Dominant Schools 1.

The First Schism/Split: Sthavira vs Mahsa ghika It was generally accepted that the great schism separating the Mahsa ghika and Sthavira nikya-s of early Indian Buddhism occurred at the famous council held at Vaili in 100 A.N. (After Nirv a), and that the issue of separation was the famous daa-vastni (ten points1) of illicit monastic behavior. It was Bareau in 1955, who thoroughly examined the available sources and brought out a theory. He maintains that yet another council, held in Ptaliputra under the Nandin ruler Mahpadma, convened in 137 A.N., resulting in the great schism and precipitated by the Mahdeva's five theses. However, none of the Vinaya accounts refer to a schism immediately after the Second Council at Vaili. Thus the account of the Fist Schism must be sought elsewhere in later literature. 1.1.Reasons for the First Schism Traditional accounts give a wide variety of reasons for the schism which separated the Mahsa ghika-s from the Sthavira-s. They can be found in the following sources: 1.1.1. THERAVDIN SOURCES : (The Sri Lankan tradition (Theravda tradition): Dpava sa (4th century A.C.), Mahva sa (6th century), and the Kathvatthu-a hakath (Commentary to the Kv, traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa of 5th century A.C.) The fifth chapter of the Pli Dpava sa records the events of the schism separating the Mahsa ghika-s and Sthavira-s. The predominant cause of this schism is cited to be the famous dasa-vatthni (ten points) of the council of Vaili. This account has prompted Geiger, at least, to remark, "It is historically confirmed, I think, that the first schism in the Church proceeded from Vesli and that the dasa vatthni of the Vajji-monks brought it about." Bareau notes: "The nine practices (minus taking gold and silver) of the monks of Vaili could not have been one of the causes of the schism which separated the Mahsa ghika-s from the Sthavira-s as the Sinhalese chronicles maintain." The Mahsa ghika-s cannot be identified with the V jiputraka bhik u-s of Vaili. Lamotte remarks: "The portion relating to the Mahsa ghika-s has been eliminated from the chronicles by the editors of the Mahva sa and the Samantapsdik and has been replaced by an entirely different document in the Nikyasa graha."

Ten Points concerning Disciplinary Rules: (see, Pli: Cullavagga XII; Mahvasa, IV, Dpavasa IV & V; Samantapsdik, Mahbodhivasa, Ssanavasa):1. Salt inside a horn was permissible. 2. Two finger-breadths was permissible. 3. Inter-village was permissible. 4. Residence was permissible. 5. Ratification was permissible. 6. Customary practice was permissible. 7. Un-churned buttermilk was permissible. 8. Drinking unfermented toddy was permissible. 9. A sitting mat of unlimited side was permissible. 10. Gold and silver were permissible.

1.1.2. SARVSTIVDIN SOURCES: (Vasumitras Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Abhidharma-mahvibh -stra, Bhavya's Nikyabhedavibha gavykhyna, and (4) the San louen hiuan yi) In contrast to the Theravdin Dpava sa account, all the Sarvstivadin works relate the schism to controversies over doctrinal issues. In this category, four texts may be listed: (1) the Samayabhedoparacanacakra of Vasumitra, (2) the Abhidharma-mahvibh -stra, (3) the first tradition recorded in Bhavya's Nikyabhedavibha gavykhyna, and (4) the San louen hiuan yi of Ki-tsang (based on an earlier work by Paramrtha, which is in turn a commentary on Vasumitra's text). Of these, the first two are of Sarvastivdin origin. The third, considered by Trantha to be a Sthavira tradition, has been shown by Bareau to be, instead, a Kashmiri Sarvstivdin work. The fourth, a text of Mahyna (specifically Vijnavdin) authorship, is not in the strictest sense a Sarvstivdin work; but since it is a commentatorial work which is ultimately based on Vasumitra's Samayabhedoparacanacakra, it is directly connected to the Sarvstivdin traditions concerning the schism, and for that reason it has been included here. The reason for the schism, according to Vasumitra, was the list of five theses, propounded by a monk named Mahdeva.2 These theses, which deal mainly with the nature and attainments of the
5 Points of Mahdeva At an early period, five propositions prejudicial to the dignity and prerogatives of the Arhat were debated in the communities. They are described in both the Pli Abhidhamma and the Sarvstivdin Abhidharma (Kathvatthu, pp. 163-203; Jnaprasthna, T 1453, p. 819b); they are repeated and discussed in the Vibh (T 1545, p. 510c), the Koa (I, p.2), the Glosses of Paramrtha and the Treatise on the Sects by Chi-tsang.
2

1. Arhats can be led astray by others, i.e., have seminal emissions during their sleep, accomplished by erotic dreams, attributable to deities taking on female forms; Or, 1. Arahats may be sexually tempted. 2. Arhats are still subject to ignorance, not defiled ignorance (avidy), the first link of the chain of dependent origination, but undefiled ignorance (akli a ajna), a residue of their former passions, by virtue of which they d not or may not know the names and clans of men and women, the path to take, the names of trees, woods and grasses, etc.; Or, 2. Arahats have a residue of ignorance. 3-4. Arhats are still subject to doubt (k k ) and can be informed by others. These two propositions are the consequence of the preceding one. If Arhats are subject to (undefiled) ignorance, they can have doubts concerning the names and clans of certain people, the path to follow, names of tress, etc. and can be informed by others on the matter; Or, 3. Arhats may have doubts; 4. Arhats may attain enlightenment through the help of others. 5. Entry into the Buddhist Path (mrga) can be accompanied by a vocal utterance (vacbheda). The holy one (rya) who has entered the stream (stotapanna) and is possessed of the first dhyna, exclaims: O, suffering, and that cry can be considered as an artifice meant to cause the appearance of the Path. Or, 5. The path is attained with an exclamatory remark. The text of Ki-tsang's San louen hiuan yi contains many Mahynist amplifications of the originally Sarvstivdin tradition: the schism is said to result from the activities of Mahdeva, but in Ki-tsang's account he is credited not

