The Dhyāna of the Four kuśalamūla

Abstract

In this paper, I examine dhyāna in the stage of the catvāri kuśala-mūlāni (四善根, “four roots of good,” below CKM) of the Sarvāstivādins. It is generally accounted that the nature of CKM is prajñā (慧), but it presumes dhyāna practice. What did the Sarvāstivādins think about the element of dhyāna at this stage of applied practice? By focusing on this theme, I think we can dicover the characteristics and diversity of complex Abhidharma ideas.

Firstly, it is mentioned the CKM’s basis is rūpāvacara. The Sarvāstivāda says that this prajñā is bhāvanāmayī (修所成). The bhāvanāmayī prajñā is the third of the three prajñā (三慧), the previous two being śrutamayī (聞所成) and cintāmayī (思所成). The Sarvāstivāda defines each of these according to their sphere of applications as, respectively, name (śrutamayī), name and sense (cintāmayī), and sense (bhāvanāmayī). On the other hand, Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, held that cintāmayī refers to thinking about the truth and bhāvanāmayī is the wisdom based on samādhī, and he distinguished between the two.

Secondly, in the theory of the darśana-mārga divided into three parts (順三分), the CKM is the nirvedhabhāgīya (順決択分, conducive to certainty) , and is the stage of defining the truths. The previous (second) stage, mokṣabhāgīya (順解脱分), the stage of planting the seeds of nirvāṇa, is manaskarma. The Sarvāstivāda defines these as śrutamayī and cintāmayī. This three parts theory only explains cause and effect, and does not speak of a continuous training in dhyāna and prajñā.

The Sarvāstivāda tries to interpret both practical training and causal thoery in the same framework of śruta, cintā and bhāvanā. Therefore I think there may have been a difference in the definition of these three wisdoms.