Sautrantika bibliographic guide

SAUTRĀNTIKA INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1980s, a number of Buddhist scholars have produced a vibrant wave of academic studies on the Sautrātika history and doctrines. In a number of these studies, their authors frequently attempt, directly or indirectly, to probe into the nature and character of the Sautrāntika identity. Some of them refer to the past perceptions of the Sautrāntikas as the traditional view, traditional accounts, or the tradition. These and similar phrases are not properly explained, but it is clear that they basically stand for the views and images of the Sautrāntikas as preserved in Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan sources, and in the uncritical studies that stem from them. Having done extensive

research, the present-day scholars fairly claim that the depictions of the Sautrāntikas in Indian and other sources cannot be accepted without reservations or at their face value but need to be rigorously analyzed and revaluated. In other words, they maintain that the time-honored perceptions of the Sautrāntikas as an independent school with a set of their own tenets should be revised and reformulated. Unfortunately, these scholars have encountered serious difficulties that hinder them from formulating a fresh and

objective interpretation of the Sautrāntika identity in contrast to the traditional view. The difficulties are not due to the lack of academic competence and skill, but rather to the fact that the available research resources frequently disagree and disclose variant or discordant opinions. Thus, because of textual and other difficulties, and also because of the paucity of unbiased evidence, the scholars have been unable to formulate one coherent, unambiguous, and uniformly acceptable interpretation of the Sautrāntika

identity; they can offer only intelligent guesses and conjectures. Among them, some scholars broadly follow the traditional accounts, and at the same time try to account for textual and other inconsistencies. Some other scholars do the same but go a step further and venture to offer new opinions on the Sautrāntika identity, some of which seriously challenge the traditional view. What must be said is that the actual research information and concrete findings are sound and reliable, and considerably broaden our knowledge of the Sautrāntikas. However, some of the

conclusions and theories based on those findings are largely tentative or provisional. So for the time being, the precise identity of the Sautrāntikas remains unresolved, and continues to be subject to academic speculations and debates. GENERAL OVERVIEW Indian sources agree that the Sautrāntikas are a branch of the Sarvāstivāda school. The history and identity of the Sautrāntikas from the time of their origin and up to the time of Vasubandhu is sparsely documented. During this period there existed Buddhist masters who are referred to as either Dārṣṭāntikas or Sautrāntikas, but their identities and dates are obscure. The earliest reference to the Sautrāntikas as a distinct group relying on the Buddha’s discourses (sūtra) is in Vasubandhu’s 5th-century Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. In this treatise, Vasubandhu places the Sautrāntikas on the scenario of Indian Buddhism.

From that period onward, the Sautrāntikas are recognized as a distinct intellectual group, and the later Indian sources treat them as one of the four principal schools of Indian Buddhism: Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Mādhyamika. The Sautrāntikas have affinities with the Dārṣṭāntikas, but their precise relationship remains undetermined, because of discrepant textual statements. Chronologically, the Dārṣṭāntikas are earlier than the Sautrāntikas. Some sources treat the Sautrāntikas as successors to the Dārṣṭāntikas. Other sources treat them as being either different or synonymous. Certain scholars postulate that the names Dārṣṭāntika and Sautrāntika represent different perspectives on the same group. In terms of monastic ordinations, the Sautrāntikas appertain to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya lineage. In terms of scriptural authority, they rely on the Buddha’s discourses, and accept the abhidharma only as taught by the Buddha. They reject the seven Vaibhāṣika abhidharma treatises as being the Buddha Word but accept them as human treatises (śāstra). However, this situation does not imply the rejection of all the Vaibhāṣika doctrines. In terms of a doctrinal manifesto, the Sautrāntikas do not have a consolidated body of doctrines. They affirm a fair number of Vaibhāṣika doctrines, but challenge some of their central tenets, and instigate their own interpretations.

