There is reason to believe that the oral instructions of the Buddha were not collected until a few centuries after his death. Serious quarrels arose amongst his disciples or rather amongst the successive generations of the disciples of his disciples about his doctrines and other monastic rules which he had enjoined upon his followers. Thus we find that when the council of Vesali decided against the V@rjin monks, called also the Vajjiputtakas, they in their turn held another great meeting (Mahasa@ngha) and came to their own decisions about certain monastic rules and thus came to be called as the Mahasa@nghikas [Footnote ref 190]. According to Vasumitra as translated by Vassilief, the Mahasa@nghikas seceded in 400 B.C. and during the next one hundred years they gave rise first to the three schools Ekavyavaharikas, Lokottaravadins, and Kukkulikas and after that the Bahus'rutiyas. In the course of the next one hundred years, other schools rose out of it namely the Prajnaptivadins, Caittikas, Aparas'ailas and Uttaras'ailas. The Theravada or the Sthaviravada school which had convened the council of Vesali developed during the second and first century B.C. into a number of schools, viz. the Haimavatas, Dharmaguptikas, Mahis'asakas, Kas'yapiyas, Sa@nkrantikas (more well known as Sautrantikas) and the Vatsiputtriyas which latter was again split up into the Dharmottariyas, Bhadrayaniyas, Sammitiyas and Channagarikas. The main branch of the Theravada school was from the second century downwards known as the Hetuvadins or Sarvastivadins [Footnote ref 191]. The _Mahabodhiva@msa_ identifies the Theravada school with the Vibhajjavadins. The commentator of the _Kathavatthu_ who probably lived according to Mrs Rhys Davids sometime in the fifth century A.D. mentions a few other schools of Buddhists. But of all these Buddhist schools we know very little. Vasumitra (100 A.D.) gives us some very meagre accounts ofcertain schools, of the Mahasa@nghikas, Lokottaravadins, Ekavyavaharikas, Kakkulikas, Prajnaptivadins and Sarvastivadins, but these accounts deal more with subsidiary matters of little philosophical importance. Some of the points of interest are (1) that the Mahasa@nghikas were said to believe that the body was filled with mind (_citta_) which was represented as sitting, (2) that the Prajnaptivadins held that there was no agent in man, that there was no untimely death, for it was caused by the previous deeds of man,
(3) that the Sarvastivadins believed that everything existed. From the discussions found in the _Kathavatthu_ also we may know the views of some of the schools on some points which are not always devoid of philosophical interest. But there is nothing to be found by which we can properly know the philosophy of these schools. It is quite possible however that these so-called schools of Buddhism were not so many different systems but only differed from one another on some points of dogma or practice which were considered as being of sufficient interest to them, but which to us now appear to be quite trifling. But as we do not know any of their literatures, it is better not to make any unwarrantable surmises. These schools are however not very important for a history of later Indian Philosophy, for none of them are even referred to in any of the systems of Hindu thought. The only schools of Buddhism with which other schools of philosophical thought came in direct contact, are the Sarvastivadins including the Sautrantikas and the Vaibha@sikas, the Yogacara or the Vijnanavadins and the Madhyamikas or the S'unyavadins. We do not know which of the diverse smaller schools were taken up into these four great schools, the Sautrantika, Vaibha@sika, Yogacara and the Madhyamika schools. But as these schools were most important in relation to the development of the different systems in Hindu thought, it is best that we should set ourselves to gather what we can about these systems of Buddhistic thought.
