|Chinese||?(T) / ?(S) |
|Vietnamese||A-tì-t-ma, Vi Di?u Pháp|
|Glossary of Buddhism|
Abhidharma (Sanskrit) or Abhidhamma (Pali) are ancient (3rd century BCE and later) Buddhist texts which contain detailed scholastic reworkings of doctrinal material appearing in the Buddhist sutras, according to schematic classifications. The Abhidhamma works do not contain systematic philosophical treatises, but summaries or abstract and systematic lists.Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi describe it thus:
Whereas the Suttas and Vinaya serve an obvious practical purpose, namely, to proclaim a clear-cut message of deliverance and to lay down a method of personal training, the Abhidhamma Pitaka presents the appearance of an abstract and highly technical systemization of the doctrine.
According to Collett Cox, Abhidhamma started as an elaboration of the teachings of the suttas, but later developed independent doctrines.
The literal translation of the term Abhidharma is unclear. Two possibilities are most commonly given:
Compared to the colloquial sutras, Abhidharma texts are much more technical, analytic and systematic in content and style. The Theravadin and Sarvastivadin Abhidharmikas generally considered the Abhidharma to be the pure and literal (nippariyaya) description of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca) and an expression of unsullied wisdom (prajna), while the sutras were considered 'conventional' (sammuti) and figurative (pariyaya) teachings, given by the Buddha to specific people, at specific times, depending on specific worldly circumstances. They held that Abhidharma was taught by the Buddha to his most eminent disciples, and that therefore this justified the inclusion of Abhidharma texts into their scriptural canon.
Some in the West have considered the Abhidhamma to be the core of what is referred to as "Buddhism and psychology". Other writers on the topic such as Nyanaponika Thera and Dan Lusthaus describe Abhidhamma as a Buddhist phenomenology while Noa Ronkin and Kenneth Inada equate it with Process philosophy.Bhikkhu Bodhi writes that the system of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology and an ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program for liberation." Abhidharma analysis also extended into the fields of ontology, epistemology and metaphysics.
In the commentaries of Theravada Buddhism it was held that the Abhidhamma was not a later addition to the tradition, but rather represented in the fourth week of Gautama Buddha's enlightenment. Optimistic devas created a beautiful jeweled chamber. Buddha, after spending the 3rd week dispelling mistrust and sitting inside it meditated on what was later known as the "Higher Doctrine". His mind and body were so purified that six-coloured rays came out of his body -- blue, yellow, red, white, orange and a mixture of these five. The mixed color represented all these noble qualities. Later, he traveled to the Tr?yastria and taught the Abhidhamma to the divine beings that dwelled there, including his deceased mother M?y?, who had re-arisen as a celestial being. The tradition holds that the Buddha gave daily summaries of the teachings given in the heavenly realm to the bhikkhu Sariputta, who passed them on.
The Abhidhamma is thus presented as a pure and undiluted form of the teaching that was too difficult for most practitioners of the Buddha's time to grasp. Instead, the Buddha taught by the method related in the various suttas, giving appropriate, immediately applicable teachings as each situation arose, rather than attempting to set forth the Abhidhamma in all its complexity and completeness. Thus, there is a similarity between the traditions of the Adhidhamma and that of the Mahayana, which also claimed to be too difficult for the people living in the Buddha's time.
The Sarvastivadin Vaibhasikas held that the Buddha and his disciples taught the Abhidharma, but that it was scattered throughout the canon. Only after his death was the Abhidharma compiled systematically by his elder disciples and was recited by Ananda at the first Buddhist council.
The Sautr?ntika school ('those who rely on the sutras') rejected the status of the Abhidharma as being Buddhavacana (word of the Buddha), they held it was the work of different monks after his death, and that this was the reason different Abhidharma schools varied widely in their doctrines.
Scholars generally believe that the Abhidharma emerged after the time of the Buddha, in around the 3rd century BCE. Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha himself, but those of disciples and scholars. Factors contributing to its development could have been the growth of monastic centers, the growing support for the Buddhist sangha, and outside influences from other religious groups.
As the last major division of the canon, the Abhidhamma works have had a checkered history. They were not accepted as canonical by the Mahasanghika school and several other schools. Another school included most of the Khuddaka Nikaya within the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly Theravada collection, and has little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other Buddhist schools. The Theravadin Abhidhamma is in some respects rather skeletal, with the details not entirely fleshed out. According to Rupert Gethin however, obvious care and ingenuity have gone into its development.
