Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Sautrāntika -The Encyclopedia of Religion . Mircea Eliade

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 2 n.jpg



SAUTRANTIKA.

Most available sources agree that the Sautrantika school separated from the Sarvastivada perhaps some four centuries after the death of Śākyamuni Buddha. Its followers were called Sautrantika, meaning those who take the sutras as the last word, because although they accepted the two main parts of the Buddhist canon (the Tripitaka), namely, the Vinaya and the Sutras, as the true word of the Buddha, they rejected the third part, the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivada tradition, considering it later

philosophical disquisition, which for them had no binding authority. However, the Sautrantikas must have remained effectively a branch of the Sarvastivada, as they continued to follow the same Vinaya, or monastic discipline, and their differences remained not so much practical as philosophical. They are sometimes referred to by such variant names as Sūtrāntavadins or Sūtrapramāṇikas (meaning the same as Sautrāntika), or as Samkrāntivādins, referring to their theory of rebirth or transmigration (samkrānti). Names such as

Saurodayika ("like the sunrise," perhaps a reference to one of their famous teachers) and Dārṣṭāntika ("users of similes") are also applied to them. As a philosophical movement deriving from the Sarvastivada school, they distinguished themselves primarily from the Vaibhāṣikas, namely, those who adhered to the Vibhāsa (Philosophical Disquisition), a text based upon the (Sarvastivada) Abhidharma literature, and who maintained the reality of dharmas in all three times: past, present, and future. [See Dharmas, article on

Buddhist Dharma and Dharmas. According to the Chinese monk Hsü an-tsang, who visited India between the years 627 and 645, the Sautrantika recognized Ānanda, the closest disciple of Śākyamuni, as their chief master. According to another Chinese scholar their founder was called Uttara. Some Tibetan sources say that this school was called Uttarīya ("superior") in recognition of its superiority with regard to Dharma. Bhavya, tells us that the Samkrāntivāda was also called Uttarīya and that its founder, Uttara,

seceded from the Sarvastivāda. Tāranātha maintains that the names Samkrāntivāda, Uttarīya and Tāmraśatīya all referred to the same school. A Chinese source asserts that one Pūrṇa, who propagated the Vinaya and Abhidharma teachings, encountered opposition from some monks who thereupon took Ānanda, the master of the Sutras, as their patron. Vasumitra informs us that the Sautrantika and the Sarvastivada held similar teachings, but Vasubandhu and Saṃghabhadra concentrate mainly on the polemics between these two

schools. In the Abhidharma literature there are references to four people who are said to have been the "four suns" of the Sautrāntikas: Kumāralābha, reputed as the founder of this school, Dharmatrāta, Buddhadeva, and 88Śrīlābha99. Some modern scholars assert that such well know Buddhist thinkers as Vasubandhu, Dignāga, or even Dharmakīrti were adherents or sympatizers of the Sautrāntikas. [See the biography of Vasubandhu.] Like the teachings of several other early Buddhist schools whose writings have been lost, Sautrantika theories are known mainly from the surviving literature of other philosophical schools, Hindu as well as Buddhist, who most often refer to the Sautrāntikas in the process of refuting views at variance with their own. Although such references are bound to be partisan, it is nonetheless possible to gain a fair idea of Sautrāntika doctrines from them.


In that these doctrines clearly serve as a link


between the realistic atomizing theories of the earlier schools and the "mind only" (cittamātra) theories of the Yogācāra tradition, such an endeavor is all the more rewarding. While the Sautrāntika adhere to the fundamental Buddhist "dogma" of anātman ("noself," i. e., no transmigrating element) they reinterpret the earlier theory of dharmas (elemental particles), of which the five components (skandhas) of individual personality are said to be composed. [See Soul, article on Buddhist Concepts.] Individual

personality is essentially a nonentity (a "no self"), definable as a constant flux of elemental psychophysical particles, momentarily composing themselves under the effect of karman as form or matter (rūpa), feelings (vedanā), perceptions (saṃjñā), impulses (saṃskāra), (page 87) consciousness (vijñāna), namely as the five components. The main point at issue between the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrāntikas concerns the operation of karman upon the elemental particles resulting in a new interpretation of their nature. According

