In Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, the terms Theravada and Vibhajjavāda are identified as denoting the same form or pattern of Buddhism. In fact the term Vibhajjavāda is considered as the best qualifying word for Theravāda Buddhism. For the Buddhists, in these Buddhist countries, Buddhism is an analytical system, because it deserves to be designated as Vibhajjavāda. There is no other term which brings out the essential nature not only of Buddhism but also of the Buddha, as the Buddhists in the Southern tradition believe. In fact, the identification of Theravāda with Vibhajjavāda is based on the accounts of the Third Buddhist Council as documented in the Pāli sources such as the Commentaries on the Vinaya, the Kathāvatthu and the Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka. These three sources, the Samantapāsādika-aṭṭhakathā, Kathāvatthuaṭṭhakathā of Abhidhamma Piṭaka and the Mahavaṃsa, recorded the proceedings of the Third Buddhist Council in more or less the same language.
From the time of the third century B.C. up to now, the Theravāda tradition has believed that the most appropriate and meaningful terms for the Buddha Vibhajjavādī and for his teachings is Vibhajjavāda. I shall discuss this issue in details as available as sources of Pāli and other documents. It is said in the Mahāvaṃsa-one of the well known Pāli Chronicles of Srilanka—that on the seventh day, king Asoka, in order to find out who are the real monks, who are the true followers of Buddhism, got the community of the minks assembled at Asokārāma and summoned each group of monks in turn and asked this question “what is theory that the Perfectly Enlightened One reach? (kiṃvādī sammāsambuddho).
According to divergent views of monks, in response to this question those who believed in eternalism replied that the Buddha was an advocate of eternalism. Likewise those who propounded the theories of finiteness and infinitude, the eel wrigglers, casuists, those who professed theories of conscious existence, non conscious existence, neither conscious nor non conscious existence, annhilationists and those who professed Nibbana of this life also replied according to the views which they held. It was not so difficult for the king who had already learned the Dhamma to realize they were not Buddhist monks but heretics who belonged to other persuasions. The king gave them white garments and expelled all of them, numbering sixty thousand in all, from the community of monks. Next, the King summoned the remaining monks and asked the same question: What was the perfectly Enlightened One a teacher of? They said in reply, Great king He was Vibhajjavādī. On hearing their answer, in order to get this confirm the king asked Moggaliputta Tissa Thera, Was the perfectly Enlightened One Vibhajjavadī ? Yes, great king, replied the Thera. There upon King Asoka told the Thera, Venerable Sir, the Sasanā is now pure, let the fraternity of monks perform the Uposatha. At this assembly, numbering sixty thousand monks, Moggaliputta Tissa Thera recited the treatise called Kathavatthu in order to refute the heretical views.
According to this account, the Buddha is identified as the exponent of analysis and his teaching as the system of analysis. This is considered as the true nature of the Buddha and his teaching which distinguishes early Buddhism from all systems of religion and heretical views. That is how Theravāda came to be known as Vibhajjavāda. However, the Canonical references to the term Vibhajjavāda, do not conform exactly to this opinion which was very much loved and adhered to by the Buddhists in the Theravāda Buddhist counties.
The term Vibhajja is found in the context of the fourfold classification of questions occasionally found in the discourses. The four categories of questions are:
1. Pañho ekaṃsa vyākaraniyo(A question which should be answered categorically or surely)
2. Pañho paṭipucchā vyākaraniyo (A question which should be answered with a counter question.)
3. Pañho ṭhapaniyo (A question that should be set aside.)
4. Pañho vibhajja vyākaraniyo (A question which should be answered analytically.)
This classification shows that the Buddha did not always answer the questions analytically. His answer depended upon the nature of the question. A question which is to be answered categorically was never explained analytically by the Buddha. In the same way, a question to be answered by asking a counter question or a question to be kept aside was also not answered analytically. Therefore, analysis (vibhajja) does not single out the four ways of answering the questions in Buddhism. The Buddha does not say that this particular type of question is more important than other types. All types of questions are equally important according to the Buddha in this context.
The Aṅguttaranikāya observes that a person who does not answer categorically a question which ought to be answered categorically, who does not answer analytically a question which ought to be answered analytically, who does not answer with a counter question a question which ought to be answered with a counter question and who does not set aside a question which ought to be set aside- such a person is indeed not fit to debate or discuss with. Accordingly, the conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Buddha is Ekaṃsavādī, Patipucchavādi and Thapaniyavādi to the extent that he is Vibhajjavadī.
