Abhidharma I

As most traditional biographies of the Buddha have it, Sakyamuni spent the last 45 years of his ultimate existence preaching the law (dharma) he had dis­covered in his awakening. Buddhist accounts of the Buddha’s dispensation agree in regarding it as a therapeutic and pragmatic approach to salvation adapted to the language, the religious needs, the social and psychological profiles as well as the intel­lectual capacities of the audience. However, while such “skill in means” (upayakausalya) perfectly suited the needs of

early Buddhism as a missionary religion, it made a consistent and unitaiy account of the Buddhist doctrine difficult to provide, due to the apparent contradictions and competing levels of truth involved by the rhetorical plasticity of the discourses (sutra). In other words, the (as tradition would have it, only apparent) doctrinal diversity of the Buddhist sutras made a situation-independent description of the Buddhist doctrine, not condi­tioned by any particular audience, a desideratum. The Abhidharma may have been

developed in part in a quest to meet this need, well before the sec­tarian fragmentation of the Buddhist community. Since the Buddha’s words were uttered in specific situations, but the truth is context-independent, “Abhidharma texts were considered to be explicit in meaning (nltartha) and the interpretations pre­sented in them were accepted as the authoritative standard by which the sutras, which were only of implicit meaning (neyartha), were to be inter­preted” (Cox, 1995,14).

Origins and Early Development of the Abhidharma

From an early date, the Abhidharma likely served as a vehicle for factional identity, and gradually devel­oped into the privileged expression of Buddhist sec­tarian self-assertion and intersectarian polemics. Many among the extant Abhidharma works, both canonical and commentarial, reflect a clear sense of sectarian identity and contentiousness. However,

there are reasons to believe that these texts, while born in a common project, underwent a complex development both before and after the emergence of sects (Cox, 1998,145; Analayo, 2014,13). According to C. Cox (1998,142), early Abhidharma likely con­sisted not in a set of individual texts such as those we now possess, “but rather [in] a type of exegesis that gradually developed in tandem with distinctive content, and eventually resulted in an independent branch of inquiry and a concomitant and separate genre of texts.” Originally, teachings could have been

presented orally in an abbreviated form appropri­ate for oral transmission, together with an atten­dant elaborating commentary. At the extreme, the texts could be contracted to a “skeleton” or outline format for purposes of preservation in memory and expanded in oral recitation through the insertion of stock descriptive phrases and formulaic patterns. (Cox, 1998,141; Analayo, 2014, 36-37)

This interpretation comes very close to the hypoth­esis proposed recently by Analayo (2014, 55-89), according to whom the early Abhidharma works “seem to have grown out of a common nucleus, which appears to have been mainly discourse quo­tations on central themes... combined with a com­mentarial exegesis.”

According to most Western scholars, Abhi­dharma “evolved from the practice of formulating matrices, or categorizing lists (matrka), of all topics of the teaching arranged according to both numeric and qualitative criteria” (Cox, 1995, i8-ign2g; Analayo, 2014,22n26). As pointed out by Analayo, the term matrka derives from matr, “mother,” and conveys the sense of a succinct list or summary which can be expanded and serve as the skeleton for a detailed exposition. A textual matrka is thus comparable to a “mother” in the sense that it can give birth to a full exposition of a particular topic. (Analayo, 2014,20-21)

This includes, on the one hand, “lists containing fun­damental concepts under which it was attempted to subsume all the various elements,” and on the other hand, “attribute-matrkds” reflecting a method “consisting of composing a list of attributes and discussing the nature of the relevant elements with the aid of this list” (Frauwallner, 1995, 4-

5). Examples of the first type of matrix include the five constituents or aggregates (skandha, i.e., corporeal­ity [[[rupa]]], feeling [[[vedana]]], conception [[[samjna]]], conditioning factors [[[samskara]]], bare cognition [[[vijnana]]]), whereas examples of the second type are supplied by dyads (but also triads, tetrads, etc.) such as corporeal/incorporeal (rupin/arupiri), vis­ible/invisible (sanidarsana/anidarsana), and con- ditioned/unconditioned (samskrtalasamskrta). An important taxonomic list or “meta-list” (Ronkin, 2005, 27) consists of the 37 “limbs of awakening” (bodhipaksikadharma). As Analayo points out,

“[tjhis basic list [covers] the mental qualities that tradition considers crucial for progress to awakening; and it is this matrka which accord­ing to the Mahaparinirvana-sutra was taught by the Buddha just before his passing away, and the matrka that the Pasadika-sutta and the Samagama- sutta... recommend for ensuring communal har­mony. (Analayo, 2014,50)

The limbs of awakening include:

1. four applications of mindfulness (smrty- upasthana)-, 2. four right exertions (samyak-prahanalpradhana')-, 3. four bases of supernatural ability (rddhipdda)-, 4. five faculties (indrfya); 5. five powers (balay, 6. seven members of awakening (bodhyanga)-, and 7. the eightfold noble path (aryastangamarga').

These 37 items are variously described as a pre­condition for liberation from the fluxes (asrava, negative pollutants of one’s mental stream), as the cultivation of the path (marg ah hav ana), as the jew­els (ratna) of the dharma, and as the quintessence of the Buddha’s teaching “about which no disagree­ment exists” (Gethin, 1992). According to Analayo, of decisive influence on the evolving Abhidharma must have been attempts made

to be as comprehensive as possible, to supple­ment the directives given in the early discourses for progress on the path with a full picture of all aspects of the path in an attempt to provide a complete map of everything in some way related to the path...Equipped with a complete map of the doctrine, the disciples are fortified in their struggle for survival in competition with non-Buddhist teachers and in their attempts to maintain harmony within the Buddhist fold. (Analayo, 2014,168)

This drive towards giving a comprehensive inven­tory of all that there is may have been meant as a symbolic counterpart of the Buddha’s omniscience (Analayo, 2014, 94,109). This pre- or proto-Abhidharmic “taxonomic organization through lists or matrices” (Cox, 1995, 9) is visible in sutras using lists to summarize the Buddha’s teaching, such as the Sangltisutra and the Dasottarasutra, both of which arrange their items numerically (from ones/monads to tens/ decads and ten-times-ten, respectively) and the Arthavistarasutra, which organizes its elements thematically (Analayo, 2014, 29-39; n°te that the three sutras are ascribed to the Buddha’s great dis­ciple and “Abhidharma specialist” Sariputra;

Migot, 1954, 519-532). In addition, numerical and topi­cal arrangement was not only meant to organize individual sutras, but also to “dictate the structure of entire collections of sutras’’ (Cox, 1995, 9), the most famous examples being the Anguttaranikaya or Ekottarikagama grouping, in which the sutras are classified according to the increasing num­ber of the doctrinal items they deal with, and the Samyuttanikaya or Samyuktagama, in which the sutras are organized according to their respective topics. Recent scholarship on the origins of Abhi­dharma insists, however, that the use of lists, which may have characterized the Vinaya (monastic dis­cipline) and especially the Pratimoksa (disciplin­ary

precepts) at least as much as the Abhidharma, cannot be considered specific to Abhidharma, and should rather be interpreted as a common feature of oral transmission (Cox, 1995, 8; Analayo, 2014, 22-28,83). In another reference to the wider cultural context, for E. Frauwallner (1995, 40), the Buddhist mdtrkas likely were an answer to the Brahmanical sutras, concisely formulated rules such as those that can be found in the works of various philosophical schools or in grammatical works, and which, like the matrkas, require an explanation to be understood.

According to another hypothesis, the origin of Abhidharma is not simply to be found in this taxo­nomic approach, but “in dialogues concerning the doctrine (abhidharmakathd), or monastic discus­sion in cateche tic style characterized by an exchange of questions and interpretative answers intended to clarify complex or obscure points of doctrine” (Cox, 1995, 8; Kimura, 1968, 27-43; Sakurabe, 1969,13-29). This hypothesis of the origins of Abhidharma in a certain question and answer format is certainly not incompatible with the idea that it arose from matri­ces used to organize concepts, since [t]he tendency toward organization represented by matrka and that toward discursive explana­tion represented by abhidharmakatha together constitute the exegetical method characteristic of mature Abhidharma analysis, and both tenden­cies are found in incipient form in Abhidharma treatises from the earliest period onward. (Cox, 1995, 9)

We must remember, however, that whatever we understand to be the origin of Abhidharma, these origins are not the Abhidharma per se: the two main approaches that have been con­sidered as explaining the coming into being of the Abhidharma - the use of matrkas and the question-and-answer format - are features that are not in themselves necessarily characteristic of Abhidharma thought, however much they may have contributed to its formulation. (Analayo, 2014,28)