When the Hindu writers refer to the Buddhist doctrine in general terms such as "the Buddhists say" without calling them the Vijnanavadins or the Yogacaras and the S'unyavadins, they often refer to the Sarvustivudins by which they mean both the Sautruntikas and the Vaibhu@sikas, ignoring the difference that exists between these two schools. It is well to mention that there is hardly any evidence to prove that the Hindu writers were acquainted with the Theravuda doctrines as expressed in the Pali works. The Vaibha@sikas and the Sautrantikas have been more or less associated with each other. Thus the _Abhidharmakos'as'astra_ of Vasubandhu who was a Vaibha@sika was commented upon by Yas'omitra who was a Sautrantika. The difference between the Vaibha@sikas and the Sautrantikas that attracted the notice of the Hindu writers was this, that the former believed that external objects were directly perceived, whereas the latter believed that the existence of the external objects could only be inferred from our diversified knowledge [Footnote ref 192]. Gu@naratna (fourteenth century A.D.) in his commentary _Tarkarahasyadipika on @Sa@ddars'anasamuccaya_ says that the Vaibhasika was but another name of the Aryasammitiya school. According to Gu@naratna the Vaibha@sikas held that things existed for four moments, the moment of production, the moment of existence, the moment of decay and the moment of annihilation. It has been pointed out in Vastlbandhu's _Abhidharmakos'a_ that the Vaibha@sikas believed these to be four kinds of forces which by coming in combination with the permanent essence of an entity produced its impermanent manifestations in life (see Prof. Stcherbatsky's translation of Yas'omitra on _Abhidharmakos'a karika_, V. 25). The self called pudgala also possessed those characteristics. Knowledge was formless and was produced along with its object by the very same conditions (_arthasahabhasi ekasamagryadhinah_). The Sautrantikas according to Gu@naratna held that there was no soul but only the five skandhas. These skandhas transmigrated. The past, the future, annihilation, dependence on cause, akas'a and pudgala are but names (_sa@mjnamatram_), mere assertions (_pratijnamatram_), mere limitations (_samv@rtamatram_) and mere phenomena (_vyavaharamatram_). By pudgala they meant that which other people called eternal and all pervasive soul. External objects are never directly perceived but are only inferred as existing for explaining the diversity of knowledge. Definite cognitions are valid; all compounded things are momentary (_k@sa@nikah sarvasa@mskarah_).
The atoms of colour, taste, smell and touch, and cognition are being destroyed every moment. The meanings of words always imply the negations of all other things, excepting that which is intended to be signified by that word (_anyapoha@h s'abdartha@h_). Salvation (_mok@sa_) comes as the result of the destruction of the process of knowledge through continual meditation that there is no soul [Footnote ref 193].
One of the main differences between the Vibhajjavadins, Sautrantikas and the Vaibha@sikas or the Sarvastivadins appears to refer to the notion of time which is a subject of great interest with Buddhist philosophy. Thus _Abhidharmakos'a_ (v. 24...) describes the Sarvastivadins as those who maintain the universal existence of everything past, present and future. The Vibhajjavadins are those "who maintain that the present elements and those among the past that have not yet produced their fruition, are existent, but they deny the existence of the future ones and of those among the past that have already produced fruition." There were four branches of this school represented by Dharmatrata, Gho@sa, Vasumitra and Buddhadeva. Dharmatrata maintained that when an element enters different times, its existence changes but not its essence, just as when milk is changed into curd or a golden vessel is broken, the form of the existence changes though the essence remains the same. Gho@sa held that "when an element appears at different times, the past one retains its past aspects without being severed from its future and present aspects, the present likewise retains its present aspect without completely losing its past and future aspects," just as a man in passionate love with a woman does not lose his capacity to love other women though he is not actually in love with them. Vasumitra held that an entity is called present, past and future according as it produces its efficiency, ceases to produce after having once produced it or has not yet begun to produce it. Buddhadeva maintained the view that just as the same woman may be called mother, daughter, wife, so the same entity may be called present, past or future in accordance with its relation to the preceding or the succeeding moment.