This conclusion is further corroborated in the Subhasutta of the Majjhimanikāya where the Buddha claims that he is a Vibhajjavādī. Subha, a young son of Brahmin Todeyya, approached the Buddha when he was at the Jetavana Monastery in Savatthi and asked the following two questions:
1. The only householders could accomplish meritorious deeds in a right, justice and good manner, not monks. What do you have to say about this?
2. The occupation or endeavour of householders produced great benefits whereas the occupation of the recluses brought little benefits. What do you have to say about this? Subha believed above two views.
The Buddha answered these two questions without subscribing to a categorical position. His answer, repeated twice in connection with the two questions runs as follows: Herein, O young man, I give an analytical explanation, I do not make, herein, a categorical assertion (Vibhajjavādo kho ahamettha māṇava nāhamettha ekaṃsavādo).In this answer, the key word or importance of the term “herein (ettha)” should not be overlooked because it points to the Buddha’s position and emphasizes his outlook. The Buddha’s answer specifies that he is an exponent of analysis (Vibhajjavadī) only in relation to the two questions that Subha raised.
The obvious indication here is that the Buddha may give categorical answers to various other propositions. In replying to Poṭṭhapāda, once the Buddha has said that I have taught and laid down doctrines of which it is possible to make categorical assertions and I have taught and laid down doctrines of which it is not possible to make categorical assertions. Therefore, it is not suitable or appropriate to think that the Buddha employed only the Vibhajjavāda methodology at all times in relation to all propositions, proposals, or suggestions. His answers varied depending on the nature of the questions. His statements were sometimes categorical and at other times analytical. Therefore, the Canonical evidence does not support the traditional claim that the Buddha can be branded as a Vibhajjavādin.
However, the claim was recorded in the Samantapasādika, Kathavatthuatthakatha and the Mahavamsa that the Buddha is a Vibhajjavadin and it cannot be ignored as historically untrue. The historicity underlying this claim seems to have been preserved in the Sanskrit and Chinese sources. In an eloquent article written on the subject by Professor Y. Karunadasa, the meaning assigned to the term Vibhajjavāda in the sources of Northern Buddhism is explained as follows: In the Abhidharmakosabhasya of Acarya Vasubandhu and in the Chinese version of Harivarman’s Satyasiddhisastra, for example, it is specifically stated that, among the Buddhists Schools, the Vibhajyavādins are those who give a qualified answer, a kind of conditional assertion, in respect of the proposition whether the so called dharmas or the ultimate elements of existence persist in all the three phases of time, past, present and future – a controversial issue which disturbed the Buddhist scholastic movement during and after the Asokan age. As to the names of the Buddhist Schools which are Vibhajyavadī, the texts differ. Among the names cited in the various sources, some names which relevant to the term Vibhajjavāda in some way or another, are Kasyapiyas, Prajnaptivadins, Mahisassakas, Ekavyavaharikas and Lokottaravadins. In his introduction to the French translation of the Chinese version of the Abhidharmakosabhasya, De la Vallee Poussin observes that in all probability the Theravadins, too, are called Vibhajjavādins because of the position they took in respect of this selfsame controversial issue. There is, in fact, much indirect evidence in the literary sources of the Theravadins themselves which can be adduced in support of this conclusion.
What is more, in the very account of the Third Buddhist Council, referred to earlier, there is an oblique, but unmistakable reference to the Buddhist controversy on time which, as we shall soon see, is not only the basis in relation to which Theravada came to be known as Vibhajjavāda, but also is the actual reason that led to the summoning of the third Buddhist Council. The historical circumstances and the doctrinal reasons which brought about this controversy as to the reality or otherwise of the elements of existence in the three phases of time, and the impact on the subsequent history of the Sasanā will become clear if we follow closely the history of Buddhist thoughts in the two centuries immediately preceding the Third Buddhist Council.
The following is a summary of the historical background that led the various Buddhist Schools including the Theravada, the heir apparent to the original Buddhism, to identify the Buddha as a Vibhajjavādin and Buddhism as a Vibhajjavāda. It is generally believed that the Abhidhamma came into existence as a systematic exposition of the Buddha’s teachings which existed in the form of discourses. The Abhidhamma while collecting and analyzing early teachings came forward with the theory of elements which is generally known as the Dhammavāda. According to this theory, only the elements of Dhamma exist in actual fact. Actually the Theravada Abhidhamma says that there is no individual. Only the Absolute Dhamma (paramattha dhamma) exists. Therefore, the existence of the individual became negated.