The Abhidhamma philosophies of the various early schools often disagree on doctrine and belong to the period of 'Divided Buddhism' (as opposed to Undivided Buddhism). The earliest texts of the Pali Canon (the Sutta Nipata, parts of the Jataka tales, and the first four Nikayas of the Suttapitaka) have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned at the report of the First Buddhist Council, directly after the death of the Buddha. This report of the first council does mention the existence of the Vinaya and the five Nikayas (of the Suttapitaka).
Numerous Abhidharma traditions arose in India, roughly during the period from the 2nd or 3rd Century BCE to the 5th Century CE. The 7th-century Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang reportedly collected Abhidharma texts from seven different traditions. The various Abhidhammic traditions have very fundamental philosophical disagreements with each other. These various Abhidhammic theories were (together with differences in Vinaya) the major cause for the majority of splits in the monastic Sangha, which resulted in the fragmented early Buddhist landscape of the 18 Early Buddhist Schools. However these differences did not mean the existence of totally independent sects, as noted by Rupert Gethin, "at least some of the schools mentioned by later Buddhist tradition are likely to have been informal schools of thought in the manner of 'Cartesians,' 'British Empiricists,' or 'Kantians' for the history of modern philosophy."
In the modern era, only the Abhidharmas of the Sarv?stiv?dins and the Therav?dins have survived intact, each consisting of seven books, with the addition of the Sariputra Abhidharma. The Therav?da Abhidharma, the Abhidhamma Pitaka (discussed below), is preserved in P?li, while the Sarv?stiv?din Abhidharma is mostly preserved only in Chinese - the (likely Sanskrit) original texts having been lost, though some Tibetan texts are still extant. A small number of other Abhidharma texts of unknown origin are preserved in translation in the Chinese canon. These different traditions have some similarities, suggesting either interaction between groups or some common ground antedating the separation of the schools.
The Abhidharma texts' field of inquiry extends to the entire Buddhadharma, since their goal was to outline, systematize and analyze all of the teachings. Abhidharmic thought also extends beyond the sutras to cover new philosophical and psychological ground which is only implicit in sutras or not present at all. There are certain doctrines which were developed or even invented by the Abhidharmikas and these became grounds for the debates among the different Early Buddhist schools.
The "base upon which the entire [Abhidharma] system rests" is the 'dharma theory' and this theory 'penetrated all the early schools'. For the Abhidharmikas, the ultimate components of existence, the elementary constituents of experience were called dharmas (Pali: dhammas). This concept has been variously translated as "factors" (Collett Cox), "psychic characteristics" (Bronkhorst), "phenomena" (Nyanaponika) and "psycho-physical events" (Ronkin).
The early Buddhist scriptures give various lists of the constituents of the person such as the five skandhas, the six or 18 dhatus, and the twelve sense bases. In Abhidharma literature, these lists of dharmas systematically arranged and they were seen as the ultimate entities or momentary events which make up the fabric of people's experience of reality. The idea was to create an exhaustive list of all possible phenomena that make up the world.
The conventional reality of substantial objects and persons is merely a conceptual construct imputed by the mind on a flux of dharmas. However, dharmas are never seen as individually separate entities, but are always dependently conditioned by other dharmas in a stream of momentary constellations of dharmas, constantly coming into being and vanishing, always in flux. Perception and thinking is then seen as a combination of various dharmas. Cittas (awareness events) are never experienced on their own, but are always intentional and hence accompanied by various mental factors (cetasikas), in a constantly flowing stream of experience occurrences.
Human experience is thus explained by a series of dynamic processes and their patterns of relationships with each other. Buddhist Abhidharma philosophers then sought to explain all experience by creating lists and matrices (matikas) of these dharmas, which varied by school. The four categories of dharmas in the Theravada Abhidhamma are:
The Sarvastivada Abhidharma also used these, along with a fifth category: "factors dissociated from thought" (cittaviprayuktasa?sk?ra). The Sarvastivadas also included three dharmas in the fourth "unconditioned" category instead of just one, the dharma of space and two states of cessation.
The Abhidharma project was thus to provide a completely exhaustive account of every possible type of conscious experience in terms of its constituent factors and their relations. The Theravada tradition holds that there were 82 types of possible dhammas - 82 types of occurrences in the experiential world, while the general Sarvastivada tradition eventually enumerated 75 dharma types.
