Selected Essays on Buddhist Studies

A Study of the Schisms and Lineage Transmissions in Indian Sectarian Buddhism

Lin Chong'an (1990)

Abstract

This paper explores the formation of the two Vinaya lineages, the four noble sects (Arya-nikayas), and the eighteen sects as Indian sectarian Buddhism developed, examining each alongside the lineage transmissions of the relevant traditions.

1. In the year of the Buddha’s parinirvana, the First Council was convened at Rajagaha: Ananda first compiled the Sutra Pitaka (Discourses), after which Upali compiled the original Vinaya Pitaka (Monastic Discipline).
2. One hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Council at Vesali was called in response to disputes over monastic discipline. The Vinaya Pitaka was compiled first, followed by the Sutra Pitaka. After this council, two distinct Vinaya lineages emerged: the Sthavira Vinaya lineage (composed of council members) and the original Mahasamgha Vinaya lineage (composed of monks outside the council). The Sthavira group also reordered the sequence of the precepts, creating further differences between the two lineages.
3. Starting in the 137th year after the Buddha’s parinirvana, doctrinal disputes broke out within the Buddhist community over positions on the “Five Propositions,” “true existence,” and the “pudgala-self” (the concept of a person). After 63 years of debate, these splits hardened into the four noble sects: the Arya-Sthavira-nikaya, the Arya-Sarvastivada-nikaya, the Arya-Vatsiputriya-nikaya, and the Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya.
4. In the 200th year after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Vatsiputriya Sthaviras were the first to compile an Abhidharma Pitaka, producing the Sariputra Abhidharma and placing it after the Sutra and Vinaya Pitakas. Other sects later followed their lead, compiling their own Abhidharma Pitakas based on this model.
5. The Council at Pataliputra, held in the 235th year after the Buddha’s parinirvana, compiled the Vinaya Pitaka first, followed by the Sutra and Abhidharma Pitakas. This was an internal council of the Arya-Sthavira-nikaya. During King Asoka’s reign, Buddhism split into 18 major sects across the subcontinent. Seven of these were formed when Asoka dispatched eminent monks from the four noble sects to spread the Dharma in border regions.
6. As for the relationship between the two Vinaya lineages and the four noble sects: In the early stage of the doctrinal disputes, the large community of monks belonging to the original Mahasamgha Vinaya lineage (outside the council) split into the Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya, the Arya-Vatsiputriya-nikaya, and the Arya-Sarvastivada-nikaya. Later in the dispute period, the most heated debate was between Mahadeva and Moggaliputta Tissa (Monianthi/Majjhantika). Supporters of Mahadeva were the younger, larger faction, while supporters of Moggaliputta Tissa were a smaller group of elder Sthaviras. Later generations therefore called the former the “Mahasamghika” and the latter the “Sthavira.” This conflation of the two sects with the two Vinaya lineages has caused ongoing confusion in sectarian classification. In fact, both Mahadeva (of the Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya) and Moggaliputta Tissa (of the Arya-Sarvastivada-nikaya) belonged to the original Mahasamgha Vinaya lineage outside the council. Comparing the order of precepts across the lineages makes clear that the Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya and Arya-Sarvastivada-nikaya differ significantly from the Arya-Sthavira-nikaya. The Vinaya of the Arya-Vatsiputriya-nikaya is identical to that of the Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya, and both belong to the original Mahasamgha Vinaya outside the council.
7. When it comes to lineage transmissions, sectarian Buddhism includes the lineages of Mahakasyapa and Ananda, Upali, Anuruddha, Sariputra and Rahula, and Katyayana. Among these, Sanavasi and Moggaliputta Tissa, figures in the Mahakasyapa and Ananda lineage, are described in Northern transmission accounts as direct disciples of Ananda. This creates a discrepancy of roughly 100 years in the calculated date of the Buddha’s parinirvana compared to Southern transmission records. In reality, these two were disciples roughly five generations after the Buddha.
8. The relationship between the four noble sects and the eighteen sects is as follows: A. Arya-Sthavira-nikaya (four sects in total): Mahisasaka (Vibhajyavada), Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, and Tamraparniya (Mahavihara). B. Arya-Sarvastivada-nikaya (three sects in total): Mulasarvastivada, Kasyapiya, and Samkrantiya. C. Arya-Mahasamghika-nikaya (six sects in total): Mulamahasamghika (Ekavyaharaka), Lokottaravada, Kukkutika, Bahusrutiya, Prajnaptivada, and Caitika. D. Arya-Vatsiputriya-nikaya (five sects in total): Vatsiputriya, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Shannagarika (Six-City), and Sammitiya.

Of these, seven sects — the Mahisasaka (Vibhajyavada), Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, Tamraparniya, Caitika, Sammitiya, and the Mulasarvastivada of Kashmir-Gandhara — were all formed as a result of King Asoka dispatching eminent monks to propagate the Dharma in border regions.

I. Introduction

Starting around 486 BCE, with Shakyamuni Buddha’s parinirvana, Indian Buddhism gradually entered a period of sectarian division. This long era of Sravaka teachings, which lasted until roughly 150 CE, is collectively known as “Sectarian Buddhism.” Many scholars have studied this process of schism before, including Lu Cheng in Introduction to Indian Buddhist Thought and Master Yinshun in The Origins and Development of Early Mahayana Buddhism. Divergences between Northern and Southern transmission source materials have led to differing conclusions. These divergences touch on questions including the date of the Buddha’s parinirvana, the content of the early councils, the doctrines of individual sects, and their lineage transmissions. This paper treats Northern and Southern transmission materials as equally valid, and doesn’t prioritize one over the other. Working within these questions, it draws on the most plausible arguments to explore the formation of the two Vinaya lineages, the four noble sects, and the eighteen sects after the Buddha’s parinirvana, and also explains the roots of discrepancies between Northern and Southern transmission accounts. When it comes to lineage transmissions, it focuses on how the Buddha’s disciples across successive generations evolved into distinct sects due to regional and doctrinal differences.

II. The Buddha’s Teachings

During the Buddha’s lifetime, prominent capitals in the Ganges and Yamuna river regions of India included Campa in the Anga kingdom, Rajagaha in Magadha, Vesali in Vajji, Kusinara in Malla, Varanasi in Kasi, Savatthi in Kosala, Kosambi in Vamsa, Mathura in Surasena, and Ujjeni in Avanti. The Buddha traveled east to Campa, south to Varanasi and Rajagaha, west to Kosambi, and north to Kapilavatthu to teach the Dharma, while many disciples journeyed from all over India to hear his teachings.

The Buddha taught without discrimination. Among his ten foremost disciples, Sariputra, Moggallana, Mahakasyapa, and Punna were of Brahmin origin; Anuruddha, Katyayana, Rahula, and Ananda were of Kshatriya origin; Subhuti was of Vaishya origin; and Upali was of Shudra origin. Among his lay followers were King Pasenadi of Kosala, King Bimbisara of Magadha, and Ajatasattu.