arhant, were accepted by the Mahsa ghika-s; those who rejected them called themselves the Sthavira-s. The controversy, then, was a doctrinal one, centering not on the proper conduct of monks, but on the level of attainment which may legitimately be ascribed to the arhant. 1.1.3. SAMMITYA SOURCES : (Bhavya's Nikyabhedavibha gavykhyna) Another text which attributes the Mahsa ghika-Sthavira schism to controversies of doctrine is the third list in Bhavya's Nikyabhedavibha gavykhyna, which Trantha considers to be a Sammitya tradition. This account harmonizes fairly well with the Sarvstivdin traditions about Mahdeva, though here the name does not appear. According to the Sammitya tradition, the schism is provoked by Mra himself, who transforms himself into a man described as "bhadra" (good) or, as Bareau translates, "possessing all the [good] qualities." 1.1.4. MAHSAMGHIKA SOURCES The Sriputraparip cch- stra, an Abhidharma work of the Mahsa ghika-s, claims that the schism was the result of a Vinaya dispute. Here we find an entirely different tradition from those which we have just seen in the Sarvstivdin and Sammitya sources: the controversy, according to the Sriputraparip cch- stra, had nothing to do with doctrinal matters at all. No mention is made either of Mahdeva or of the notorious five points. According to this source, the dispute was limited to disagreements about the number of rules which should be followed by Buddhist monks. Chronologically, this is one of the most valuable of our sources, for according to Bareau, it is the earliest of all the treatises on the sects. Taking on the robes of a monk, Mra teaches various supernatural powers ( ddhi), and with his teaching of the five propositions, creates great dissension in the Buddhist community. As a result, the sa gha is divided into the sects of the Sthavira-s and the Mahsa ghika-s. This source differs in the date given for the schism, placing it at 137 A.N., as opposed to 116 A.N. in the Sarvstivdin works. In summary, there are two traditional theses associated with the Mahsa ghika-Sthavira schism; (1) The schism occurred because of the ten points of discipline cited at the Vaili council (Pali sources and the Mahsa ghika Vinaya) (2) The five points of Mahdeva which, to a large extent, redefine the notion of the Arhant. (Sarvstivdin and Sammitya sources) 1.1.5. A Third Theory Sriputraparip cch-stra (Mahsa ghika): The schism resulted from the objection of the future Mahsa hika-s to an attempt by the future Sthavira-s to increase the number of Vinaya rules. The majority of the sa gha, preferring to maintain the old version, called themselves Mahsa ghika-s, while those who chose the version containing the additional rules took the name Sthavira-s.

only with having preached the five theses, but also with having to introduce Mahyna stras into the Buddhist canon.

This theory can be verified in the Mahsa ghika Vinaya itself (the Mahsa ghika Vinaya represents the most ancient of all the Vinaya traditions): The Mahsa ghika Prtimoka has 218 or 219 items including 66 or 67 Saika-dharma-s (Sekhiya-dhamma-s) while the Theravda Vinaya has 227 including 75 Sekhiya dhamma-s. These Sekhiya dhamma-s are the items that make the number of disciplinary rules of various schools different from one another. 2. The Date of the Schism (different theories) 2.1. The Schism in the year 1 after the Nirv a (short chron. 368 B.C.) Hsuan tsang (T 2087, ch.9, p. 923a 2-10) states that in the neighborhood of Rjag ha, twenty li to the west of the cave where Mahkayapa and his 1000 arahat-s had held the first council in the year after the Nirv a, he visited an Aokan stpa erected on the spot where the Mahsa ghika canon had been compiled. Some monks in training and some monks fully trained numbering more than several hundred thousands, who had not participated in Kyapas council, assembled in that place. They said to one another: While the Tathgata was alive, we all had one and the same master; now that he is deceased, we are cast aside like strangers. In order to display our gratitude to the Buddha, we must compile a Dharmapiaka. Thus worldlings and holy ones united and composed five Piaka-s: Stra-, Vinaya-, Abhidharma-, K udraka- and Dhra piaka: they were called the Collection of the Mahsa ghika-s because worldlings and holy ones had formed the assembly which drafted them. Chi tsang and Paramrtha, a century before Hsuan tsang, had already proposed quite a close version of this event. According to them, two months after the decease of the Buddha, on the Grdhraka at Rjag ha, Mahkayapa and his five hundred arahat-s had compiled the Tripiaka. A number of monks, who had not been admitted to this task, gathered outside the disciplinary limit (m) with the intention of compiling the Tripiaka too; their leader was arahat B pa and, since they were ten thousand in number, they took the name of Mahsa ghika. 2.2. Schism in the year 100 after the Nirv a (long chron., 386 B.C.) According to the Dpava sa (V, 30-9), the wicked Vajjiputtaka monks, after being expelled by the Thera-s of the council of Vaili in the year 100 after the nirv a in the reign of Klsoka, maintained their false doctrines and organized an opposition council. That assembly was known to history by the name of Grand Council (mahsamgti) and the participants were called Mahsa ghika-s. They were guilty of falsifying the writings, either by causing upheaval in established texts, or by making omissions and interpolations, or by rejecting whole sections of the canon, and compiling new texts. Those Mahsamghika-s were the first schematics and, in imitation of them, countless heretics appeared. This information is erased from the other two Theravda sources, Mahva sa and Samantapsdik which also talk about the second council. 2.3. Schism in the year 137 after the Nirv a. (long chron., 349 B.C.) According to the Sa mitya tradition recorded by Bhvya, Bu ston, and Trantha, in the year 137 after the nirv a, during the reign of Nanda and Mahpadma, an assembly was held in Paliputra in which numerous Sthavira-s participated. The teaching of the five theses begun by the monk (bhadanta) and taken up again by the Sthavira-s Nga (Ngasena) and Sramati (Manoratha) caused a schism in the assembly between the Sthavira-s and the Mahsa ghika-s.