All these schools are in some sense Sarvastivadins, for they maintain universal existence. But the Vaibha@sika finds them all defective excepting the view of Vasumitra. For Dharmatrata'sview is only a veiled Sa@mkhya doctrine; that of Gho@sa is a confusion of the notion of time, since it presupposes the coexistence of all the aspects of an entity at the same time, and that of Buddhadeva is also an impossible situation, since it would suppose that all the three times were found together and included in one of them. The Vaibha@sika finds himself in agreement with Vasumitra's view and holds that the difference in time depends upon the difference of the function of an entity; at the time when an entity does not actually produce its function it is future; when it produces it, it becomes present; when after having produced it, it stops, it becomes past; there is a real existence of the past and the future as much as of the present. He thinks that if the past did not exist and assert some efficiency it could not have been the object of my knowledge, and deeds done in past times could not have produced its effects in the present time. The Sautrantika however thought that the Vaibha@sika's doctrine would imply the heretical doctrine of eternal existence, for according to them the stuff remained the same and the time-difference appeared in it. The true view according to him was, that there was no difference between the efficiency of an entity, the entity and the time of its appearance. Entities appeared from non-existence, existed for a moment and again ceased to exist. He objected to the Vaibha@sika view that the past is to be regarded as existent because it exerts efficiency in bringing about the present on the ground that in that case there should be no difference between the past and the present, since both exerted efficiency. If a distinction is made between past, present and future efficiency by a second grade of efficiencies, then we should have to continue it and thus have a vicious infinite. We can know non-existent entities as much as we can know existent ones, and hence our knowledge of the past does not imply that the past is exerting any efficiency. If a distinction is made between an efficiency and an entity, then the reason why efficiency started at any particular time and ceased at another would be inexplicable. Once you admit that there is no difference between efficiency and the entity, you at once find that there is no time at all and the efficiency, the entity and the moment are all one and the same. When we remember a thing of the past we do not know it as existing in the past, but in the same way in which we knew it when it was present. We are never attracted to past passions as the Vaibha@sika suggests, but past passions leave residues which become the causes of new passions of the present moment [Footnote ref 194].
Again we can have a glimpse of the respective positions of the Vatsiputtriyas and the Sarvastivadins as represented by Vasubandhu if we attend to the discussion on the subject of the existence of soul in _Abhidharmakos'a_. The argument of Vasubandhu against the existence of soul is this, that though it is true that the sense organs may be regarded as a determining cause of perception, no such cause can be found which may render the inference of the existence of soul necessary. If soul actually exists, it must have an essence of its own and must be something different from the elements or entities of a personal life. Moreover, such an eternal, uncaused and unchanging being would be without any practical efficiency (_arthakriyakaritva_) which alone determines or proves existence. The soul can thus be said to have a mere nominal existence as a mere object of current usage. There is no soul, but there are only the elements of a personal life. But the Vatsiputtriya school held that just as fire could not be said to be either the same as the burning wood or as different from it, and yet it is separate from it, so the soul is an individual (_pudgala_) which has a separate existence, though we could not say that it was altogether different from the elements of a personal life or the same as these. It exists as being conditioned by the elements of personal life, but it cannot further be defined. But its existence cannot be denied, for wherever there is an activity, there must be an agent (e.g. Devadatta walks). To be conscious is likewise an action, hence the agent who is conscious must also exist. To this Vasubandhu replies that Devadatta (the name of a person) does not represent an unity. "It is only an unbroken continuity of momentary forces (flashing into existence), which simple people believe to be a unity and to which they give the name Devadatta. Their belief that Devadatta moves is conditioned, and is based on an analogy with their own experience, but their own continuity of life consists in constantly moving from one place to another. This movement, though regarded asbelonging to a permanent entity, is but a series of new productions in different places, just as the expressions 'fire moves,' 'sound spreads' have the meaning of continuities (of new productions in new places). They likewise use the words 'Devadatta cognises' in order to express the fact that a cognition (takes place in the present moment) which has a cause (in the former moments, these former moments coming in close succession being called Devadatta)."