Finally, in Kusinara, the Buddha converted Subhadda, enabling him to attain arahantship. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Lower Scroll) states:

“Subhadda! At the age of twenty-nine I left home to practice the Way. At thirty-six, beneath the Bodhi tree, I contemplated the Noble Eightfold Path, fathomed the ultimate source, attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, and gained all-encompassing wisdom. I then went to the Deer Park in Varanasi, at the Isipatana hermitage, to turn the Wheel of the Four Noble Truths for the five men including Ajnata Kaundinya, Assaji, Vappa, Bhaddiya, and Mahanama.” (T1, p204a)

Following this was the Buddha’s instruction to Ananda:

“In the past, I formulated the precepts of the Patimokkha for the monks, along with the various wondrous Dharmas I taught. These will be your Master after I am gone, just as if I were still in the world, no different.” (T1, p204b)

Here, the Buddha already indicated that from the first turning of the Dharma wheel onward, the teachings (concerning the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path) and precepts he expounded were what future disciples must uphold. Regarding monastic discipline, the Mahasamghika Vinaya (Volume 23) states:

“For the first five years after the World-Honored One attained enlightenment, the community of monks was entirely pure. After that, offenses gradually arose, and the World-Honored One established precepts in response to each incident.” (T22, p412b)

The Five-Part Vinaya (Volume 22) states:

“Although I may have established a rule, if it is not considered pure in other regions, it should not be applied. Although I may not have established a rule, if it must be observed in other regions, it must not be ignored.” (T22, p153a)

Additionally, the Sariputra Sutra records:

“Sariputra said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One, regarding the precepts you have laid down for the monks, some are permitted and some are restricted… How should monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen in future generations uphold them?’ The Buddha replied: ‘To follow my words is called acting in accordance with the times. In this context, these words should be practiced; in that context, those words should be practiced. Because they are practiced for the sake of benefit, they should all be upheld.’” (T24, p900a)

This indicates that precepts were formulated to fit specific times and circumstances. The Dirgha Agama Sutra (Volume 4) states:

“I have expounded sutras and precepts since my enlightenment; these are your protection and your refuge. Ananda! From this day forward, I permit the monks to set aside the minor precepts.” (T1, p26a)

Since the daily life of the monastic community is governed by precepts, but the exact scope of the “minor precepts” was never explicitly defined, the Buddha’s foremost disciples held differing views on what counted as a minor precept. This sowed the early seeds of later sectarian schisms. On the other hand, the Buddha tailored his teachings to each disciple’s disposition, so his followers had different understandings of the Dharma. After being passed down through several generations, these small interpretive gaps widened. Doctrinal disputes then accelerated the process of sectarian division.

As for the date of the Buddha’s parinirvana, there is a dating method known as the “Dotted Record of the Sages” (Zhongsheng Dianji), recorded in the Record of the Three Jewels Throughout Successive Dynasties (Volume 11):

“The foreign shramana Sanghabhadra (rendered as ‘Sage of the Sangha’ in Qi dynasty terminology) transmitted from master to disciple that: after the Buddha’s parinirvana, when Upali had finished compiling the Vinaya Pitaka, on the 15th day of the seventh month of that same year, after concluding the Pavarana (confession) ceremony, he offered incense and flowers to the Vinaya Pitaka and placed a single dot in front of it. This was repeated year after year… (Sanghabhadra), in the seventh year of the Yongming era (489 CE), the Gengwu year, on the 15th of the seventh month, after concluding the Pavarana ceremony, followed his master’s precedent by offering incense and flowers to the Vinaya Pitaka and placing a dot. Counting up to that year, there were nine hundred and seventy-five dots, each dot representing one year.” (T49, p95b)

Using this calculation, the derived date of the Buddha’s parinirvana falls between 483 BCE and 486 BCE.

The process of sectarian division in Indian Buddhism spanned the Ajatasattu dynasty (host to the Rajagaha Council in the year of the Buddha’s parinirvana), the Susunaga dynasty (host to the Vesali Council 100 years after the parinirvana), the Nanda dynasty (when doctrinal disputes began 137 years after the parinirvana), and the Maurya dynasty (host to the Vatsiputriya council 200 years after the parinirvana and the Council at Pataliputra 235 years after the parinirvana). This process ultimately produced the eighteen sects and their sub-branches. The following section traces these events in chronological order by years after the Buddha’s parinirvana.

III. The Council at Rajagaha

During the Ajatasattu dynasty, in the very year of the Buddha’s parinirvana at Kusinara, Mahakasyapa gathered Ananda, Upali, Rahula, Anuruddha, and 500 other monks at Rajagaha to collectively compile the Sravakayana Dharma and precepts, ensuring their long-term transmission. The Mahasamghika Vinaya, in the chapter “Compilation of the Dharma by Five Hundred Monks” (Volume Thirty-Two), states:

“Then the Venerable Mahakasyapa asked the assembled monks, ‘Which Pitaka should we compile first?’ The entire assembly replied, ‘Let us compile the Dharma Pitaka first.’ He asked again, ‘Who should be responsible for compiling it?’ The monks said, ‘The Elder Ananda.’… Next he asked, ‘Who then should compile the Vinaya Pitaka?’ Some said, ‘The Elder Upali.’ Once the Vinaya Pitaka was compiled, they called the thousand monks waiting outside to enter and said, ‘Venerable Elders! The Dharma Pitaka has been compiled as you have heard, and the Vinaya Pitaka has also been compiled.’” (T22, p491b)

This passage makes clear that at the First Council (the Rajagaha Council), the Sutra Pitaka was compiled first, followed by the Vinaya Pitaka; there was no compilation of an Abhidharma Pitaka. (Any sectarian lineage that only participated in the Rajagaha Council and did not take part in the later Vesali Council states in its treatises that the Sutra Pitaka was compiled first, followed by the Vinaya.)

The Mahasamghika Vinaya (Volume 32) further records:

“Some monks said, ‘Venerable Elders! The World-Honored One previously told Ananda that he wished to set aside the minor precepts for the monks. Which ones did he intend to set aside?’ Some monks said, ‘If the World-Honored One set aside the minor precepts, he surely meant just the rules of deportment.’ Others said, ‘It wasn’t strictly deportment; he also meant the sekhiya training rules.’ Others said, ‘He also meant the four patideśaniya acknowledgments.’ Others said, ‘The ninety-two pācittiya expiations should also be set aside.’ Others said, ‘The thirty nissaggiya-pācittiya forfeitures and expiations should be set aside.’ Others said, ‘The two aniyata indefinite rules should also be set aside.’ Then the Chabbaggiya (Group of Six) monks said, ‘Venerable Elders! If the World-Honored One were here, he would set aside all of them!’ Mahakasyapa, whose stern authority matched the World-Honored One’s, cut them off sharply: ‘Tut, tut! Do not speak such nonsense!’ Instantly, the entire assembly fell silent. Mahakasyapa said, ‘Venerable Elders! If we were to abolish rules that have already been established, outsiders will say, “When Gotama was alive, his teachings and rules flourished; now that he has passed into nirvana, the Dharma is falling into ruin.” Venerable Elders! Do not establish any new rules that have not yet been set, and follow strictly all rules that have already been established!’” (T22, p492c)

This passage vividly illustrates the deep disagreement among the monks at the time over the standards for minor precepts. The Five-Part Vinaya (Volume 30) records that the Elder Punna, who was based in the south, heard of the Buddha’s passing and immediately led his followers to Rajagaha to meet with Mahakasyapa:

“I heard directly from the Buddha that these seven practices are permitted: storing food indoors, cooking indoors, cooking for oneself, taking food from another’s hand after receiving it, picking and eating fruit oneself, receiving alms over a pond, and eating fruit with the pit removed without a kappiya (purifier) present.” “Great One,” Kasyapa replied, “these seven rules were allowed by the Buddha only when he was in Vesali during a famine, when alms were hard to find. Later, right there, he revoked four of them. When he reached Savatthi, he revoked the remaining three…” “I can accept all other rules,” Punna said, “but I cannot abide by these seven.” Kasyapa then announced to the Sangha: “What the Buddha did not establish, we must not presumptuously create; what he has already established, we must not violate.” (T22, p191c)

This account shows that while there was some dissent over the Vinaya compiled at the Rajagaha Council, Mahakasyapa’s firm insistence ultimately settled the matter. As a result, the Vinaya observed by both the monks inside and outside the council at Rajagaha should have been identical. This Vinaya is referred to as the “Original Vinaya.” Which of the later transmitted Vinayas is closest to the version compiled at the council? The Record of the Eminent Monk Faxian states:

“I originally set out to find the Vinaya, but in the northern Indian kingdoms, it was passed down only orally from master to disciple, with no written texts available to copy. So I traveled far, finally arriving in central India. At a Mahayana monastery there, I obtained a copy of the Vinaya of the Mahasamghika, which was the code followed by the original assembly during the Buddha’s lifetime.” (T51, p864b)

This suggests that the later transmitted Mahasamghika Vinaya is relatively close to the Original Vinaya.

After the Rajagaha Council, the Buddha’s first-generation disciples spread out across India to teach the Dharma. There were five main lineage groups: the lineage of Mahakasyapa and Ananda, the lineage of Upali, the lineage of Sariputra and Rahula, the lineage of Anuruddha, and the lineage of Katyayana. Not long after the Buddha’s parinirvana, Buddhism was flourishing in Vesali, the emerging urban center of Pataliputra, Ujjeni in the western Avanti kingdom, and Mathura in the Surasena kingdom. The Buddhist tradition of Avanti was primarily introduced by Katyayana.

IV. The Council at Vesali and the Formation of the Two Vinaya Lineages

One hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Vajjian monks in Vesali came into conflict with Yasa, a Vinaya master who had come from Mathura in the west, over ten disputed points of monastic discipline. The Five-Part Vinaya, in the chapter “The Compilation by Seven Hundred” (Volume 30), records:

The Schism of Indian Sectarian Buddhism and the Lineage of Teachers (Part 2)

One hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, the Vṛjika monks of Vaiśālī first put forward ten practices they deemed permissible, which were later ruled illegitimate:

1. Keeping salt and ginger together overnight is permissible.
2. Eating food by scooping it with two fingers is permissible.
3. Eating a second meal after already eating in the village is permissible.
4. Eating food after leaving the village boundary is permissible.
5. Mixing ghee, oil, honey, rock sugar, and curd is permissible.
6. Drinking unfermented palm wine is permissible.
7. Using monastic utensils of any size is permissible.
8. Continuing to observe practices one was already accustomed to before ordination is permissible.
9. Seeking formal approval for these practices is permissible.
10. Accepting and keeping gold, silver, and money is permissible. (T22, p192a)

The Vṛjika monks argued these ten matters were minor precepts that could be relaxed, but Yaśas insisted they were impermissible. He therefore gathered the senior disciples of the Ānanda and Aniruddha lineages, and they traveled together to Vaiśālī to convene a council. The Samantapāsādikā (T24, p678a) records the senior monks present at this council as follows:

Sāpāgarbhī, Sumati, Revata, Kṣaṇḍika, Yaśas, and Sanavasanti were disciples of the Venerable Ānanda. Śyāmaka and Bhṛgudharma were disciples of the Venerable Aniruddha.

Notably, disciples of the Upāli lineage also participated in this council. At this time, Upāli’s disciple Hastaka (also known as Ghaṭāsabhāla) had already passed away (Southern tradition records Ghaṭāsabhāla died within a century of the Buddha’s nirvāṇa). Hastaka’s disciples were Sunaka and Śāṇaka. Of these, Sunaka ruled the ten practices illegitimate and joined the inner council, but as he was still young, he does not feature prominently in the records. Northern sources emphasize only the senior elders of the Ānanda lineage, while Southern texts deliberately highlight Sunaka’s stature as a Vinaya master. Hastaka’s other disciple, Śāṇaka, sided with the Vṛjika monks, approved the ten practices, and did not join the inner council of elders; he therefore belongs to the outer assembly aligned with the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya tradition. Since seven hundred monks gathered for this council, it is also known as the Council of Seven Hundred. The new Vinaya compiled after the council is called the Sthavira Vinaya. The Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya originally belonged to the outer Mahāsaṃghika tradition. To elevate the status of their own lineage, later followers of this tradition claimed in the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya (Chapter 33, “The Collection of the Seven Hundred”) that the compiler of the Council of Seven Hundred was Ghaṭāsabhāla:

At that time, the Venerable Yaśas, the senior monk present, asked: “Who is fit to compile the Vinaya Piṭaka?” The monks replied: “The Venerable Ghaṭāsabhāla should do so.” (T22, p493b)

In reality, Ghaṭāsabhāla had already died by this point. The Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya names him as compiler solely to boost the prestige of its own tradition. As for why the Sthavira Vinaya is considered a new Vinaya, the Śāriputra Pariprcchā Sūtra explains:

At that time, an elder monk who coveted fame and recognition frequently stirred up disputes. He abridged the Vinaya, expanded and altered it, … compiled what had been omitted, deceived new practitioners, formed separate factions, and argued over right and wrong. A monk eventually brought the matter before the king for judgment. The king gathered both parties, cast black and white counters, and announced to the assembly: “If you prefer the old Vinaya, take a black counter; if you prefer the new, take a white one.” Those who chose black numbered in the tens of thousands; those who chose white numbered only a hundred. The king held that both were the Buddha’s teachings, and as their preferences differed, they could not remain together. The larger group, who followed the old tradition, took the name Mahāsaṃghika; the smaller group of elders took the name Theravāda (Chinese: 他俾罗), which means “the school of the elders.” (T24, p900b)

Through this dispute over monastic discipline, two Vinaya lineages emerged: the new Sthavira lineage (the smaller group of elders, named for their status) and the old Mahāsaṃghika lineage (the larger group, named for their majority). This shows that the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya is largely identical to the original Vinaya of the First Council. Their similarity lies not in how they handle minor precepts, but in the fact that the order of precepts was never altered. The Sthavira Vinaya, by contrast, was recompiled after the council. While it retained the rule that minor precepts could not be altered, it did adjust the sequence of precepts (such as the Pācittika rules), forming a new Vinaya.

Most participants in the Vaiśālī Council, both inside and outside the inner assembly, were second and third generation disciples of the Buddha. Those in the inner council included, as noted above, some disciples of the Ānanda, Aniruddha, and Upāli lineages. The outer assembly included disciples of the Śāriputra and Rāhula lineages (many of the Vṛjika monks belonged to this group), as well as many Ānanda and Kātyāyana lineage disciples from the western regions who had not joined the inner council, plus numerous Upāli lineage disciples from the east. In terms of numbers, the outer assembly far outnumbered the inner group, and their communities were spread across a much wider area. This is because anyone who followed the original Vinaya without altering the order of precepts could be counted as part of the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineage.