2. 4. Schism in the year 100 or, to be more exact, 116 after the Nirv a (short chron., 252 B.C.) According to Vasumitra, the Vibh and related sources, it was during the reign of Aoka the Maurya, in the year 100 or 116 after the nirv a, that the five heretical theses, originating in the Nga-s of southern India or preached by a certain Mahdeva, caused a doctrinal division between the Sthavira-s and the Mahsa ghika-s. 2.5. Schism in the year 160 after the Nirv a (short chron., 208 B.C.) According to Bhavya and others, this tradition is identical to the preceding one, the only difference being that the schism is fixed in 160 after the Nirv a, but still during the reign of Aoka. However, at this date, Aoka had been dead for 23 years. 2.6. Schism in the year 236 after the Nirv a (long chron., 250 B.C.) According to the Nikyasa graha (14th or 15th century A.D.), the schism occurred immediately after the council of Ptaliputra presided over by Moggaliputta-tissa in the year 236 after the Nirv a. 3. Sa ghabheda (Division or Split of the Sagha) The question of how the Sa gha got split into the two major camps, Mahsa ghika and Sthavira, is mainly addressed in two ways: one is to associate it with the unlawful practice of 10 disciplinary rules, and the other is with the 5 points of Mahdeva concerning the state of arahatship. The former is something to do with the code of discipline (Vinaya) while the latter is with doctrinal issues. The division of the Sa gha seems to have been one of the major concerns of the Buddha from the very beginning. Some texts in fact define the meaning of it and according to them there are two basic definitions of the term sa ghabheda (division or split of the Sa gha) 3.1. Definitions at AN V, 73; Vin II, 198 Sa ghabhedo sa ghabhedoti, bhante, vuccati. Kittvat nu kho, bhante, sa gho bhinno hotti? Idha Upli, bhikkh adhamma dhammoti dpenti, dhamma adhammoti dpenti, vinayoti dpenti, vinaya avinayoti dpenti, abhsita alapita tathgatena avinaya bhsita lapita tathgatenti dpenti, bhsita lapita tathgatena abhsita alapita tathgatenti dpenti, anci a tathgatena ci a tathgatenti dpenti, ci a tathgatena anci a tathgatenti dpenti, apaatta tathgatena paatta tathgatenti dpenti, paatta tathgatena apaatta tathgatenti dpenti. Te imehi dasahi vatthhi avakassanti apakassanti veni (-ka) kammni karonti veni(-ka) ptimokkha uddisanti. Ettvat kho, Upli, sa gho bhinno hotti. O bhikkhu-s, it is said Sa ghabheda. To what extent is it said that the sa gha is broken or split (bhinno)? Now Upli, if bhikkhu-s explain or make known (dpenti) what is not dhamma (adhamma) as dhamma; what is dhamma as not dhamma; what is not vinaya as vinaya; what is vinaya as not vinaya; what is not said nor talked about (alapita = a + lapita, pp. of lapati to talk) by the Tathgata as something said and talked about by the Tathgatha; what is said or talked about by the Tathgata as not said nor talked about by the Tathgatha; what is not practiced (ci a pp. of cinti) by the Tathgata as practiced by the Tathgata; what is practiced by the Tathgata as not practiced by the Tathgata; what is not declared (paatta pp.
5

of papeti) by the Tathgatha as declared by the Tathgata; what is declared by the Tathgata as not declared by the Tathgata. With these ten things, bhikkhu-s drag themselves back (avakassanti) and remove (apakassanti), and having ecclesiastical acts (for themselves), they recite the special collection of precepts (ptimokkha). To that extent, O Upli, the Sa gha is (said to be) broken and split.

3.2. There is another passage in the Canon showing the nature and reason of sa ghabheda as follows:Sama assa Gotamassa sa ghabheda karissma cakkabhedan ti. (We will bring about a split or division in the Sa gha, a division of the wheel). (Vin II, 196) This passage implies that sa ghabheda is primarily due to a dispute or a difference of opinion on the doctrinal issue(s), though a reference is also made to the holding of a separate uposatha ceremony. This is the typical example of the cakkabheda leading to the sa ghabheda. Another passage in the Vinaya (Vin II, 203-204) discusses the difference between a dispute among the monks (sa gharji) and a division or split of the sa gha (sa ghabheda). This passage shows that when a dispute arises among the monks, and if the total number of monks taking side with one camp or the other exceeds 9, it is only then considered to be sa ghabheda. If not, it is called sa gharji. The interpretation of sa ghabheda shifts from the doctrinal dispute as sa gharji, or cakkabheda (division of the wheel) to the holding of a separate uposatha ceremony (kammabheda). This can be seen in the following passage: Devadatta told the venerable nanda: From today, I will hold a separate uposatha ceremony, a separate ecclesiastical meeting from that of the Blessed One and the Sa gha) Devadatto yasmanta nanda etad avoca: ajjatagge dn ha vuso nanda aatr eva bhagavat aatr eva bhikkhusa gh uposatha karissmi sa ghakamma karissm ti A similar idea is also expressed in another passage as follows: They hold a separate Uposatha, a separate ceremony (pavrana) at the end of the rainy season, and a separate ecclesiastical meeting (veni uposatha karonti, veni pavra a karonti, veni sa ghakamma karonti) (Vin II, 204). This suggests that there are two kinds of split within the Sa gha; one is cakkabheda (division due to a difference of opinion or view) and the other is kammabheda (division due to the holding of a separate Uposatha ceremony and ecclesiastical council or meeting). The division of the Sa gha as depicted in the sutta-s and the Vinaya of the Theravda tradition considers both cakkabheda and kammabheda. This tradition is also seen in different schools. The Vinaya-s of the Sthavira lineage such as the Sarvstivadin Vinaya places emphasis on the first cakkabheda as the cause of sa ghabheda together later on with kammabheda. Later these two came to be mentioned side by side.