Meaning and Function of the Abhidharma

The meaning of the word abhidharma and its two components, the prefix abhi and the substantive dharma, seems to have changed according to schol­arly milieu, time and place. The northern Indian scholiasts understand abhi in the sense of “with regard to” and dharma in the sense of “teaching,” the compound expression thus meaning “with regard to the

teaching,” that is, the study of the Bud­dha’s teaching. This usage seems to be well docu­mented in early Pali literature as well as in most early discourses’ understanding of the expression abhidharma (Analayo, 2014, 70-79 and 7on4g). The later Pali commentators seem to favor an interpre­tation of abhi as “highest,” “further,” and of dharma as “teaching,” that is already listed in the important commentary *Abhidharma Mahavibhdsa (T. 1545 [XXVII] 4bi3; Analayo, 2014, 15:0165). According to this second interpretation, abhidharma consists in the highest or supreme teaching, “that which goes beyond what is given in the Buddha’s discourses, in a sense somewhat reminiscent of the term ‘meta­physics’”

(Ronkin, 2005, 26). Both interpretations are represented in the Chinese translations of the word: whereas early renderings such as wuhija (f[fl±;Tj reflect an interpretation of abhi as “high­est” or “beyond compare,” translations such as duifa (W>£) and xiangfa (|n]j£) rely on an under­standing of abhi in the sense of “directed toward” (Cox, 1995,16m, i6n7). The great commentator and Abhidharma master Vasubandhu (350-430 Ce[?]) understands abhi in the sense of “directed toward,” “facing” {abhimukha), but dharma in the sense

of either nirvana (the supreme dharma) or the numer­ous individual factors of existence making up the world of ordinary experience (AKBh. 2,10-11; AKVy. g,i8ff.). The Vibhdsa compendia, a series of funda­mental Abhidharma commentaries, list 24 interpre­tations of the word (Watanabe, 1983, 23-24). These fall under three major categories: (1) the Abhi­dharma “enables one to discriminate and analyze the factors according to their generic and particu­lar inherent characteristics”; (2) it “enables one to suppress non-Buddhist or false Buddhist doctrines and establish the true teaching” (see Analayo, 2014, 124-125); (3) it “enables one to remove defilements and progress along the path” (T. 1545 [XXVII] 4ai2ff.; T. 1546 [XXVIII] 3C4ff.; T. 1547 [XXVIII] 4i8aiff.; Cox, 1995,4).

These exegetical, expositoiy(/apologetic) and sote- riological meanings of abhidharma are well in tune with the six functions ascribed to the Abhidharma by the early *Aryavasumitrabodhisattvasanglti (T. 1549 [XXVIII] 733ai6ff.; Cox, 1995, 4). Considered in an exegetical perspective, the Abhidharma “enables one to discriminate the meaning or nature of dharmas as presented in the sutras.” In its expository func­tion, the Abhidharma “enables one to cultivate the four noble truths,” “enables one to realize the twelve members of dependent origination and depend­ently originated factors,” and “expounds the mean­ing of the eightfold noble path.” These three aspects have strong soteriological overtones and obviously impinge upon the properly gnostic and cathartic, hence salvational, dimensions of the Abhidharma. Considered in this perspective, the Abhidharma can be

defined as “that which analyzes and describes the causes of the various factors instmmental in the com­plete cessation of defilements” and “that through the cultivation of which one attains nirvana.” The factor the cultivation of which brings about nirvana is none other than insight or discernment (prajha). This sixth function of the Abhidharma thus comes very close to a definition provided by the Vibhasa compendia and accepted by most later authorities, that is, Abhidharma as the controling faculty of pure (andsrava)

insight together with “that which furthers, is associated with, or contains this pure insight,” hence the Abhidharma treatises them­selves (T. 1545 [XXVII] 2C23; T. 1546 [XXVIII] 2C27ff.; T. 1547 [XXVIII] 4i7b3ff.; also AKBh. 2,3ff.; AKVy. 8,ioff.; T. 1562 [XXIX] 32ga2gff.). These various func­tions must be considered as a whole, however, for through [the] exercise of completely describing the character of each factor in every instance of its occurrence, the factors of which experience is composed can be seen as they actually are, the misconceptions obscuring our perception of experience can be discarded, the factors obstruct­ing and ensnaring us can be abandoned, and the factors contributing toward liberation can be iso­lated and cultivated. (Cox, 1995,12)

The numerous functions of the Abhidharma are per­haps best described in a well-known passage from the canonicalSarvastivada Vijhdnakdya(seebelow): Abhidharma is the light of the true doctrine; with­out Abhidharma treatises, one would not be able to destroy the darkness surrounding what is to be known by knowledge. Abhidharma functions as the pure eye within the mind, as the basis of all knowledge; it is the sun illuminating the for­est of things to be known, the sword that destroys heretical texts; it constitutes the authority for those who open the eyes of sentient beings and is the womb of the Tathagatas; it is the illumination in the three realms, the path of the eye of insight; it is the light of all factors and the ocean of the Buddha’s words; it is able to issue forth high­est insight and to remove all doubts. (T. 1539 [XXVI] 531813-17; trans. Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, v)

Authenticating the Abhidharma

We do not know whether all groups once pos­sessed their own Abhidharma corpus, but once the exegetical inquiry that was typical of the earliest, pre-sectarian Abhidharma had crystallized into sect-specific textual corpora, the authentication of these scriptures became an important task for those Buddhist denominations that did possess them (Lamotte, 1976, 197-210; Davidson, 1990, 303-305). The most radical attitude in this regard is the Theravada view, according to which the newly awak­ened and omniscient Buddha grasped (adJugata) and collated (yicita) the seven Abhidhamma books under the Bodhi tree and subsequently taught them to his mother Maya in the Trayastrimsa (Pal. Tavatimsa, “Thirty-

three”) heaven during a three-mo nth rain retreat. Every evening, the Buddha descended to Lake Anavatapta (Pal. Anotattha) and repeated the day’s lesson to his disciple Sariputta who, having “laid down the numerical series in order to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law,” taught it in turn to 500 disciples (As I.16; Buswell & Jaini, 1996,80,18-21). This Theravada position was challenged by those who claimed that the Kathavatthu, one of the seven treatises alleg­edly preached by the Buddha in the Trayastrimsa heaven, had been composed by the elder Moggali- puttatissa on the occasion of the Second Council at Pataliputra (3rd cent. bce). As an answer, the ortho­dox Theravadins claimed that while preaching to his mother, the Buddha had contented himself with expounding a mdtrka of the Kathavatthu, foreseeing thatMoggaliputtatissawould develop the treatise in full in Pataliputra (As I.3—6; Lamotte, 1976,201).

While admitting that their seven Abhidharma treatises ultimately went back to the Buddha, the Sarvastivadins and especially the Vaibhasikas rec­ognized that the treatises in question had been collected and organizedby great disciples ofthe Bud­dha, or, alternatively, that they had been ascertained by later scholiasts such as Katyayaniputra thanks to their pranidhijhana, “a transtemporal intuition resulting from the power of their vows... by which they [were] able to perceive past and future events” (Cox, 1995, 171119). Yasomitra (AKVy. 12,2-7) offers an analogy to the authenticity of the canonicity of the Abhidharma, referring to the Vaibhasika claim that the case is comparable to that of Dharmatrata collecting the udanas (aphorisms) uttered by the blessed one to create the Udanavarga. Likewise,

[persons] such as the elder Katyayaniputra gath­ered and fixed the Abhidharma that had been uttered here and there by the Blessed One in works such as the Jhanaprasthana for the sake of the trainees, the Abhidharma which consists in an instruction on the characteristics of the factors.

These disciples of the Buddha contented them­selves, in this scenario, with adding summariz­ing stanzas (uddana), dividing the teaching into chapters (skandhaka), and so forth. This strategy of authentication likely was facilitated by the fact that the name of the scholiast Katyayaniputra (variously dated to the late 1st, to the 3rd, or to the 5th cent, after nirvana by Buddhist authorities) was very similar to that of Katy ay ana, a prominent disci­ple of the Buddha considered to have played a signif­icant role at the First Council at Rajagrha (Katyayana was also famous for having picked out the quintes­sence of the dharma and submitted this work to the Buddha, who approved it and labelled it the “supreme law,” abhidharma-, Lamotte, 1976, 208; Przyluski, 1926, 201, 303). In this picture, the Sarvastivadin “six-membered Abhidharma” (satpadabhidharma, i. e., the Jndnaprasthd.no. - the body [sarlra] - and its six ancillary treatises) was conceived of as the (editorial) work of great disciples of the Buddha or later authors: Mahamaudgalyayana, Sariputra, Mahakausthila, Vasumitra, Devasarman and Katyayana/Katyayaniputra (see below).

Moving yet a step further, the Sautrantikas are said to have denied the Abhidharma any indepen­dent authority and regarded the sutras alone as authoritative, whence their name (AKVy. 11,29-30). According to them, the Abhidharma treatises were nothing but human compositions. The early 5th-century Vaibhasika scholiast Sarighabhadra records at least three reasons why his Sautrantika opponent Vasubandhu (350-430 ce?) rejected the Buddha’s authority of the Abhidharma works (T. 1562 [XXIX] 32gc6ff.; Honjo, 2010, 181-187):

(1) these treatises are traditionally ascribed to dis- ciples/authors such as Katyayana/Katyayaniputra,

(2) the Buddha has advised Ananda to rely (pratisarana) on the sutras and not on the abhidharma (T. 1562 [XXIX] 329C20-21), and (3) the Abhi dharmas of the different Buddhist denominations exhibit contradictory positions on one and the same ques­tion (for Sarighabhadra’s refutation of the views of Vasubandhu, see Cox, 1995, 6-7). The Dlpavamsa’s (V.37) Mahasarigltikas also regarded the Abhid­harma as not the word of the Buddha.

