The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine was unique in Buddhism in holding that the dharmas, the factors of existence, exist throughout the three periods of time, past, present, and future, and they do this by way of their individual svabh\u0101vas, their inherent natures. The svabh\u0101va, which makes a dharma what it is, remains the same, even though the dharma undergoes change. As put by Bhikkhu Dhammajoti (p. 134): \u201cthroughout the three periods of time, the dravya (= svabh\u0101va) remains unchanged. This is sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da or sarv\u0101stitva in a nutshell.\u201d At the beginning of this chapter (Chapter 5, \u201cSarv\u0101stitva and Temporality,\u201d the chapter that explains the distinctive S\u0101rv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine), he had concisely stated the situation (p. 117): \u201cAll said and done, sarv\u0101stitva must imply the continuous existence of an essence in some sense. But just precisely in what sense, was something that the \u0100bhidharmika Buddhists\u2014Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins themselves included\u2014were unable to specify. For the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, the failure to do so is not to be considered a fault on their part. It is on account of the profound nature of dharma-s which, in the final analysis, transcends human conceptualization.\u201d<\/p>\n
In order to explain how a dharma could always exist (sarv\u0101sti) throughout the three time periods, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins said \u201cthat a dharma is present when its exercises its k\u0101ritra [activity], future when its k\u0101ritra [activity] is not yet exercised, past when it has been exercised\u201d (p. 126). What makes it possible for a dharma to exercise its activity (k\u0101ritra) and thus enter the present? Its potency or force or power (\u015bakti) to do so. The famous Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da writer Sa\u1e43ghabhadra explains, as translated from the extant Chinese translation by Bhikkhu Dhammajoti (p. 126): \u201cThe potencies (\u015bakti) of dharma-s are of two kinds, activity (k\u0101ritra) and efficacy\/function\/capability\/capacity (s\u0101marthya\/v\u1e5btti\/vy\u0101p\u0101ra).\u201d This explanation of the potency or power or force (\u015bakti) that the dharmas have according to this school is reminiscent of the Mahatma K.H.\u2019s statement about the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vikas, \u201cTheir plastic, invisible, eternal, omnipresent and unconscious Swabhavat is Force or Motion<\/em> ever generating its electricity which is life.\u201d Moreover, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins did not call themselves Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, but rather called themselves <\/strong>Yuktav\u0101dins, the \u201cadvocates of logic\u201d (Bhikkhu Dhammajoti, pp. 56, 242), or proponents of reasoning. This is because in their debates with other Buddhist schools they appealed primarily to logic or reasoning, while their opponents appealed primarily to scriptural authority (the Sautr\u0101ntikas even derived their name from taking the scriptures, the s\u016btras, as authority). Again, this is reminiscent of the Mahatma K.H.\u2019s statement, \u201cyou will find them the most learned as the most scientifically logical wranglers in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n It is possible that the Mahatma K.H. was here referring to the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, or perhaps more specifically to a Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine that preceded the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school as we know it. We may summarize the known Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine as follows: All dharmas have svabh\u0101va, which remains the same throughout the three periods of time. A dharma enters the present time when, due to its potency or power or force (\u015bakti), it comes into activity (k\u0101ritra). How this change in a dharma occurs, while its svabh\u0101va remains unchanged, is explained in four different ways by four early Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da teachers. These four explanations are given by Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmako\u015ba<\/em> and his own commentary thereon, chapter 5, verses 25-27. Three almost identical positions on how change occurs, with almost verbatim explanations, are given by Vy\u0101sa in his commentary on Yoga-s\u016btra<\/em> 3.13 (see also 4.12), although here in this Hindu text they are of course not given as Buddhist positions. This is obviously an old teaching, which has been recorded in two different traditions, traditions having different doctrinal positions. One of these traditions, S\u0101\u1e43khya-Yoga, accepts a unitary eternal substance, while the other tradition, Buddhism, does not; yet both accepted this old teaching on how things exist in the three time periods. From Theosophical sources we learn of an original Buddhist school that would have preceded the formation of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school, with the clear implication that the Theosophical Mahatmas follow this original school (Blavatsky Collected Writings<\/em>, vol. 5, pp. 245-248; Theosophical Glossary<\/em> under Abhayagiri). Perhaps this original school accepted what I have called prehistoric svabh\u0101vav\u0101da.<\/p>\n In the Theosophical teachings there is no indication that svabh\u0101va is the svabh\u0101va of anything but the one element (eka-dh\u0101tu), while in the Buddhist teachings of all the early schools, including the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, there is no indication that svabh\u0101va is the svabh\u0101va of anything but the individual dharmas. This may be the problem, which made it so hard for the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins to defend their teaching that svabh\u0101va always exists. On this hypothesis, they would have received the original teaching that svabh\u0101va must always exist; but being unable to speak of the one element, and in accordance with the Buddhist teaching of the multiplicity of the dharmas, they had to formulate the teaching of an always existing svabh\u0101va in terms of the changing dharmas. This latter was an almost impossible task. Bhikkhu Dhammajoti writes, continuing the quotation from the beginning of Chapter 5 given above (p. 117):<\/p>\n \u201cOnce this metaphysical notion, however elusive, of an underlying essence of phenomena came to be emphasized, the debates\u2014as to its truth or otherwise, and as to its precise implications\u2014continued endlessly. . . . In these debates, we see the \u0100bhidharmikas\u2014including the self-professed s\u016btra-based Sautr\u0101ntikas\u2014utilizing logic as a tool to the utmost. At the end of the day, the Vaibh\u0101\u1e63ikas [i.e., the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins] had to be content with a form of identity-in-difference (bhed\u0101bheda) logic. In the depths of their hearts, however, it would seem that it is their religious insight and intuition\u2014even if they happen to defy Aristotelian logic\u2014that must be upheld at all cost.