On the basis of this, the theory of elements was questioned since it seems to have denied the ethical responsibility and the continuation of life. If the individual does not exist there is no one to hold the responsibility of good and bad actions committed and there is no one to go from this life to the life after. Those who maintained this position organized into a separate School and seceded from Theravāda in the reign of King Bindusara, the father of King Asoka. This School became known as Puggalavāda. Since it was pioneered by the Elder Vatsaputra, this School was known as Vatsaputriya Nikaya too. The Puggalavāda was condemned as a substantialist theory. Without subscribing to the acceptance of the existence of individuals, an attempt was made to answer the problems that the Puggalavāda raised.
A result of this, endeavour was the discovery of a new methodology which came to be known as Sarvastivāda. It is believed that the Sarvastivāda School came into existence in the reign of King Asoka, the son and successor of King Bindusara. Since the elements exist in all three times, the Sarvastivādins maintained that the problems of ethical responsibility and continuation of life can be explained without resorting to the existence of the individual. The Sarvastivadins asked the question: Do the dharmas exist in all three times and answered categorically to the effect that they exist. Since the tri-temporal existence of dharmas provides a metaphysical dimension equivalent to the soul, there arose another School in the reign of King Asoka itself which answered the question: Do the dharmas exist in all three times analytically. This School was led by the Elder Kasyapa, hence it became known as Kasyapiya School. The position of the Kasyapiya School was that the past dharmas the effects of which have not yet actualized and the present exist; the past dharmas the effect of which have already actualized and the future do not exist. Since this explanation analyses the problem regarding the tri-temporal existence of dharmas without resorting to a categorical assertion in the affirmative or in the negative, it came to be known as Vibhajjavāda
Accordingly, the Abhidhammic analysis of elements gave rise to the emergence of three Schools which hotly debated the doctrinal position of the individual in the reign of King Asoka. This compelled the Elders belonging to the Theravāda to reinterpret their position in the background of the ideologies put forward by the Vastriputriyas, Sarvastivadins and the Kasyapiyas. This was carried out in the Third Buddhist Council by articulating the Theravāda position in the Kathāvatthu the first chapter of which is the Puggalakathā. Therein, the Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera analyses the issue by taking it absolutely, with reference to space, time and to the factors into which the Absolute Reality (paramattha saccā) is finally explained. Since this analytical approach towards the controversy that had surfaced at that time, Theravāda too came to be known as Vibhajjavāda. As pointed out before, Vibhajjavada is a generic name which takes various Buddhist Schools into its scope even though it was considered as a personal designation of Theravada in the Pāli sources.
Thus, as above mentioned in this background of various theories of the existence of the Buddhist schools with regard to the doctrinal position of the individual, Theravada was forced to come out with its own theory. The third Buddhist council was convened to discuss these philosophical problems: Do the Dhammas exist in the past, in the present, and in the future? Theravadins said that this question deserves an analytical answer. This cannot be directly answered. They analyzed question in detail and gave their position which is recorded in the Kathāvatthu of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. In that context of the tri-temporal existence of the Absolute Phenomena, the Theravada said that the Buddha was Vibhajjavādin and the Early Buddhism is Vibhajjavāda. Only in that context! It means that entirely Early Buddhism is not Vibhajjavāda. The most salient characteristic of the Buddha is not Vibhajjavādiī. Only in the selected contexts, the Buddha is Vibijjavādī and Buddhism is Vibhajjavāda.
Ashin Sutacaralankara(Research Scholar)
Department of Buddhist Studies
Nava Nalanda Mahavhara
(Deemed University)
Bihar, India,
References
1. VinA. I. 30ff; (Samantapāsādika Vinaya aṭṭhakathā)
2. Kathāvatthuatthakatha, PTS, 1889, pp.5-7;
3. Mahāvamsa, 5th chapter
4. Dighanikāya (=DN). III. 229;
5. Aṅguttaranikāya (=AN). II. 45
6. AN. I. 197
7. MN. II. 197
8. DN. I. 189-191
9. Kalyani, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kelaniya, 1983, pp. 9-10
10. Rockhill, W. W., Life of the Buddha, London, 1884, p. 91ff.
Masuda, J., Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools, Asia Major, Vol. II, 1925, pp.65ff.
11. Prof Oliver Abeynayake's 2006- M. A, Course Lecturer Notes of Pāli& Buddhist University of Sri Lanka,