On the other hand, because this council was triggered by a dispute over monastic discipline, the seven hundred monks first compiled the Vinaya Piṭaka, and only afterward compiled the Sūtra Piṭaka as a related task. This tradition influenced later Sthavira Vinaya schools (such as the Dharmaguptaka, Mahiṣāsaka, and Theravāda), which also claim that at the First Council, Upāli first compiled the Vinaya Piṭaka, followed by Ānanda compiling the Sūtra Piṭaka.

V. Dharma Dispute

More than a century after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, as the Buddha’s second-generation disciples gradually passed away, fourth-generation disciples became the main force in teaching the Dharma. At this time, monks in different regions developed divergent interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings, put forward competing views, and disputes over doctrine began to emerge. The Treatise on the Differences Among Schools (异部解说) records:

One hundred and thirty-seven years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, during the reigns of King Nanda and King Mahāpadma, in Pāṭaliputra there were the holy ones Mahākāśyapa, Bhadraruci, Dharmatrata, and Revata. A monk named Bhadra advanced five points that split the Saṃgha: the elder monks Nāga and Kāḷīya, both highly learned, propagated these five points (that the Buddha was troubled by others, that he had ignorance, that he had doubts, that thorough investigation is the path, and that self-protection is the path). This split the Saṃgha into the Sthavira and Mahāsaṃghika schools, and for sixty-three years the community remained in disarray. (Beijing Edition Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 127, p253)

Corroborated by the account in the Treatise on the Arrangement of Doctrinal Differences (宗义差别排列轮论):

Not long after a century following the Buddha’s nirvāṇa … the elder Nāga, the eastern assembly, and the learned assembly propagated five points: “The Buddha was seduced by others, had ignorance, had doubts, was led into the path by others, and the path arises from sound.” Buddhism then split into the Mahāsaṃghika and Sthavira. Subsequently, the Mahāsaṃghika further split into the Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Kaukkutika, Bahuśrutīya, and Prajñaptivāda schools. (Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 127, p249)

This Tibetan text is largely equivalent to the Chinese Treatise on the Differences Among Schools (异部宗轮论), but has some differences: for example, the Tibetan text mentions only one Mahādeva, while the Chinese text mentions two. These records show that the five points, which align with themes that would later be central to Mahāyāna thought, were a key factor in Buddhism’s first major schism. Between 137 and 200 years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, during the sixty-three years of doctrinal dispute, the monks involved included Mahākāśyapa, Bhadraruci, Dharmatrata, Revata, Bhadra, Nāga (not to be confused with the monk Nāgasena), Kāḷīya, and others. The points of contention included not only the five points, but also doctrinal positions such as “one teaching” versus “distinction teaching,” the existence of a “pudgala self,” and “the three time periods are ultimately real.” The five points were the initial spark of the dispute, so they receive the most attention in the records. The schism that resulted was not only the formal split between the Mahāsaṃghika and Sthavira schools, but also internal divisions within the Mahāsaṃghika tradition. After the Second Council, the Sthavira Vinaya and Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineages had already formed, and the Mahāsaṃghika community was extremely diverse, with multiple transmission systems that held widely differing views. After the initial dispute over the five points, further doctrinal disagreements arose, leading to sixty-three years of conflict both within the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineage and between it and the Sthavira Vinaya lineage. Among the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineage’s disciples of the Buddha, there were followers of the Mahākāśyapa and Ānanda lineages, the Upāli lineage, the Kātyāyana lineage, and the Śāriputra and Rāhula lineage. Differences in region, doctrinal interpretation, and teacher led to these deep rifts.

VI. The Vatsīputrīya Council and the Four Holy Schools

After the long period of doctrinal dispute, each school sought to consolidate its own views by compiling an Abhidharma Piṭaka, skillfully interpreting the sūtras to align with their own positions. The Treatise on the Differences Among Schools records:

Two hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, the Vatsīputrīya elder compiled the true teachings. (Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 127, p253)

In addition, the Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom (Volume 2) says:

Some say that when the Buddha was alive, Śāriputra understood his teachings and therefore composed the Abhidharma. Later, the Vatsīputrīya masters preserved and recited it, and it is still known today as the Śāriputra Abhidharma. (T25, p70a)

Also, the Treatise on the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises (Volume 2, lower scroll) says:

The school of Kauśika’s disciples is the old Vatsīputrīya school. Śāriputra was the preceptor of Rāhula; Rāhula was the preceptor of Kauśika; this school is in turn the disciple of Kauśika. (T45, p9c)

This shows that 200 years after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, the Vatsīputrīya elders were the first to compile a systematic exposition of the true teachings. Since the Sūtra and Vinaya Piṭakas had already been compiled earlier, the Vatsīputrīya elders’ work formed the Śāriputra Abhidharma, passed down through Śāriputra’s lineage. Because a large number of monks participated in this compilation, Southern traditions refer to it as the “Great Council.” This compilation set a precedent, and other schools later modeled their own Abhidharma Piṭakas on the structure and content of the Śāriputra Abhidharma.

After these sixty-three years of doctrinal dispute, four “holy” (i.e., orthodox) schools emerged: the Holy Sthavira School, the Holy Mahāsaṃghika School, the Holy Vatsīputrīya School (later renamed the Holy Saṃmitīya School), and the Holy Sarvāstivāda School. Earlier scholars assumed the Holy Vatsīputrīya and Holy Sarvāstivāda schools belonged to the Sthavira Vinaya lineage, but in fact both belong to the original Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineage. The evidence is as follows:

1. The order of precepts in the Holy Sarvāstivāda School is nearly identical to that of the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya. By contrast, the order of precepts in the Holy Sthavira School lineages (Mahiṣāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda) differs from those who did not join the Second Council, because the elders at the council adjusted the sequence.
2. Both the Holy Mahāsaṃghika and Holy Sarvāstivāda schools hold that at the First Council, the Sūtra Piṭaka was compiled first, followed by the Vinaya Piṭaka: the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, and Sarvāstivāda biographical texts such as the Aśokāvadāna and the Tradition of the Lineage of the Dharma Transmission all follow the “sūtra first, then Vinaya” order. The only exception is the Ten-Fold Vinaya (Daśādhyāya Vinaya), which was compiled by multiple translators over time. All Holy Sthavira schools — the Mahiṣāsaka Five-Part Vinaya, the Dharmaguptaka Four-Part Vinaya, the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, and the Theravāda Vinaya — hold that the order was “Vinaya first, then sūtra.” This is because the Second Council was triggered by a Vinaya dispute, so the Vinaya Piṭaka was compiled first, followed by the Sūtra Piṭaka; later tradition retroactively applied this order to the First Council as well.
3. Looking at the Jātaka tales that recount the Buddha’s previous lives as an example: the Mahiṣāsaka and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas of the Holy Sthavira School contain only a handful of tales, while the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya has more than fifty, and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has even more. This also shows that at the Second Council, the Sthavira schools moved the Jātaka tales from the Vinaya Piṭaka into the Saṃyuktā Piṭaka (Miscellaneous Collection) or the Khuddaka Nikāya (Minor Collection). The Ten-Fold Vinaya contains only eleven Jātaka tales, likely because translators such as Puṇyatāra and Kumārajīva abridged the text; the Ten-Fold Vinaya itself mentions that “five hundred Jātaka tales were explained in full.”
4. The Collection of Records of the Translation of the Tripiṭaka (Volume 3) records:

Aśoka gathered monks from five schools to cast lots. At that time, the majority chose the counters of the Bhadrayānīya school (i.e., the Vatsīputrīya school), so this school was renamed the Mahāsaṃghika. (T55, p19c)

This indicates that the Vinaya of the Vatsīputrīya school is actually the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya. Additionally, the biography of the monk Faxian mentioned above records: “(When I arrived in) Central India, I first obtained the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya, which was the original practice of the great assembly during the Buddha’s lifetime.” This clearly shows that the original Vinaya is largely identical to the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya transmitted to later generations.

