Who Used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya
by Shizuka Sasaki
1. Aim Within the Buddhist sect called the Sarvāstivādins, there are two Vinaya text lineages that differ significantly in terms of their form: that of the Shisong-lü 十誦律 (T 1435) and that of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. This is an unusual situation, and the issue of where these two textual lineages can be
placed within Sarvāstivādin history is important in terms of overall Buddhist history. However, due to the absence of any sources of information other than legends and oral transmissions, this problem has remained unsolved in scholarship.1 This paper aims to take one step toward solving this problem. In this paper, information indicating that each of these Vinaya ————— 1 Tokuoka (1960) was the first person to suggest that the Sarvāstivādins and the
Mūlasarvāstivādins refer to the same sect. Without referring to Tokuoka’s article, Enomoto subsequently hypothesized that the Sarvāstivādins and the Mūlasarvāstivādins were the same sect and concluded that the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya were two Vinayas used by two different Sarvāstivāda subgroups. If we accept this conclusion, this sect should be referred to simply as the Sarvāstivādins because the “Mūlasarvāstivādins” ceases
to have any meaning. Therefore, Enomoto suggests that separate names need to be given to the two groups to differentiate between the subgroup that used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the subgroup that used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (Enomoto 2007). Yao is critical of this view because all materials that view the Sarvāstivādins and the Mūlasarvāstivādins as being part of the same Sarvāstivāda sect are related to the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. In other words, the
subgroup that used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya considered the subgroups that used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as belonging to the same sect. However, this does not prove that the subgroup that used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya considered itself as being part of the same sect as the subgroup that used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Therefore, Yao asserts, it is inappropriate to call the subgroup that used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya the
Sarvāstivādins, and they should be distinguished with a phrase such as “the group that transmitted the Shisong-lü” (Yao 2013). Either way, these discussions are based only on legends and hearsay rather than on passages in the Vinaya. For example, Enomoto uses the famous legend found at the end of the Dazhidu lun regarding the Vinaya of Mathurā and that of Kaśmīr as the basis for his discussion. If we continue to engage in discussions at this level,
we will not be able to reach empirical conclusions. I believe that this paper has offered a starting point for a higher-level discussion aimed at elucidating the relation between the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.
textual lineages was affiliated with a specific doctrinal group within the Sarvāstivādins, namely, the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas, is presented. For the sake of convenience, this paper refers to the Shisong-lü and related materials as the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga, Vinayavastu, Vinayakṣudraka, Vinayottaragrantha, and related materials as the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.2
2. Overview In the fourth chapter (Karmanirdeśa) of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Sautrāntikas (Vasubandhu) and the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr are engaging in a debate in which they cite part of the Vinaya. This quoted passage is found in both the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. It becomes clear through careful examination that both versions have been edited. The former has been changed to match the doctrines of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the latter to match those of the Sautrāntikas. This reveals that the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr were closely related, as were the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Sautrāntikas.
3. The Debate between the Sautrāntikas and the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya’s Fourth Chapter (Karmanirdeśa)3 First, I will introduce the debate between the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya’s fourth chapter (Karmanirdeśa).4 It concerns pārājika and the bhikṣu discipline (bhikṣusaṃvara). The understandings of these two groups differ with respect to whether a bhikṣu who has committed a pārājika
loses the bhikṣu discipline or not.5 Their positions are as follows. ————— 2 These are only names used for convenience in this paper. Yao is critical of using such names (Yao 2013), and materials (such as the Sapoduobu pini modelega 薩婆多部毘尼摩得勒伽 (T 1441)) that are not clearly attached to any particular Vinaya also exist. Therefore, this is not a rigid distinction. However, as no method exists for precisely expressing this situation with respect
to such names, I have chosen to use them as the best option available at present. 3 Pradhan 1967: 223; Funahashi 1987: 221; Pruden 1990, 613. 4 Regarding the relation between the Sautrāntikas and the Sarvāstivādins of Gandhāra, as well as that between the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sarvāstivādins of Kaśmīr, see Ishida 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. 5 Ryōse 1986 discusses this issue using the following materials to examine whether a bhikṣu who has committed a pārājika loses the bhikṣu discipline: A pi da mo da pi po sha lun 阿毘達磨大 毘婆沙論 (T 1545), A pi tan xin lun 阿毘曇心論 (T 1550), A pi tan xin lun jing 阿毘曇心論 経 (T 1551), Za a pi tan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論 (T 1552), Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Apidamo shunzhengli lun 阿毘達磨順正理論 (T 1562), and Abhidharmadīpa. Ryōse concludes that the
Who Used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya
• Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr:
Even if a bhikṣu commits a pārājika, his bhikṣu discipline is not lost.