The Sautrāntika ideas provoked negative reactions from the Vaibhaikas, but also gained adherents in India and beyond. Some scholars established textual similarities between the Sautrāntika ideas and the Yogācārabhūmi. On the basis of this textual affinity, certain scholars postulate that Vasubandhu uses the term Sautrāntika to designate the doctrines found in Yogācāra sources, and to adjust the Vaibhāṣika abhidharma to Yogācāra doctrines. Other scholars favor the traditional view that Vasubandhu wrote his Abhidharmakośa as a Sautrāntika. When reading present-day scholars dedicated to finding the Sautrāntika identity, it is advisable to differentiate between their concrete findings and their conjectured opinions. Articles and Monographs on the Sautrāntika Identity This section provides a selection of articles and monographs produced by Western and Japanese scholars. The selected citations provide general or detailed overviews of the identity, history, and doctrines of the Sautrāntikas. The citations included here are intended to serve as a preamble to the remaining sections that focus on more specific topics such as primary sources or doctrinal tenets. Przyluski 1931–1932 strives to establish the historical correlation between the Dārṣṭāntikas and Sautrāntikas. Cox 1995 examines the sources that help to understand the relationship between the Dārṣṭāntikas and

Sautrāntikas. Mimaki 1980 translates a text on the Sautrāntikas, which was composed in Tibet. Katō 1989 studies the Sautrāntika identity and its affinity to the Dārṣṭāntikas. Willemen, et al. 1998 provides a comprehensive survey of the Sarvāstivāda history and literature. Kritzer 2003 sketches the Sautrāntika origin and doctrinal tenets, and provides a bibliography on the Sautrāntikas in Chinese, Japanese, and Western languages. Honjō 2003 attempts to establish the precise meaning of the name Sautrāntika. Dessein 2003 studies selected tenets of the Sautrāntikas on the basis of a particular set of texts. Skorupski 1987 provides an overview of the Sautrāntika doctrinal assumptions. Buswell and Lopez 2013 locates the Sautrāntikas within the historical context of Indian Buddhism. Buswell, Robert E., and Donald S. Lopez Jr. “Sautrāntika.” In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. By Robert E. Jr. Buswell and Donald S. Lopez Jr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. This dictionary entry sketches the doctrinal image of the Sautrāntikas and shows how they are viewed in the sources composed after the 5th century. Cox, Collett. “Dārṣṭāntika and Sautrāntika.” In

Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories of Existence: An Annotated Translation of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought from Saṅghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāra. By Collett Cox Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1995, 37–52. The author provides a critical survey of the various interpretations of the names Dārṣṭāntika and Sautrāntika. She collates different sources in an attempt to establish their respective conceptual identities, and to determine their relationship. She also tries to establish which masters belonged to one of these two groups. Dessein, Bart. “Sautrāntika and the Hṛdaya Treatises.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 287–319. Initially the author discusses the abhidharma treatises composed by Dharmaśrī, Upaśānta, and Dharmatrāta. In his opinion, these works led to the compilation of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa. The remaining four sections treat the origin of the Dārṣṭāntikas and

Sautrāntikas and three doctrinal issues: the Sautrāntika theory of resistance, the arising of perceptual consciousness, and the controversy about the existence of the three times. Honjō, Yoshifumi. “The Word Sautrāntika.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 321–330. The author strives to formulate the definition of the term Sautrāntika, assesses the Sautrāntika attitude toward the abhidharma treatises, and attempts to establish Vasubandhu’s identity. In his conclusion the author says that Vasubandhu belongs to the Sarvāstivāda school, but does not accept the authority of the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma treatises, and that this seems to be the basic definition of the term Sautrāntika. Katō, Junshō. Kyōryōbu no kenkyū (Étude sur les Sautrāntika). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1989. [ISBN: 9784393111468] This monograph, written in Japanese, is considered to be one of the most detailed studies of the identity and relationship between the Sautrāntikas and Dārṣṭāntikas. Kritzer, Robert. “General

