ABSTRACT
As with Theravāda, there is a complete Sarvāstivāda Canon with a Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and a Sarvāstivāda ordination lineage to go with it. But the name ‘Sarvāstivāda’ means ‘the doctrine (vāda) that all (sarva) exist (asti)’, and holding this ‘doctrine that all exist’, whatever that involves, is not the same as being ordained into the Sarvāstivāda lineage. To repeat: if a monk is ordained in a particular ordination lineage, that is, he is ordained according to a particular monastic code (Vinaya), it does not follow from this fact alone that the monk concerned holds a particular philosophical or doctrinal position. Thus there could be a Sarvāstivāda monk, for example, a monk ordained according to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, who does not hold to the characteristic doctrine known as Sarvāstivāda, ‘the doctrine (vāda) that all (sarva) exist (asti)’. To hold and defend this doctrine, and other associated doctrines, is to follow Sarvāstivāda as a doctrinal school, and in this book as with other scholarly works nowadays a distinction is drawn in English between a sect (corresponding to a usage of the Pāli term nikāya) – that is, roughly, what we have spoken of as a monastic tradition with its own ordination according to its own monastic code – and a doctrinal school (corresponding to the term vāda). These are different. Clearly it is logically possible to be a Sarvāstivādin (one who follows Sarvāstivāda) monk by ordination without being a Sarvastivādin by doctrine, and vice-versa. The association between a Sarvāstivāda ordination lineage and Sarvāstivāda doctrines is a contingent one, although in practice it may well have turned out to be the case that they were often associated in those monks (no doubt the minority) who were particularly interested in the refinements of doctrinal study. But not all the great doctrinal schools of Buddhism (traditionally there is said to have been 18 doctrinal schools related to non-Mahāyāna Buddhism) had Vinayas and distinctive monastic codes associated with them. As far as we know, for example, ‘Sautrāntika’ is only a doctrinal school. Thus there could easily have been a Sarvāstivādin monk, i.e. one ordained according to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, holding Sautrāntika views. And, as we have seen, Mahāyāna as such is neither a Vinaya tradition nor a doctrinal school. It is rather a vision or aspiration, and an understanding 84of what the final concern should be for Buddhists who can aspire to it. That final concern should be to obtain perfect Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, and perfect Buddhahood for all is very much superior to simply becoming an Arhat, liberated from one’s own suffering. Thus there would be no contradiction in being a Sarvāstivādin monk holding Sautrāntika doctrinal views and also being a Mahāyānist. The universal association of certain doctrinal schools, notably Mādhyamika and Yogācāra, with Mahāyāna is again a contingent matter not one of necessary connection, notwithstanding the fact that the founders and all the great teachers associated with these Mādhyamika and Yogācāra doctrinal positions do indeed appear to have held the Mahāyāna vision as well.