• Critic (Sautrāntikas):
If a bhikṣu commits a pārājika, then his bhikṣu discipline is lost. In the following, let us consider this debate in detail. The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr assert the following.6 However, the Kaśmīreans assert that the transgressor possesses morality and immorality, in the manner that a person can have riches and debts. (39cd) The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr assert: A monk guilty of a grave transgression (i.e., any one of the four pārājikas) does not lose his bhikṣu discipline (bhikṣusaṃvara). Why is that? Because it is not admissible that one loses the entire discipline by destroying only a part of the discipline. And because he who commits another transgression is not a person who has cut his morality. How then? He is at one and the same time moral and immoral as a person who has both riches and debts. But when he has confessed his transgression, he is no longer immoral but solely moral as a person who has paid his debts is no longer indebted but solely rich.7 The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr assert that even if a bhikṣu commits a pārājika, he does not squander his bhikṣu discipline on confessing it. The counterargument, that the bhikṣu discipline is lost, is then presented. Although the name of the author of this argument is not mentioned, Vasubandhu is clearly the author; in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, this argument is treated as the proper teaching. Therefore, one may safely
say that it is the Sautrāntikas’ teaching.8 In this counterargument from the Sautrāntikas, part of the Vinaya is quoted, which argues that a bhikṣu who has committed one of the four pārājika is no longer a bhikṣu. Considered literally, this would mean that the bhikṣu loses the bhikṣu discipline.9 The following is observed in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya:10 ————— A pi tan xin lun and the A pi da mo da pi po sha lun affirm the doctrine that a bhikṣu who commits a
pārājika loses his status as a bhikṣu. 6 Pradhan 1967, p. 223, ll. 6–11: dhanarṇavat tu kāśmīrair āpannasyeṣyate dvayam (4. 39cd). kāśmīrās tu khalu vaibhāṣikāḥ evam icchanti. na maulīm adhyāpattim āpannasyāsti bhikṣusaṃvaratyāgaḥ. kiṃ kāraṇam. na hy ekadeśakṣobhāt kṛtsnasaṃvaratyāgo yukta iti. naiva cānyām apy āpattim āpannasyāsti śīlacchedaḥ. kiṃ tarhi. dvayam asya bhavati sīlaṃ dauḥśīlyaṃ ca. yathā kasyacid dhanaṃ syād ṛṇaṃ ca. aviṣkṛtāyāṃ tu tasyām
āpattau śīlavān bhavati na duḥśīlo yathā ṛṇaṃ sodhayitvā dhanavān bhavati na tv ṛṇavān iti. 7 For this translation, I consulted an English translation based on Poussin’s French translation (Pruden 1990, 614). 8 Saheki Kyokuga maintains that this is a debate between the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the
Sautrāntikas (Saheki 1886, vol. 15, 7). 9 Regarding the bhikṣu discipline and avijñapti-rūpa, see the detailed discussion in Hirakawa 1964, 162–222. 10 Funahashi 1987, 223; Pradhan 1967, 223, ll. 11–13: yat tarhi bhagavatoktam abhikṣur bhavaty aśramaṇo 'śākyaputrīyo dhvasyate bhikṣubhāvāt hatam asya bhavati śrāmaṇyaṃ dhvastaṃ
But the Blessed One has said: “He is not a bhikṣu, he is not a śramaṇa, he no longer belongs to the sons of Śākya. He falls from the quality of bhikṣu. His śramaṇahood is perished, fallen, abandoned, and defeated. In response, the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr offer the following counterargument. The “bhikṣu” referred
to in this passage does not imply a bhikṣu ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman but “a true bhikṣu.” In other words, the statement that a bhikṣu who has committed any of the four pārājika “falls from the quality of bhikṣu” indicates that he is no longer a true bhikṣu, not that he loses his status as a bhikṣu. Below is a translation of this claim:11 It (i.e., the word “bhikṣu” in the text) signifies cryptically a “true bhikṣu.” While no concrete
definition is provided for a “true bhikṣu,” the term obviously refers to a bhikṣu who has reached some sort of superior state in his Buddhist training. In other words, when a bhikṣu commits a pārājika, only this superior state is lost.12 As his status as a bhikṣu is not lost, his bhikṣu discipline is not lost either. This is the counterargument of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr.13 In turn, the Sautrāntikas respond with the counter-counterargument that this doctrine
of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr is erroneous: Śākyamuni means that a bhikṣu who commits a pārājika loses his status as a bhikṣu along with his bhikṣu discipline. Here bhikṣu does not mean a “true bhikṣu” but one in a general sense: a bhikṣu who has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman.14 The
Sautrāntikas, to support this claim, quote another Vinaya passage: an explanation of words used in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika rule regarding sexual ————— patitaṃ parājitam iti. In Pradhan’s work, the underlined portions are, respectively, “bhikṣur” and “katam.” However, based on the point
proposed by Funahashi, I have modified them. Śākyamuni’s words are a quotation from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Pravrajyāvastu (Eimer 1983: 153; Honjō 2014b: 557–558). The equivalent passage is found in volume 21 of the Shisong-lü (T 23 157a). However, slight differences do exist. 若比丘於是四墮法。若作一一
法。是非比丘非沙門非釋子。 失比丘法. 11 Pradhan 1967, 223, l. 13: paramārthabhikṣutvaṃ saṃdhāyaitad uktam. 12 According to Yaśomitra, a “true bhikṣu” is “one who perceives the Truth (satya).” He then asserts that someone who has fallen into committing a pārājika could never be someone who sees the Truth, a
true bhikṣu could not be someone who commits a pārājika. For him, “true bhikṣu” does not refer to an ordinary bhikṣu who has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman but is a general term for outstanding bhikṣus who have stepped forward on the path to enlightenment. See Wogihara 1936, 386.
paramārthabhikṣutvaṃ saṃdhāyaitad uktam iti. satyadarśanābhavyatena tasy' āpannasya paramārtha-bhikṣutvāprāpteḥ. 13 This is a rehashing of the discussion already found in the Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣā-śāstra (see Note 3). The counter-counterargument of the Sautrāntikas that follows here is unique to the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Therein, we find information that can be used to elucidate the relation between the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the main topic of this paper. 14 Pradhan 1967, 223, ll. 13–17.