\u201d<\/p>\n We see from the lengthy passage in Isis Unveiled<\/em> (1877, vol. 2, pp. 264-265), quoted in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (1888, vol. 1, pp. 3-4), that from beginning to end, HPB understood the Theosophical teaching she received from her Mahatma teachers to be that svabh\u0101va is the svabh\u0101va of \u201cthe one infinite and unknown Essence\u201d that \u201cexists from all eternity.\u201d When this \u201cunknown essence\u201d is, metaphorically speaking, \u201cawake\u201d or \u201cactive\u201d or breathing out, the \u201coutbreathing of the \u2018unknown essence\u2019 produces the world.\u201d It is this \u201cactive condition of this \u2018Essence\u2019\u201d that HPB understood as the svabh\u0101va taught by the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vikas: “The Sv\u00e2bh\u00e2vikas, or philosophers of the oldest school of Buddhism (which still exists in Nepaul), speculate only upon the active condition of this ‘Essence,’ which they call Svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t, and deem it foolish to theorize upon the abstract and ‘unknowable’ power in its passive condition.” It is the inherent nature (svabh\u0101va) of this essence (the one element, dh\u0101tu) to periodically outbreathe, and this produces what we perceive as the manifestation of the world. That svabh\u0101va is the activity or outbreathing is fully supported by the Mahatma K.H.\u2019s statement about the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vikas calling it force or motion: \u201cTheir plastic, invisible, eternal, omnipresent and unconscious Swabhavat is Force or Motion<\/em> ever generating its electricity which is life.\u201d It is the motion of the one element, its inherent nature (svabh\u0101va), that produces the world. This motion is its life, its breathing, something inherent to it. This inherent motion produces the illusion of the world, just like, in Gau\u1e0dap\u0101da\u2019s analogy, the motion of a firebrand produces illusory shapes. But these shapes cannot have any ultimate reality, and consequently, any svabh\u0101va. Likewise, in agreement with Mah\u0101y\u0101na doctrine, the individual dharmas cannot have any ultimate reality, and consequently, any svabh\u0101va.<\/p>\n We do not know exactly what the original teachings of Buddhism were, despite the claims of each now existing Buddhist school to have them just as the Buddha taught them. Buddhism appears to have been a unified tradition for the first hundred or so years of its existence. Then the first schism occurred, and in the following centuries the \u201ceighteen schools\u201d of early Buddhism arose. Due to absence of original sources, and conflicting information in available sources, to sort out these early schools is, in the words of Etienne Lamotte, \u201cfutile\u201d (History of Indian Buddhism<\/em>, Chapter Six, \u201cThe Buddhist Sects,\u201d English p. 548, French p. 606). The first schism resulted in the Mah\u0101s\u0101\u1e43ghikas and the Sthavirav\u0101dins. The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, along with several other schools, are included in the Sthavirav\u0101dins, and at first considered themselves Sthavirav\u0101dins. As Bhikkhu Dhammajoti says about the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, \u201cBoth they, as well as their opponents\u2014the Vibhajyav\u0101dins\u2014seemed to continue for quite some time to assume the status of the orthodox Sthavirav\u0101dins\u201d (Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila\u2019s Abhidharm\u0101vat\u0101ra<\/em>, Colombo, 1998; 2nd rev. ed. Hong Kong, 2008, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d pp. 18-19). The present day Therav\u0101dins, the Pali form of the Sanskrit word Sthavirav\u0101din, also consider themselves to be the orthodox Sthavirav\u0101dins. Certainly doctrinal developments took place, such that we cannot know which doctrines were original and which were not. Bhikkhu Dhammajoti tells us that (Entrance<\/em>, p. 19):<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough in the Vij\u00f1\u0101na-k\u0101ya-\u015b\u0101stra<\/em>, the existence of dharma-s in the three periods of time was already explicitly asserted and argued for, we have to wait until the J\u00f1\u0101na-prasth\u0101na-\u015b\u0101stra<\/em> to find their fully developed theory of the everlasting existence of the svabh\u0101va of dharma-s. In fact, it was the J\u00f1\u0101na-prasth\u0101na-\u015b\u0101stra<\/em> that established the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da dogma in a definite form.”<\/p>\n All we can say is that there was a large and influential early school of Buddhism, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, who taught the everlasting existence of the svabh\u0101va of the dharmas. We do not know if this was an original teaching of Buddhism. The Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school of Buddhism referred to in Theosophical writings, whose teachings were identified with the Theosophical teachings, was apparently understood to have taught the svabh\u0101va of the one element (dh\u0101tu) rather than the svabh\u0101va of the individual dharmas. Since this is not the teaching of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins, and the alleged Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school in Nepal does not exist, we are left with the idea that in Theosophical writings the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school of Buddhism refers to what is taken to be the original teachings of Buddhism preserved by the Theosophical Mahatmas.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da doctrine was unique in Buddhism in holding that the dharmas, the factors of existence, exist throughout the three periods of time, past, present, and future, and they do this by way of their individual svabh\u0101vas, their inherent natures. The svabh\u0101va, which makes a dharma what it is, remains the same, even though the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-svabhavat"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":213,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions\/213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}