by Sariputtra and Prakara@napada by Vasumitra.  Vasubandhu (420 A.D.-500 A.D.) wrote a work on the Vaibha@sika [Footnote ref 4] system in verses (karika) known as the Abhidharmakos’a, to which he appended a commentary of his own which passes by the name Abhidharma Kos’abha@sya in which he pointed out some of the defects of the Vaibha@sika school from the Sautrantika point of view [Footnote ref 5].  This work was commented upon by Vasumitra and Gu@namati and later on by Yas’omitra who was himself a Sautrantika and called his work Abhidharmakos’a vyakhya; Sa@nghabhadra a contemporary of Vasubandhu wrote Samayapradipa and Nyayanusara (Chinese translations of which are available) on strict Vaibha@sika lines.  We hear also of other Vaibha@sika writers such as Dharmatrata, Gho@saka, Vasumitra and Bhadanta, the writer of Sa@myuktabhidharmas’astra and Mahavibha@sa.  Di@nnaga(480 A.D.), the celebrated logician, a Vaibha@sika or a Sautrantika and reputed to be a pupil of Vasubandhu, wrote his famous work Prama@nasamuccaya in which he established Buddhist logic and refuted many of the views of Vatsyayana the celebrated commentator of the Nyaya sutras; but we regret

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  See Mrs Rhys Davids’s translation Kathavatthu, p. xix, and Sections I.6,7; II. 9 and XI. 6.]

[Footnote 2:  Mahavyutpatti gives two names for Sarvastivada, viz.  Mulasarvastivada and Aryyasarvastivada.  Itsing (671-695 A.D.) speaks of Aryyamulasarvastivada and Mulasarvastivada.  In his time he found it prevailing in Magadha, Guzrat, Sind, S. India, E. India.  Takakusu says (P.T.S. 1904-1905) that Paramartha, in his life of Vasubandhu, says that it was propagated from Kashmere to Middle India by Vasubhadra, who studied it there.]

[Footnote 3:  Takakusu says (P.T.S. 1904-1905) that Katyayaniputtra’s work was probably a compilation from other Vibha@sas which existed before the Chinese translations and Vibha@sa texts dated 383 A.D.]

[Footnote 4:  See Takakusu’s article J.R.A.S. 1905.]

[Footnote 5:  The Sautrantikas did not regard the Abhidharmas of the Vaibha@sikas as authentic and laid stress on the suttanta doctrines as given in the Suttapi@taka.]

121

to say that none of the above works are available in Sanskrit, nor have they been retranslated from Chinese or Tibetan into any of the modern European or Indian languages.

The Japanese scholar Mr Yamakami Sogen, late lecturer at Calcutta University, describes the doctrine of the Sabbatthivadins from the Chinese versions of the Abhidharmakos’a, Mahavibha@sas’astra, etc., rather elaborately [Footnote ref 1].  The following is a short sketch, which is borrowed mainly from the accounts given by Mr Sogen.