For the Abhidharmikas, truth was twofold and there are two ways of looking at reality. One way is the way of everyday experience and of normal worldly persons. This is the category of the nominal and the conceptual (paññatti), and is termed the conventional truth (sa?v?ti-satya). However, the way of the Abhidharma, and hence the way of enlightened persons like the Buddha, who have developed the true insight (vipassana), sees reality as the constant stream of collections of dharmas, and this way of seeing the world is ultimate truth (param?rtha-satya).
As the Indian Buddhist Vasubandhu writes: "Anything the idea of which does not occur upon division or upon mental analysis, such as an object like a pot, that is a 'conceptual fiction'. The ultimately real is otherwise." For Vasubandhu then, something is not the ultimately real if it 'disappears under analysis', but is merely conventional.
The ultimate goal of the Abhidharma is Nirvana and hence the Abhidharmikas systematized dharmas into those which are skillful (kusala), purify the mind and lead to liberation, and those which are unskillful and do not. The Abhidharma then has a soteriological purpose, first and foremost and its goal is to support Buddhist practice and meditation. By carefully watching the coming and going of dhammas, and being able to identify which ones are wholesome and to be cultivated, and which ones are unwholesome and to be abandoned, the Buddhist meditator makes use of the Abhidharma as a schema to liberate his mind and realize that all experiences are impermanent, not-self, unsatisfactory and therefore not to be clung to.
The Abhidharmikas often used the term svabh?va (Pali: sabh?va) to explain the causal workings of dharmas. This term was used in different ways by the different Buddhist schools. This term does not appear in the sutras. The Abhidharmako?abhya states: "dharma means 'upholding,' [namely], upholding intrinsic nature (svabh?va)" while the Therav?din commentaries holds that: "dhammas are so called because they bear their intrinsic natures, or because they are borne by causal conditions." Dharmas were also said to be distinct from each other by their intrinsic/unique characteristics (svalaksana). The examination of these characteristics was held to be extremely important, the Sarvastivada Mahavibhasa states "Abhidharma is [precisely] the analysis of the svalaksana and samanya-laksana of dharmas".
According to Peter Harvey, the Theravadin view of dharmas was that "'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma."
The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, the most influential classical Theravada treatise, states that not-self does not become apparent because it is concealed by "compactness" when one does not give attention to the various elements which make up the person.  The Paramatthamañjusa Visuddhimaggatika of Acariya Dhammapala, a later Theravada commentary on the Visuddhimagga, refers to the fact that we often assume unity and compactness in phenomena and functions which are instead made up of various elements, but when one sees that these are merely empty dhammas, one can understand the not-self characteristic:
"when they are seen after resolving them by means of knowledge into these elements, they disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere states (dhamma) occurring due to conditions and void. In this way the characteristic of not-self becomes more evident."
The Sarvastivadins saw dharmas as the ultimately 'real entities' (sad-dravya), though they also held that dharmas were dependently originated. For the Sarvastivadins, a synonym for svabhava is avayaya (a 'part'), the smallest possible unit which cannot be analyzed into smaller parts and hence it is ultimately real as opposed to only conventionally real (such as a chariot or a person). However, the Sarvastivadins did not hold that dharmas were completely independent of each other, as the Mahavibhasa states: "conditioned dharmas are weak in their intrinsic nature, they can accomplish their activities only through mutual dependence" and "they have no sovereignty (aisvarya). They are dependent on others." Svabhava in the early Abhidhamma texts was then not a term which meant ontological independence, metaphysical essence or underlying substance, but simply referred to their characteristics, which are dependent on other conditions and qualities. According to Ronkin: "In the early Sarv?stiv?da exegetical texts, then, svabh?va is used as an atemporal, invariable criterion determining what a dharma is, not necessarily that a dharma exists. The concern here is primarily with what makes categorial types of dharma unique, rather than with the ontological status of dharmas." However, in the later Sarvastivada texts, like the Mahavibhasa, the term svabhava began to be defined more ontologically as the really existing "intrinsic nature" specifying individual dharmas.
Other Abhidharma schools did not accept the svabhava concept. The 'Prajñaptivadins' denied the ultimate reality of all dharmas and held that everything, even dharmas, is characterized by Prajñapti (provisional designation or fictitious construction). The Vainasikas held that all dharmas were without svabhava. This view that dharmas are empty or void is also found in the Lokanuvartana Sutra ('The Sutra of Conformity with the World') which survives in Chinese and Tibetan translation, and may have been a scripture of the Purvasailas, which was a sub-school of the Mahasamghika.