Needless to say, one of the most decisive crite­ria for scriptural authorization was the recitation- cum-compilation of a given text or group of texts by a great disciple of the Buddha during the First Council, held in Rajagrha immediately after the death of the master. According to the Vinayas of the Theravadins, the Mahisasakas, and the Mahasarighikas (resp. Vin. ii.287; T. 1421 [XXII] igiac; T. 1425 [XXII] 491C16), the monks assembled in Rajagrha contented themselves with reciting, after Ananda and Upali, the dharma and the

Vinaya, “the law and the discipline,” no mention being made of the Abhidharma as an independent third “basket” (Kimura, 1968, 27-28). According to Analayo (2014, 18), “the accounts of the fixstsahglti [communal rec­itation] in these Vinayas seem to have been finalized at a time when the Abhidharma had not yet become a collection in its own right.” Other sources such as the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya and the Asokavadana ascribe the compilation of a mdtrkd to the conve­ner of the first council, Mahiikasyapa (resp. T. 1451 [XXIV] 4o8b2-u; T. 2042 [L] 113C3-4; T. 2043 [L] 15235). However, most sources agree that Ananda himself recited an Abhidharmapitaka of various length (including mdtrkas alone) in Rajagrha. This is true of, among many others, the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas (T. 1428 [XXII] g68b25-26), the Vinayamdtrka of the Haimavatas (T. 1463 [XXIV] 8i8a28-2g), and late Pali commentaries (Sv I.17; As I.3; Smp I.18). According to the Sarvastivada Vinaya (T. 1435 [XXIII] 44gaig), upon being asked by Mahakasyapa, Ananda revealed that the Buddha had taught the Abhidharma in Sravasti, and that “[t]he teaching given at that time was that breaches of the five precepts are conducive to rebirth in hell, whereas keeping the five precepts leads to a heav­enlyrebirth” (Analayo, 2014,19).

Extant Abhidharma Texts

Only the Theravada has preserved a complete Abhidhammapitaka in an Indian language (Pali), while the seven canonical abhidharma treatises of the Sarvastivadins have come down to us almost completely in Chinese translation. A very small portion of them is available in Tibetan, while a few scattered Sanskrit fragments have been preserved (Dietz, 2004). Only minute fragments of canonical Abhidharma texts of sects other than Theravada and Sarvastivada have been preserved: some mate­rials presumably belonging to the Kasyapiya tradi­tion are attested (Cox, 2014), and fragments from the *Sdriputrdbhidharma have been identified in the Schoyen collection (see below).

Theravada canonical Abhidhamma

In style and language, the Theravada Abhidhamma texts markedly differ from the Vinayapitaka and Suttapitaka (von Hiniiber, 1996, § 137). Short ques­tions and answers as well as many formulas often similar to those found in the Niddesa characterize the Abhidhamma literature. The Abhidhammapitaka and its parts are mentioned under this name for the first time in the Milindapahha (12,21-13,7). there is no corresponding paragraph in the Chinese Nagasenabhiksusutra, the Chinese version of the Milindapahha, the reference to this text may have been inserted only in Ceylon (von Hiniiber, 1996, § 179). The Theravada Abhidhammapitaka con­sists of the seven texts listed and briefly described below.

Dhammasangani

The Theravada Abhidhammapitaka begins with the Dhammasangani (alternative title Dhammasangaha; Collection of Dhammas; the form Abhidhamma- sahgani found in some early manuscripts is a mis­nomer). The structure of the text is discussed at length by E. Frauwallner (1995,53-86). The absence of the traditional introduction (nh/ana) “Thus have I heard...” in a text considered the “word of the Buddha” (buddhavacand) created a problem for Buddhist exegetes. The issue is discussed in the com­mentary, where various attempts to add a nidana are mentioned (As 30,16-31,16). Usually, the Bud­dha is reported to have recited the Abhidhamma in heaven to his deceased mother and to the gods (see above), and later to have handed it down to Sariputta (a list of the sequence of teachers and pupils from Sariputta up to Mahinda is found in As 32,12-20). Certain manuscripts of the Dhammasangani even insert “At one time the Lord was residing among the Tavatimsa gods...” in front of the matika with which the text begins. This abhidhammamatika or “abhidhamma list,” which also occurs in other Theravada Abhidhamma texts, comprises the con­cepts kusala “salutary, (morally) good,” akusala “(morally) bad,” and abyakata “undetermined,” immediately followed by the suttantamatika or “sut- tanta (sutra) list,” which is largely based on concepts taken over from the Sahgltisuttanta (i.e. suttanta no. 33 of the Dighanikaya, Analayo, 2014,29-37). The t('xt that follows (Dhammasangani §§ 1-1599) expands and explains the matikas. It is divided into four sec­tions (kanday. (1) Cittuppadakanda (§§ 1-582; Sec­tion on the Arising of Thoughts), (2) Rupakanda (§§ 584-980, with another matika, §§ 584-594; Sec­tion on Matter), (3) Nikkhepakanda (§§ 981-1367; Summary Section), and (4) Atthuddharakanda (§§ 1368-1599; Commentary Section). The titles of the sections are slightly different in the commentary (As 6,13-7,9). As the matikas located at the begin­ning of the text are discussed in sections 3 and 4 only, it is clear that sections 1 and 2 are later addi­tions. The Dhammasangani is considered the young­est of the texts assembled in the Abhidhammapitaka (Frauwallner, 1995,53).

Vibhanga

Although the Vibhanga (Explanation; Frauwall­ner, 1995, 43-48; von Hiniiber 1996, §§ 138-139) does not begin with a matika, it presupposes such a list, which can indeed be reconstructed from the text itself. Usually the starting point is old canoni­cal lists such as the five khandhas (ntpakhandha, vedanakhandha, sahhakhandha, sahkharakhandha, vihhanakhandha, “the aggregates matter (body), feeling, perception, conditioning factors, conscious­ness”) or the twelve ayatanas “spheres (of percep­tion),” that is, eye/visible object, ear/sound, and so forth, up to mind/mental object and so forth. Thus the Vibhanga systematizes older material drawn from the Suttapitaka. The text is divided into 18 chapters with chapters 1-6 and 7-15 forming two units expanding on two matikas. The last three chapters were originally sep­arate Abhidhamma treatises which were subsequently included into the Vibhanga. The arrangement of chapter 16 (Nanavibhahga-, Explanation of Knowl­edge) and chapter 17 (Khuddakavatthuvibhahga-, Explanation on the Small Items) follows the same numerical principle as the Ahguttaranikaya with groups of 1-10,18,36,72, of which only the first refers to Abhidhamma matters. Chapter 18 (Dhamma- hadayavibhahga; Explanation of the Heart of the Teaching) also begins with a matika of its own comprising, again, the five khandhas, the twelve ayatanas, and so forth. This chapter could be identi­cal with the Mahadhammahadaya, which, accord­ing to the Atthasalim, was considered as a possible candidate to replace the allegedly noncanonical Kathavatthu (see above).

The Vibhanga shows many similarities with the Dharmaskandha, thus connecting early Theravada and Sarvastivada Abhidharma (Analayo, 2014, 88; see also below). It is generally considered the oldest text in the Abhidhammapitaka.

Dhatukatha

The Dhatukatha (Discussion of the Elements; Frauwallner, 1995, 48f.; von Hiniiber, 1996, § 140) is a brief text which starts from matikas of con­cepts similar to those found in the Vibhanga. The Dhatukatha bears some similarities with the Sarvastivada Dhatukaya and both may ultimately go back to the same origin (see below). The trea­tise owes its title to the fact that it investigates the ways in which different concepts are related to the dhatus or “elements.” These elements are systemati­cally analyzed as to whether they are included or not (samgahltalasamgalutd), associated or dissociated (sampayuttalvipayuttd), in a fourfold way: “included with non-included,” “non-included with included,” “included with included,” and “non-included with non-included.” This in a way anticipates methods of analysis fully developed only in later Buddhist scholasticism.

Puggalapannatti

The Puggalapannatti (Concept of Person; Frauwall­ner, 1995,49ff.; von Hiniiber, 1996, § 141-143; Analayo, 2014,52ff.) begins with a matika partly based on the abhidhammamatika (see above). Various types of puggalas or "individuals, persons” are listed in groups from 1 to 10. This makes the text formally close to the Ahguttaranikaya and particularly to the Dasuttara- suttanta (DN no. 34). When the compiler of the Puggalapannatti drew material from the Suttapitaka, particularly from the Anguttaranikaya, he effaced the original “remembered orality” (von Hiniiber, 1996, § 55) by removing the address bhikkhave, “0 monks,” and so on, thus assimilating the text to the Abhidhamma style. Because he limited his effort to reassembling the materials, it is impossible to assign to the text a place in the history of Abhidhamma. In spite of a similarity in title, the Puggalapannatti, which has no parallels outside Theravada, is entirely different from the Sarvastivada Prajhaptisastra (see below).