Introduction.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 201–224. This issue of the IABS journal contains a collection of six papers on the Sautrāntikas. In his Introduction the author discusses the origin and identity of the Sautrāntikas, sketches their major tenets, surveys the primary Sanskrit and Chinese sources for the study of the Sautrāntika theories, and lists fifteen primary sources in Sanskrit and Chinese, and nineteen titles in Japanese and Western languages. Mimaki, Katsumi. “Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub mtha’ sur les Sautrāntika: Un essai de traduction.” Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies Kyoto University 16 (1980): 143–172. The Blo gsal grub mtha’ was composed by a Tibetan Kadampa master of the 14th century. It is a good example of Tibetan doxographies that provide expositions of doctrinal tenets of Buddhist schools. Drawing on Indian sources, the author gathers together the doctrinal tenets attributed to the Sautrāntikas, some of which are not readily traceable to the original Indian sources. Przyluski, Jean. “Sautrāntika et Dārṣṭāntika.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8 (1931–1932): 14–24. Przyluski postulates

that originally there was a group called Dārṣṭāntikas, which could be referred to as Mūla-Sautrāntikas. At some later period, this group became divided into two factions, namely Dārṣṭāntikas following Śrīlāta, and Sautrāntikas in a proper sense. Skorupski, Tadeusz. “Sautrāntika.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade, 86–88. New York: Macmillan, 1987. This article provides an overview of the Sautrāntika identity and selected doctrines. Willemen, Charles, Bart Dessein, and Collett Cox. Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Zweite Abteilung. Indien. 11 Bd. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1998. [ISBN: 9789004102316] The authors provide an extensive survey of the history and literature of the Sarvāstivāda school. The history covers the historical phases in India, and in the regions to which the Sarvāstivāda school spread. The survey of literature encompasses the major Sarvāstivāda collections in India and Gandhāra. The abhidharma works produced in Kashmir and Gandhāra are analyzed and assessed in detail. Works on the Formation of Buddhist Schools The works listed below deal with the origin and doctrinal tenets of the early Indian Buddhist schools,

including the Sautrāntikas. The first three works are of Indian origin, and probably reflect sectarian predilections, but still apart from the Pali sources, they are the only Indian records of the origin and doctrinal positions of the early Buddhist schools in India. Bareau’s work assesses the character and content of these and other compositions. These citations should help to locate the Sautrāntikas within the historical and doctrinal context of the early Buddhist schools in India. Vasumitra 1954, translated by Bareau , sketches the historical formation of the early Buddhist schools, and lists the doctrinal tenets of the major schools. Bhavya 1956, translated by Bareau , reproduces three different accounts that deal with the formation of the early Buddhist schools. Vinītadeva 1956, translated by Bareau , probably reflects the perception of the early Buddhist schools that was prevalent in 8th-century India. Bareau 1955 provides a comprehensive and unsurpassed survey of the early Buddhist schools and their doctrinal tenets. Bareau, André. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit véhicule. Publications de L’Ècole Française d’Extrême-Orient 38. Paris: L’Ècole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1955. This book is

appreciated as an outstanding and unsurpassed survey of the history, geographical distribution, and doctrinal tenets of the early Buddhist schools. Some thirty-four schools are identified, and around five hundred doctrinal variants are identified and assessed. English translation by Sera Boin-Webb: The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2013.