Another important project for the Abhidharmikas was to outline a theory of causality, especially of how momentary dharmas relate to each other through causes and conditions.
The Sarvastivadin analysis focused on six causes (hetu), four conditions (pratyaya) and five effects (phala). According to K.L. Dhammajoti, for the Sarvastivada school, 'causal efficacy is the central criterion for the reality/existence (astitva) of a dharma' and hence they were also sometimes called the 'Hetuvada' school. A dharma is real because it is a cause and it has effects, if it had no causal efficacy, it would not exist. The six causes outlined by the Sarvastivada are:
The Sarvastivada Vibhasa-sastrins accepted only static dependent origination
The last book of the Pali Abhidhamma, the Patthana, sets out the main Theravada theory on conditioned relations and causality. The Patthana is an exhaustive examination of the conditioned nature (Paticcasamupada) of all dhammas. The introduction begins with a detailed list of 24 specific types of conditioned relationships (paccaya) that may pertain between different factors. The majority of these conditions have counterparts in the Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma. The Pali Abhidhammatthasangaha reduces them all to four main types.
The Sautr?ntika school used a theory of 'seeds' (b?ja) in the mental continuum to explain causal interaction between past and present dharmas, this theory was later developed by the Yogacara school in their theory of "storehouse consciousness" (?layavijñ?na).
A prominent argument between the Abhidharmikas was on the Philosophy of time. The Sarv?stiv?din tradition held the view (expressed in the Vijñanakaya) that dharmas exist in all three times - past, present, future; hence the name of their school means "theory of all exists". The Sautr?ntika, Vibhajyav?da and Theravada schools argued against this eternalist view in favor of presentism (only the present moment exists). This argument was so central, that north Indian Buddhist schools were often named according to their philosophical position. According to Vasubandhu:
"Those who hold 'all exists' -- the past, the present and the future -- belong to the Särvastiväda. Those, on the other hand, who hold that some exist, viz., the present and the past karma that has not given fruit but not those that have given fruit or the future, are followers of the Vibhajyaväda."
Vasubandhu initially wrote in favor of Sarv?stiv?da, and later critiqued this position. The Sarv?stiv?da-Vaibhika also held an atomistic conception of time which divided time into discrete indivisible moments (k?a?a) and saw all events as lasting only for a minute instant (and yet also existing in all three times).
Theravadins also held a theory of momentariness (Khav?da), but it was less ontological than Sarv?stiv?da and more focused on the psychological aspects of time. The Theravada divided every dhamma into three different instants of origination (upp?dakkha?a), endurance (?hitikkha?a) and cessation (bha?gakkha?a). They also held that only mental events were momentary, material events could endure for longer.
A key problem which the Abhidharmikas wished to tackle was the question of how rebirth and karma works if there is no self to be reborn apart from the five aggregates. The Patthana includes the earliest Pali canonical reference to an important answer to this question: bhavanga, or 'life-continuum'. Bhavanga, literally, "the limb on which existence occurs" is 'that substratum which maintains the continuity of the individual throughout that life.' The Sarvastivadins had a similar term, nikayasabhagata. This concept is similar to the Yogacara doctrine of the storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana), which was later associated with the Buddha nature doctrine.
This problem was also taken up by a group of Buddhist schools termed the Pudgalavadins or "Personalists" which included the V?ts?putr?ya, the Dharmottar?ya, the Bhadray?n?ya, the Sammitiya and the Shannagarika. These schools posited the existence of a 'person' (pudgala) or self, which had a real existence that was not reducible to streams and collections of dharmas. They also often used other terms to refer to this real 'self', such as 'Atman' and 'Jiva' which are words for the immortal soul in Hinduism and Jainism respectively. They seemed to have held that the 'self' was part of a fifth category of existence, the "inexpressible". This was a radically different view than the not-self view held by the mainstream Buddhist schools and this theory was a major point of controversy and was thoroughly attacked by other Buddhist schools such as the Theravadins, Sarvastivadins and later Mahayanists.
The Sarvastivadin Abhidharmikas also developed the novel idea of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth. The Purvasaila, Sammitiya, Vatsiputriya, and later Mahisasaka schools accepted this view, while the Theravadins, Vibhajyavada, Mahasanghika, and the Sariputrabhidharmasastra of the Dharmaguptakas rejected it.
