Theravāda and (Mūla) Sarvāstivāda: Origins and Early Development
Summary
The article examines the historical development and relationships between early Buddhist schools, particularly Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda (including Mūlasarvāstivāda). It challenges the traditional view of Theravāda as the oldest surviving tradition by analyzing doctrinal and vinaya (monastic rules) differences. The first schism in Buddhism occurred around 380–340 BC due to disputes over vinaya modifications, leading to the Mahāsāṅghika majority and the traditional Sthaviravāda minority. Sarvāstivāda emerged later, spreading in northern India and Gandhara, while Theravāda solidified in Sri Lanka around 20 BC with a conservative orthodoxy featuring Pāli texts and a seven-part abhidharma. The article highlights the dynamic nature of early Buddhist schools, noting doctrinal diversity within Sarvāstivāda and its later influence on Mahāyāna traditions like Yogācāra and Pure Land Buddhism. It also discusses the role of Chinese translations in preserving and interpreting Sarvāstivāda texts, distinguishing between Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika sub-schools. The analysis emphasizes that school identities were primarily tied to vinaya traditions rather than doctrine, with later doctrinal differences emerging over time.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The implications of this study challenge traditional narratives about the chronology and origins of early Buddhist schools, suggesting that Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda emerged through complex interactions rather than linear developments. The analysis highlights how doctrinal disagreements, particularly over vinaya rules, drove early schisms, with the majority (Mahāsāṅghika) and minority (Sthaviravāda) traditions evolving distinct identities. The role of Chinese sources in clarifying historical relationships between schools underscores the interconnectedness of Buddhist traditions across regions. By demonstrating that Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda were not static but dynamic, contextually shaped systems, the study invites a reevaluation of their historical trajectories and doctrinal divergences. This reexamination emphasizes the fluidity of early Buddhist thought and the importance of regional cultural contexts in shaping orthodoxy.