From the above, we can see that the Holy Sarvāstivāda School and the Holy Vatsīputrīya School both belong to the original Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya lineage. The relationship between the two Vinaya lineages and the four holy schools is as follows:

Sthavira Vinaya Lineage ──── Holy Sthavira School
Original Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya Lineage ─┼── Holy Mahāsaṃghika School
                              ├── Holy Vatsīputrīya School
                              └── Holy Sarvāstivāda School

This sequence of developments can be further clarified through the lineages of the Buddha’s later disciples: as noted earlier, the monks who participated in the inner council at Vaiśālī included some disciples of the Ānanda, Aniruddha, and Upāli lineages. These monks and their successors formed the Sthavira Vinaya lineage, whose school is known as the Holy Sthavira School. During the doctrinal disputes, they advocated “distinction teaching” (vibhaṅga), so they are also called the Vibhajyavāda. The outer assembly, by contrast, was a large, geographically dispersed community that continued to follow the original Vinaya, also called the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya (as it was followed by the majority of monks).

During the doctrinal disputes, the outer assembly had three main lineages:

1. Disciples of the eastern Upāli lineage descended from Śāṇaka formed the Holy Mahāsaṃghika School, which advocated “one teaching” (ekavāda) and supported the five disputed points.
2. Vatsīputrīya monks of the Śāriputra and Rāhula lineage formed the Holy Vatsīputrīya School, which held that an “inexpressible self” (the pudgala) exists.
3. Ānanda lineage disciples in the western regions who did not join the inner council formed the Holy Sarvāstivāda School, which held that “the three time periods (past, present, future) are ultimately real.”

Because the outer assembly was large, spread across a wide area, with diverse languages and interpretations, these three orthodox schools naturally emerged. The Holy Vatsīputrīya School was the first to compile an Abhidharma Piṭaka, placing it after the Sūtra and Vinaya Piṭakas to form a complete Tripiṭaka. This set a precedent, and the Holy Sthavira School and others also compiled their own Abhidharma Piṭakas.

During the sixty-three years of doctrinal dispute, the Holy Mahāsaṃghika School first split into five internal schools: the Mūlamahāsaṃghika (also called the Ekavyāvahārika), Lokottaravāda, Kaukkutika, Bahuśrutīya, and Prajñaptivāda. The other three holy schools had not yet split at this stage.

The Prajñaptivāda school was formed by Kātyāyana lineage disciples who traveled to Magadha to teach the Dharma, and belonged to the Holy Mahāsaṃghika School. This was an additional lineage outside the three major systems mentioned above, which also followed the original Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya. The Treatise on the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises (Volume 2, lower scroll) records:

By the two hundredth year after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, Mahākātyāyana emerged from Lake Anavatapta and further elaborated on the teachings previously established within the Bahuśrutīya school. Some people at the time had faith in his interpretations. (T45, p9a)

7. The Pāṭaliputra Council and the Eighteen Schools

Around 218 years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Aśoka of the Maurya dynasty was enthroned. Five years later, the Aśokārāma monastery was completed. Prince Mahinda (摩哂陀) went forth into homelessness, with Moggaliputa Tissa as his upādhyāya and Mahādeva as his ācārya for the ten precepts; the elder Majjhima served as his ācārya for the higher ordination (see Samantapāsādikā, vol. 2, T24, p. 682a). From then on the Dharma flourished, and eminent monks from the various schools converged on Pāṭaliputra. Moggaliputa Tissa, Mahādeva, and Majjhima belonged respectively to the Sthavira, Mahāsāṃghika, and Sarvāstivāda schools, while Lekkhaka was an eminent monk of the Vātsīputrīya school. Their differing views sparked a dispute over the teachings — and the most heated exchange was between Mahādeva and Majjhima. The debate centered on the "Five Points" and the doctrine that "the three times are all truly existent." Those who sided with Mahādeva were the younger and more numerous monks; those who backed Majjhima were the older and fewer. Hence the former came to be called the Mahāsāṃghika ("Great Assembly") and the latter the Sthavira ("Elders"). Furthermore, since the Vātsīputrīya, Sthavira, and Sarvāstivāda schools all rejected the Five Points, later scholars — judging solely by doctrine — lumped these three together as the Sthavira lineage and mistakenly assumed they shared a single Vinaya tradition. The confusion arose mainly from a failure to distinguish the Majjhima–Mahādeva dispute from the earlier Sthavira–Mahāsāṃghika split. Nor were Majjhima and Mahādeva the only ones debating: Lekkhaka of the Vātsīputrīya and others also took part. Later, Aśoka accepted Moggaliputa Tissa's proposal to dispatch eminent monks from the various schools to spread the Dharma in the borderlands. The Samantapāsādikā (vol. 2) records:

He dispatched the elder Majjhima: "Go to Kaśmīra and Gandhāra." Mahādeva (Mahā-tīrthika), to Mahiṣamandala. Lekkhaka, to Vanavāsa. (T24, p. 684c)

After Majjhima spread the Dharma in the north, the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda (Root Sarvāstivāda) school took shape, its influence eventually overtaking that of the Sarvāstivāda in Mathurā. After Mahādeva went south, the Caitika school emerged, surpassing the earlier Mahāsāṃghika of the east. Likewise, when Lekkhaka went northwest, the Saṃmitīya school formed, eclipsing the Vātsīputrīya in central India. As for the origin of the name "Saṃmitīya," the Sanlun Xuanyi (Treatise on the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises), lower fascicle, states:

The Saṃmitīya school: there was a great arhat named Saṃmati; because they were his disciples, the school is called Saṃmitīya. (T45, p. 9c)

The Tibetan Explanation of the Different Sects records:

The Saṃmitīya is also called the Avantakapa. (See Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 127, p. 253)

The name Lekkhaka (勒弃多) means "not to be discarded, protector" — synonymous with Avantaka. So the name Avantakapa likewise derives from the personal name Lekkhaka ("not to be discarded"). Later generations mistakenly traced it to the place name Avanti instead.