intercourse, found in the Vinaya’s Sūtravibhaṅga. This śikṣāpada states, “Whatever Bhikṣu should … engage in sexual intercourse, he becomes defeated, not in communion.” The Sūtravibhaṅga’s explanation considers each word in this śikṣāpada and explains its meaning.15 Of course, it also explains who the term
“bhikṣu” refers to in the statement found at the beginning of this śikṣāpada (“Whatever bhikṣu may…”). In other words, it explains which “bhikṣu” commits a pārājika offense by breaking the sexual intercourse rule and can thus no longer be in communion. According to this explanation, “bhikṣu” in the śikṣāpada means a bhikṣu in the general sense: one who has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman, not a bhikṣu who has rejected all defilement. The Sautrāntikas
interpret the latter quality as belonging only to the aforementioned “true bhikṣu.” Therefore, they claim that, since there is no possibility of a true bhikṣu committing a pārājika, true bhikṣus are excluded from any discussion of bhikṣus committing pārājikas. Hence, the claim of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr—that the Vinaya’s statement (one who has committed a pārājika is no longer a “bhikṣu”) refers to a “true bhikṣu”—is invalid. Only an ordinary bhikṣu who
has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman could commit a pārājika. In other words, an ordinary bhikṣu ceases being a bhikṣu due to a pārājika. Thus, he loses his bhikṣu discipline due to the pārājika. The following is a translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya passage.16 Because the following explanation is in the Vinaya: There are four kinds of bhikṣu. A bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu), a self-styled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu), a person called bhikṣu because
he begs and a person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement. The meaning of the word “bhikṣu” in this case is a person who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman.17 ————— 15 Following is the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika found in von Simson (2000) and Pruitt & Norman (2001). yaḥ punar bhikṣur bhikṣubhiḥ sārdhaṃ śikṣāsāmīcisamāpannaḥ śikṣām apratyākhyā (ya śi) kṣādaurbalyaṃ vānāviṣkṛtvā maithunaṃ dharmaṃ
pratiṣeveta antatas tīryagyonigatayāpi sārdham ayaṃ bhikṣuḥ pārājiko bhavaty asaṃvāsyaḥ (von Simson 2000, 163). yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya antamaso tiracchānagatāya pi, pārājiko hoti asaṃvās (Pruitt & Norman 2001, 8; Oldenberg 1881, 23). 16 Pradhan 1967, p. 223, ll. 16–20: eṣa hi vinaye nirdesaḥ. caturvidho bhikṣuḥ. saṃjñā bhikṣuḥ pratijñābhikṣur
bhikṣata iti bhikṣur bhinnakleśatvāt bhikṣuḥ. asmiṃs tv arthe jñapticaturthakarmopasaṃpanno bhikṣur iti. na cāsau pūrvaṃ paramārthabhikṣur āsīd yataḥ paścād abhikṣur bhavet. yac coktam ekadeśakṣobhād iti atra śāstraiva datto 'nuyogas tad yathā tālo mastakāc chinno 'bhavyo 'ṅkuritatvāya abhavyo virūḍhiṃ vṛddhiṃ vipulatām āptum ity upamāṃ kurvatā. 17 When translating this into French, Poussin considers information found in Yaśomitra’s commentary.
Therefore, he adds “this refers to a fifth bhikṣu” to the statement “a person who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman.” However, this is not found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. In the context of the discussion in this paper, it is important to note that the fact that this statement was first introduced in a commentary.
An additional reason is discussed in the subsequent passage, but as it is unrelated to this paper’s topic, it will be omitted.18 In the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga, one finds a passage that corresponds to the following statement regarding four classes of bhikṣus which the
Sautrāntikas refer to as the basis of their counter-counterargument.19 It is a commentary on the word “bhikṣu” used in the first pārājika śikṣā ————— 18 In the A pi da mo da pi po sha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 (T 1545, XVII 623–624), one finds the basis for the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya discussion introduced here. Page 623 introduces various teachers’ doctrines regarding whether a person who has a prātimokṣasaṃvara and yet acts against the saṃvara
loses the saṃvara or not. The last doctrine presented is that of the “teachers of Kaśmīr.” Page 624 interprets Śākyamuni’s statement about one no longer being a bhikṣu if one commits a pārājika as referring to a true bhikṣu, and it presents the doctrine of the teachers of Kaśmīr to support this claim. However, in the A pi da mo da pi po sha lun, we do not find the Sautrāntika side, which asserts that a bhikṣu who commits a pārājika loses the bhikṣu
discipline (in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, etc.), quoting the Vinaya’s explanations of the words in the first pārājika rule to present the counterargument that Śākyamuni is not referring to a true bhikṣu because only a jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ can commit a pārājika. This is a new development that appeared in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. In the A pi tan gan lu wei lun 阿毘曇甘露味論 (T 1553), A pi tan xin lun 阿毘曇心論 (T 1550), A pi tan xin lun
jing 阿毘曇心論経 (T 1551), and Za a pi tan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論 (T 1552), we do not find this Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-specific discussion. Regarding the relation between the A pi da mo da pi po sha lun and these four Abhidharma texts, see Tanaka 1976, 1987; Fukuda 2015. 19 Peking Version che 26b1–b6, Derge Version ca 30a4–b3. yang dge slong gang zhes bya ba ni dge slong rman pa bzhi po ming gi dge slong dang/ khas 'che ba'i dge slong dang/ slong ba'i phyir
dge slong dang/ nyon mongs pa bcom pa'i phyir dge slong las ming gi dge slong gang zhe na/ gang gi ming dang/ ming du brjod pa dang/ tshig gnyis pa dang/ tshig bla dgas dang/ 'du shes dang/ bod pa dang/ gdags pa dang/ tha snyad dge slong zhe 'm/ dge slong gi rigs zhe 'm/ gde slong dang 'dra bar gyur pa zhes bya ba de ni ming gi dge slong zhes bya 'o/ khas 'che ba'i dge slong gang zhe na/ gang dge slong ma yin bzhin du bdag nyid dge slong ngo zhes khas 'che bar
byed pa dang/ rku thabs su gnas shing dge slong du dam 'cha' bar byed pa de ni khas 'che ba'i dge slong zhes bya 'o/ slong ba'i phyir dge slong gang zhe na/ gang chos dang ldan pas slong mo sbyod pas 'tsho bar byed pa de ni slong ba'i phyir dge slong zhes bya 'o/ nyon mongs pa bcom ba'i phyir dge slong gang zhe na/ gang gis zag pa kun nas nyon mongs par byed pa/ yang srid par byed pa/ rims nad dang bcas pa/ rnam par smin pa sdug bsngal pa/ phyi ma la skye ba
dang/ rga ba dang/ 'chi bar 'gyur ba gang dag yin pa de dag spangs pa dang/ yongs su shes pa dang/ rtsa bnas bcad pa dang/ shing ta la'i mgo bzhin du gzhi mi snang ba dang/ phyi ma la mi skye ba'i chos can du gyur pa de ni nyon mongs pa bcom pa'i phyir dge slong zhes bya'o/ don 'dir ni gsol ba dang/ bzhi'i las mi gyo ba gzhag par mi 'os pas bsnyen par rdzogs pa gang yin pa de dge slong du dgongs te/ des na yang dge slong gang zhes gsungs so/ A passage in the
Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga is identical to that in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga presented here (D Ta 49b4). In the Abhidharmakoṣopāyikā, a passage that basically matches this one in content is presented as a quotation from the Vinaya (Honjō 2014b, 558–559).