Kathavatthu

The Kathavatthu (Text Dealing with Disputes; Frau- wallner, 1995,86ff.; von Hiniiber, 1996, § 144-151; for a Japanese translation, see Sato, 1991) is the only part of the Abhidhammapitaka traditionally dated (to the time of Asoka, 218 years after the nirvana) and ascribed to an author, Moggaliputtatissa, who is reported to have explained and expanded a matika of the Kathavatthu originally uttered by the Buddha in heaven (see above). This assumption was made to save the canonicity of the text, which was not beyond doubt (As 3,25-29; 6,1-12). In structure and content, the Kathavatthu, which consists of strictly formalized questions and answers, is quite different from the other Abhidhamma texts, because about 200 (according to tradition 500) controversial points of the Buddha’s teaching are discussed (McDermott, 1975; Ganeri, 2001). The different views are ascribed to specific Buddhist schools by the commentary, which may be separated from the oldest parts of the Kathavatthu by more than half a millennium. Although some parts of the Kathavatthu seem very old, in particular the discussion on the puggala or "person,” which exhibits ancient linguistic fea­tures (Norman, 1979) and is close in content to the Sarvastivada Vijhanakaya (Bronkhorst, 1993), the specific structure of the text easily allows for addi­tions, which are difficult to discern, as remarked long ago by La Vallee Poussin (1922,520).

Yamaka

The Yamaka (Pairs; Frauwallner, 1995, 51-53; von Hiniiber, 1996, § i52ff.) is a huge text which would cover about 2500 pages if it were printed in full. According to tradition, it is 25 times longer than the Majjhimanikaya. As suggested by E. Frauwall­ner, the title was chosen because two things form a pair when the second thing originates from the first. The fairly complicated structure of the Yamaka is explained in detail at the beginning of the commen­tary. All pairs are discussed at great length with all imaginable combinations being enumerated, which inspired the following remark to Frauwallner (1995, 53): “This is a particularly glaring example of how an intrinsically interesting problem can be inflated to the point of inanity using the Abhidharma method.” Still, a later Theravada Abhidhamma text contends: “The text is succinct to the extreme” (Mohavicchedanl 279,14).

Patthana

The Patthana (Basis [of All Other Abhidhamma Texts]; Frauwallner, 1995, soff.; von Hiniiber, 1996, § 154 ff.), also known as Mahapakarana (Large Trea­tise), is by far the longest text in the Tipitaka. While explaining the title, the commentary even states that the actual length of the text is incalculable. All editions therefore abbreviate, that of the Pali Text Society into two volumes; to gain a better picture, it is imperative to use the five-volume Burmese edi­tion (still abbreviated considerably!). The Patthana begins with the section on Tika or triads followed by the section on Duka or dyads (arranged in the wrong order in the Pali Text Society edition). The Patthana, which tries to

comprehensively explain causal­ity and thus, in the traditional understanding, to facilitate the use of the suttantas for Abhidhamma specialists, does not provide any new insights but endlessly invents new possible combinations of concepts: “method has replaced genuine thought” (Frauwallner, 1995,51). One canonical Theravada Abhidhamma text is found in the Tipitaka, but outside the Abhidhamma­pitaka: the Patisambhiddmagga (also called simply Patisambhida-, Path of Discrimination; Frauwallner, 1995, 87-89; von Hiniiber, 1996, § 119-120). It is the only canonical Theravada Abhidhamma text included in the Khuddakanikaya of the Suttapitaka, which seems to have been the only part of the Tipitaka still open for additions at the time when the Patisambhiddmagga was created. The commentary ascribes this work to

Sariputta. According to the Dlpavamsa (Chronicle of the Island [[[Ceylon]]]; V.37), the Patisambhidamagga was rejected during the Second Council by the Mahasanghikas, who would certainly never accept this typical Theravada text; the Dlpavamsa’s assertion, moreover, is a glaring anachronism. The Patisambhidamagga consists of various texts apparently put together more or less at random. Only the first part, the Nanakatha (Discussion on Knowledge), which originally might have been a separate work, begins with a matika; the other parts quote and comment on canonical suttantas. This text, which may have been put together in the 2nd century ce, is perhaps the first attempt to create a systematic handbook of Abhidhamma and is as such a forerunner of Upa- tissa’s Vimuttimagga (Path to Liberation) and Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga (Path to Purity; Frauwallner, 1995,89-95;von Hiniiber, 1996, § 245- 250). While the Visuddhimagga became the basic handbook for Theravada (Mahavihara) orthodoxy, the Vimuttimagga enjoyed a wide international rec­ognition, being still in use in 12th-century Bengal (Skilling, 1987, 7,15).

Sarvastivada Canonical Abhidharma

Only a tiny percentage of the canonical Abhidharma texts of the Sarvastivada survive in an Indic language. With one exception (the Prajhapti), all are extant in Xuanzang’s (ZZJJkJ Chinese translations; two (the Prakaranapdda and theJhanaprasthana) have been translated twice into Chinese. Three sections of the Prajhapti are available in Tibetan translation, and one section survives in an 11th-century Chi­nese translation by Dharmapala (Fahu [>JS]) and Wejing ('ffelp-). The titles of the seven Sarvastivada canonical treatises, together with their Tibetan and Chinese equivalents, are as follows:

1. Sahgltiparyaya; ’Gro ba’i mam grangs;Jtyimen zulun (1! A'f'f'd" J; T. 1536; trans. Xuanzang); 2. Dharmaskandha; Chos kyi phung po; Fayun zulun T. 1537; trans. Xuanzang); 3. Prajhaptisastra; Btags pa; Shishe zulun (M!& £giw; T. 1538; trans. Dharmapala); 4. Vijnanakaya; Rnam par shes pa’i tshogs; Shishen zulun (IB#Jgjw; T. 1539; trans. Xuan­zang); 5. Dhatukaya; *Khams kyi tshogs; Jieshen zulun (fr-Q.tuK; T. 1540; trans. Xuanzang); 6. Prakarana(pdda); Rab tu byedpa; Pinleizulun (i'u'A/iLm; T. 1542; trans. Xuanzang)/Zhong shifen apitan tun (##/ ?-:■[ “ T. 1541; trans. Gunaprabha and Bodhiyasas); and 7. Jhdnaprasthanal*Astaskandhaka; Ye shes la Jug pa; Fazhi lun (##iw; T. 1544; trans. Xuan­zang) /BaJiandu lun (AWSliw; T. 1543; trans. Sanghadeva, Zhu Fonian, and Dharmapriya)

Since the Jhanaprasthana was recognized as the most important Abhidharma text, it came to be known as “the body-treatise (kayasastra),” whereas the other canonical texts were referred to as its “six feet” (satpdda), the seven canonical Sarvastivada treatises being referred to collectively as the “Abhidharmawith six ieet” (satpdddbhidharma). This usage, which is not attested in the Vibhdsa compen­dia, finds its first known occurrence in apostscript to the Chinese translation of the *Astaskandhasdstra (T. 1543 [XXVI] 887319-24) written in 379 or 390 ce, very close in time to Kumarajiva, whose translations of the Mahaprajhaparamitopadesa (T. 1509) and the *Tattvasiddhi (T. 1646) men­tion the

satpdddbhidharma without stating which individual texts are meant (Watanabe, 1954, 36ff.; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 160-162). Sthira- mati’s commentary on the Abhidharmakosa, the Tattvartha, however, does not regard the Dhatukaya as a canonical Abhidharma text, and thus enumer­ates a total of only six treatises (D 4421, tho 32432/ P 5875, tho giai). Purnavardhana’s Laksananusarinl (D 4092, cu 324a2/P 5594, Ju 38ob4) does like­wise. This may explain the absence of citations of the Dhatukaya in important texts such as the Mahavibhdsa (Cox, 1998, i6on6o; see below) and the Abhidharmakosa (Hirakawa, 1973). When cited in the Abhidharmakosa, the six treatises are called sastras (benlun [#lw] )• The chronology of the seven treatises is difficult to assess. According to Puguang (# Jc, T. 1821 [XLI] 8b24f.), the chronological sequence of the seven treatises is as follows: Sahgltiparyaya, Dharmaskandha and Praihaptisastra (written/edited by direct disciples of the Buddha), Vijhanakaya (1st cent, after nirvana), Prakaranapdda and Dhatukaya (early 3rd cent, after nirvana), andJhanaprasthana (late 3rd cent, after nirvana; Cox, 1995, 47^5). E. Frauwallner (1995,13-14) was inclined to accept this relative chronology. Sahgltiparyaya or *Abhidharinasahgltiparyayapddasastra