Some Abhidharmikas such as the Sarvastivadins also defended an atomic theory. However unlike the Hindu Vaisheshika school, Abhidharmic atoms (paramannu) are not permanent, but momentary. The Vaibhasika held that an atom is the smallest analyzable unit of matter (rupa), hence it is a 'conceptual atom' (prajnapti-paramanu), though this also corresponds to a real existing thing. The Mahabhivasa states:
"An atom (paramänu) is the smallest rüpa. It cannot be cut, broken, penetrated; it cannot be taken up, abandoned, ridden on, stepped on, struck or dragged. It is neither long nor short, square nor round, regular nor irregular, convex nor concave. It has no smaller parts; it cannot be decomposed, cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched. It is thus that the paramänu is said to be the finest (sarva-süksma) of all rüpas."
The Therav?da Abhidhamma, like the rest of the Tipi?aka, was orally transmitted until the 1st century BCE. Due to famines and constant wars, the monks responsible for recording the oral tradition felt that there was a risk of portions of the canon being lost so the Abhidhamma was written down for the first time along with the rest of the Canon.
These had all been published in P?li Canon in the first century BCE at Alu Vihara Temple in Sri Lanka, and most have been translated into English by the Pali Text Society as well. Some scholars date the seven Pali Abhidhamma books from about 400 BCE to about 250 BCE, the first book being the oldest of the seven and the fifth being the newest.
Additional post-canonical texts composed in the following centuries attempted to further clarify the analysis presented in the Abhidhamma texts. The best known of such texts are the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa and the Abhidhammattha-sangaha of Anuruddha. Other Sri Lankan compendiums of Abhidhamma include the Namarupapariccheda (analysis of mind and matter), Parmatthavinicchaya (an enquiry into what is ultimate), Abhidhammavatara (a descent into the introduction of Abhidhamma), Ruparupavi bhaga (analysis into mind and matter), Saccasamkhepa (summary of Truth), Mohavicchedani (that which dispels delusion), Khemappakarana (the treat is by Khema) and Namacaradipak (movement of mind; compiled in Burma).
Early Western translators of the P?li canon found the Abhidhamma Pitaka the least interesting of the three sections of the Tipi?aka. Caroline Augusta Foley Rhys Davids, a P?li scholar and the wife of Pali Text Society founder Thomas William Rhys Davids, famously described the ten chapters of the Yamaka as "ten valleys of dry bones". As a result, this Abhidhammic aspect of Buddhism was little studied in the West until the latter half of the 20th Century. Interest in the Abhidhamma has grown in the West as better scholarship on Buddhist philosophy has gradually revealed more information about its origins and significance.
Within the Therav?da tradition the prominence of the Abhidhamma has varied considerably from country to country with Buddhism in Burma placing the most emphasis on the study of the Abhidhamma.
In addition to the canonical Abhidharma, a variety of commentaries and manuals were written to serve as introductions to the Abhidharma. The best known commentaries in the Theravada tradition are:
Other commentaries include:
The other major Indian Abhidharma tradition was that of the Sarv?stiv?da school, which was dominant in North India, especially Kashmir and also in Bactria and Gandhara. This is the Abhidharma tradition that is studied in East Asian Buddhism and also in Tibetan Buddhism.
Like the Theravada Abhidharma, the Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma also consists of seven texts. However, comparison of the content of the Sarv?stiv?da texts with that of the Therav?da Abhidhamma reveals that it is unlikely that this indicates that one textual tradition originated from the other. In particular, the Therav?da Abhidharma contains two texts (the Katha Vatthu and Puggala Pannatti) that some consider entirely out of place in an Abhidharma collection.
The texts of the Sarv?stiv?din Abhidharma are:
The Jnanaprasthana became the basis for Sarvastivada exegetical works called Vibhasa, which were composed in a time of intense sectarian debate among the Sarvastivadins in Kashmir. These compendia not only contain sutra references and reasoned arguments but also contain new doctrinal categories and positions. The most influential of these was the Mahavibhasa ("Great Commentary"), a massive work which became the central text of the Vaibhika tradition who became the Kasmiri Sarv?stiv?da Orthodoxy under the patronage of the Kushan empire. There are also two other extant Vibhasa compendia, though there is evidence for the existence of many more of these works which are now lost. The Vibhasasastra of Sitapani and the Abhidharmavibhasasastra translated by Buddhavarman c. 437 and 439 A.D. are the other extant Vibhasa works.