Now let us look at how the Sthavira school spread to the border regions. It was during Aśoka's reign that internal disputes first arose within the Sthavira school. Among them, Mahā-lekhaka of the Ānanda lineage (called "Right Land" [正地] in the Sanlun Xuanyi, lower fascicle) drew fine phrases from the four Vedas to embellish the Buddhist sūtras and held doctrinal positions of his own (T45, p. 9c), opposing the doctrine that the three times are all truly existent. Other monks whose views differed from Majjhimasena's also went out to the borderlands. The Samantapāsādikā (vol. 2) says:

Mahā-lekhaka went to the Yonaka country. (T24, p. 685a)

After Mahā-lekhaka led his followers to the Yonaka (Greco-Bactrian) region, the Mahīśāsaka school was formed. The Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra, lower fascicle, 〈Chapter 15: Distinguishing the Schools〉, calls this the "Mahā-lekhaka school" (大不可弃部) (T14, p. 501b). "Mahā-lekhaka" (Great Indestructible / 大不可弃) is the literal meaning of the propagator's name — so here the school takes its name from a person.

About 235 years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Moggaliputa Tissa convened the Pāṭaliputra Council. The core participants were monks from the Upāli lineage and part of the Ānanda lineage within the Sthavira school. Together they compiled the Vinaya, Sūtra, and Abhidharma Piṭakas, slightly reordering the Vinaya precepts and modifying the Abhidharma with reference to the Vātsīputrīya Śāriputrābhidharma to align with their own views. Around a thousand bhikkhus took part, including Dharmagupta (昙无德), Majjhimasena (末示摩), and Mahinda (摩哂陀). Afterward they were sent to lands across India to spread the Dharma. The Samantapāsādikā (vol. 2) records:

Dharmagupta went to the Aparantaka country. Mahā-dharmagupta, to the Mahārāṭṭha country. … Majjhimasena, to the Himalayan border country. Sonaka and Uttara, to Suvaṇṇabhūmi. Mahinda, Uttiya, Sambala, and Bhaddasāla, to the Siṃhala country — each establishing the Buddha-Dharma. (T24, p. 684a)

Among them, Dharmagupta's followers formed the Dharmaguptaka school in Aparantaka. The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools says:

From the Mahīśāsaka school, another school arose; because of the teacher Moggaliputa (the text misprints 因执连), named Dharmagupta. (T49, p. 18b)

The Samayabhedoparacanacakra also says:

From the Mahīśāsaka school a school branched out, called the Dharmaguptaka, claiming to inherit the lineage of the Mung-Bean Gatherer (i.e., Maudgalyāyana). (T49, p. 15b)

So the Dharmaguptaka school (also called the Dharmagupta or Dharmapāla school / 法护部) takes its name from the propagator Dharmagupta, a disciple of Moggaliputa Tissa. The Sanlun Xuanyi (lower fascicle) likewise records: "The Dharmapāla school — its founder was a disciple of Maudgalyāyana" (T45, p. 9c). These accounts, corroborated by the Pali sources, show that Dharmagupta (Dharmapāla, Dharmaguptaka) was indeed a disciple of Moggaliputa Tissa. The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools also states: "From the Mahā-lekhaka school, another school arose, called the Dharmapāla school" (T49, p. 17c) — compared with the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, this indicates that "from the Mahīśāsaka school a school branched out, called the Dharmaguptaka."

Many disciples of the Ānanda lineage within the original Sthavira school — including Majjhimasena — went to the Himalayan region. After Majjhimasena settled there, the Haimavata school was formed. Mahinda led his followers to the Siṃhala country (Ceylon, present-day Sri Lanka) and formed the Tambapaṇṇiya (铜鍱) school. Each of these schools claimed to be the "original Sthavira school." Conventionally, the Haimavata is regarded as the original Sthavira school (according to the Samantapāsādikā, it ordained the largest number of followers).

From all this we can see that Aśoka's borderland missions treated all schools evenhandedly. Seven significant schools emerged:

Sthavira school — Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, Tambapaṇṇiya Sarvāstivāda school — Mūla-Sarvāstivāda Mahāsāṃghika school — Caitika Vātsīputrīya school — Saṃmitīya

Among these, the Mahīśāsaka had already passed through the Vaiśālī Council, while the Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, and Tambapaṇṇiya additionally passed through the Pāṭaliputra Council before taking shape.

In central India (regions where the Dharma had long been established), schisms occurred during Aśoka's reign as well. The Sarvāstivāda split off the Kāśyapīya school — the disciple lineage of the great Kāśyapa from the period of doctrinal disputes. Later, the Saṃkrāntika and Sautrāntika schools also arose. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra says:

Toward the end of the third century, from the Sarvāstivāda school another school arose, called the Kāśyapīya, also known as the Suvarṣaka. At the beginning of the fourth century, from the Sarvāstivāda another school arose, called the Sautrāntika, also known as the Saṃkrāntika, which claims, "We take Ānanda (庆喜) as our teacher." (T49, p. 15b)

This tells us that the Saṃkrāntika and Sautrāntika inherited the lineage of Ānanda (庆喜) and placed special emphasis on the Sūtra Piṭaka. The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools records: "Because of the great master Uttara (郁多罗), named Saṅghāraṇḍa" (T49, p. 15b). The "great master Uttara" here refers to Ānanda — not to the Uttara of the Kukkuṭika school in the early Mahāsāṃghika. This Saṅghāraṇḍa school (i.e., the Sautrāntika) belongs to the Ānanda lineage; its thought differs substantially from the Sarvāstivāda and traces directly back to Ānanda at the First Council. One of its centers of activity was Takṣaśilā in northern India, where the Sautrāntika scholar Kumāralāta (童受) composed his treatises (T51, p. 885a). It did not branch off directly from the Sarvāstivāda.

Meanwhile, the Vātsīputrīya school also split in central India. The Sanlun Xuanyi (lower fascicle) says:

In the middle of the third century, from the Vātsīputrīya school (犊子部) four schools emerged. Finding the Śāriputrābhidharma insufficient, each composed its own treatise, supplementing it with meanings drawn from the sūtras. Because their views differed, four schools formed: first, the Dharmottarīya; second, the Bhadrāyaṇīya; third, the Saṃmitīya; fourth, the密林部. (T49, p. 9c)

From this we can see that — apart from the Saṃmitīya, which formed through the borderland missions (see above) — the Dharmottarīya (法上部), Bhadrāyaṇīya (贤胄部), and密林山部 (密林部, 六城部) all arose from differing views while supplementing the Śāriputrābhidharma.

Drawing the above analysis together, we can summarize the four noble schools and eighteen schools of this period as follows:

A. Sthavira school — Mahīśāsaka (Vibhajyavāda), Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, Tambapaṇṇiya. B. Sarvāstivāda school — Mūla-Sarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Saṃkrāntika. C. Mahāsāṃghika school — Mūla-Mahāsāṃghika (Ekavyāvahārika), Lokottaravāda, Kukkuṭika, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, Caitika. D. Vātsīputrīya school — Vātsīputrīya, Dharmottarīya, Bhadrāyaṇīya, Ṣaḍvaṃśika, Saṃmitīya.