On the other hand the Mahsa ghika Vinaya refers only to kammabheda. This suggests there were different developmental stages for the definition of sa ghabheda in Buddhism. (See Shizuka Sasaki, A Theory of the Transformation of Indian Buddhism, Daizo Publishing House, 2000, pp. 57-124) To sum up we can say that what we will call schism and the Buddhists call saghabheda, splitting of the Community, which constitutes one of the five major crimes, comparable in gravity to that of parricide, matricide, murder of an Arhat and wounding of a Buddha, occurs when an intelligent and virtuous monk who, consequently, enjoys great authority carries away with himself a part of the Community and gives it a new teacher and a new Path. But once again, since the Community lacks a supreme authority, the Buddhist schism is purely relative and the schismatic claims to be the guardian of the doctrinal or moral purity, weakened by the decadence of the Community from which it has originated and of which he presents himself to be the reformer. 4. The date of the fundamental or original division: The date of the fundamental or original division of the Buddhist Sa gha is uncertain. If the southern tradition (Pli) is accepted, the Second Buddhist Council said to have taken place about 100 years after the demise of the Buddha (ca. 480 B.C.), then the split of the Sa gha would have been in the 4th century B.C. long before the time of King Asoka. If, on the other hand, what is called Short Chronology which places the demise of the Buddha around 380 B.C. is accepted, then the so-called Major Division of the Sa gha into two camps, Sthavira and Mahsa ghika, would have taken place close to the time of King Asoka of the 3rd century B.C. Some scholars connect the division of the Sa gha to the Asokan edicts known popularly as Schism Edict - there are diverse opinions about whether this edict refers to the first division of the Sa gha or subsequent ones (K.R.Norman, H. Bechert, N.A.Jayawickrama, etc.). This Schism Edict is seen at Allhbd, Sc, and Srnth. The Edict mentions that No one should allow the division of the Sa gha. If a bhikkhu or a bhikkhuni is believed to be planning to divide or split the Sa gha, (you should) put a white cloth on him or her and make him or her reside outside the residence [of the Sa gha or monks]. This decree should be informed to both the Bhikkhu-sa gha and the Bhikkhuni-sa gha. This has been thought to reflect the Division of the Sa gha. King Asoka is said to have taken precautionary measures to prevent a further (or future) split of the Sa gha by expelling dangerous elements within the Sa gha. However, a new interpretation was brought about by Shizuka Sasaki. He believes that putting a white cloth and making reside outside the residence [of monks] is an instruction to influential upsaka-s (Asoka himself occupies the foremost position in the list of such followers) in different districts to become the supporters of those who left the Sa gha, look after them and see to their needs.

This interpretation became possible when the Asokan Edict is read in comparison with the portions dealing with the division of the Sa gha in the Mahsa ghika Vinaya (T 22, 441a, 1126). (Sasaki, op. cit., p. 51) Sasaki, as against those who believe that King Asoka interfered with the affairs of the Sa gha, strongly believes that even King Asoka did not interfere with the affairs of the Sa gha. He was only a great lay Buddhist. 5. Probable Causes for Dissensions in the Sa gha: Nalinaksha Dutt: Buddhist Sects in India 5.1. Absence of the supreme-head of the Sa gha. We know that the Buddha did not appoint anyone to lead the Sa gha, and instead said that the Dhamma and Vinaya be the Teacher (yo vo, nanda, may dhammo ca vinayo ca desito paatto so vo mam accayena satth) (DN II, 154.) A glimpse of this can be seen in the episode of Pur a who politely declined to accept the texts recited at the First Buddhist Council. Mahkassapas attempt may not have been made without any possibility that there existed such dissident groups within the Sa gha. He tried to bring about a unity among the bhikkhu-s by convening a council. However, he was not fully successful in his attempt. 5.2. System of specialization in different branches of Buddhist literature: Pli literature refers to the existence of such specialists as masters of Suttanta (suttantika-s), repositories of the rules of discipline (vinayadhara-s), those versed in mtika (abhidhamma) (mtikadhara-s), the preachers of the Buddhist doctrines (dhammakathika-s), etc. Beginning from the Milindapaha, others terms like Dgha-bh aka-s (reciters of the Dgha Nikya and its Commentary), Majjhima-bh aka-s (reciters of the Majjhima Nikya and its Commentary), are found in later texts. Instances are not rare of a feeling of rivalry among these bodies. It may be possible to conjecture that each body tried to take precedence over the others, for instance, at the time of official functions such as Uposatha, ecclesiastical meetings, or even at private gatherings like receiving alms, delivering sermons, etc. Thus such system of specialization may have been one of the causes for dissention in the Sa gha. 5.3. Grouping around noted teachers: Specialization for the preservation of the Buddha-dhamma was not the only grouping of the monks. There were groups of monks gathered around noted teachers. It is well known that some disciples of the Buddha were praised by the Buddha for their skills. Sriputta, for instance, is regarded as foremost in intelligence (mahpana ), Moggallna, the foremost among those possessed of miraculous powers, Anuruddha, the foremost in divine eye (dibba-cakkhna ), Mahkassapa in ascetic (duta ga) practices, nanda, the foremost among the vastly learned (bahussutna ), etc. A possibility therefore exists that some monks gathered around such renowned disciples of the Buddha for their special skills. Those interested, for instance, in the ascetic or austere practices
8