In addition to the canonical Sarv?stiv?dan Abhidharma, a variety of expository texts or sastras were written to serve as overviews and introductions to the Abhidharma. The best known belonging to the Sarv?stiv?dan tradition are:
According to some sources, abhidharma was not accepted as canonical by the Mah?sghika school. The Therav?din D?pava?sa, for example, records that the Mah?sghikas had no abhidharma. However, other sources indicate that there were such collections of abhidharma. During the early 5th century, the Chinese pilgrim Faxian is said to have found a Mah?sghika abhidharma at a monastery in Paliputra. When Xuanzang visited Dh?nyaka?aka, he wrote that the monks of this region were Mah?sghikas, and mentions the P?rva?ailas specifically. Near Dh?nyaka?aka, he met two Mah?sghika bhik?us and studied Mah?sghika abhidharma with them for several months, during which time they also studied various Mah?y?na stras together under Xuanzang's direction. On the basis of textual evidence as well as inscriptions at N?g?rjunako, Joseph Walser concludes that at least some Mah?sghika sects probably had an abhidharma collection, and that it likely contained five or six books.
The riputra Abhidharma stra (? Shèlìfú ?pítán Lùn) (T. 1548) is a complete abhidharma text that is thought to come from the Dharmaguptaka sect. The only complete edition of this text is that in Chinese. Sanskrit fragments from this text have been found in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, and are now part of the Schøyen Collection (MS 2375/08). The manuscripts at this find are thought to have been part of a monastery library of the Mah?sghika Lokottarav?da sect.
In addition to the Theravada and Sarv?stiv?dan abhidharma traditions, a third complete system of Abhidharma thought is elaborated in certain works of the Mah?y?na Yog?c?ra tradition, principally in the following commentaries:
While this Yog?c?rin Abhidharma is based on the Sarv?stiv?din system, it also incorporates aspects of other Abhidharma systems and present a complete Abhidharma in accordance with a Mah?y?na Yog?c?ra view that the mind (Vijñapti) alone is ultimately "real."
The Yog?c?ra masters inherited the mystical approach of the Prajñ?p?ramit? texts. However, they did not reject the validity of theoretical Abhidharma. Rather they attempted to construct a critical understanding of the consciousness that underlies all meaning, both mystical and theoretical. Their focus was on doctrine, but as it flowed from the practice of meditative centering (yoga), rather than as it was understood in acts of conceptual apprehension.
The Satyasiddhi stra, also called the Tattvasiddhi stra, is an extant Abhidharma text from the Mah?sghika Bahu?rut?ya school, which was popular in Chinese Buddhism. This Abhidharma is now contained in the Chinese Buddhist canon, in sixteen fascicles (Taish? Tripi?aka 1646). Its authorship is attributed to Harivarman, a third-century monk from central India. Param?rtha cites this Bahu?rut?ya abhidharma as containing a combination of H?nay?na and Mah?y?na doctrines, and Joseph Walser agrees that this assessment is correct. Ian Charles Harris also characterizes the text as a synthesis of H?nay?na and Mah?y?na, and notes that its doctrines are very close to those in M?dhyamaka and Yog?c?ra works. The Satyasiddhi stra maintained great popularity in Chinese Buddhism, and even lead to the formation of its own school of Buddhism in China, the Satyasiddhi School, or Chéngshí Z?ng (), which was founded in 412 CE. As summarized by Nan Huai-Chin:
Various Buddhist schools sprang to life, such as the school based on the three M?dhyamaka stras, the school based on the Abhidharmako?a, and the school based on the Satyasiddhi stra. These all vied with each other, producing many wondrous offshoots, each giving rise to its own theoretical system.
The Satyasiddhi School taught a progression of twenty-seven stations for cultivating realization, based upon the teachings of the Satyasiddhi stra. The Satyasiddhi School took Harivarman as its founder in India, and Kum?raj?va as the school's founder in China. The Satyasiddhi School is counted among the Ten Schools of Tang Dynasty Buddhism. From China, the Satyasiddhi School was transmitted to Japan in 625 CE, where it was known as J?jitsu-shu (). The Japanese Satyasiddhi school is known as one of the six great schools of Japanese Buddhism in the Nara period (710-794 CE).