Bhavya. Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyāna. French translation by André Bareau. “L’Explication des Divisions entre les Sectes.” Journal Asiatique 244 (1956): 167–191. This work on the early schools was composed in the 6th century. Bhavya reproduces three lists of the early schools. The first list divides the Sthaviras into ten sects, with the Sautrāntikas classed as the last sect. The second list divides the Sarvāstivādins into two subgroups: (Mūla-) Sarvāstivādins and Sautrāntikas. In the third list the Sautrāntikas are attributed five tenets. Vasumitra. Samayabhedoparacanacakra. French translation by André Bareau. “Les Cycle de la Formation des Schismes.” Journal Asiatique 242 (1954): 235–266. According to this work, three centuries after the Buddha’s demise, the Sthaviras bifurcated into Sarvāstivādins and Sthaviras. Next, the Sarvāstivādins became divided into several branches. Finally, four centuries after the Buddha’s demise, they gave rise to the Sautrāntikas, also called Saṅkrāntivādins. Vasumitra credits the Sautrāntikas with five opinions, and states that their remaining tenets are shared with the Sarvāstivāda school. Vinītadeva. Samayabhedoparacanacakre

nikāyabhedopadarçanasaṃgraha. French translation by André Bareau, “Le Compendium Descriptif des Divisions des Sectes dans Cycle de la Formation des Schismes.” Journal Asiatique 244 (1956): 192–200. In this short work written in the 8th century and preserved in a Tibetan version, Vinītadeva identifies the Saṅkrāntivādins (=Sautrāntikas) with the Tāmraśātīyas. He lists them as a branch of the Sarvāstivāda school, and attributes to them three specific tenets. Indian and Gandhāran Sources for the Study of the Sautrāntikas Mathurā, Kāśmīra, and the Gandhāra region were the strongholds of the Sarvāstivāda communities. In Kaśmīra the Sarvāstivāda doctrinal developments culminated during and after the council of Kashmir convened around the 2nd century. The participants of this council revised and compiled the Sarvāstivāda canon, in particular the seven abhidharma

treatises. They also produced a massive commentary entitled Mahāvibhāṣā. It is from this “great commentary” that the name Vaibhāṣika was derived and applied to the Kashmiri branch of the Sarvāstivāda school. The Sarvāstivāda communities outside Kashmir, in particular those in the Gandhāra region, developed their own and fairly independent abhidharma orientation. Some of their abhidharma texts predate the Vaibhāṣika Mahāvibhāṣā (2 CE), and some are later. The abhidharma masters in Gandhāra did not bequeath their literary heritage in the form of a complete set of abhidharma treatises, but rather in the form of individual treatises. Three such treatises, authored by Dharmaśrī, Upaśānta, and Dharmatrāta, epitomise the abhidharma doctrines formulated in Gandhāra. As literary compositions, these treatises have a topical structure and cover all aspects of

abhidharma teachings. The expositions of different doctrinal topics are presented in summary verses followed by their commentaries. Some scholars refer to these works as being Sautrāntika texts, but other scholars do not entirely concur, and treat them as precursors of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa. In the present context it is pertinent to observe that in his work Vasubandhu openly challenges the Vaibhāṣika doctrines, something that might reflect the sentiments of the Sarvāstivāda communities outside the Vaibhāṣika

Kashmir, namely those in Gandhāra. This section includes some of the major treatises that are important for the discernment of the Sautrāntika identity and doctrines. Dharmaśrī 2006, translated by Willemen, formulates one of the earliest expositions of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. Dharmatrāta 1999, translated by Dessein , provides an extensive treatment of the Sarvātivāda doctrinal system. Vasubandhu 1967, translated by La Vallée Poussin in 1923–1931 and Pruden in 1988–1990, bequeaths a masterly exposition of the Vaibhāṣika doctrines and their opponents. Vasubandhu 1935–1936, translated

by Lamotte, details the karma theories of several schools. Saṅghabhadra 1995, translated by Cox , defends the Sarvāstivāda orthodoxy. Yaśomitra 1932–1936, edited by Wogihara, provides a commentary on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa. Potter 1999 and Potter 2008 include summaries of the important texts presented in this section. Mejor 1991 studies the Indian commentaries on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa that survive only in Tibetan translations. Dharmaśrī. Abhidharmahṛdaya. Translated by Charles Willemen. The Essence of Scholasticism: Abhidharmahṛdaya T1550. Revised Edition with a Completely New Introduction. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2006. [ISBN: 9788120830943] In the introduction Willemen discusses the authors of the treatises composed in Gandhāra and other related matters. The main body of this publication contains Willemen’s translation with helpful