would have naturally gathered around Mahkassapa. In the Sa yutta Nikya (SN II, 155-6) we read the ten chief disciples of the Buddha, each having ten to forty disciples under his tutelage. 5.4. Latitude allowed in discipline: As in the case of Devadatta, the Buddha allowed a certain amount of latitude to his disciples in the observance of Vinaya rules. In fact the original division of the Sa gha is ascribed to the dispute centering on the Vinaya rules (ten points) at the second council according to some Vinaya and other sources. Some of the rules laid down by the Buddha were due to direct requests made by those who, for instance, went to distant places for the sake of propagating the Dhamma. A noticeable example is that when the Buddha was told by a Vajjiputtaka monk that he found it difficult to observe 250 rules of the Ptimokkha. The Buddha replied he should then practice the three sikkha-s (training), higher virtues (adhisla), higher concentration (adhicitta), and higher wisdom (adhipa) envisaged in the Noble Eightfold Path. 5.5. Austerities made optional: The Buddha, though advocated the middle path of not falling into two extremes of practices, is often depicted in favor of austerities. The Sa gha may have got divided between these two ways of practice; one following the practice of leading an urban life, and the other strictly the life of forest-dwelling. This could also become causes of dissentions in the Sa gha. 6. 18 (20+) Buddhist Schools at the time of King Aoka: A General Introduction The Eighteen Buddhist Schools which arose in India mostly before the Common Era (BCE). But first, we need to define what we mean by the term The Eighteen Buddhist Schools, including what we mean by the term schools. In fact, we also need to ascertain whether or not there were, actually, eighteen Buddhist schools in India. Let us start with the number eighteen. This number appears to be a convention accepted by early Buddhist sources and by Buddhist scholars later, regarding the Buddhist schools (or sects, as they are sometimes known) which arose in India after the parinirva of the historical Buddha and before the arising of Mahyna Buddhism sometime around the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE. In fact, the number eighteen is, perhaps, more accurately twenty, or even more. Dutt3 and Bapat4 separately state that sects appeared under two broad divisions (Sthavira and Mahsagha), with the former having eleven sub-sects and the latter having seven, thus totaling eighteen, or twenty if the two broad divisions are included. Warder gives the number of schools as twenty-five or twenty-six.5 And Conze says that eighteen is a mere traditional number and in fact more than thirty are known to us, at least

Nalinksha Dutt. Buddhist Sects in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (Second Edition: Delhi, 1978), p. 218. 4 P.V. Bapat. 2500 Years of Buddhism. New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1997 (First published 1956), p. 89. 5 A.K. Warder. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (First Edition: Delhi 1970), p. 277.

by name.6 Indeed, the components of this number, whether it be eighteen, twenty, or more are not completely agreed by scholars, although there is much overlapping. So let us continue, with the term schools and consider this along with the term sects, as the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, even though wrongly. Silk argues that the term school refers to the notion designated in Sanskrit as vda. Schools are defined primarily by doctrinal characteristics, he said, and are associations of those who hold to common teachings and follow the same intellectual methods, but they have no institutional existence. 7 He goes on to say that the term sect equates to nikya, defined not by any doctrine, but by adherence to a common set of monastic rules, a Vinaya.8 He continued, A Buddhist monk must belong to a sect, that is to say, he must have one, unique institutional identification determined by the liturgy according to which he was ordained.9 Williams10 follows these definitions of Silk (who had adopted the definitions of Louis de La Vallee Poussin) and, although all scholars do not agree with Silks definitions, I will follow them too, though using the term nikya, rather than sect. Thus the term The Eighteen Buddhist Schools should be either The Eighteen Buddhist Sects, or The Eighteen Buddhist Nikyas. Most of the sects is proved by means of sound documents: 1) Inscriptions: sects of the Mahsghika, Bahurutya, Caitika, Aparaaila, Prvaaila, Rjagirika, Siddhrthika, Sarvstivdin, Mahsaka, Kyapya, Vtsputrya, Sammatya, Dharmottarya, Bhadraynya. 2) Literary works: representatives of the sects of the Theravdin, Sarvstivdin, Mahsnghika, Dharmaguptaka, Mahsaka, Haimavata, Sammatya, Lokottavdin, Mlasravstivdin. There are thus nineteen sects in all, the existence of which is certified by indisputable documents. There remain only six whose existence is not thus proven: the Gokulika, Ekavyvahrika, Prajaptivdin, Sautrntika (or Sakrntika), Tmratiya and Saagarika. But it seems that chance alone has not allowed traces of their existence to be kept and there is no reason to doubt their existence. Besides, the Sautrntikas are too well known to permit any doubt in their regard as to their reality, and it seems indeed that the Lokottaravdins were all or part of the Ekavyvahrikas as we will see. As a result, the existence of the twenty to thirty sects of which the traditions speak cannot be put into doubt. There are various versions about how, when and why these Mahsagha schisms occurred, but I shall quote only one, that of Hirakawa, based on Vasumitra (the author of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra) explains the development of the Buddhist sects according to the
6 7

Edward Conze. A Short History of Buddhism. Oxford: OneWorld Publications, 1996 (1980), p. 26. Jonathan A. Silk. What, If Anything, is Mahayna Buddhism? Problems of Definition and Classification in Numen, Vol 49, No. 4 (2002), pp. 363-364. 8 Ibid., p. 363 9 Ibid., p. 364. 10 Paul Williams. Mahyna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge, 2009 (Second Edition), p.267, n.3 to Chapter 1 Introduction.