The problem of memory also does not bring any difficulty, for the stream of consciousness being one throughout, it produces its recollections when connected with a previous knowledge of the remembered object under certain conditions of attention, etc., and absence of distractive factors, such as bodily pains or violent emotions. No agent is required in the phenomena of memory. The cause of recollection is a suitable state of mind and nothing else. When the Buddha told his birth stories saying that he was such and such in such and such a life, he only meant that his past and his present belonged to one and the same lineage of momentary existences. Just as when we say "this same fire which had been consuming that has reached this object," we know that the fire is not identical at any two moments, but yet we overlook the difference and say that it is the same fire. Again, what we call an individual can only be known by descriptions such as "this venerable man, having this name, of such a caste, of such a family, of such an age, eating such food, finding pleasure or displeasure in such things, of such an age, the man who after a life of such length, will pass away having reached an age." Only so much description can be understood, but we have never a direct acquaintance with the individual; all that is perceived are the momentary elements of sensations, images, feelings, etc., and these happening at the former moments exert a pressure on the later ones. The individual is thus only a fiction, a mere nominal existence, a mere thing of description and not of acquaintance; it cannot be grasped either by the senses or by the action of pure intellect. This becomes evident when we judge it by analogies from other fields. Thus whenever we use any common noun, e.g. milk, we sometimes falsely think that there is such an entity as milk, but what really exists is only certain momentary colours, tastes, etc., fictitiously unified as milk; and "just as milk and water are conventional names (for a set of independent elements) for some colour, smell (taste and touch) taken together, so is the designation 'individual' but a common name for the different elements of which it is composed."
The reason why the Buddha declined to decide the question whether the "living being is identical with the body or not" is just because there did not exist any living being as "individual," as is generally supposed. He did not declare that the living being did not exist, because in that case the questioner would have thought that the continuity of the elements of a life was also denied. In truth the "living being" is only a conventional name for a set of constantly changing elements [Footnote ref 195].
The only book of the Sammitiyas known to us and that by name only is the _Sammitiyas'astra_ translated into Chinese between 350 A.D. to 431 A.D.; the original Sanskrit works are however probably lost [Footnote ref 196].
The Vaibha@sikas are identified with the Sarvastivadins who according to _Dipava@msa_ V. 47, as pointed out by Takakusu, branched off from the Mahis'asakas, who in their turn had separated from the Theravada school.
From the _Kathavatthu_ we know (1) that the Sabbatthivadins believed that everything existed, (2) that the dawn of right attainment was not a momentary flash of insight but by a gradual process, (3) that consciousness or even samadhi was nothing buta flux and (4) that an arhat (saint) may fall away [Footnote ref 197]. The Sabbatthivadins or Sarvastivadins have a vast Abhidharma literature still existing in Chinese translations which is different from the Abhidharma of the Theravada school which we have already mentioned [Footnote ref 198]. These are 1. _Jnanaprasthana S'astra_ of Katyayaniputtra which passed by the name of _Maha Vibha@sa_ from which the Sabbatthivadins who followed it are called Vaibha@sikas [Footnote ref 199]. This work is said to have been given a literary form by As'vagho@sa. 2. _Dharmaskandha_ by S'ariputtra. 3. _Dhatukaya_ by Pur@na. 4. _Prajnaptis'astra_ by Maudgalyayana. 5. _Vijnanakaya_ by Devak@sema. 6. _Sa@ngitiparyyaya_ by Sariputtra and _Prakara@napada_ by Vasumitra. Vasubandhu (420 A.D.-500 A.D.) wrote a work on the Vaibha@sika [Footnote ref 200] system in verses (_karika_) known as the _Abhidharmakos'a_, to which he appended a commentary of his own which passes by the name _Abhidharma Kos'abha@sya_ in which he pointed out some of the defects of the Vaibha@sika school from the Sautrantika point of view [Footnote ref 201]. This work was commented upon by Vasumitra and Gu@namati and later on by Yas'omitra who was himself a Sautrantika and called his work _Abhidharmakos'a vyakhya_; Sa@nghabhadra a contemporary of Vasubandhu wrote _Samayapradipa_ and _Nyayanusara_ (Chinese translations of which are available) on strict Vaibha@sika lines. We hear also of other Vaibha@sika writers such as Dharmatrata, Gho@saka, Vasumitra and Bhadanta, the writer of _Sa@myuktabhidharmas'astra_ and _Mahavibha@sa_. Di@nnaga(480 A.D.), the celebrated logician, a Vaibha@sika or a Sautrantika and reputed to be a pupil of Vasubandhu, wrote his famous work _Prama@nasamuccaya_ in which he established Buddhist logic and refuted many of the views of Vatsyayana the celebrated commentator of the _Nyaya sutras_; but we regretto say that none of the above works are available in Sanskrit, nor have they been retranslated from Chinese or Tibetan into any of the modern European or Indian languages.