pada. However, in the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga or the Shisong-lü (part of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya), passages that exactly correspond to the quotation cannot be found. I will discuss the reason for this later in this paper. The following is an English translation of the
passage from the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga.20 In the words “whatever bhikṣu” (in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika rule), there are four classes of bhikṣu: a bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu), a self-styled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu), a person called bhikṣu because he begs (bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ) and a person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement (bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ). “A bhikṣu in name only” is
a person who is called bhikṣu as a name, given name, byname, etymon, expression, appelation, conventional designation, conventional term or a person of a race of bhikṣu or a company of bhikṣu. This is a person called “a bhikṣu in name only.” “A self-styled bhikṣu” is a person who calls himself bhikṣu, though he is not a bhikṣu, and a person who asserts that he is a bhikṣu in spite of being a thief like inhabitant (steyasamvāsika). This is a person called “a
self-styled bhikṣu.” “A person called bhikṣu because he begs” is a person who lives by mendicancy in a right way. This is a person called “a person called bhikṣu because he begs.” “A person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement” is a person who abandons, recognizes and radically cuts off the āsrava, which wholly produces defilements, produces rebirths, is accompanied by burning sufferings, brings forth painful retribution in future lives
and gives rise to aging and death, and makes it a cut-down tāla tree which will never revive. This is, “a person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement.” In this case, a bhikṣu who has been ordained through steady and impeccable jñapticaturthakarman is intended. While, merely from this passage, the relation between the four kinds of bhikṣus and a bhikṣu who has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman is unclear, the Sautrāntikas assert
that these four types of bhikṣu (including the “person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off defilement”) cannot commit a pārājika: only a bhikṣu who has been ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman can do this. They maintain that as a true bhikṣu has cut off defilement, a true bhikṣu cannot commit a pārājika. As the foundation for this interpretation, they assert that the bhikṣu described by Śākyamuni, who is no longer such due to a pārājika, had never
been a true bhikṣu but only an ordinary bhikṣu, and that, therefore, a bhikṣu who commits a pārājika loses his bhikṣu discipline. We can confirm that this is the position of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by viewing the Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra. Yaśomitra interprets this passage as follows (underlined parts are quotations of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya): A bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu) is a person who has not been properly ordained and has
a name of “bhikṣu.” A self-styled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu) is an immoral ————— 20 The source of this quotation is the explanation of the words used in the first pārājika found in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga. However, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya does not quote it verbatim but summarizes it. Shizuka Sasaki
person in committing offenses such as abrahmacarya. A person called bhikṣu because he begs (bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ) is a beggar. A person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement (bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ) is an arhat. The phrase “However in this case (asmiṃs tv arthe)” means “in this
case where the Blessed One has said: ‘He is not a bhikṣu, he is not a śramaṇa’ and so on.” A bhikṣu who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman means a bhikṣu of the fifth class which is distiguished from the above mentioned four classes.21 The Vaibhāṣikas are driven into a corner with this interpretation. As a true bhikṣu (a bhikṣu who has cut off defilement) is one of the four types of bhikṣu excluded from the category of
bhikṣus who commit a pārājika by having sexual intercourse, a true bhikṣu cannot commit a pārājika. Only an ordinary bhikṣu can do so. This completely denies their claim regarding the bhikṣu discussed in the Vinaya’s statement (that one is no longer a bhikṣu if one has committed one of the four pārājikas) indicating a true bhikṣu.
4. A Match: The Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra and the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga The Vinaya’s explanation of the words used in the śikṣāpada quoted in the Sautrāntikas’ counterargument matches the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga22 Although they are the same Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga, the content of the Chinese translation differs to some extent (T
23.629c630a):23 There are five classes of bhikṣu. The first is a bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu). The second is a self-styled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu). The third is a person called bhikṣu because he begs (bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ). The fourth is a person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the
defilement (bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ). The fifth is a bhikṣu who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman. … The word “bhikṣu” here (in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika rule) means the bhikṣu of the fifth class. Let us summarize this argument. ————— 21 I have consulted Funahashi (1987:
229). saṃjñā-bhikṣur iti. yasyānupasaṃpannasya bhikṣur iti nāma. pratijñābhikṣur iti. abrahmacary' ādi-pravṛttau duḥśīlaḥ. bhikṣata iti bhikṣur iti. yācanakaḥ. bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣur iti. arhan. asmiṃs tv artha iti. yad bhagavatoktaṃ abhikṣur bhavaty aśramaṇa iti vistareṇa. etasminn arthe.
yathoktebhyaś caturbhyo bhikṣubhyo 'nya evāyaṃ paṃcamo jñapticaturthopasaṃpanno bhikṣur iti. (Wogihara Unrai, ed. 1936, 386). 22 See note 7. 23 苾芻有五一名字苾芻二自言苾芻. 三乞求苾芻. 四破煩惱苾芻. 五白四羯磨圓具苾芻....今此 所言苾芻義者. 意取第五.The same text (with 苾芻 appearing instead of 苾芻尼) is found in the Genben shuoyiqieyoubu bichuni pinaiye 根本説一切有部苾芻尼毘奈耶 (T 1443, XXIII 913a).