10

northern Buddhist tradition as follows,.11: A hundred and odd years after the Parinirv a of the Buddha, there was a king named Aoka at Kusumapra (Ptaliputra) in the Magadha kingdom, who ruled over Jambudvpa (India). His influence extended to gods and men. It was at this time that the great Sa gha was split up for the first time. On account of the differences of opinion among the four groups of people12 in discussing the five points propounded by Mahdeva, the Buddhist Sa gha was divided into two schools; viz., the Mahsa ghika and the Sthaviravda (Masuda p-8) .

Hirakawa Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism: From akyamuni to Early Mahyna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidasss Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1993), pp.110-114. In this he cites I pu sung lun lun (T2031), Samayabhedoparacanacakra. 12 Four groups: 1. The Nga group; 2. The border country (pratiyantika) group; 3. The learned (bahurutya) group; and 4. The venerable (Sthavira) group.

11

11

6.1. Divisions in the Mahsa ghika School: (Immediately) afterwards, during the second century (following the death of the Buddha) three schools arose out of the Mahsa ghika: 1. The Ekavyavahrika ; 2. The Lokottaravda , and 3. The Kaukku ika. Later on, again during the second century, one school, the Bahurutya, issued from the Mahsa ghika. Once again, immediately afterwards, during this century, another school, the Prajptivda issued from the Mahsa ghika. Towards the close of the second century, there was a heretic priest who returned to the right (doctrine) discarding his heretical views. He too was called Mahdeva. Becoming a monk and receiving his full ordination in the Mahsa ghika order, he was learned and diligent. He dwelt on the Caitya hill and discussed again in detail with the priests of his school the five points (propounded by the first Mahdeva), whereupon, on account of dissensions, the Sa gha was split up into three schools: 4. The Caityaaila 5. The Aparaaila 6. The Uttaraaila Thus the Mahsa ghika was divided four or five times (including the first schism). To reckon the root and branch (schools) separately, it becomes in all nine schools: 1. The Mahsa ghika 2. The Ekavyavahrika 3. The Lokottaravda 4. The Kaukku ika 5. The Bahurutya 6. The Prajptivda 7. The Caityaaila 8. The Aparaaila 9. The Uttaraaila Mahsa ghika (Summary) A. First schism (second century A.N. i.e., after Buddhas nirv a) : Ekavyavahrika, Lokottaravda, and Kaukku ika. B. Second schism (second century A.N.): Bahurutya. C. Third schism (second century A.N.): Prajptivda. D. Fourth schism (end of the second century A.N.): Caityaaila, Aparaaila, and Uttaraaila 6.2. Divisions in the Sthaviravda School: The Sthaviravda remained in perfect harmony for a number of years. At the beginning of the third century (after the death of the Buddha) there was a little dissension and it was divided into two schools: 1. The Sarvstivda , otherwise called the Hetuvda 2. The original (mla) Sthaviravda, which changed its name into the Haimavata school.

12

Subsequently during the third century, one school named the Vtsputrya issued from the Sarvstivda. Immediately afterwards, during this third century, four schools sprang from the Vtsputrya: 1. The Dharmottarya 2. The Bhadrya ya 3. The Sa matya 4. The Channagirika Immediately afterwards, during this third century, another school, the Mahsaka, issued from the Sarvstivda. Immediately afterwards, during the same century, one school named the Dharmaguptika issued from the Mahsaka. (The founder of this school) declares himself that he was the successor of Maudgalyyana. At the end of the third century one school the Kyapya , otherwise called Suvar aka, seceded from the Sarvstivda. At the beginning of the fourth century one school named the Sautrntika, otherwise called the Sa krntivda issued again from the Sarvstivda. (The founder of this school) declares himself: I take nanda as my preceptor. Thus the Sthaviravda was divided seven times or eight times (including the original schism). To reckon the root and branches separately, it becomes eleven schools altogether: 1. The Sarvstivda 2. The Haimavata 3. The Vtsputrya 4. The Dharmottarya 5. The Bhadrya ya 6. The Sa matya 7. The Channagirika 8. The Mahsaka 9. The Dharmaguptika 10. The Kyapya 11. The Sautrntika Sthavira (Summary) The Sthavira Lineage: Sthavira original Sthavira or Haimavata (A) First schism (beginning of third century A.N.): Sarvstivda or Hetuvda. (B) Second schism (third century A.N.): Vtsputrya. (B) Third schism (third century A.N.) Dharmottarya, Bhadrya ya, Sa matya, and Channagirika (C) Fourth schism (third century A.N.): Mahsaka (D) Fifth schism (third century A.N.): Dharmaguptika (E) Sixth schism (third century A.N.): Kyapya or Suvar aka
13