The Sahgltiparyaya, ascribed to Mahakausthila and Sariputra in the Indian and Tibetan (Yasomitra, Bu ston) and the Chinese traditions respectively (Cox, 1998,177nii4), is a commentary on the Sahgltisutra, a discourse that, in increasing numerical order (from one to ten), lists 205 major concepts, for example, the three kinds of training (siksa),

the four noble truths (aryasatya), and the five aggregates (skandha-, Cox, 1998,179; for another, Gandhari commentary on the Sahgltisutra, see Cox, 2014, 36-39; on a San­skrit folio of the Sangltiparyaya in the Schoyen col­lection, see Matsuda, 2002, 239m). The frame story of the treatise relates how disputes and schisms arose in the Jaina community after the Jina’s death due to differing interpretations of the doctrine, and how Sariputra, in order to prevent similar dis­putes within the Buddhist community, recited a systematic collection of the Buddhist doctrinal concepts and how the Buddha approved of and endorsed Sariputra’s recital. (Waldschmidt, 1955, 299,309-314)

This treatise is generally regarded as the earliest Sarvastivada Abhidharma text; its historical impor­tance lies in the fact that it marks “the onset of a com- mentarial genre that was to form the Abhidharma” (Cox, 1998,178). Although the Sangltiparyaya shows nonsectarian features common to ancient Bud­dhism, one can find the concept of "cessation

through non-intelligence” {apratisamkhyanirodha). This notion (in Abhidharma technical vocabulary, this dharma) is characteristic of the Sarvastivada (a denomination that is mentioned at the end of each of the 20 chapters) in that it presupposes the theory that the past, the future, and the present exist. (Xuanzang’s Chinese translation is translated into Japanese by Watanabe, 1929, and into Ger­man by Stache-Rosen, 1968 together with the text’s extant Sanskrit fragments; newly found fragments of this text are included in Matsuda, 2006; English summaries of the work are available in Frauwallner, 1995,14-15; Potter, 1996,203-216; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998,67-68; Cox, 1998,177-181.) Dharmaskandha or *Abhidharmadharmaskandhapadasastra

The Dharmaskandha, which, together with the Sangltiparyaya, belongs to the earliest stage of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma treatises, is considered in the Indian tradition to have been compiled by the Buddha’s direct disciple Sariputra, while the Chinese tradition ascribes it to Maudgalyayana (Cox, 1998, i8ini26). The full text is extant only in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation. The treatise is also known through 22 Sanskrit folios from a Mulasarvastivada recension found in Gilgit (Dietz, 1985), which cover about 20 percent of the text. This Sanskrit recension, which seems to differ in structure from the Chinese version, has been edited by S. Dietz (1984) and supplemented by K. Matsuda

(1986). The treatise consists of 21 chapters (Frauwallner, 1995, 16-17), at the beginning of each of which is quoted a sutra, followed by explanations of the sutra’s important concepts. E. Frauwallner (1995, 15-21) divides the treatise into three sections. The first section com­prises 15 chapters providing detailed expositions on the “path to liberation” and various issues of reli­gious praxis. The second section consists wholly of chapter 16, which deals with 78 defilements and is entitled ksudravastuka (“miscellany”; zashi [®3JS])- The third section includes the remaining five chap­ters dealing with basic doctrinal concepts such as the 22 faculties {indriya), 12 bases

(dyatana), 5 aggre­gates (skandha), 62 elements (dhatu), and depen­dent origination {pratltyasamutpdda). Similarities between the Dharmaskandha, the Pali Vibhahga, and the *Sdriputrdbhidharmasdstra (T. 1548) have been pointed out by various scholars (Fukuhara, 1965, 110-112, Frauwallner, 1995, 17-20). According to E. Frauwallner, the Sarvastivada Dharmaskandha and the Theravada Vibhahga, “two versions of the same work,” go back to a common ancestor pre­dating Asoka’s missions; both of them “represent a step toward the composition of truly analytical and scholastic treatises independent of the sutras” (Cox, 1998,187). Let it be noted that the Dharmaskandha is to be credited with the all-important distinction between the path of vision (darsanamarga) and the path of cultivation {bhavanamarga), which would structure all subsequent Sarvastivada, Sautrantika, and Mahayanist accounts of the path to liberation. (We owe an annotated Japanese translation to Watanabe, 1930a; English summaries and discus­sions include Frauwallner, 1995,15-21; Potter, 1996, 179-187; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 68-70; Cox, 1998,181-189.)

Prajnaptisastra or *Abhidharmaprajhaptipadasastra

The Prajnaptisastra, ascribed to Maudgalyayana in India and to Mahakatyayana in China (Cox, 1998, i8gni43), is considered the latest of the three Sarvastivada treatises belonging to this early stage of the overall development of Abhidharma litera­ture (Sakurabe, 1969, 46). This treatise presents a sutra quotation at the beginning of each of the chapters, followed by an account of various topics in question-and-answer form. Given the high num­ber of its quotations in the Mahavibhasa (145), the Prajnaptisastra likely

“served as a handy sourcebook of succinct identifications, definitions, and canoni­cal references on a variety of topics” (Cox, 1998,197). The Prajnaptisastra surviving in Tibetan transla­tion possesses three sections: (1) Lokaprajnapti (Instruction on the World; ’Jig rten gdags/btags pa-, D 4086/P 5587) dealing with Buddhist cosmol­ogy, (2) Karanaprajnapti (Instruction about Causes; Rgyugdags/btagspa; D 4087/P 5588) containing an account of the Bodhisattva and the wheel-turning king (cakravartiri), and (3) Karmaprajhapti (Instruc­tion on Karman; Lasgdags/btagspa; D 4088/P 5589).

More than 20 percent of the Lokaprajnapti has been preserved in its original (Cox, 1998, 191) through Sanskrit fragments of Mulasarvastivada provenance (Dietz, 1989). A great majority of the text of the Karanaprajnapti has its counterpart in a seven-fascicle Chinese version (Shishe Lun [Mi&giw]; T. 1538). Louis de La Vallee Poussin (1918, 295-350) has provided an analysis and selected translations of the Tibetan Lokaprajnapti and Karanaprajnapti. In 1922 Taiken Kimura conjectured, on the basis of a close analysis of the

citations of the treatise in the Mahavibhasa, that the Prajnaptisastra may origi­nally have had more subdivisions than the three extant sections. These chapters would have dealt with defilements (anusaya), knowledge (jhana), and meditation {samapatti/samddhi). In the mean­time, references to the titles *Anusayaprajhapti (Phra rgyas btags) and *Namarupaprajhapti /Ming danggzugskyi btags) in Samathadeva’sA/iAZdAarma- kosopayika Tlka have come to light (Honjo, 1998). These references support Taiken Kimura’s sugges­tion

even though, as C. Cox rightly points out (1998, 192), the extent to which these eighth-century mate­rials reflect the original structure of the treatise is difficult to assess. (In 1995 Takumi Fukuda discov­ered, in the library of Doho University, Nagoya, a draft of a full Japanese translation of the three Prajhaptis, completed in 1934 by Sei Kato, a graduate of Otani University, and began to publish it [Fukuda, 1998-2012]; Aohara has begun to publish a Japanese translation of the Karmaprajhapti [Aohara, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014] in the light of Kato’s materials; for a Japanese translation of the Chinese version, see Watanabe, 1930b; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 70-71, and Cox, 1998,189-197, provide useful sum­maries of the text.)

Vijnanakaya or *Abhidharmavijndnakdyapddasastra

The Vijnanakaya is extant only in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation. Unlike the Sahgltiparyaya, the Dharmaskandha, and the Prajnaptisastra, this trea­tise is not ascribed to a direct disciple of the Bud­dha, but to Devasarman (reported to have lived 100 years after the parinirvana and to have been active in Visoka), and it is not a commentary on sutra passages. These features suggest that it is much later than these three treatises. The Vijnanakaya is divided into 6 parts: (1) Maudgalyayana (an oppo­nent of unclear affiliation

claiming that only the present exists), (2) person (pudgala), (3) causes and conditions (hetupratyaya), (4) condition as object-support (dlambanapratyaya), (5) miscellany (samklrna), (6) accompaniment (samanvagama) or possession (prdpli). The first two chapters are polemical, while the other four are systematic, a feature that, together with differences in top­ics, suggests “that the Vijnanakaya is a composite text, perhaps compiled, rather than composed, by Devasarman” (Cox, 1998,198). The first chapter con­tains a controversy on the existence of past, future, and present. The second chapter deals with the existence of the person (pudgala) and exhibits close similarities -with Kathavatthu

I.i (i.e. §§ 1-69). Chap­ters three through six deal with “the nature, arising, operation, and transformation of states of thought or consciousness (vijhana)” (Cox, 1998, 201), a range of topics that accounts for the title of the work. The importance of this highly innovative treatise (Frau- wallner, 1995,30-31) is indicated by the fact that it is cited 39 times in the Mahavibhasa. The Vijnanakaya indeed represents a major change, most conspicu­ously in the direction of a systematic theoiy of cau­sality. (The first two chapters have been rendered into French by La Vallee Poussin, 1925; several parts of the second chapter have been translated into English by Fumimaro Watanabe [Watanabe, 1983, i54ff.]; here as elsewhere, we owe an annotated Japanese translation to Watanabe Baiyu, 1931; English summaries and discussions include Frau- wallner, 1995, 28-31; Potter, 1998, 367-374; Wille­men, Dessein & Cox, 1998,72-73; Cox, 1998,197-205.)