There are five classes of bhikṣus: saṃjñābhikṣu, pratijñābhikṣu, bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ, bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ, and the jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ. (1) saṃjñābhikṣu: One who is a bhikṣu only in name. (2) pratijñābhikṣu: One who calls himself a bhikṣu despite not being a bhikṣu, or a
steyasaṃvāsika. (3) bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ: One belonging to the mundane world who lives by begging for food. (4) bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ: One who has eliminated all defilement and will not be reborn. (5) jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ: One who does not have any attributes preventing him from becoming ordained and becomes a bhikṣu through the proper ritual ceremony. Here (in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika), bhikṣu refers to this fifth class of bhikṣu. The Chinese translation, interestingly, matches the Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra. It makes jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno
bhikṣuḥ into a fifth kind of bhikṣu and clearly states that this is the only kind of bhikṣu capable of committing a pārājika. This passage in the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga does not match the quotation in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya but does match Yaśomitra’s later commentary. This fact means that this passage is a modification added after the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya was created. In response to the discussion in the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Chinese Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga was altered to strengthen the Sautrāntikas’ claim and correspond to this commentary.24 From this fact we can see that, of the multiple Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya transmission lineages, at the very least the Chinese Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga was closely connected to individuals on the Sautrāntikas side.25
5. Shisong-lü’s Explanation of the Words in the First Pārājika Next, let us consider the relevant passage in the Shisong-lü, which is to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya. The following is its translation:26 On the words “whatever bhikṣu” (in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika rule), there are four classes of bhikṣu. The first is a bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu). The second is a self-styled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu). The third is a person called bhikṣu because he begs
(bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ). The fourth is a person who is called a bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement (bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ). “A bhikṣu in name only” is a ————— 24 Sthilamati’s Tattvārthā: D, do 46a–47; Pūrṇavardhana’s Lakṣaṇānusāriṇī: D, chu 40a–41a. Both match the Yaśomitra’s commentary in terms of content. 25 Another example of the Vinaya’s text being changed according to an Abhidharma discussion has been found (Li 2016). 26 The Shisong-lü omits
the portion regarding the part shared with bhikṣus, and thus, it does not appear in the Bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga.
person who has a name of “bhikṣu.” “A self-styled bhikṣu” is a bhikṣu who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman or a thief like inhabitant (steyasamvāsika) who has shaved his hair and beard, wears Buddhist yellow robes and calls himself bhikṣu. “A person called bhikṣu because he begs” is called bhikṣu because he begs others for alms and food, as a brāhmaṇa calls himself “bhikṣu” when he begs others for materials. “A person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement” is as follows. Due to the defilements (āsrava, saṃyojana, bandhana, kleśa), sentient beings receive new bodies in the afterlife, experience burning and other sufferings, and continue to be reborn. If a person can cut off the āsrava radically through his
wisdom as a cutdown tāla tree which will never revive, he is called “a person who is called bhikṣu because he has cut off the defilement.” How can a bhikṣu be properly ordained? What is a properly ordained bhikṣu? If a harmonious saṃgha carries out the jñapticaturthakarman and a person relies on and follows it
without any disobedience, this situation is called “a bhikṣu is properly ordained,” and he is called a “properly ordained bhikṣu.”27 This passage can be summarized as follows. The first underlined portion is a quotation from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. There are four kinds of bhikṣus: saṃjñābhikṣu,
pratijñābhikṣu, bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ, and bhinna-kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ. (1) Saṃjñābhikṣu: A bhikṣu in name. (2) Pratijñābhikṣu: A bhikṣu who has not been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman or a steyasaṃvāsika. (3) Bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ: A bhikṣu who begs for food from people. (4) Bhinna-
kleśatvād bhikṣuḥ: A bhikṣu who has cut off defilement and will not be reborn. How can a bhikṣu be properly ordained? What is a properly ordained bhikṣu? If a harmonious saṃgha conducts the jñapticaturthakarman and a person relies on and follows it without any disobedience, this situation is called “proper
ordination of a bhikṣu,” and he is called “a properly ordained bhikṣu.” There are two notable points here: 1) The jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ, who was listed separately from the four types of bhikṣus in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga (both the Chinese and Tibetan translations), is
presented here alongside a steyasaṃvāsika as a pratijñābhikṣu, the second kind of bhikṣu (underlined portion). A steyasamvāsika ————— 27 T 1435, XXIII 2a27–2b11. 若比丘者有四種。一者名字比丘。二者自言比丘。三者爲乞比 丘。四者破煩惱比丘。名字比丘者。以名爲稱。自言比丘者。用白四羯磨受具足戒。復 賊住比丘。剃除鬚髮被著
袈裟。自言我是比丘。是名自言比丘。爲乞比丘者。從他乞食故。 如婆羅門從他乞時。亦言我是比丘。是名爲乞比丘。破煩惱比丘者。諸漏結縛煩惱衆生。 能受後身生熱苦報。生死往來相續因縁。若能知見斷如是漏拔盡根本。如斷多羅樹頭畢竟 不生。 是名破煩惱比丘。云何比丘具足戒。云何具足戒比丘。若僧和合説白四羯磨。是 人信受隨行不違不逆不破。是名比丘具足戒。是名具足戒比丘.
is a fake bhikṣu who has entered the saṃgha without undergoing an ordination ceremony. An official and fake bhikṣu are presented together as a pratijñābhikṣu: a very unnatural classification.28 2) This jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ is included under the pratijñābhikṣu category. However, an explanation regarding the jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ is found after the description of the four types of bhikṣus (underlined portion). This
disorder is a result of the unnatural addition of just the name “jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ,” was originally discussed after the four categories of bhikṣus, to category 2. These two points indicate that, as with the Tibetan version of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga, the Shisong-lü offered an explanation regarding the jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ after the four types of bhikṣus, and the name
“jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ” was subsequently merely moved to the second category. Therefore, the overall meaning of this passage changes to the following: “bhikṣu” in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika regarding sexual intercourse refers to the four types of bhikṣus. If we overlay this with
the discussion found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, this can be clearly viewed as a change in favor of those on the Vaibhāṣika side. The Sautrāntikas use the Vinaya’s statement—that there are four types of bhikṣus (saṃjñā, pratijñā, bhikṣata iti, and bhinna-kleśatvād) and that only the
jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ are covered by pārājika—to support their own doctrine. They claim that it is not one of the four types of bhikṣus but the separately listed jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ who commit a pārājika and that a true bhikṣu (category 4) could not commit a pārājika.
