Much of the Sarvastivada version of the Buddhist
CANONis preserved in Chinese translations, including
the complete monastic disciplinary code (vinaya), a
portion of the dialogues (sutra), and the complete col-
lection of scholastic treatises (ABHIDHARMA), as well as
many other postcanonical scholastic texts and com-
mentaries. The presence of certain texts in multiple re-
censions confirms that the Sarvastivada school was not
homogeneous, but was rather a vast group distin-
guished by regional, chronological, doctrinal, and
other differences. This was most likely true of all early
Buddhist schools. In the case of the Sarvastivada
school, these internal distinctions are clearly demar-
cated in their scholastic texts by the attribution of dis-
tinct doctrinal positions to Sarvastivada groups of
different regions.
Intragroup differences within the Sarvastivada
school also may have led directly to the emergence of
a Mulasarvastivada school, whose separate monastic
disciplinary code survives in Sanskrit, and to whom
can probably be attributed other assorted sutra dia-
logues and miscellaneous texts preserved in Chinese
translation. The precise identity, however, of the
Mulasarvastivadins remains elusive, and their relation
to the Sarvastivadins a point of scholarly disagreement.
Some suggest that the Mulasarvastivadins represent
merely a later phase in the development of the Sar-
vastivada sectarian stream. Others see the distinction
as reflecting both geographical and chronological dif-
ferences within the Sarvastivada school, which was
widespread throughout northern India and Central
Asia, and in particular in the northwestern region of
Kashmir and Gandhara and the north central region
of Mathura. In this latter view, when the Sarvastivada
school of the northwest declined in prominence, the
Sarvastivadins of Mathurabecame more significant
and adopted the name Mulasarvastivada (root Sar-
vastivada) to proclaim their status as the original
Sarvastivadins.
The Sarvastivadins of northwest India were
renowned for their scholarly study of Buddhist doc-
trine or abhidharma. From compiling voluminous
treatises called vibhasa,commentaries on the most sig-
nificant of their canonical abhidharma scriptures,
those in the Kashmiri Sarvastivada branch eventually
came to be called Sarvastivada-Vaibhasika. The last
and best known of these vibhasatreatises is called the
Mahavibhasa(Great Exegesis). The later Sarvastivada
summary digests and pedagogical manuals of abhi-
dharmacontain detailed discussions of all manner of
doctrinal issues from ontology to religious praxis. The
most controversial of these issues is the position from
which the name Sarvastivada is derived: namely, sar-
vam astior “everything exists,” referring specifically to
the existence of conditioned factors (dharma) in the
three time periods of the past, present, and future. This
assertion was motivated by the need to provide a ba-
sis for the commonly perceived efficacy of past and fu-
ture causes and conditions. If past actions are accepted
as conditions for the arising of present events, and past
or future entities function as objects of recollection or
presentiment, these past and future actions or entities
must, the Sarvastivadins claim, be admitted to exist.
Attacked for violating the fundamental Buddhist doc-
trine of impermanence, the Sarvastivadins responded
with an elaborate ontology that attempted both to de-
limit the specific manner in which past and future fac-
tors exist and to preserve their conditioned and hence
impermanent character.Most prominent among the critics of this hallmark
Sarvastivada position were the Sautrantikas or Darstan-
tikas. The original meanings and referents of these
names as well as their relationship to one another re-
main the subject of scholarly disagreement. Since no
evidence survives of a separate Sautrantika or Darstan-
tika monastic disciplinary code, they would appear to
represent a particular doctrinal perspective, most likely
the same doctrinal party within the Sarvastivada school.
Proponents of this group may have used the term
Sautrantika (those who rely upon the sutras) self-
referentially, and their opponents among the Sarvasti-
vadins may have labeled them pejoratively as
Darstantika (those who employ examples). The
Sautrantika/Darstantikas criticized orthodox Sarvasti-
vada ontology as thinly veiled permanence and instead
argued for a doctrine of extreme momentariness. They
rejected unequivocally the existence of past and future
factors, and equated the existence of present factors
with an instantaneous exertion of activity. In contrast
to the complex array of existent factors proposed by the
Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantika/Darstantikas claimed
that experience is best described as an indistinguishable
process. The name Sautrantika, “those who rely upon
the sutras,” also indicates a rejection of the authority
that the Sarvastivadins bestowed upon their separate
canonical abhidharmacollection.Vibhajyavada. The connotation of the term Vibha-
jyavadahas also been the subject of prolonged schol-
arly disagreement, largely because of the variety of
senses in which the term was used over time. In the
early sutras, Vibhajyavada occurs as a descriptive termMAINSTREAMBUDDHISTSCHOOLS