Abhidharma texts
repositories of several centuries of scholastic activity representing multiple branches of the Sarvastivada school, which was spread throughout greater north western India. However, they came to be particu larly associated by tradition with the Sarvastivadins of Kashmir who, thereby, acquired the appellation, Sarvastivada-Vaibhasika. Three other texts composed during the same period that are associated with the northwestern region of Gand hara display a markedly different structure and purpose: the *Abhidharmahrdaya5i'istra (Heart of Abhidharma) by Dharmasre thin; the *Abhidharmahrdaya5astra (Heart of Abhidharma) by Upasanta; and the *Misrakabhid harmahrdaya5astra (Heart of Abhidharma with Miscel laneous Additions) by Dharmatrata. Composed in verse with an accompanying prose auto-commentary, these texts function as summary digests of all aspects of the teaching presented according to a logical and non repetitive structure. In contrast to the earlier numeri cally guided taxonomic lists well-suited as mnemonic aids, these texts adopt a new method of organization, attempting to subsume the prior taxonomic lists and all discussion of specific doctrinal points under gen eral topical sections. This new organizational structure was to become paradigmatic for the texts of the final period of Sarvastivada abhidharma. This final period in the development ofSarvastivada abhidharma treatises includes texts that are the prod ucts of single authors and that adopt a polemical style of exposition displaying a fully developed sectarian self-consciousness. They also employ increasingly so phisticated methods of argumentation in order toes tablish the position of their own school and to refute at length the views of others. Despite this polemical approach, they nonetheless purport to serve as well organized expository treatises or pedagogical digests for the entirety of Buddhist teaching. The Abhidhar makosa (Treasury of Abhidharma), including both verses (karika) and an auto-commentary (bh ya), by VASUBANDHU became the most important text from this period, central to the subsequent traditions of ab hidharma studies in Tibet and East Asia. Adopting both the verse-commentary structure and the topical orga nization of the *Abhidharmahrdaya, the Abhidhar makosa presents a detailed account of Sarvastivada abhidharma teaching with frequent criticism of Sar vastivada positions in its auto-commentary. The Ab hidharmakosa provoked a response from certain Kashmiri Sarvastivada masters who attempted to refute non-Sarvastivada views presented in Vasubandhu's work and to reestablish their own interpretation of or- thodox Kashmiri Sarvastivada positions. These works, the *Nyayanusara5astra (Conformance to Correct Prin ciple) and *Abhidharmasamayapradzpika (Illumination of the Collection of Abhidharma) by Sanghabhadra and the Abhidharmadzpa (Illumination of Abhidharma) by an unknown author who refers to himself as the Di:pa kara (author of the Dzpa) were the final works of the Sarvastivada abhidharma tradition that have survived.
Abhidharma exegesis Abhidharma exegesis evolved over a long period as both the agent and the product of a nascent and then increas ingly disparate Buddhist sectarian self-consciousness. Given the voluminous nature of even the surviving lit erature that provides a record of this long doctrinal history, any outline of abhidharma method must be content with sketching the most general contours and touching on a few representative examples. Nonethe less, scanning the history of abhidharma, one discerns a general course of development that in the end re sulted in a complex interpretative edifice radically dif ferent from the siitras upon which it was believed to be based.
In its earliest stage, that is, as elaborative commen tary, abhidharma was guided by the intention simply to clarify the content of the siitras. Taxonomic lists were used as a mnemonic device facilitating oral preservation and transmission; catechetical investiga tion was employed in a teaching environment of oral commentary guided by the pedagogical technique of question and answer. Over time, the taxonomic lists grew in complexity as the simpler lists presented in the siitra teachings were combined in new ways, and ad ditional categories of qualitative analysis were created to specify modes of interaction among discrete aspects of the siitra teaching. The initially terse catechetical in vestigation was expanded with discursive exposition and new methods of interpretation and argumenta tion, which were demanded by an increasingly polem ical environment. These developments coincided with a move from oral to written methods of textual trans mission and with the challenge presented by other Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups. In its final stage, abhidharma texts became complex philosophical trea tises employing sophisticated methods of argumenta tion, whose purpose was the analysis and elaboration of doctrinal issues for their own sake. The very sutras from which abhidharma arose were now subordinated as mere statements in need of analysis that only the ab hidharmacould provide. No longer serving as the start ing point for abhidharma exegesis, the siitras were
5. Yamaka (Pairs); 6. Pattha na (Foundational Conditions); and 7. Katha vatthu (Points of Discussion). The Sarvastivada canonical abhidharma collection, also including seven texts, is extant only in Chinese translation: 1. San? g�ltipary�aya (Discourse on the San? g�lti); 2. Dharmaskandha (Aggregation of Factors); 3. Prajñaptis´a� stra (Treatise on Designations); 4. Dha� tuka� ya (Collection on the Elements); 5. Vijña� naka� ya (Collection on Perceptual Consciousness); 6. Prakaran� apa� da (Exposition); and 7. Jña� naprastha� na (Foundations of Knowledge). Certain other early abhidharma texts extant in Chinese translation probably represent the abhidharma canonical texts of yet other schools: for example, the *S´a� riputra� bhidharmas´a� stra (T. 1548), which may have been affiliated with a Vibhajyava�da school, or the *Sam� mat�lya´s�astra (T. 1649) affiliated by its title with the Sam� mat��ya school, associated with the Va�ts ��putr��yas. In the absence of historical evidence for the accurate dating of the extant abhidharma treatises, scholars have tentatively proposed relative chronologies based primarily upon internal formal criteria that presuppose a growing complexity of structural organization and of exegetical method. It is assumed that abhidharma texts of the earliest period bear the closest similarities to the su�tras, and are often structured as commentaries on entire su�tras or on su�tra sections arranged according to taxonomic lists. The Vibhan? ga and Puggalapaññatti of the Therava�dins and the San? g�ltipary�aya and Dharmaskandha of the Sarva�stiva�dins exemplify these characteristics. The next set of abhidharma texts exhibits emancipation from the confines of commentary upon individual su�tras, by adopting a more abstract stance that subsumes doctrinal material from a variety of sources under an abstract analytical framework of often newly created categories. This middle period would include the five remaining canonical texts within the Therava�da and the Sarva�stiva�da abhidharma canonical collections.