When the Vinaya’s statement is thus changed, however, it now means that any of the four types of bhikṣus— including the jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ—could commit a pārājika. Therefore, even a “true bhikṣu”—who was not one of the bhikṣus who commit a pārājika—could commit a pārājika. Thus, the text no longer rejects the Vaibhāṣika’s claim, which states that a true bhikṣu is included under the Vinaya’s statement that says that one who commits a pārājika is no longer a bhikṣu. This is because they can say that, although there are four kinds of bhikṣus, Śākyamuni was referring to the fourth kind of
bhikṣu, that is, a bhinna-kleśatvād. Through this minimal revision—moving “jñāpticaturthakarmaṇopasaṃpanno bhikṣuḥ” from the end to the ————— 28 Steya-saṃvāsika (Edgerton 1953, 608; Sakaki 1916, no. 8756). Pāli: theyyasaṃvāsaka (Upasak 1975, 110–111). Theyyasaṃvāsaka also appears in the Dīpavaṃsa’s account of the Third Council (Oldenberg 1879, 52–53). According to this account, sixty thousand heretics who saw King Asoka making considerable donations to the saṃgha became theyyasaṃvāsaka and entered the saṃgha. Regarding the historical placement of this Third Council account, see Sasaki (1996, 2000a).
second category—the Shisong-lü gets the Vaibhāṣikas out of a tight corner. This modification is the complete opposite of that found in the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga.
6. The Apidamo shunzhengli lun by Saṃghabhadra (T 1562) Lastly, let us see how the relevant passage appears in the Apidamo shunzhengli lun by Saṃghabhadra, who clearly belongs to the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr’s lineage.29 The master (Vasubhandhu) said as follows: “Your explanation is inadmissible because you
interpret the issue that the Blessed One made in a clear sense (nītārthe) in an incorrect way and lead defiled persons to the practice of immorality.” (Vaibhāṣikas said): “How can you prove that this quotation is of clear sense?” (Vasubhandhu said): We find the following explanation in the Vinaya. “There
are four bhikṣus: The first is a bhikṣu in name only (saṃjñābhikṣu). The second is a selfstyled bhikṣu (pratijñābhikṣu). The third is a person called bhikṣu because he begs (bhikṣata iti bhikṣuḥ). The fourth is an immoral bhikṣu. The word ‘non-bhikṣu’ (in the śikṣāpada of the first pārājika rule) means a
person who is not a bhikṣu properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman. Such a person cannot be a true bhikṣu (paramārthabhikṣu) and cannot become a ‘non-bhikṣu’ through violating grave offenses. Therefore, it can be of clear sense.” (Saṃghabhadra): It is irrational that only a bhikṣu who has been
ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman violates grave offenses and a bhikṣu who has been ordained through the three times of śaraṇagamana does not do so. Why is it denied that a bhikṣu of three śaraṇagamana could not become a “non-bhikṣu” through violating grave offenses? (The rest of the argument is
omitted.) If the Vinaya that Saṃghabhadra used was the same as the extant Shisong-lü, then the statement “The second, a self-styled bhikṣu, is a bhikṣu who has been properly ordained through the jñapticaturthakarman or a thief like inhabitant” should also be included. In that case, we would also find the
following response from Saṃghabhadra: pārājika offenses do not apply only to those who were ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman but to all four kinds of bhikṣus. Therefore, Vasubandhu's claim—that pārājika offenses apply not to the four types of bhikṣus listed here but only to a bhikṣu ordained at a
jñapticaturthakarman—does not seem valid. However, this counterargument does not appear in the Apidamo shunzhengli lun. Therefore, Saṃghabhadra ————— 29 T 29. 565a14–29. 此中經主作如是説。 此言兇勃兇勃者何謂。於世尊了義所説以別義釋令 成不了。 與多煩惱者爲犯重罪縁。寧知此言是了義説。由律自釋有四苾芻。一名相苾芻。 二自稱
苾芻。三乞匃苾芻。四破戒苾芻。此義中言非苾芻者。謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。 非此苾芻先是勝義。後由犯重成非苾芻。故知此言是了義説。豈唯白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。 有犯重罪非由三歸三説。受具足戒苾芻亦犯重罪。何理遮此三歸得戒。令不犯重成非苾芻。 There is no equivalent discussion in the Abhidharmadīpa (Mitomo 2007).
was using either the same Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga as Vasubandhu (in other words, a Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga that was similar to its Tibetan translation) or the Shisong-lü in its original form before the modification that included a bhikṣu ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman in the
four categories of bhikṣus. During a discussion I had with Shimizu Toshifumi, he said that evidence suggesting that Saṃghabhadra was using the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya has been found.30 This means that Vasubandhu was arguing while using the same Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as Saṃghabhadra.31 Either way, Saṃghabhadra was certainly not using a Shisong-lü that had been revised to be favorable for the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr. Here, Saṃghabhadra attempts to
provide a pretty difficult counterargument that is not terribly convincing: if, as the Sautrāntikas state, not a “true bhikṣu” but merely a bhikṣu ordained at a jñapticaturthakarman can commit a pārājika offense, this would lead to the strange and unconvincing counterview that a bhikṣu ordained through three repetitions of śaraṇagamana would not commit a pārājika. Nevertheless, he is stuck with this view insofar as he is using the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as the
foundation of his discussion. This means that, even if the Shisong-lü was passed down by the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr, they did not use it constantly throughout their active period. At the very least, there is a good chance that the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr from Vasubandhu onward used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. ————— 30 This was highlighted by Shimizu Toshifumi, who will probably publish an article regarding the materials he has found and information
related to them soon. 31 We should note, with regard to the Vinaya quotation in the Apidamo shunzhengli lun, that the fourth bhikṣu category is changed to an “an immoral bhikṣu.” This change is unique to this text and is not found in the Shisong-lü, Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, or the Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra. In these materials, the fourth bhikṣu is bhinna-kleśatvād, that is, a bhikṣu
who cuts off defilement. However, in the Apidamo shunzhengli lun we find “an immoral bhikṣu,” which has the opposite meaning. Thus, this change allows the discussion to go in a favorable direction for the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr. With this change in the fourth category, an outstanding or true bhikṣu is no longer included in these four kinds of bhikṣus to whom pārājika does not apply. In this case, it becomes possible for a true bhikṣu to commit a pārājika,
making the claim by the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr—that the true bhikṣu is excluded from “bhikṣus who commit a pārājika” and thus cannot commit a pārājika—no longer tenable. In turn, this would mean that the discussions in the Shisong-lü and the Apidamo shunzhengli lun regarding the relation between pārājika and the bhikṣu discipline were modified in different ways to benefit the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr. As this change may have simply been the result of a mistake
made copying texts by hand, a further careful survey of this issue is essential. However, it cannot be a coincidence that related materials show such diversity regarding the issues on which the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas disagreed. Here, we can see important clues for elucidating the relation between the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as well as the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas.