to the Sarvastivāda, all elements exist in past, present and future; hence their name, coined from sarvasti ("everything exists"). An individual personality is therefore an ever-changing flow of real elements, the components of which vary from moment to moment in accordance with its karman. The Sarvastivāda argue that every action projects its eventual effect upon the fluctuating stream of elements in the form of a fresh type of elemental particle known as prāpti, literally "acquisition" or "appropriation." Although itself of momentary existence like all other particles, prāpti continues to remanifest itself in the general stream of elements until an appropriate combination with other

elements, themselves the effects of subsequent actions, produces the "fruit" or retribution of that particular action. Thus, prāpti may be regarded as the force that acts within a particular stream of elements (i. e., an individual personality) keeping it united as a seemingly coherent entity, not only within a single life-stream but also in the passage from one life to the next. Since personality is also regarded under the threefold aspect of body, speech, and mind, action (karman) is definable as physical, vocal, or

mental. Probably all Buddhists agree that mind or thought predominates in some way, but the extent and manner of its predominance presented a major area of discussion and disagreement among the early schools. Applying the theory of real elemental particles to everything, the Sarvastivāda identified mental action as "volition" (cetanā), while vocal and physical action, treated as an "expression" (vijñapti) of volition, were classed as elements within form or matter (rūpaskandha). Thus, mental action would cause the arising of vocal or physical action according to the normal process of karman throughout past, present, and future, and all elements in the process remain equally "real." The

Vatsīputriyas, on the other hand, argued that vocal and physical acts are not real elements or "things in themselves" but a mere "process" or "motion" (gati) provoked by mental karman or volition, which receives expression (vijñapti) thereby. The Sautrāntikas rejected the concept of action as operative in the past, present, and future; thus, strictly speaking, an action cannot result in an effect in the future, since neither past nor future can exist simultaneously with the present. The past has existed and the future will

exist in relationship to the ever passing present, but only the present can actually exist and its existence is momentary (kṣaṇika). Thus bodily and vocal action resulting from mental action (i. e. thought) cannot exist in the manner envisaged by the Sarvastivāda or Vaibhāṣika, and their concept of prāpti as a holding force can have no meaning. Likewise, vijñapti as the "expression" of thought has no


real existence in itself; indeed, it is only the mental action as volition that exists, possessing moral value as good, bad, or indifferent. The Sautrāntikas analyze volition under three aspects: "deliberation" (gaticetanā), "decision" (niścayacetanā), and "impulsion" (kiraṇacetanā). It should be noted that all three terms include cetanā, "mentation," or the process of thinking. The first two constitute the "action of thinking" (cetanākarma), which in effect is volition, manifest as mental reflection (manaskāra) or thoughts (caitta). They both represent the "action of thought" (manaḥkarma). The third aspect, "impulsion" (kiraṇacetanā), is twofold: that which impels bodily movement and that which impels speech. This explanation reduces the actions of body and speech, conceived by the Vaibhāṣikas as realities (classed within the rūpaskandha) that succeed

mental action throughout a time process, to mere aspects of volition, which alone is a reality, manifesting itself momentarily in what is always effectively the present. It is thus thought alone that has moral value as good, bad, or indifferent. The Sautrāntikas claim that the maturing of karman as the "fruit" or effect of morally qualifiable volition can be explained by the manner in which the mental series evolves. An action, being a thought associated with a particular volition, is momentary (kṣaṇika). It

disappears the very moment it is committed (and thus has no real duration as explained by the Sarvastivāda) but it impregnates (vāsanā) the mental series (cittasaṃtāna) of which it forms a starting point with a particular potentiality (śaktiviśeṣa). The impregnated series undergoes an evolution (pariṇāma) of varied periods of time and culminates in the final transformation-moment (viśeṣa), which constitutes the state of retribution. The evolution of the series is compared to a seed and its gradual transformational

growth until it matures as a fruit. The Sautrāntikas had to answer certain objections as to what happens when the series is interrupted, as for instance in suspended meditation. A primitive interpretation, as represented by the Dārṣṭāntika view, assumed the theory of two simultaneous series, one mental, constituted by the six consciousnesses, and one material, constituted by the corresponding sense organs. When the mental series is interrupted it resumes in due course its evolution from its seeds or germs (bīja) that are preserved in the material series. Similarly, the material series, when it is interrupted (in death or in the meditative (page 88) trances of the arūpyadhātu), becomes reborn from its seeds preserved by the mental series. But where, it may be asked, is the continuity of the series as such? How are the germs retained? The