The catechetical style of commentarial exegesis, evident even in the earliest abhidharma texts, becomes more structured and formulaic in texts of the middle period. The final products in this process of abstraction are the truly independent treatises that display marked creativity in technical terminology and doctrinal elaboration. Some of the texts, in particular the Katha vatthu of the Theravadins and the Vijñanaka ya of the Sarvastivadins, display an awareness of differences in doctrinal interpretation and factional alignments, although they do not adopt the developed polemical stance typical of many subsequent abhidharma works. The composition of abhidharma treatises did not end with the canonical collections, but continued with commentaries on previous abhidharma works and with independent summary digests or exegetical manuals. Within the Theravada tradition, several fifth-century C.E. commentators compiled new works based upon earlier commentaries dating from the first several centuries C.E. They also composed independent summaries of abhidhamma analysis, prominent among which are the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification) by BUDDHAGHOSA and the Abhidhamma vata ra (Introduction to Abhidhamma) by Buddhadatta. The Abhidhammatthasan ? gaha (Collection of Abhidhamma Matters) composed by Anuruddha in the twelfth century C.E. became thereafter the most frequently used summary of abhidhamma teaching within the Therava da tradition. The first five centuries C.E. were also a creative period of efflorescence for the abhidharma of the Sarva stivadins. In texts of this period, summary exposition combines with exhaustive doctrinal analysis and polemical debate.
The teaching is reorganized in accordance with an abstract and more logical structure, which is then interwoven with the earlier taxonomic lists. Preeminent among these texts for both their breadth and their influence upon later scholastic compositions are the voluminous, doctrinal compendia, called vibha sa , which are represented by three different recensions extant in Chinese translation, the last and best known of which is called the Maha vibha sa (Great Exegesis). Composed over several centuries from the second century C.E. onward, these ostensibly simple commentaries on an earlier canonical abhidharma text, the Jña naprastha na, exhaustively enumerate the positions of contending groups on each doctrinal point, often explicitly attributing these views to specific schools or masters. Instead of arguing for a single, orthodox viewpoint, the vibha sa compendia display an encyclopedic intention that is often content with comprehensiveness in cataloguing the full spectrum of differing sectarian positions. The vibhasa compendia are canonical abhidharma collections. For example, the collection of miscellaneous texts (khuddakapitaka) of the canon of the THERAVADA school includes two texts utilizing these methods that were not recognized to be canonical “abhidharma” texts.
The Patisambhida magga (Path of Discrimination) contains brief discussions of doctrinal points structured according to a topical list (ma tika ), and the Niddesa (Exposition) consists of commentary on the early verse collection, the Suttanipa ta. In fact, a clear-cut point of origin for the abhidharma as an independent section of the textual canon only reflects the perspective of the later tradition that designates, after a long forgotten evolution, certain texts as “abhidharma” in contrast to sutras or other possibly earlier expository works that share similar characteristics. Abhidharma texts Traditional accounts of early Indian Buddhist schools suggest that while certain schools may have shared some textual collections, many transmitted their own independent abhidharma treatises. XUANZANG (ca. 600–664 C.E.), the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim who visited India in the seventh century C.E., is reported to have collected numerous texts of as many as seven mainstream Buddhist schools. These almost certainly included canonical abhidharma texts representing various schools.
However, only two complete canonical collections, representing the Theravada and Sarvastiva da schools, and several texts of undetermined sectarian affiliation are preserved. Even though each of the Theravada and Sarvastivada abhidharma collections contains seven texts, the individual texts of the two collections cannot be neatly identified with one another. However, a close examination of certain texts from each collection and a comparison with other extant abhidharma materials reveals similarities in the underlying taxonomic lists, in exegetical structure, and in the topics discussed. These similarities suggest either contact among the groups who composed and transmitted these texts, or a common ground of doctrinal exegesis and even textual material predating the emergence of the separate schools. The Theravada canonical abhidharma collection, the only one extant in an Indian language (Pa�li), contains seven texts: 1. Vibhan? ga (Analysis); 2. Puggalapaññatti (Designation of Persons); 3. Dha tukatha (Discussion of Elements); 4. Dhammasan? gan i (Enumeration of Factors);