annotations of Dharmaśrī’s work. This work consists of 250 verses accompanied by their commentaries, and it is divided into ten chapters. First published in Brussels in 1975. Dharmatrāta. Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya. Translated by Bart Dessein. Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya: Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions. Buddhist Tradition Series 33–35. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. [ISBN: 9788120815834] Part I contains an introduction and a translation of Dharmatrāta’s treatise, extending over 700 pages. This treatise consists of 596 stanzas and their commentaries, and it is divided into eleven chapters. Part II contains copious annotations, and Part III provides glossaries and bibliographic lists. Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa and the Commentaries Preserved in the Tanjur. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1991. [ISBN: 9783515055352] After the composition of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the later generations of abhidharma scholars in India did not produce new abhidharma treatises. Instead, they treated the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya as the repository of the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma, and composed commentaries on it. Mejor’s book is a textual study of nine Indian commentaries on the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya that are extant only in Tibetan translations. Potter, Karl H. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Volume 8. Buddhist Philosophy from 100 to 350 A.D. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. [ISBN: 9788120815537] This volume contains summaries of Vasunadhu’s Abhidharmakośa, pages 486–516, and Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, pages 516–565, and also a detailed summary of Saṅghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāra, pages 649–716. Potter, Karl H. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies.Volume 9. Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2008. [ISBN: 9788120819689] This volume includes a detailed summary of the Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā, which is Yaśomitra’s commentary on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, pages 565–594. Saṅghabhadra. Nyāyānusāra. Partial translation by Collett Cox. Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories of Existence: An Annotated Translation of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought from Saṅghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāra. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 11. Tokyo: The

International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1995. In this work, preserved only in Chinese, Saṅghabhadra defends the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika doctrinal tenets and attacks many of the Sautrāntika positions as presented in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The translated section deals with the controversial interpretations of factors or phenomena dissociated from the mind (cittaviprayukta-dharma). Cox also provides an introductory study in which she covers a number of historical and doctrinal issues. Vasubandhu. Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa. French translation by Étienne Lamotte. “Le Traité de L’Acte de Vasubandhu: Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa.” Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 4 (1935– 1936): 151–287. Part one provides an overview of the karma theories presented in Vasubandhu’s treatise. Part two contains the Tibetan and Chinese versions of Vasubandhu’s treatise, and part three contains its translation. In his introduction Lamotte says that Vasubandhu wrote the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa as a Sautrāntika, and that there are some

similarities between this treatise and the Abhidharmakośa. English translation from the French by Leo M. Pruden. Karmasiddhi Prakarana: The Treatise on Action by Vasubandhu. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1987. Vasubandhu. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Sanskrit text edited by Prahalad Pradhan. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. Patna, India: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967. Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa constitutes the pinnacle of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma developments, and serves as the central source of information on the Abhidharma doctrines and controversies. It comprises 600 verses (kārikā), and a prose commentary (bhāṣya). In the summary verses, Vasubandhu encapsulates the Vaibhāṣika abhidharma doctrines, and in the commentary, he sketches the Vaibhāṣika and discordant opinions. French translation by Louis de La Vallée Poussin. L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu: Traduction et Annotations. 6 vols. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1923–1931. English translation from the French by Leo M. Pruden. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. 4 vols. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988–1990. Yaśommitra. Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā. 2 vols. Edited by Unrai Wogihara. Sphuṭārthā:

Abhidharmakośavyākhyā. Tokyo: The Publishing Association of Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, 1932–1936. This is the only commentary on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya that survives in the original Sanskrit. Yaśomitra comments on difficult passages, defends the Sautrāntika doctrinal positions against the criticism expressed by Saṅghabhadra, and offers his own opinions on a number of subjects. There are no translations in Western languages of this commentary, but see Potter 2008. Yes it is. Academic Studies of Sautrāntika Doctrinal Tenets As already indicated in the overview, the Sautrātikas did not produce independent treatises on their doctrinal tenets. Their abhidharma tenets and contentions are included in the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma texts that encompass a wide range of doctrinal considerations. After the composition of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa, the Sautrāntika tenets were systematized by the later generations of abhidharma adepts in India and beyond. This section includes a selection of academic studies that focus on Sautrāntika tenets or on their contribution to doctrinal debates and controveries. Kritzer 2003 studies the Sautrāntika doctrinal positions as recorded in Vasubandhu’s

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Kritzer 2005 gathers together the Sautrāntika-related passages in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and similar or corresponding passages from the Yogācārabhūmi. Jaini 1959 dicusses the important Sautrāntika theory of seeds (bīja) on the basis of two texts. Park 2014 treats the same Sautrāntika theory of seeds, but this work is broader in scope and based on different sources. Rospatt 1995 studies the important and controversial theory of momentariness to which the Sautrāntikas made a major contribution. Dhammajoti 2007 ascertains the Sarvastivāda debates about the nature of perception of external objects. Bareau 2013 gathers together the Sautrāntika tenets from a number of primary sources. Sanderson 1994

Robin Perlow 22/9/2015 14:44 Comment [1]: AU: Please confirm that Potter 2008 is the correct cross-reference here.

offers a critical assessment of the Vaibhāṣika theory of karma and its criticism by the Sautrāntikas. Cozort and Preston 2003 translates a Tibetan text that treats the doctrinal tenets of Buddhist schools. Bareau, André. “The Sautrāntikas or Saṅkrāntivādins.” English translation by Sera Boin-Webb. The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle. By André Bareau, 203–218. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2013. [ISBN: 9780824835668] In chapter 26 Bareau assembles the doctrinal opinions of the Sautrāntikas, which he culled from different sources. In chapter 27 he lists the doctrinal tenets attributed to the Dārṣṭāntikas. Bareau admits that there is a marked affinity between the

Dārṣṭāntikas and Sautrāntikas. However, he treats them separately, because in his opinion there is no firm evidence to assert that they are identical. Cozort, Daniel, and Craig Preston, trans. Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gonchok’s Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayaba’s Root Text on Tents. New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2003. This is an 18th-century Tibetan treatise that sums up the doctrines of Buddhist schools in India. Cozort and Preston provide a substantial introduction in which they interpret a number of philosophical concepts. Part Two contains an exposition of the major doctrinal tenets attributed to the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika schools. Dhammajoti, Kuala Lupur. Abhidharma Doctrines and Controversies on Perception. Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2007. [ISBN: 9789889929626] The Sarvāstivāda masters engaged in a protracted controversy about the nature of perception and the cognitive process. The factions involved in this controversy are the Vaibhaṣikas, Sautrāntikas, and Dārṣṭāntikas. The author investigates and analyzes this controversy, which mainly focuses on the apparatus of perception, the mental factors involved in perception, and the process of

gaining knowledge of the external world. Jaini, Padmanabh. “The Sautrāntika Theory of Bīja.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22.1–3 (1959): 236–249. In this article Jaini provides a critical analysis of Vasubandhu’s theory of seeds (bīja) as presented in his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and the rigorous critique of it as recorded in an orthodox Vaibhāṣika work called the Abhidharmadīpa. The focus of the debate is on three issues: mental activities and defilements, proclivities (anuśaya), and the seeds of wholesome phenomena (kuśala-dharma). Kritzer, Robert. “Sautrāntika in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 331–384. The author identifies nineteen passages in which the term Sautrāntika occurs in the Sanskrit text of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and collates them with similar