Dhatukaya or *Abhidharmadhdtukdyapadasdstra

The Dhatukaya is extant only in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation. This treatise is ascribed to Purna in India and to Vasumitra in China (Cox, 1998, 2o6mg3), an attribution that may be due to the close connection between the Dhatukaya and the Prakaranapada, which was authored by Vasumitra perhaps in the 4th century after nirvana. The Dhatukaya, a work “of the matrka-type accompanied by an explanatory text” (Frauwallner, 1995, 21), discusses mind (citfa) and mental factors (caitta) in question-and-answer form. This treatise is divided into two parts. In the first part (*mulavastuvarga, “fundamental groups”), 14 groups comprising 91 mental factors are enumer­ated and defined, thus creating, and for the first time, a “system of psychology” (Frauwallner, 1995, 22). The names of these groups with Cox’s English equivalents are as follows (Cox, 1998,208-209):

1. ten factors of great extension {mahabhumika- dharma); 2. en defiled factors of great extension (klesa- mahabhumikadharma); 3. ten factors whose extension is that of limited defilements {parlttaklesabhumikadharma); 4. five defilements (klesa); 5. five views (drsti); 6. five factors {dharma)-, 7. five types of contact (samsparsa); 8. five controlling faculties {indriya); 9. six varieties of perceptual consciousness {vijnanakaya); 10. six varieties of contact (sparsakaya); 11. six varieties of feelings {vedanakaya); 12. six varieties of ideas (samjhdkaya); 13. six varieties of volition (samcetanakaya); and 14. six varieties of craving (trsnakaya).

In the second part (*vibhajyavarga, “analysis,” in 16 sections), these mental factors are analyzed according to two kinds of relations, that is, simulta­neous mental association (samprayoga) and includ- edness (samgraha). The Dhatukaya was largely incorporated into the Prakaranapada (Frauwallner, J995> 25-27). This may explain why this treatise was not cited in the Mahavibhasa or Abhidharmakosa and was not considered canonical by some Indian masters (see above, and Cox, 1998, 207). Whatever the case maybe, “[t]he importance of the Dhatukaya lies in its exclusive focus on mental operations and in its efforts to develop a more abstract classification of, at least, the soteriologically significant mental phenomena” (Cox, 1998, 211). (There is an anno­tated English translation by Ganguly, 1994, with an introduction and a reproduction of the Taisho edi­tion; Watanabe, 1932a, has provided an annotated Japanese translation of the Dhatukaya; English sum­maries and discussions of the work are available in Frauwallner, 1995, 21-28; Potter, 1996, 344-358; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 71-72; Cox, 1998, 206-212.)

Prakaranapada or *Abhidharmaprakaranapadasastra

The Prakaranapada has survived only in two Chi­nese translations: Zhong shifen apitan tun (IS* fyfy T. 1541), translated by Gunabhadra and Bodhiyasas in 435-443 ce, and Apidamo pin­lei zu lun T. 1542), translated

by Xuanzang in 660 ce. Sanskrit fragments from a commentary on the Prakaranapada have been dis­covered in Turfan, which, besides testifying to the fact that the Vibhasas were not the only available commentaries on “canonical” Abhidharma works, seem to reflect a divergent textual structure (Imani- shi, 1975). The first chapter, entitled Pahcavastuka, may largely borrow from an independent text, the *Pahcavastuka, translated into Chinese twice: the Apitan wufaxing jing T. 1557) by

An Shigao (^JtB), and the Sapoduo zung wushi lun (W^****^; T. 1556) by Facheng (;£fy>). This indicates that some chapters of this trea­tise may at first have been composed separately (Cox, 1998, 218). The Prakaranapada is attributed to Vasumitra in both India and China, but the Mahaprajhaparamitopadesa (T. 1509 [XXV] 7oai6f.) attributes only four chapters to Vasumitra (chs. 4-7 according to Frauwallner’s hypothesis), the other four being ascribed to arhats from Kashmir (Cox, 1998,212). It is considered to be the latest and in many ways the most significant of the “six feet” treatises (see above). The work is quoted no less than 106 times in the Mahavibhasa, which at times and quite surprisingly rejects the interpretations of the Jhanaprasthana and chooses those of the Prakaranapada instead (Cox, 1998, 214). The wide reception of the Prakaranapada may be due to its “function as a sourcebook or proto-compendium uniting significant textual materials in a single text” (Cox, 1998,215).

The treatise consists of 8 largely independent chapters:

1. Pahcavastuka (Five Groups; very close to the Pahcavastuka); 2. Juana (Knowledge; very close to the Vijnanakaya); 3. Ayatana (Sense Spheres; very close to the Pahcaskandhaka); 4. Saptavastuka (Seven Groups; very close to the Dhatukaya); 5. Anusaya (Contaminants); 6. Samgrahddi (Includedness Etc.); 7. Sahasrapariprccha (Thousand Question); and 8. Nirvedha (Penetration).

One of the most interesting features of the Prakaranapada is its first chapter on the pahcavas- tuka, “the fivefold classification of factors that would form the foundation of later Sarvastivada classifica­tions of factors” (Cox, 1998, 215). This “method of encompassing and organizing all possible phenom­ena” (Cox, 1998, 220) distributes all factors into cor­poreality (ruga), mind (ci'tta), mind concomitants (cai'tta), factors dissociated from the mind (citta- viprayukta), and unconditioned factors (asamsArta). (There is an annotated Japanese translation of the Prakaranapada by Watanabe, 1932b; English sum­maries include Frauwallner, 1995, 32-36; Potter, 1996, 375-379; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 73; Cox, 1998,212-221.)

Jnanaprasthana or *Abhidharmajhdnaprasthdnasastra

As mentioned above, the Jnanaprasthana is con­sidered the most important of the seven canonical Sarvastivada Abhidharma treatises. This is reflected in the fact that a vast commentary on this trea­tise, the Mahavibhasa, was compiled, comprising 200 fascicles in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation (T. 1545) and generally regarded as “the definitive statement of Sarvastivada Abhidharma exegesis” (Cox, 1998, 229). The Jnanaprasthana is ascribed to Katyayaniputra, whose dates are variously given as 100,300 or even 500 after nirvana (Cox, 1998,221; see also above). Two Chinese translations are extant, one by Sanghadeva, Zhu Fonian (fzEffeif) and Dharmapriya in 30 fascicles (T. 1543; 383 ce), enti­tled *Astagrantha or *Astaskandha(ka), the other by Xuanzang in 20 fascicles (T. 1544; 657-660 ce), entitledJnanaprasthana. The two translations differ in both structure and doctrine and most likely rep­resent distinct Sarvastivada lineages. Sanskrit frag­ments have been discovered in Bamiyan and Kuca (Levi, 1932, Demieville, 1961). The Jnanaprasthana consists of 8 chapters (Jskandhakas) entitled:

1. *Samklrna (Miscellany); 2. *Samyojana (Tetters); 3. Jhana (Knowledge); 4. Karman (Action); 5. Mahabhuta(FundamentalMaterial Elements); 6. Indriya (Controlling Faculties); 7. Samadhi (Concentration); and 8. Drsti (Views).

Explaining the structure of these eight chapters in terms of mutual dependence, the Mahavibhasa (T. 1545 [XXVII] 7a25ff.) states that [t]he first chapter is explained as presenting the factor of enlightenment, which occurs through the abandonment of defilements (Chapter 2). The abandonment of defilements depends on knowl­edge (Chapter 3), and a person who has given up the effects of action (Chapter 4) gives rise to that knowledge that abandons defilements. These varieties of action are dependent upon the four fundamental material elements (Chapter 5), and most prominent among the varieties of derived elements are the controlling faculties (Chapter 6). The purification of the controlling faculties takes place through concentration (Chapter 7), and to practice concentration, one must have sur­mounted false views (Chapter8). (trans. Cox, 1998, 227-228)

(The *Astaskandhaka [T. 1543] has been translated into Japanese with annotations by Nishi Giyu and Sakamoto Yukio, 1934; Xuanzang’s Chinese version of the Jnanaprasthana [T. 1544] has been translated with copious notes and tables by Sakurabe Hajime and Kaji Ybichi, 1996-2000; parts of the work have been translated into French by La Vallee Poussin, 1930; 1936-1937); Hurvitz, 1977, has dedicated astudy to the Jnanaprasthana’s path to liberation; English summaries include Potter, 1996,417-449; Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 73-79; Cox, 1998, 221-229; the first two chapters have been retranslated from the Chinese of T. 1544 into Sanskrit by Santi Bhiksu Sastri, 1955.)