The Japanese scholar Mr Yamakami Sogen, late lecturer at Calcutta University, describes the doctrine of the Sabbatthivadins from the Chinese versions of the _Abhidharmakos'a, Mahavibha@sas'astra_, etc., rather elaborately [Footnote ref 202]. The following is a short sketch, which is borrowed mainly from the accounts given by Mr Sogen.
The Sabbatthivadins admitted the five skandhas, twelve ayatanas, eighteen dhatus, the three asa@msk@rta dharmas of pratisa@mkhyanirodha apratisa@mkhyanirodha and akas'a, and the sa@msk@rta dharmas (things composite and interdependent) of rupa (matter), citta (mind), caitta (mental) and cittaviprayukta (non-mental) [Footnote ref 203]. All effects are produced by the coming together (sa@msk@rta) of a number of causes. The five skandhas, and the rupa, citta, etc., are thus called sa@msk@rta dharmas (composite things or collocations--_sambhuyakari_). The rupa dharmas are eleven in number, one citta dharma, 46 caitta dharmas and 14 cittaviprayukta sa@mskara dharmas (non-mental composite things); adding to these the three asa@msk@rta dharmas we have the seventy-five dharmas. Rupa is that which has the capacity to obstruct the sense organs. Matter is regarded as the collective organism or collocation, consisting of the fourfold substratum of colour, smell, taste and contact. The unit possessing this fourfold substratum is known as parama@nu, which is the minutest form of rupa. It cannot be pierced through or picked up or thrown away. It is indivisible, unanalysable, invisible, inaudible, untastable and intangible. But yet it is not permanent, but is like a momentary flash into being. The simple atoms are called _dravyaparama@nu_ and the compound ones _sa@mghataparama@nu_. In the words of Prof. Stcherbatsky "the universal elements of matter are manifested in their actions or functions. They are consequently more energies than substances." The organs of sense are also regarded as modifications of atomic matter. Seven such parama@nus combine together to form an a@nu, and it is in this combined form only that they become perceptible. The combination takes place in the form of a cluster having one atom at the centre andothers around it. The point which must be remembered in connection with the conception of matter is this, that the qualities of all the mahabhutas are inherent in the parama@nus. The special characteristics of roughness (which naturally belongs to earth), viscousness (which naturally belongs to water), heat (belonging to fire), movableness (belonging to wind), combine together to form each of the elements; the difference between the different elements consists only in this, that in each of them its own special characteristics were predominant and active, and other characteristics though present remained only in a potential form. The mutual resistance of material things is due to the quality of earth or the solidness inherent in them; the mutual attraction of things is due to moisture or the quality of water, and so forth. The four elements are to be observed from three aspects, namely,
(1) as things, (2) from the point of view of their natures (such as activity, moisture, etc.), and (3) function (such as _dh@rti_ or attraction, _sa@mgraha_ or cohesion, _pakti_ or chemical heat, and _vyuhana_ or clustering and collecting). These combine together naturally by other conditions or causes. The main point of distinction between the Vaibha@sika Sarvastivadins and other forms of Buddhism is this, that here the five skandhas and matter are regarded as permanent and eternal; they are said to be momentary only in the sense that they are changing their phases constantly, owing to their constant change of combination. Avidya is not regarded here as a link in the chain of the causal series of pratityasamutpada; nor is it ignorance of any particular individual, but is rather identical with "moha" or delusion and represents the ultimate state of immaterial dharmas. Avidya, which through sa@mskara, etc., produces namarupa in the case of a particular individual, is not his avidya in the present existence but the avidya of his past existence bearing fruit in the present life.
"The cause never perishes but only changes its name, when it becomes an effect, having changed its state." For example, clay becomes jar, having changed its state; and in this case the name clay is lost and the name jar arises [Footnote ref 204]. The Sarvastivadins allowed simultaneousness between cause and effect only in the case of composite things (_sa@mprayukta hetu_) and in the case ofthe interaction of mental and material things. The substratum of "vijnana" or "consciousness" is regarded as permanent and the aggregate of the five senses (_indriyas_) is called the perceiver. It must be remembered that the indriyas being material had a permanent substratum, and their aggregate had therefore also a substratum formed of them.