passages in the Yogācārabhūmi. He demonstrates that the majority of the passages attributed to the Sautrāntikas in Vasubandhu’s work have correspondences in the Yogācārabhūmi. In the final section he postulates an alternative possibility of understanding Vasubandhu’s doctrinal affinities. Kritzer, Robert. Vasubandhu and the Yogācārabhūmi: Yogācāra Elements in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2005. [ISBN: 9784906267514] The author collates the Sautrāntika-related passages from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the passages from the Yogācārabhūmi, which approximate or correspond to them. The selected

passages from Vasubandhu’s work are cited in Sanskrit, provided with summaries, and accompanied by references to the relevant passages in Saṅghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāra. The passages from the Yogācārabhūmi are in Tibetan and Chinese. Park, Changhwan. Vasubandhu, Śrīlāta, and the Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 84. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2014. [ISBN: 9783902501226] Originally a PhD thesis submitted in 2007 at the University of California at Berkeley. The author provides a broad study of Vasubandhu’s theory of seeds (bīja). Essentially, he traces the historical and doctrinal

development of this theory, and attempts to establish the doctrinal affinity between different masters who contributed in some ways to the formulation of this theory. Rospatt, Alexander von. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness: A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of this Doctrine up to Vasubandhu. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995. [ISBN: 9783515065283] This is a philosophical study of the theory of momentariness of conditioned phenomena, and of their characteristic marks. It is an important but controversial theory that stems from the fundamental Buddhist teaching on impermanence of conditioned phenomena. This study correlates and assesses the doctrinal standpoints propounded by the Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, Dārṣṭāntika, and other early sectarian affiliations. Revised edition: Berkeley, CA: Institute of Buddhist Studies and BDK America, 2015. Sanderson, Alexis. “The Sarvāstivāda and Its Critics: Anātmavāda and the Theory of Karma.” In Buddhism into the Year 2000: International Conference Proceedings. Edited by Dharmakaya Foundation 33–48. Bangkok and Los Angeles: Dharmakaya Foundation, 1994. A paper presented at the First International Conference, “Buddhism into the Year 2000,”

held in Bangkok, Thailand, 7–9 February 1990. In the initial sections of this study, the author provides the background scenario, and sketches the character of the Buddhist theory of the non-existence of the self (anātma). Next, he focuses on the Vaibhāṣika exposition of karma and its critique by the Sautrāntikas. The main sources for this study are Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Yaśomitra’s commentary on it. Vasubandhu’s Personal and Doctrinal Identity Some scholars date Vasubandhu to the 4th century, and some scholars to the late 4th century or early 5th century. According to his biographies, Vasubandhu underwent two distinct phases in his life as a Buddhist believer and as a philosopher. During the first phase of his life, he was a Sarvāstivāda monk and adhered to the Sarvāstivāda doctrines. It was during this phase that he composed his Abhidharmakośa, in which he sums up the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma in the verse portion, and in the commentary he discloses his preference for Sautrāntika ideas. During the second phase of his life he converted to the Mahayana and embraced the Yogācāra doctrines. He is generously credited with the composition of 500 works on the Śrāvakayāna, and 500 works on the Mahayana. If he ever wrote so many works, most of them are lost, and only forty-seven works are extant, nine in the original Sanskrit, and the rest in Chinese and Tibetan translations. The main Buddhist schools represented in Vasubandhu’s works are the Sarvāstivāda Vaibhāṣikas of Kashmir, the Sarvāstivādins of Gandhāra, the