Notes: Among the eighteen schools listed above, the Kukkuṭika (鸡胤部) is also called the Gokulika (牛住部) and belongs to the Mahāsāṃghika. The Saṃmitīya is sometimes called the Kurukullaka (Kurukulle, Kaurukullakah), which has nothing to do with the Kukkuṭika. The Saṃmitīya is also sometimes called the Sa-sgrogs-ris (宣地部) in Tibetan; this differs from the Mahīśāsaka (Sa-ston in Tibetan) of the Sthavira school. The密林山部 is the same as the Ṣaḍvaṃśika. The Saṃmitīya is sometimes called the Avantakapa (不可弃部), while the Mahīśāsaka is also called the Mahā-lekhaka (大不可弃部) — again, these are two different schools. The Saṃkrāntika evolved into the Sautrāntika only at a later stage. The Saṃkrāntika of the Sarvāstivāda and the Tambapaṇṇiya of the Sthavira were both sometimes called the "Red Robe" school; the two must not be conflated.

In total, then: the Sarvāstivāda has three branches, the Sthavira four, the Vātsīputrīya five, and the Mahāsāṃghika six. Many further sub-branches arose in later generations, which need not be detailed here.

After the doctrinal disputes, the Vātsīputrīya school compiled the Śāriputrābhidharma (now lost). The Sthavira school later adopted this text as well, modifying its contents to match their own views while retaining the title Śāriputrābhidharma Śāstra (close to what is transmitted today), and placing it after the Vinaya and Sūtra Piṭakas. At the Pāṭaliputra Council, Moggaliputa Tissa reorganized this material into six treatises and added the Kathāvatthu, yielding the seven treatises of the present-day Theravāda tradition (Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Puggalapaññatti, Vibhaṅga, Dhātukathā, Yamaka, Paṭṭhāna, and Kathāvatthu).

The Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma drew on the ninefold Abhidharma transmitted through Kātyāyana, and it was primarily the Prajñaptivāda school that carried it forward.

The early Sarvāstivāda did not place much emphasis on the Abhidharma Piṭaka. Only after Moggaliputa Tissa compiled the Kathāvatthu did Devaśarman (天护) write the Vijñānakāya (《识身足论》) to rebut it. Around five hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Kātyāyanīputra composed the Jñānaprasthāna (《发智论》), which firmly established Sarvāstivāda thought. Later, under King Kaniṣka, Sarvāstivāda scholars compiled the Mahāvibhāṣā, which became the school's principal Abhidharma — and the Sarvāstivāda placed the Abhidharma after the Sūtra and Vinaya Piṭakas.

8. The Teacher–Disciple Lineages of the Eighteen Schools

As noted above, the evolution of the two Vinaya lineages, the four noble schools, and the eighteen schools is bound up with the transmission lineages of the Buddha's direct disciples. Below, the relevant teacher–disciple lineages for each of the eighteen schools are laid out in detail. The numbers (1), (2), (3), and so on denote the first, second, and third generations of the Buddha's disciples. "Name unknown" means the name has not been recorded.

A. Lineage of the Sthavira School

(1) Mahīśāsaka (Mahā-lekhaka) School

Mahākāśyapa–Ānanda lineage:

(1) Mahākāśyapa, Ānanda (2) Sāvagamegha, Sumati, Revata, Kṣaṇavardhana, Yaśas (Yaśomitra), Saṃghaguptā (3) Name unknown (4) Name unknown (5) Mahā-lekhaka.

Among these, the second-generation disciple Yaśas (Yaśomitra) was the key figure who initiated the Vaiśālī Council. He joined forces with Sumāna, a disciple of Aniruddha, along with Sāvagamegha and Sunaka, a third-generation disciple in the Upāli lineage, to convene the Second Council. Mahā-lekhaka, a fifth-generation disciple of the Buddha, did not take part in the Pāṭaliputra Council.

(2) Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, and Tambapaṇṇiya Schools

Upāli lineage:

(1) Upāli (2) Dāsaka (Dāsapāla) (3) Sunaka (4) Siṃghapitā and Caṇḍavajjī (5) Moggaliputa Tissa (6) Dharmagupta, Mahinda.

Mahākāśyapa–Ānanda lineage:

(1) Mahākāśyapa, Ānanda (2) Sāvagamegha and five others, six in total (3) Name unknown (4) Name unknown (5) Name unknown (6) Majjhimasena.

At this stage, (2) Sabbakami and five others, as well as (3) Sonakottika, took part in the Vesali Council. (5) Tissa and (6) [name missing] participated in the Pataliputra Council. The sixth-generation figures Dharmagupta, Moshimo, and Mahinda each traveled to border regions to spread the Dharma, giving rise respectively to the Dharmaguptaka, Himavata, and Tamrasatiya Schools. When the Himavata School faced suppression under the Sunga Dynasty, it later revived under the influence of the Sarvastivada and Mahasamghika schools—though its teachings had shifted from their original form. As a result, the doctrine and Vinaya of the Himavata School passed down to later generations grew relatively syncretic.

B. Transmission of the Holy Sarvastivada School

(3) Mulasarvastivada

Lineage of Mahakassapa and Ananda: (1) Mahakassapa, Ananda (2) [Name missing] (3) [Name missing]

┌(5) Majjhantika (4) [Name missing] ┤ └(5) Sanakavasa (6) Upagupta

This school did not take part in the Vesali Council, so its Vinaya (the Sarvastivada, or Ten-Recitation, Vinaya) aligns very closely with the Mahasamghika Vinaya, particularly in the ordering of the pratimoksha precept articles. Of these figures, Majjhantika traveled to border regions to spread the Dharma, while Sanakavasa taught in Mathura. The sixth-generation Upagupta was a key figure in the later years of King Ashoka. After the death of Tissa (son of Mahamaudgalyayana), the Kassapiya monk Yasa advised Ashoka to invite Upagupta to Pataliputra and tour the holy sites. This dates to roughly 248 years after the Buddha’s parinirvana (Tissa died around 244 years after the Buddha’s parinirvana). Northern transmission sources mistakenly identify Majjhantika and Sanakavasa (along with the Theravada Mahinda) as direct disciples of Ananda, creating a chronological confusion of roughly a century. Upagupta’s lineage was later transmitted to Kashmir, so this lineage and Majjhantika’s lineage were eventually merged, both coming to be known as the Mulasarvastivada. Sanakavasa is not the same individual as the second-generation Sanakavasa (Suo-na-can-fu-duo) of the Mahisasaka School.

(4) Kassapiya School and Sankrantika School

Lineage of Mahakassapa and Ananda: (1) Mahakassapa, Ananda (2) [Name missing]

┌(4) Mahakasyapa (5) Kasyapa’s disciple (Kassapiya School) (3) [Name missing] ┤ └(4) [Name missing] (5) [Name missing] (6) [Name missing] (Sankrantika School)

Of these, the fourth-generation Mahakasyapa took part in the Dharma dispute. The Kassapiya School did not join the Vesali Council, so its Vinaya also aligns closely with the Mahasamghika Vinaya. The Sankrantika and Sautrantika (Sutra School) both trace their lineage back to Ananda (Qingxi).

C. Transmission of the Holy Mahasamghika School

(5) Kukkutika School

Upali Lineage: (1) Upali (2) Dasabhadra (also known as Daxiangju) (3) Suttisuta (4) Uttara (5) Yasa

Here, Uttara was a prominent figure in eastern India who took part in the Dharma dispute. His monastery was the Kukkutarama (see Wang Yi-nuan’s translation of History of Indian Buddhism, Chapter 5, Buddhist Publishing House, 1978), and the school formed around his lineage is called the Kukkutika. His disciple was the Yasa of the Ashoka period (not the Yasa who participated in the Vesali Council), an open-minded figure.

