recited this Abhidharmapitaka during the first council.
The main challenge to Sarvaastivaada attempts to claim that their Abhidharmapitaka was spoken by the Buddha came from the Soutranikas (those who follow the sutras). Both Pali and Sanskrit sources consider this school to be the last of the traditional eighteen nikaayas, branching off from the main body of the Sarvaastivaada School. One of the primary reasons that the Soutraanikas split from the Sarvaastivaadins was their rejection of the claim that the Buddha himself had spoken the Abhidharma books.
The Soutraanikas contend that the Abhidharma sastras have separate authors. They accept the three-basket classification of canonical texts and contend that the Abhidharmapitaka is no more than specific types of sutras concerned with determining meanings and characteristics of dharmas. For them, the Abhidharmapitaka is a class of literature found scattered through the Sutrapitaka, and not separate collection. It is a subsection of the sutras, called variously vyaakarana or upadesa. Further, Mahayanasutraalamkaara defines abhidharma as that by which the meanings of the sutras are best understood. As such, the Soutranikas radically contend that Abhidharma should be looked for in the sutras, and not considered as a separate section of the canon.