Abhidharma Canonical Texts of Other Sects

The extent to which Buddhist denominations other than the Theravadins and the Sarvastivadins pos­sessed canonical Abhidharma works, and a for­tiori what these Abhidharmapitakas looked like, is veiy difficut to assess. As A. Bareau (1947-1950) has pointed out, there is no compelling reason to believe that every denomination had developed an Abhidharmapitaka of its own. Whereas cer­tain groups that branched off from a mother sect likely kept the latter’s Abhidharmapitaka with slight adaptations and emendations where neces­sary, other groups lacking an independent third basket may have borrowed one from a geographi­cally close sect. According to Paramartha, the Sammitlyas, the Dharmottariyas,

the Bhadrayanlyas and the Sannagarikas, the four subsects that seceded from the Vatsiputriya sect, kept the lat­ter’s “*Sdriputrdbhidharma” (not to be confounded with the homonym Dharmaguptaka work described below; the Vatsiputriya *Sdriputrabhidharma was otherwiseknownasthe *Dharmalaksanabhidhanna, in nine sections), although they deemed it insuf­ficient, and completed it here and there with their own interpretations of the sutras (Demieville, 1931-1932, 58). In a similar way, in Sri Lanka and a Theravada context, the

Abhayagirivasins and the Jetavaniyas apparently kept the Abhidharmapitaka of the Mahaviharavasins (Bareau, 1947-1950, 3). When it alludes to abhidharma, the Vinaya of the Mahisasakas may well refer only to the discipline of dogmatic exegetics rather than to a separate basket (T. 1421 [XXII] 132b; T. 1422 [XXII] 204a). The Vinaya of the Mahasanghikas, on the con­trary, seems to point to the existence of a separate Abhidharmapitaka (T. 1425 [XXII] 295a, etc.; see Bareau, 1947-1950, gn6), and the same applies to the Haimavatas, whose Vinayamdtrka (T. 1463 [XXIV] 8i8a28f.) suggests that their Abhidharma was struc­turally veiy close, if not identical, to the Dharma­guptaka *Sariputrdbhidharma, the only extant non-Theravadin and non-Sarvastivadin Abhidharma treatise.

Sdriputrdbhidharmasastra

The *Sdriputrdbhidharmasdstra has come down to us in a Chinese translation by Dharmayasas and Dharmagupta in 30 fascicles, the Sheliju apitan lun (lirWIflHBbiHiw; T. 1548; Frauwallner, 1955,221m). This treatise is generally attributed to the Dharma­guptaka school (Bareau, 1950; Mizuno, 1996-1997, 319-340) in spite ofthe fact that the Chinese tradition regards it a Sammitlya text (see above for ahomonym Vatslputriya/Sammitlya Abhidharma treatise). San­skrit fragments from the *Sariputrdbhidharma or a very similar text have been recently identified in the Schoyen collection by K. Matsuda (2002). The trea­tise consists of 5 chapters whose titles, in A. Bareau’s Sanskrit restoration, are as follows:

1. Saprasnaka (With Questions); 2. Aprasnaka (Without Questions); 3. Sam^raAa(Includedness); 4. Samprayoga (Simultaneous Mental Associa­tion); and 5. Prasthana (Base).

Resemblances with the Sarvastivada Dharma- skandha and the Pali Vibhahga and Puggalapahhatti have long been recognized (Kimura, 1922,73-118). E. Frauwallner has analyzed the *Sariputrdbhidharma in terms of structure and content and as to the way in which its matrkds developed from those of ear­lier texts. According to him, this treatise of interest­ing idiosyncratic character “helps us to avoid the one-sidedjudgements that exclusive observation of the Abhidharma of the other schools might other­wise lead us into making” (Frauwallner, 1995,116). (An annotated Japanese translation was published by Watanabe, 1934; English summaries and discus­sions include Frauwallner 1995, 97-117; Potter, 1996, 317-325-)

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abhidharmakosahhasya: Abhidharmakosahhasyam ofVasu- bandhu, ed. P. Pradhan, Patna, 1967; rev. ed. 1975. Abhidharmakosayyakhya: Sphutartha Abhidharmakosayyakhya, the Work ofYasomitra, ed. U. Wogihara, Tokyo, 1936; repr. 1989. Atthasdlini: The Atthasdlini, Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dhammasahgani, ed. E. Muller, London, 1897. Dipayamsa: The Dipayamsa: An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record, ed. H. Oldenberg, London, 1879. Milindapahha The Milindapahho, Being Dialogues between King Milinda and the Buddhist Sage Nagasena, the Pali Text, ed. V. Trenckner, London, 1880; repr. 1986. Mohayicchedani: Mohavicchedani: Abhidhammamdtikattha- vannana, ed. AP. Buddhadatta & A.K. Warder, London, 1961. Samantapasadikd: Samantapasadika - Buddhaghosa’s Com­mentary on the Vinayapitaka, 7 vols., ed. J. Takakusu & M. Nagai, London, 1924-1947. Sumarigalavildsini- Sumarigalavildsini (Dighanikaya-attha- katha), ed. T.W. Rhys Davids & J.E. Carpenter, 3 vols., London, 1929-1932.

Secondary Literature

Analayo, The Dawn of Abhidharma, Hamburg, 2014. Analayo, “Teaching the Abhidharma in the Heaven of the Thirty-three, The Buddha and his Mother,” JOCBS 2, 2012, 9-35- Aohara Norisato (W1M vWJB), “Gosesetsu wayaku kenkyu (1)” JDnWfJE (1); Ai Annotated Japanese Translation of the Karmaprajhapti [[[chapter]]] 1), RDR 479, 2012a, 9-33; chapter 2: BK 68,2012b, 1-27; chapter 3: BK 69, 2013,75-113; chapter 4: RDR 483,2014,26-51. Bareau, A, “Les origines du Sariputrabhidharmasastra,” MUSEON 63,1950, 69-95. Bareau, A., “Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule et leurs Abhidharmapitaka,” BEFEO 44 /1,1947-1950,1-11. Bronkhorst, J., “Kathavatthu and Vijnanakaya,” in: Premier Collogue Etienne Lamotte (Bruxelles etLiege, 24-27 septem- bre 1989), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993,57-61. Buswell, R.E., & P.S. Jaini, "The Development of Abhidharma Philosophy,” in: K.H. Potter et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. VII: Abhidharma Buddhism to 150A.D., Delhi, 1996, 73-119.

Cox, C.,“Gandhari Kharosthi Manuscripts: Exegetical Texts,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research, Vienna, 2014,35-49.

Cox, C., "Kasmira: Vaibhasika Orthodoxy,” in: C. Willemen, B. Dessein & C. Cox, 1998,138-254. Cox, C., DisputedDharmas, Early Buddhist Theories of Existence, An Annotated Translation of the Section on Factors Disso­ciated from Thought from Sahghahhadra’s Nydydnusdra, Tokyo, 1995.

Cox, C., “The Unbroken Treatise: Scripture and Argument in Early Buddhist Scholasticism,” in: M.A. Williams, C. Cox & M.S. Jaffee, eds., Innovation in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change, Berlin, 1992,143-189.

Davidson, R.M., "An Introduction to the Standards of Scrip­tural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism,” in: R.E. Buswell, ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, Honolulu, 1990. Demieville, P., "Un fragment Sanskrit de TAbhidharma des Sarvastivadin,”/,! 249,1961,461-465.

Demieville, P., "L’origine des sectes bouddhiques d’apres I’aramarlha,” A7C/J 1,1931-1932,14-64; repr. in: P. Demieville, Choix d’etudes bouddhiques (1929-1970), Leiden, 1973,81-64. Dietz, S., “The Sanskrit Abhidharma Fragments from the Tur- fan Oasis,” in: D. Durkin-Meisterernst, S.-C. Raschmann, J. Wilkens, M. Yaldiz & P. Zieme, eds., Turfan Revisited - The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, Berlin, 2004, 59-67.

Dietz, S., "A Brief Survey on the Sanskrit Fragments of the Lokaprajnaptisastra,” AMOUSBCRI7,1989,79-86. Dietz, S., "Untersuchungen zur Schulzugehdrigkeit der in UJJain liegenden Giigit-Fragmente,” in: H. Bechert, ed.,Zur Schulzugehdrigkeit von Werken der Hlnaydna-Literatur, Gottingen, 1985,163-179.

Dietz, S., Fragmente des Dharmaskandha. Ein Abhidharma- Text in Sanskrit aus Gilgit, Gottingen, 1984. Frauwallner, E., Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philosophical Systems, Albany, 1995. Fukuda Takumi (HEW), “Kato Sei iko Zobun wayaku In sesetsu (1)” (MOWSiHlXHIR rHKIx* Japanese Translation of the Kdranaprajnapti [part] 1: From Sei Kato’s Literary Remains), DGBBKH43,2007, 88-59; part 2: DGBBKH 48,2012,164-136.

Fukuda Takumi, “Kato Kiyoshi (sic) iko Zobun wayaku Seken sesetsu” F ffij (1); Japanese Translation of Lokaprajnapti [part] 1: From Kiyoshi (sic) Kato’s Literary Remains”), DGBBKH 34,1998,140-99; part 2: DGBBKH 35,1999, 88-72; part 3: DGBBKH 36, 2000,128- 91; part 4: DDR 84, 2001, 86-63; part 5: DDR 85-86, 2002, 310-273; part 6: DDR 89,2004,146-130.