The sense of sight grasps the four main colours of blue, yellow, red, white, and their combinations, as also the visual forms of appearance (_sa@msthana_) of long, short, round, square, high, low, straight, and crooked. The sense of touch (_kayendriya_) has for its object the four elements and the qualities of smoothness, roughness, lightness, heaviness, cold, hunger and thirst. These qualities represent the feelings generated in sentient beings by the objects of touch, hunger, thirst, etc., and are also counted under it, as they are the organic effects produced by a touch which excites the physical frame at a time when the energy of wind becomes active in our body and predominates over other energies; so also the feeling of thirst is caused by a touch which excites the physical frame when the energy of the element of fire becomes active and predominates over the other energies. The indriyas (senses) can after grasping the external objects arouse thought (_vijnana_); each of the five senses is an agent without which none of the five vijnanas would become capable of perceiving an external object. The essence of the senses is entirely material. Each sense has two subdivisions, namely, the principal sense and the auxiliary sense. The substratum of the principal senses consists of a combination of parama@nus, which are extremely pure and minute, while the substratum of the latter is the flesh, made of grosser materials. The five senses differ from one another with respect to the manner and form of their respective atomic combinations. In all sense-acts, whenever an act is performed and an idea is impressed, a latent energy is impressed on our person which is designated as avijnapti rupa. It is called rupa because it is a result or effect of rupa-contact; it is called avijnapti because it is latent and unconscious; this latent energy is bound sooner or later to express itself in karma effects and is the only bridge which connects the cause and the effect of karma done by body or speech. Karma in this school is considered as twofold, namely, that as thought (_cetana karma_) and that as activity (_caitasika karma_). This last, again, is of two kinds, viz. that due to body-motion (_kayika karma_) and speech (_vacika karma_). Both these may again be latent (_avijnapti_) and patent (_vijnapti_), giving us the kayika-vijnnpti karma, kayikavijnapti karma, vacika-vijnapti karma and vacikavijnapti karma. Avijnapti rupa and avijnapti karma are what we should call in modern phraseology sub-conscious ideas, feelings and activity. Corresponding to each conscious sensation, feeling, thought or activity there is another similar sub-conscious state which expresses itself in future thoughts and actions; as these are not directly known but are similar to those which are known, they are called avijnapti.
The mind, says Vasubandhu, is called cittam, because it wills (_cetati_), manas because it thinks (_manvate_) and vijnana because it discriminates (_nirdis'ati_). The discrimination may be of three kinds: (1) svabhava nirdes'a (natural perceptual discrimination),
(2) prayoga nirdes'a (actual discrimination as present, past and future), and (3) anusm@rti nirdes'a (reminiscent discrimination referring only to the past). The senses only possess the _svabhava nirdes'a_, the other two belong exclusively to manovijnana. Each of the vijnanas as associated with its specific sense discriminates its particular object and perceives its general characteristics; the six vijnanas combine to form what is known as the Vijnanaskandha, which is presided over by mind (_mano_). There are forty-six caitta sa@msk@rta dharmas. Of the three asa@msk@rta dharmas akas'a (ether) is in essence the freedom from obstruction, establishing it as a permanent omnipresent immaterial substance (_nirupakhya_, non-rupa). The second asa@msk@rta dharma, apratisa@mkhya nirodha, means the non-perception of dharmas caused by the absence of pratyayas or conditions. Thus when I fix my attention on one thing, other things are not seen then, not because they are non-existent but because the conditions which would have made them visible were absent. The third asa@msk@rta dharma, pratisa@mkhya nirodha, is the final deliverance from bondage. Its essential characteristic is everlastingness. These are called asa@msk@rta because being of the nature of negation they are non-collocative and hence have no production or dissolution. The eightfold noble path which leads to this state consists of right views, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right rapture [Footnote ref 205].