(F) Seventh schism (beginning of fourth century A.N.): Sautrntika or Sa krntika. However, the Pli tradition has different names which can be found in works like the Dpava sa, Mahva sa, and the Samantapsdik. Also see the Kathvatthu translation, Introduction, etc. For instance, Vintadeva and Bhavya enlist the Haimavata-s as a branch of the Mahsaghika-s while Vasumitra remarks that the principal doctrines of this School were the same as those of the Sarvstivdins. He adds that the original Sthaviravda changed its name to Haimavata. In the Sri Lankan chronicles, however, the Haimavatika-s are counted as one of the later sects.
The Mahsa hgika-s and its branches: References to the canon of the Mahsa ghika-s are found in the inscriptions discovered at Amarvat and Ngrjuniko a. On the pillar of an outer railing of the Amarvat stpa there are two inscriptions, one of which speaks of certain nuns as Vinayadhara and the other of the monks of Mahvanaseliya as Mahvinayadhara. These distinctly imply the existence, about the beginning of the Christian era, of a Vinaya Pi aka in that region. There are similar references to the Stra Pi aka also, and in greater details. In an inscription on one of the slabs found near the central stpa of Amarvat, there is a reference to a monk of Mahvanasl as Sa yuta-bh aka. In Ngrjuniko a appear the inscriptions in the yaka pillars which refer to Dgha-Majjhima-nikyadhara. These leave no room for doubt about the existence of a Sutta-Pi aka in at least three Nikya-s: Dgha, Majjhima, and Sa yutta. Language of the Mahsa ghika-Pi aka: Bu-ston tells us that Mahsa ghika-s claimed Mahkayapa as their founder, and that the language of their Pi aka was Prkrit. The language of the Mahvastu, especially of its poetry portion, is mixed Sanskrit and which may well be called Prkrit or quasi-Sanskrit and pure Sanskrit. Fa-hien found the Vinaya of this school at Ptaliputra. Therefore it may be concluded that the chief center of this school was at P aliputra. I-tsing (671-695 A.C.) tells us that the Mahsa ghika-s were found in his time mostly in Magadha, and a few in L a and Sindhu (Western India) and some in a few places in Northern, Southern and Eastern India. The earliest schools (i.e. the first group) were located at P aliputra with adherents scattered all over Northern and North-western India, while the later schools (i.e. the second group, Caitya and Saila schools) were concentrated in the south, having their chief center in the Guntur district on the banks of the K . Two branches of the Mahsa ghgika-s: The Mahsa ghika-s migrated from Magadha in two streams, one towards the north and the other towards the south. The northern, rather north-western section later became subdivided into five: Ekavyavahrika, Lokottaravda, Kaukku ika, Bahurutya, and Prajptivda on account of minor doctrinal differences among them. In the Kathvatthu, the views discussed are mostly of the Mahsa ghika-s, who migrated to the south, settled down in the Andhra Pradesh around Amarvat and Ngrjuniko a. Their sub-branches at Ngrjuniko a were Pubbaseliya-s or Uttaraseliya-s, Aparaseliya-s, Siddhatthikas, Rjagirika-s, and Caitika-s, collectively designated as the Andhaka-s by Buddhaghosa. Teachings The Mahsa ghika, etc. 14

The original doctrines held in common among the Mahsa ghika, Ekavyavahrika, Lokottaravda, and Kaukku ika Schools: 1. Buddha-s are all supramundane (lokottara). 2. There are no ssrva dharma-s (or defiled elements) in all the Tathgata-s. 3. All the speeches of the Tathgata are concerned with the preaching of the righteous law. 4. The Buddha can expound all the doctrines (dharma) with a single utterance. (Cf. the Sarvstivdin view on this: The Buddha cannot expound all doctrines (dharma) with a single utterance.) 5. There is nothing which is not in conformity with the truth ( ayathrtha) in what has been preached by the World-honoured One. (Cf. the Sarvstivdin view: The World-honoured One utters also words which are not in conformity with the truth (ayathrtha). 6. The rpakya (nirmakya) of the Tathgata is indeed limitless as a result of his unlimited past merits. The Mahsaghika-s and their offshoots also maintained that the Buddha does not live in the world of men neither should he be located anywhere and it is his created form (abhinimmita jino). This theory is attributed to the Vetulyaka-s in the Kathvatthu (Kv). It is further stated that they (Vetulyaka-s) wrongly state: Na vattabba, Buddho Bhagav manussaloke ahs ti (it should not be said that that the Buddha lived in the world of men) (Kv XVIII.1); or sabb dis Buddh tihant ti (Buddhas exist in all corners of the world) (Kv XXI.6); or abhinimmitena desito ti (the discourses are delivered by created forms) (Kv XVIII.2) 7. The divine power (prabhva) of the Tathgata is also limitless. 8. The length of life of the Buddha-s is also limitless. (it means sambhogakya) 9. The Buddha is never tired of enlightening the sentient beings and awakening pure faith in them. (the other schools such as the Theravda and Sarvstivda maintain that the Buddha attains parinibb a after the accomplishment of the work of salvation). 10. The Buddha has neither sleep nor dream. (because he is always in the state of meditation). 11. The Tathgata does not pause in answering a question. 12. At no time does the Buddha preach (after the arrangement of) nouns (nma) and so on, because he is always in samdhi, but the sentient beings rejoice, considering that the Buddha preaches (after the arrangement of) nouns and so on. (Not only the speeches of the Buddha flow his mouth of their own accord, but also they form at once wreaths of pearls and gems. But ignorant audiences rejoice, considering that the Buddha preaches after the artistic arrangement of words, clauses and sentences, etc., and gladdens them by his eloquence.) 13. (The Blessed One) understands all things (dharma) with a moments mind(ekak anikacitta). 14. (The Blessed One) knows all things (dharma) with the wisdom befitting a moments mind. 15. The knowledge of extinction (k ayajna) and the knowledge of non-rebirth (anutpdajna) are always present in Buddha-s, and they continue to be so till their parinirv a. (the Sarvstivdins believe that not all arhats gain anutpdajna). 16. None of the Bodhisattava-s, when they enter (their) mothers wombs, form their own bodies by passing through the four embryonic stages. 17. All the Bodhisattva-s assume the forms of white elephants when they enter their mothers wombs. 18. All the Bodhisattva-s are born from the right side when they come out of their mothers wombs. 19. None of the Bodhisattva-s entertain thoughts of greed, anger, or harming others. 20. For the benefit of sentient beings Bodhisattva-s are born into bad states (gati) at will and can be born into any of them as they like. 21. Arhants can be tempted by others; have still ignorance; have still doubt; gain spiritual perception by the help of others; the path is realized by utterances. 22. A Srotapanna has a chance of retrogression while an arhant has not. 15