Fukuhara Rydgon (HlMEfifis), Ubu-abidatsumaronsho no hattatsu (WcflSWJtHThe Development of the Abhidharma^astras of the Sarvastivada School), Kyoto, 1965. Ganeri, J., “Argumentation, Dialogue and the Kathavatthu,” JIP 29,2001,485-493- Ganguly, S., Treatise on Groups of Elements, Abhidharma- dhatukaya-padasastra, Delhi, 1994. Geiger, M., & W., Pali Dhamma vornehmlich in der kano- nischen Literatur, Munich, 1920; repr. in: H. Bechert, ed., Wilhelm Geiger, Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden, 1973,101-228. Gethin, R., “The Matikas: Memorization, Mindfulness, and the List,” in: J. Gyatso, ed., In the Mirror of Memory, Reflec­tions on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, Albany, 1993,149-172.

Gethin, R., The Buddhist Path to Awakening: A Study of the Bodhi-Pakkhiya Dhamma, Leiden, 1992. Hiniiber, O. von, A Handbook of Pali Literature, Berlin, 1996. Hirakawa, A, “The Meaning of ‘Dharma’ and ‘Abhidharma’,” in: Indianisme et Bouddhisme: Melanges ojferts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1980,159-175. Hirakawa, A, Index to the Abhidharmakosabhasya - Part I: Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese, Tokyo, 1973. Honjo Yoshifumi (HEt SEE), “Bibashashi no bussetsukan” (BbWffbffiEfAiSfi; Vaibhasika Discussions about the Words of the Buddha: Some Passages from the Mahd- vibhasa and the Nydydnusdra), IL 1,2010,173-193.

Honjo Yoshifumi, “Zuimin-sesetsu to Mydshiki-sesetsu” (rKiEHESxj it ; *Anusayaprajhapti and

• NdmarupapraJhapti), IBK 47/1,1998,370-365.

Hurvitz, L., “Paths to Salvation in the Jnanaprasthana,” SIAAC 5,1977, 77-102.

Imanishi, J., Fragmente des Abhidharmaprakaranabhasyam in Text und Ubersetzung, Gottingen, 1975. Kimura Taiken (HtE^K), Kimura Talken zenshu (7ftSf3E KEfeife Collected works of Taiken Kimura), 4 vols., Tokyo, 1967-1969. Kimura Taiken, Abidatsumaron no kenkyu (SJBbSBJoffl® WEE; A Study of Abhidharma Treatises), Tokyo, 1922. La Vallee Poussin, L. de, “Documents d’Abhidharma: La con- troverse du temps; les deux, les quatre, les trois verites,” MCB 5,1936-1937,1-187. La Vallee Poussin, L. de, “Documents d’Abhidharma: Textes relatifs au nirvana et aux asamskrta en general I—II,” BEFEO 30,1930,1-28,247-298. La Vallee Poussin, L. de, “La controverse du temps et du Pudgala dans le Vijnanakaya,” in: Etudes asiatiques pu- bliees a I’occasion du 25s anniversaire de I’Ecole frangaise d'Extreme-Orient, vol. 1,1925,343-376.

La Vallee Poussin, L. de, LAbhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, traduction et annotations, 6 vols., Paris, 1923-1933. La Vallee Poussin, L. de, “Notes bouddhiques II. Le Vijnanakaya et le Kathavatthu,” BCLBA 8/11, Bruxelles, 1922, 516-520. La Vallee Poussin, L. de, Vasubandhu et Yagomitra, Troisieme chapitre de lAbhidharmakoga Karika, Bhasya et Vyakhyd, avec une analyse de la Lokaprajnapti et de la Kdranapra­jnapti de Maudgafyayana, London, 1918.

Lamotte, E„ Histoire du bouddhisme indien, des origines a I’ere Saka, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1976; ET; idem., trans. S. Webb- Boin, The History of Indian Buddhism from the Origins to the Saka Era (with addenda), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988.

Levi, S., “Notes sur des manuscrits provenant de Bamiyan (Afghanistan) et de Gilgit (Cachemire),”JA 220,1932,1-45. Matsuda Kazunobu (REES Wil), “Shuimonsokuron no bamiyan shahon dankan ni kansuru oboegaki” (pAV'VWjA' 5 V 'E>jt^_H:§;ANoteonthe Frag­ ments of the Bamiyan Manuscripts of the Abhidharma- samgltiparydyapadasastra), ITBK 21,2006,19-33. Matsuda Kazunobu, “Three Fragments Related to the Sariputra-Abhidharma,” in: J. Braarvig, ed., Buddhist Man­uscripts, vol. 2, Oslo, 2002,240-248. Matsuda Kazunobu, Newly Identified Sanskrit Fragments of the Dharmaskandha in the Gilgit Manuscripts, Kyoto, 1986. Matsuda Kazunobu, “Bonbundanpen Loka-prajhapti ni tsuite” Loka-prajnapti (COfiT; On the San­ skrit Fragments of the Lokaprajhapti), Bg 14,1982,1-21.

McDermott, J.P., “The Kathavatthu Kamma Debates,” JAOS 95,1975,424-433- Migot, A, “Un grand disciple du Bouddha: Sariputra: Son role dans l’histoire du bouddhisme et le developpement de l’Abhidharma,” BEFEO 46/2,1954,405-554. Mizuno Kogen (zKH’DAtc), Mizuno Kogen chosakusenshu (zKH’DATC^'f'FSJR; Collected Works of Kogen Mizuno), 3 vols., Tokyo, 1996-1997. Nishi Giyu & Sakamoto Yukio (fjyTR^JR), Abidon- hakkendoron (R® >/Wl5lffl),-KKKi7-i8,1934.

Norman, K.R., "Magadhisms in the Kathavatthu,” in: AK Narain, ed., Studies in Pali and Buddhism: A Memorial Volume in Honor ofBhikkhu Jagdish Kashyap, Delhi, 1979, 279-287; repr. in: Collected Papers, vol. II, Oxford, 1991, 59-70.

Potter, K.H., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. VII: Abhidharma Buddhism to 150A.D., Delhi, 1996. Przyluski, J., Le Concile de Rajagrha: Introduction d l’histoire des canons et des sectes bouddhiques, Paris, 1926. Ronkin, N., Early Buddhist Metaphysics, The Making of a Phil­osophical Tradition, London, 2005. Sakurabe Hajime Kusharon no kenkyu: kai-konbon • tMna; Studies of the Abhidharmakosa, Chapters 1 and 2: Dhatunirdesa and Indriyanirdesaf Kyoto, 1969- Sakurabe Hajime & Kaji Ydichi (Mnff—), Hocchiron ( Bih), SKYD Nyoraizo, Yuishiki-bu, 1996-2000.

Sastri, S.B., Jhanaprasthana-sastra of Katyayaniputra, Santi- niketan, 1955. Sato Mitsuo (REfjSjffi), Ronji,fii Kakuon-chu Shintei zoho (pfflWWJiliaicSfraTffKathavatthu together with Buddhaghosa’s Commentary Revised and Enlarged), Tokyo, 1991. Skilling, P., “Dharma, Dharani, Abhidharma, Avadana: What was taught in Trayastrimsa?” ARIRIAB11,2008,37-60. Skilling, P., “The Samskrtasamskrta-viniscaya by Dasabala- srimitra,” BSR 4/1,1987,3-23. Stache-Rosen, V., Dogmatische Begriffsreihen im alteren Buddhismus. Das Sahgltisutra und sein Kommentar Sangltiparyaya, 2 vols., Berlin, 1968. Tsukamoto Keisho Matsunaga Yukei (JR-SW

Ht) & Isoda Hirofumi (^E0®JR),Bongo buttenno kenkyu III: Rons ho hen A Descriptive Bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature), vol. Ill, Kyoto, 1990. Waldschmidt, E., “Die Einleitung des Sahgltisutra,” ZDMG 105,1955,298-318. Watanabe Baiyu (JgiZIJMffi), Ubu abidatsuma ron no kenkyu (WoBIRJ REJRJg§t®W!in; Studies on Abhidharma Litera­ture of Sarvastivada Buddhism), Tokyo, 1954. Watanabe Baiyu, Sharihotsuabidonron (vErffliRWREiltst), KYIKig, 1934. Watanabe Baiyu, Abidatsumakaishinsokuron (IRJ RE jfO# Wilt), KHK 5,1932a. Watanabe Baiyu, Abidatsumahonruisokuron (IRJRESBJnn® sflmfKYIK^,1932b. Watanabe Baiyu, Abidatsumashikishinsokuron (H® SB! aWJl.giw), KY1K 4,1931- Watanabe Baiyu, Abidatsumahbunsokuron (|5“JREjii £§t),KY7K3,1930a. Watanabe Baiyu, Sesetsuron (MpxJeLpH)), KYIK 3, 1930b, 331-439- Watanabe Baiyu, Abidatsumashuimonsokuron (IRJ RE jfOJR WWJt), KYIK1-2,1929. Watanabe, F., Philosophy and Its Development in the Nikdyas andAbhidharma, Delhi, 1983. Willemen, C., B. Dessein & C. Cox, Sarvastivada Buddhist Scholasticism, Leiden, 1998. Vincent Eltschinger Yoshifumi Honjo