Based on the abovementioned information, we can think of several possibilities, including the following hypothesis. Originally, the Sarvāstivādins used one Vinaya.32 Within this sect, systematic editing of the Vinaya was performed, which resulted in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. One group, the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr, attempted to preserve the previous version of the Vinaya. This version is connected to the extant Shisong-lü. In the end, many differences of
opinion surfaced within the Sarvāstivādins between the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas concerning such topics as whether a bhikṣu who commits a pārājika loses his bhikṣu status or not. The Vinaya passage that the Sautrāntikas quote in this debate was unfavorable for the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr, and therefore, they modified their Vinaya (the original Shisong-lü) to avoid the Sautrāntikas’ criticism.33 The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya subsequently became the mainstream Sarvāstivādin Vinaya version, and the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr had no choice but to use it in their writings. This is the stage at which the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Apidamo shunzhengli lun were written. In the discussions regarding pārājika and bhikṣu status, the Sautrāntikas created an interpretation that put their claim at an advantage, as reflected in Yaśomitra’s commentary. This was eventually reflected in the texts that are part of the lineage of the Chinese Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga. The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr, in contrast, could no longer use the Shisong-lü they had modified and were forced to use the same Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as the Sautrāntikas, which supported their counterarguments poorly and led to some rather unconvincing arguments.
(1) When one considers the debate between the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Sautrāntikas in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya as well as related Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya passages, one finds that the Shisong-lü has been modified to reinforce the teachings of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr. In contrast,
the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga was subsequently modified from a Sautrāntika perspective. Therefore, these two Vinaya texts are each connected in some way to a doctrinal subgroup: the Shisong-lü to the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Bhikṣuvibhaṅga to
the Sautrāntikas. Thus, for the first time, we have been able to identify which of the ————— 32 Sasaki 2000b. 33 The Shisong-lü was translated between 404 and 409 CE (Hirakawa 1960, 121–131). In contrast, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya was translated into Chinese by Paramārtha in 563 CE. Therefore, there is a
high possibility that the Shisong-lü was modified before the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya was written. If this is the case, we could assume the following: (1) before the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the issue of whether a bhikṣu who has committed a pārājika loses his status or not was discussed among the Sarvāstivādins;
(2) the Shisong-lü was modified to reinforce the position of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr in terms of this debate; and (3) Vasubandhu included this discussion in his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.
subgroups within the Sarvāstivādins actually used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. However, this does not mean that the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr consistently used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya throughout the period of their activity; rather, it indicates that the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the
Sarvāstivāda Vinaya were closely related at some point. (2) Both the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya were modified with the controversy regarding pārājika and the bhikṣu discipline in mind. As such, a group within the Sarvāstivādins used the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and another used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya whenever this topic arose for discussion. Given that the Shisong-lü, which belongs to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, was translated
between 404 and 409 CE, the modification of the Shisong-lü could have been conducted before the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya was written. (3) If the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya is the Vinaya of the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīr and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya that of the Sautrāntikas, there is a strong possibility that analyzing the differences between the two texts could shed light on the relation between these two groups. We must remember that the discoveries of this paper must
not be simplistically combined with the legend-related materials that have long been familiar to scholars, such as the story found at the end of the Dazhidu lun (T 1509), to present a new hypothesis. If we did so, our conclusions would be no more valid than those provided by existing scholarship that has used such legends.34 The information presented in this paper is completely different from that obtained from such stories because it is more
historically objective. Therefore, we must attempt to construct new hypotheses by combining information that is on the same level as that presented in this paper. While it is completely unclear at this stage whether this can be accomplished, we know that attempting this approach will enable us to advance true historical scholarship regarding the divisions within the Sarvāstivādins for the first time.
Primary Sources Eimer, Helmut. 1983. Rab tu ’byuṅ ba’i gzhi: Die Tibetische Übersetzung des Pravrajyāvastu im Vinaya der Mūlasarvāstivādinsī. Teil 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz． Funahashi Issai 舟橋一哉 1987. Kusharon no genten kaimei, gō-hon 倶舎論の原典解 明 ー業品ー. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館. Honjō Yoshifumi 本庄良文. 2014a. Kusharonchū upāikā no kenkyū yakuchū hen, ge 倶 舎論註 ウパーイカーの研究 訳注篇 上. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan 大蔵出版. Honjō Yoshifumi 本庄良文. 2014b. Kusharonchū upāikā no kenkyū yakuchū hen, ge 倶 舎論註 ウパーイカーの研究 訳注篇 下. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan 大蔵出版. ————— 34 Dazhidu lun 大智度論 T 1509, XXV 756c.