Kaukkuika = Doubt or suspicion about everything. It believed that out of the three Piaka-s, only one was reliable. It was the Abhidhamma as it contained the actual instructions of the Buddha. Logic is the only means of attaining emancipation. Observance of disciplinary rules is not obligatory as these do no fit in always with the moral ideas of a Bodhisattva. The Lokottaravdins held that while all mundane dharma-s were unreal, the supramundane dharma-s were real. The Caityaaila, Aparaaila and Uttaraaila Schools: 1. Bodhisattva-s are not free from the bad states of existence (durgati). 2. Even if one makes offerings to a stpa one cannot acquire great merits. (The later Mahsaka School also follows this view, but the Dharmaguptika school believes otherwise: one who makes offerings to a stpa can acquire great merit.) 3. Arhants can also be tempted by others, (Mahdevas five propositions). The Sarvstivda School: 1. The things (dharma-s) which exist, according to the Sarvstivda school, are divided into two (classes): the first by nma and second by rpa. The substances (of things) in the past and future are also (things which) really exist. (Here Vasumitras classification of dharma-s into nma and rpa is different from the usually accepted classification of them which has five classes: citta, caitasika, rpa, visamprayukta-sa skra, and asa sk ta. They are subdivided into 75. Thus the universal phenomena are divided into 75 substances in five groups . 2. A Srotapanna has no chance for retrogression while an Arhant has. 3. Even an average man (p thagjana) is able to destroy greed (rga) and anger (pratigha) in the world of desire (kmadhtu). (The Mahsaka held a view contrary to this). 4. Even heretics (trthika) can gain the five supernatural powers ( ddhi). 5. There are also certain deva-s who lead a holy life (brahmacaryvasthita). 6. Arhants can perform meritorious deeds which may lead to worldly happiness. (the Mahsaka school is opposed to this view and says that arhants do not perform meritorious deeds which may lead to worldly happiness). 7. For arhants there are things which are no longer to be learnt and things which are still to be learnt. 8. Arhants are not yet free from (the influence of) the past karma-s. 9. The Buddha and the two vehicles have no differences as to emancipation (vimukti): the ryan path (mrga) of the three vehicles differ from one another. The Haimavata School: 1. The Bodhisattva-s are still average men (p thagjana). 2. The Bodhisattva-s are not subject to greed (rga) and love (kma) when they enter their mothers wombs. 3. No heretics can gain the five supernatural powers ( ddhi). 4. There is also no deva who leads a holy life (brahamacaryvasthita). 5. Arhants can be tempted by others; they have still ignorance; they have also doubt; they gain perception by the help of others; the path is attained by utterances. The Mahsaka School: 1. The past and the future do not exist, whereas the present and the asa skra-s do exist. 2. The four ryan truths are to be meditated upon at one and the same time. When any one has seen the truth of suffering (duhkha-stya) he can realize the (remaining three) truths. 3. An average (p thagjana) cannot destroy greed (rga) and anger (pratigha) in the world of desire (kmadhtu). (This is a contrary view to that of the Sarvstivda school). 16

4. There is no deva who leads a holly life (brahmacaryvasthita). 5. No heretic (trthika) can gain the five supernatural powers ( ddhi). 6. It is certain that there is no intermediate state of existence (antarbhava). (The Sarvstivdins and later Mahsakas believed in the intermediate state of existence whereas the Mahsa ghikas and earlier Mahsakas did not. The view of Mahynists is indefinite. According to them men of supreme virtue or great sinfulness receive no intermediate state; but others do.) 7. Arhants do not perform meritorious deeds which may lead to worldly happiness. (This is against the view of Sarvstivdins). 8. Good (karma-s) cannot become the cause of existences (bhva). (The Mahsakas thought that the only cause of transmigration in the three worlds (tribhava - kmadhtu, rpadhtu, and arpadhtu) was bad actions, but the Sarvstivdins maintained that good actions also contribute to transmigration.) 9. Srotapanna-s are subject to retrogression, whereas Arhants are certainly not subject to retrogression. 10. Entrance into the womb is the beginning and death is the end of human life. During this life the material constituents (mahbhta) of the sense-organs are subject to change; the citta and caitasikadharma-s are also subject to change. 11. The sa gha includes the Buddha. Therefore one who gives alms to the sa gha acquires a great merit; but not so when one gives alms separately to the Buddha. (The Mahsakas gave more importance to the sa gha than to the historical Buddha. The Dharmaguptika school held the contrary view.) 12. The Buddha and the two vehicles have one and the same path (mrga)and one and the same emancipation. (This is opposed to the views of the Sarvstivdins and Dharmaguptikas.) . The later differentiated doctrines: 1. The past and the future really exist. 2. There is also an intermediate state of existence. 3. Will (cetan) is the source of actions. There are no actions either by word or deed which come into being without the sanction of the will. 4. Even when one makes offerings to a stpa, the fruit which he acquires (by this) is little. (This view was also shared by the Caityaaila, Aparaaila and Uttaraaila, but contrary to that of the Dharmaguptika school). The Dharmaguptika School: 1. Though the Buddha is included in the sa gha, yet the merit of giving alms separately to the Buddha is great; but not so great as the merit of giving to the sa gha. 2. One who makes offerings to a stpa can acquire great merit. 3. Though the Buddha and the two vehicles (yna) are one as to emancipation (vimukti), yet they are different as to the ryan path (mrga). 4. No heretics can gain the five supernatural powers ( ddhi). 5. The body of an arhant is free from passion (ansrva). The Sautrntika School: 1. An average man (p thagjana) also possesses the potentiality of becoming a Buddha. (This proposition of the Sautrntika school implies that the Mahyna idea that all sentient beings can become Buddha has already existed amongst the thinkers of this school.)

17