answer of the Sautrāntikas is to assert the existence of a subtle thought (sukṣmacitta) underlying the mental series and constituting its continuity. Subtle thought was defined by the Sautāntika thinkers in two different ways: some said it was mental consciousness (manovijñ ā na) free of concepts (sa mjñ ā ) and feeling (vedan ā ); others envisaged it as mental consciousness (citta) free of mentations (caitta). Both groups agreed that its objective sphere (i. e., its real nature) is "imperceptible" (asa ṃ vidita). This subtle consciousness was known by such other names as ekarasa - skandha ("aggregate[s] of one flavor or nature"), m ū l ā ntikaskandha ("origin and cause of the five skandha s"), and param ā rthapudgala ("true and real person"). Later, the nature of "subtle consciousness" was explained by distinguishing two kinds of thought: a multiple or complex

mind (n ā nacitta) as represented by the six kinds of active consciousnesses, and a store or subtle thought ( ā cayacitta). The complex mind and the elements ( dharma s), all of which evolve simultaneously, impregnate the subtle thought with their seeds or germs. The complex mind functions through different objects (ālambana), aspects (ākāra), and modalities (viśeṣa). The Sautrāntikas argued that when these functions of complex mind are absent, as in, for instance, a state of suspended meditation, the state is deprived of thought in the sense that the series is interrupted, but that in fact this absence does

not indicate total interruption because subtle thought continues to exist, serving as a repository of all the seeds (sarvabīja) deposited by the complex mind. As the series evolves, the seeds mature and produce their "fruit" (retribution), which consists of a new (good or bad) complex mind and elements. As the subtle consciousness is the sustainer of these new or matured seeds, it is also called the "consciousness of retribution" (vipākaphalavijñāna). From the time of birth until the moment of death the subtle mind constitutes the continuity of the series and it transmigrates (saṃkrāmate) from one existence to the next, assuming different manifestations (reincarnations). Once it reaches

the moment of passing into nirvāṇa (final retribution or deliverance) it is cut off and completely extinguished. This interpretation was criticized but also adopted with modifications by the Vijñaānavāda and Mādhyamika schools. [See also Yogācāra.] The Sautrāntika rejected the existence of the unconditioned elements (asaṃskṛta). For them, these elements were not real or distinct entities but represented mere denomination of absence. Thus, space (ākāśa) represented an absence of tangible bodies (spṛṣṭavya) and nirvāṇa denoted the nonmanifestation of passions and adverse psychophysical elements. They also denied the reality of the fourteen "unassociated" elements (cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra),

among which origination, duration, decay, and impermanence in particular were viewed not as entities but as mere denominations of the flux of the elements. The Sautrāntika maintained that the objects of the external world are not really perceived because, being momentary, they disappear before they can be perceived. Thus, the object of cognition, being already passed as soon as it appears, is not perceived directly; it leaves behind an image that is reproduced in the "act of cognition." Such a process gives the impression that it exists, while in fact it only did so in the now nonexistent past. In opposition to other schools, which maintained that only a man who was advanced on the

path toward arhatship might possess the potentiality (anasrāvaskandha) of liberation, the Sautrāntika maintained that ordinary people (pṛthagjana) had the same potentiality. Finally, they also asserted that apart from the Noble Eightfold Path (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga) there was no other way to destroy the skandhas; meditation and other practices can suppress the passions (kleśas) but cannot eradicate them completely. [For an overview of the relationship of the Sautrāntikas to the other schools of early Buddhism, see Buddhism, Schools of, article on Hīnayāna Buddhism, and Sarvāstivāda. See also Indian Philosophies and Buddhist Philosophy.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY No single work treats the Sautrantika school as whole. Our chief source of information on the tradition is Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa (and bhāṣya) and works composed in reference to it, especially Yasomitra's Abhidharmakośa sphuṭārthavyākhyā. The references listed below are sources of further information. Lamotte, Étienne, ed. and trans. "Le traité de l'acte de Vasubandhu: Karmasiddhiprakarana." Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, vol. 4., pp. 151-288. Brussels, 1935-1936. La Vallée Poussin, Louis de, trans. L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu (1923-1931). 6 vols. Brussels, 1971. Masuda, Jiryo. "Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools." Asia Major 2 (1925): 1-78. Mimaki Katsumi. "Le chapitre de Blo gsal grub mtha' sur les Sautrantika, un essai de traduction." Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies (Kyoto) 16 (1979: 143-172. Tadeusz Skorupski

 




Source