본문 바로가기
  • Home

Sthavira Śrīlāta, Asaṅga, Saṃghabhadra, and Vasubandhu

Kwon Oh Min 1

1경상대학교

ABSTRACT

Abhidharmakośaśāstra, Nyāyānusāraśāstra, or early Yogācāra’s text and commentaries all of which understood Sthavira as Sautrāntika has to be denied. Moreover it’s impossible to restore the history of Buddhist thought regarding Sautrāntika. The theory that ‘Vasubandhu is Sautrāntika’ is actually the knowledge without decisive grounds, apocryphal. The reason why Vasubandhu was called Sautrāntika or a follower(pākṣika) of Sautrāntika was because of familiar with Sthavira. Then on one day, Sautrāntika of Sthavira Śrīlāta was disappeared in Buddhist history. He became thoroughly forgotten. He hasn't been researched in modern Buddhology also, and Vasubandhu took his place. This is mysterious. But, this is why all the imaginations and speculative hypotheses of Sautrāntika have been rampant. Sthavira Śrīlāta of Sautrāntika was in the same area(Ayodhyā), same era (4-5C.) with Saṃghabhadra and Asaṅga, a representative of Sarvāstivādin and Yogācāra. Interestingly Vasubandhu was in a inseparable relationship with these three. Sthavira was strong critic against Sarvāstivādin and Yogācāra, and they also criticised the Sautrāntika’s theory such as the theory of seeds(bīja) using almost same reasons. So their relationship and conflicts are reflected in their texts in anyway. We can read the tension of Asaṅga and the others in the early Yogācāra’s texts. We also can read the irony or dilemma of Vasubandhu which he has to criticize his own early theories using almost same reasons of what Saṃghabhadra used after his conversion to Yogācāra. Now we should reflect on all knowledge hypotheses related to Sautrāntika, through Sthavira Śrīlāta. He will surely renew our understanding on Buddhism. Following these, we might have to establish a new category in Buddhology.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.