Pruitt, William & Norman, K. R. 2001. The Pātimokkha. Oxford: The Pali Text Society. Oldenberg, Hermann. 1879. The Dīpavaṃsa, An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record. Berlin: Williams and Norgate. Oldenberg, Hermann. 1881. The Vinayapiṭakaṃ. Vol III. London: The Pali Text Society. Pradhan, Prahlad (ed.). 1967. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu. Patna: Jayaswal Research Institute． Pruden, Leo M. (tr.) 1990. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam by Louis de La Vallée Poussin. 4 vols. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. Saheki Kyokuga 佐伯旭雅 1886. Kandō abidatsumakusharoni 冠導阿毘達磨倶舎論, Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館. Sakaki Ryōzaburō 榊亮三郎 et al. (ed.) 1916. Bon zō kan wa shiyaku taikō honyaku myōgi taishū 梵藏漢和四譯對校翻訳名義大集 (Mahāvytpatti), Kyoto (rep. 1963, Kyoto: Suzuki gakujyutsu zaidan). Simson, Georg von. 2000. Prātimokṣasūtra der Sarvāstivādins. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wogihara Unrai (ed.). 1936. Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra, Tokyo: Sanki-bō busshorin 山喜房佛書林 (rep. 1971: Tokyo: Sanki-bō busshorin 山喜房 佛書林) Vol. 2. Secondary Sources Enomoto Fumio 榎本文雄 2007. ‘Konpon-setsu-issai-ubu to Setsu-issai-ubu’「根本説 一切有部」と「説一切有部」 (“Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 47 (1): (111) – (119). Fukuda Takumi 福田琢 2015. ‘Seshin kusharon no shōgeki 世親『倶舎論』の衝撃. In: Kusha, tayurukoto naki hō no nagare 倶舎, 絶ゆることなき法の流れ ed. Aohara Norisato 青原令知, 366–397. Kyoto: Jishōsya syuppan 自照社出版. Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 1960. Ritsuzō no kenkyū 律蔵の研究. Tokyo: Sanki-bō busshorin 山喜房佛書林. Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 1964. Genshi bukkyō no kenkyū, kyōdansoshiki no genkei 原始 仏教の研究 ー教団組織の原型. Tokyo: Shunjū sha 春秋社. Ishida Kazuhiro 石田一裕 2010. ‘Gandāraubu to yugagyōha, mukikon setsu o tōshite’ ガンダー有部と瑜伽行派 ー無記根説を通してー (The Sarvāstivāda of Gandhāra and the Yogācāra: A study of avyākṛtamūlāni). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 58 (2): 951(166) –948(169). Ishida Kazuhiro 石田一裕 2011. ‘A New Viewpoint on the Sautrāntika School of Buddhist Philosophy Based on a Study of Sarvāstivādin School on Gandhāra’. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教 學研究 59 (3): 1153–1157． Ishida Kazuhiro 石田一裕 2012. ‘The Contrast in Two Sects of the Sarvāstivādin School: From the Viewpoint of the Two Types of Requirements to Become an
Upāsaka’. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印 度學仏教學研究 60 (3): 1194–1199． Ishida Kazuhiro 石田一裕 2013. ‘A Background of One Sautrāntika's Theory in the Abhidharmakośa’. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 61 (3): 1163–1167． Li Wei 2016. ‘Jūjuritsu Zōju ni okeru kyōshin nado no kaishaku, Basharon kara eikyō o uketa kanōsei o megutte’ 『十誦律』「雑誦」における「狂心等の解釈」 —『 婆沙論』から影響を受けた可能性をめぐってー (Interpretations of ummatta and khittacitta in the Sarvāstivādin Shisong lū “Zasong” (Vinītaka): The Possibility of Influence from Abhidharma Texts). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 65 (1): 339(186) –336(189). Mitomo Kenyō 三健容. 2007. Abidarumadīpa no kenkyū アビダマディーパの研 究 (A Study of the Abhidharmadīpa). Kyoto: Heirakuji syoten 平楽寺書店. Ryōse Wataru 両瀬渉. 1986. ‘Betsugedatsu-ritsugi no sha, 'shinron' kei ronsho o chūshin ni shite’ 別解脱律儀の捨 ー「心論」系論書を中心にしてー (Some Notes on prātimokṣa-saṃvara, described in the Abhidharmahṛdaya and its Commentaries). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度 學仏教學研究 34 (2): 301–303． Tanaka Kyōshō 田中教照 1976. ‘Shugyōdōron yori mita abidatsumaronsho no sinko ni tsuite’ 修行道論より見た阿毘達磨論書の新古について. Bukkyō Kenkyū (Buddhist Studies) 佛教研究 5: 41–54. Tanaka Kyōshō 田中教照 1987. ‘Shi-hon yori mita Abidonshin-ron no ichi’ 使品より 見た『阿毘曇心論』の位置 (The Position of the Abhidarmahṛdaya as Considered from the anuśaya-chapter). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 36 (1): 28–35． Tokuoka Ryōei 徳岡亮英 1960. ‘Indo bukkyō ni okeru buha ni tsuite, Furauwarunā no kincho o yonde’ 印度仏教における部派について ーフウワナーの近著を読 んでー. Ōtani Gakuhō 大谷学報 40 (3): 43–69. Sasaki Shizuka 佐々木閑. 1996. ‘Buddhist Sects in the Aśoka Period (6) –The Dīpavaṃsa’. 仏教研究. Bukkyō Kenkyū (Buddhist Studies) 25: 29–63. Sasaki Shizuka 佐々木閑. 2000a. Indo bukkyō hen-i ron, naze bukkyō wa tayōka shitanoka インド仏教変移論 なぜ仏教は多様化したのか (The Transformations of Indian Buddhism: Why Has Buddhism Become so Diversified?). Tokyo: Daizō shuppan 大蔵出版. Sasaki Shizuka 佐々木閑. 2000b. ‘Basharon to ritsu’ 婆沙論と律 (Vinayas Quoted in the Vibhāṣā). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 49(1): 421–413. Upasak, C. S. 1975. Dictionary of Early Buddhist Monastic Terms. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. Yao Fumi 八尾史 2013. ‘Konpon-setsu-issai-ubu to iu meishō ni tsuite’「根本説一切 有部」という名称について. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 印度學仏教學研究 55 (2): 72–77.