Vātsīputrīyas, the Sautrāntikas, and the Yogācāra. A considerable number of Sarvāstivāda abhidharma works survive in their Chinese versions. However, in India and Tibet, practically all of the abhidharma works that survive are the works of Vasubandhu, and the commentaries written on them. Because there are some inconsistencies in Vasubandhu’s biographies, and because he wrote on Śrāvakayāna and Mahayana topics, Buddhist scholars have been suspect of the veracity of his biographical and literary data. Frauwallner 1951 puts forward a theory that there were two separate Vasubandhus, who lived a century apart. He argues that the biographers, such as Paramārtha, translated by Takakusu 1904, conflated two Vasubandhus into one person. Hirakawa 1973 and Jaini 1958 refute Frauwallner’s theory and argue that there was only one Vasubandhu who authored Abhidharma and Yogācāra works. Kritzer 2003 advances the theory that Vasubandhu was a Yogācāra when he wrote the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Deleanu 2006 presumes the existence of only one Vasubandhu. Gold 2011 discusses scholarly opinions about Vasubndhu’s identity without sharing his own opinion. Park 2014 (cited under *Academic Studies of Sautrāntika Doctrinal Tenets*) defends the traditional position that there was only one Vasubandhu. .Thus, not only the identity of the Sautrāntikas

remains open to opinions and debates, but also the identity and sectarian affiliation of Vasubandhu, who placed the Sautrāntikas on the map of Indian Buddhism. Deleanu, Florin. “Vasubandhu’s Date.” In The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga) in the Śrāvakabhūmi: A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation, and Introductory Study. Vol. 1. Edited and translated by Florin Deleanu, 186–194. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2006. [ISBN: 9784906267545] Deleanu discusses scholarly opinions on the date of Vasubandhu, and examines certain historical sources that could shed light on Vasubandhu dates. One of the salient purposes of his search for Vasubandhu’s dates is to show that there was only one Vasubandhu. Frauwallner, Erich. On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1951. In this detailed monograph Erich Frauwallner studies the life and works of Vasubandhu, and

formulates his theory of two Vasubandhus. Setting aside his theory of two Vasubandhus, which is not accepted by the majority of Buddhist scholars, this monograph still contains a lot of sound information on Vasubandhu’s works. Gold, Jonathan C. “Vasubandhu.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2011. A competent overall study of Vasubandhu’s life and philosophical ideas. The author discusses the theories concerned with Vasubandhu’s doctrinal affinities, assesses the current scholarship on him, and surveys the doctrinal formulations articulated in his major works. Hirakawa, Akira, in collaboration with Shunei Hirai, So Takahashi, Noriaki Hakamaya, and Giei

Yoshizu. “Introduction.” In Index to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (P. Pradhan Edition), Part I: Sanskrit-Chinese-Tibetan. I–XXXXIV. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan Kabushikikaisha, 1973. In the introductory study to this Index, section two examines and dismantles Frauwaller’s theory of two Vasubandhus. Section three compares Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośā with some of his Yogācāra texts. Section four assesses the relation between the Sautrāntikas and Mahāyāna Buddhism. The authors argue that there was only one Vasubandhu, and postulate the continuity between his Abhidharmakośa and Yogācāra works. Jaini, Padmanabh S. “On the Theory of the Two Vasubandhus.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 21.1–3 (1958): 48–53.

Robin Perlow 22/9/2015 14:44 Comment [2]: AU: Please provide pagination and place and publisher, or else please provide URL if this is an online encyclopedic entry. In this short article Jaini provides some textual evidence, mainly derived from two Indian texts, and argues that there was only one Vasubandhu, and not two Vasubandhus as proposed by Frauwallner. Kritzer, Robert. “Sautrāntika in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 331–384. It is in this study of the Sautrāntika tenets that Kritzer reinforces his theory that Vasubandhu was a Yogacāra at the time of writing the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Takakusu, Junjirō. “The

Life of Vasubandhu by Paramārtha (A.D. 499–569).” T’oung Pao 5.3 (1904): 269–296. This is an English translation from the Chinese of Vasubandhu’s biography composed by Paramārtha in the 6th century. Paramārtha was an Indian Buddhist monk and scholar who went to China and translated a number of Buddhist texts into Chinese. In his biography of Vasubandhu, he provides a detailed account of Vasubandhu’s personal life, his sectarian affiliations, and his major works.