(6) Mulamahasamghika, Lokottaravada, Bahusrutiya, Prajnapti, and Caitika Schools

Upali Lineage: (1) Upali (2) Dasabhadra (3) Suttisuta

┌(5) Genhu (Ekavyavaharika) ├(5) [Name missing] (Lokottaravada) (4) Jidu (Jianyi) ┼(5) [Name missing] (Bahusrutiya) └(5) Mahadeva (Caitika)

Katyayana Lineage: (1) Katyayana (2) [Name missing] (3) [Name missing] (4) [Name missing] (5) [Name missing] (Prajnapti)

Of these, the lineage passed down from Genhu (the fifth generation of the Upali line) is called the Mulamahasamghika, also known as the Ekavyavaharika, and is the main transmission of the Mahasamghika Vinaya. Mahadeva (the fifth generation) traveled to border regions to spread the Dharma, forming the Caitika School, whose influence far outstripped that of the Mulamahasamghika. The Katyayana lineage took part in the Dharma dispute in its fourth generation. Jidu (also known as Jianyi) was a key figure in that dispute.

D. Transmission of the Holy Vatsiputriya School

(7) Vatsiputriya, Dharmottara, Bhadra, Vanavasi, and Sammitiya Schools

Lineage of Sariputta and Rahula: (1) Sariputta, Rahula (2) [Name missing] (3) [Name missing]

┌(5) Disciple of Kezhu-zi (Vatsiputriya) │(5) Dharmasri (Dharmottara School) (4) Vatsiputra Thera ┤(5) Bhadra (Bhadra School) │(5) [Name missing] (Vanavasi School) └(5) Rakkhita (Sammitiya School)

Of these, the second and third generations did not take part in the Vesali Council, belonging to the Vajjian monk community that remained outside the assembly. The fourth-generation Vatsiputra Thera convened a grand Abhidharma council, which compiled the Sariputta Abhidharma. Rakkhita traveled to border regions to teach the Dharma, forming the Sammitiya School. Notably, none of the fifth-generation disciples after the Buddha in this lineage took part in the Pataliputra Council. The Vanavasi School is also called the Satadruma (Six Cities) School.

9. Vinaya Texts and Precept Order of the Various Schools

The Vinaya texts of the sectarian schools fall into three categories: extensive Vinayas, pratimoksha sutras, and Vinaya treatises. The extant extensive Vinayas are as follows:

A. Holy Mahasamghika and Holy Vatsiputriya: Mahasamghika Vinaya. B. Holy Sarvastivada: Ten-Recitation Vinaya and Mulasarvastivada Vinaya (Vinayavastu). C. Holy Theravada: Mahisasaka’s Five-Part Vinaya, Tamrasatiya’s Copper-leaf Vinaya.

The extant pratimoksha sutras (pratimoksha sutra, individual liberation precept sutras) are as follows:

A. Holy Mahasamghika and Holy Vatsiputriya: Mahasamghika Bhikkhu Pratimoksha and Mahasamghika Bhikkhuni Pratimoksha. B. Holy Sarvastivada: Mulasarvastivada Ten-Recitation Pratimoksha and Mulasarvastivada Vinaya Sutra, Ten-Recitation Bhikkhuni Pratimoksha, Mulasarvastivada Bhikkhuni Vinaya Sutra. Kassapiya Moksa Vinaya Sutra. C. Holy Theravada: Mahisasaka’s Maha-samghika Five-Part Pratimoksha, Five-Part Bhikkhuni Pratimoksha. Dharmaguptaka’s Four-Part Pratimoksha, Four-Part Bhikkhu Pratimoksha, Four-Part Bhikkhuni Pratimoksha. Tamrasatiya’s Bhikkhu Pratimoksha, Bhikkhuni Pratimoksha.

The extant Vinaya treatises are as follows:

A. Holy Mahasamghika and Holy Vatsiputriya: Sariputta’s Questions Sutra (common to both schools), Buddha Abhidharma Sutra, Vinaya Twenty-Two Clear Treatise (the latter two belong to the Holy Vatsiputriya Vinaya treatises). B. Holy Sarvastivada: Vinaya Nidana Sutra, Sarvastivada Vinaya Vibhasa, Mulasarvastivada Vinaya Samgraha, Upali’s Questions to the Buddha Sutra. C. Holy Theravada: Himavata’s Vinaya Matrka, Tamrasatiya’s Samanta-pasadika, and Pali Vinaya treatises.

These Vinaya texts from the various schools provide foundational data on the shifts between the schools. For example, scholars have long studied the ordering of the pacittiya precepts among the eight categories of the pratimoksha (parajika, sanghavasesa, aniyata, nissaggiya pacittiya, pacittiya, patidesaniya, sekhiya, and adhikarana-samatha) — for instance, Akira Hirakawa’s Study of the Vinaya Pitaka (pp. 443–472) and Master Yinshun’s Compilation of Original Buddhist Scriptures (Chapter 3). However, these studies rely primarily on the precept ordering found in the Upali-pariprccha Sutra, which makes the shifts less obvious. As noted earlier, the Mahasamghika Vinaya is the closest surviving text to the original Vinaya.

This means there are two main systems of change for the pacittiya precepts. The first is the Theravada Vinaya change system: it runs from the Mahasamghika Vinaya (closest to the original) through the Vesali Council, which adjusted the ordering to produce the Mahisasaka Five-Part Vinaya, then through the Pataliputra Council, which further adjusted the Five-Part Vinaya into the Tamrasatiya Copper-leaf Vinaya and the Dharmaguptaka Four-Part Vinaya. The second is the Sarvastivada Vinaya change system, which only made minor adjustments to the original Vinaya (which was close to the Mahasamghika Vinaya). The Holy Mahasamghika, Holy Vatsiputriya, and Holy Sarvastivada do not belong to the internal elder Vinaya lineage of the Vesali Council, and none of them made deliberate changes to the precept ordering. Only the Sarvastivada, over its long period of development in Kashmir, gradually enriched the content of its Vinaya.

Once you understand the change process of these four Holy Schools outlined above, you can clearly see the significant shifts in the Theravada Vinaya by first taking the pacittiya ordering of the Mahasamghika Vinaya as your baseline, then comparing it to the ordering of the Five-Part Vinaya, and finally comparing it to the ordering of the Copper-leaf Vinaya and Four-Part Vinaya. Similarly, using the Mahasamghika Vinaya’s precept ordering as your baseline to compare the pacittiya ordering of the Ten-Recitation Vinaya, Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, Upali’s Questions to the Buddha Sutra, and the Moksa Vinaya Sutra will show that the Sarvastivada made only minor adjustments to the precept ordering. This comparison confirms that the Sarvastivada system and the Mahasamghika both belong to the external original Mahasamghika Vinaya lineage of the Vesali Council (note: see Lin Chong-an, Explorations of Indian Buddhism, Chapter 4, Huiju Publishing, 1995).

10. Conclusion

The above summarizes the full process by which, after the Buddha’s parinirvana, Indian Buddhism formed two Vinaya lineages, four Holy Schools, and eighteen sects through councils and Dharma disputes. This process involves the lineage transmission systems of the Buddha’s successive disciples as well as shifts in Vinaya precepts. In later periods, many subschools emerged. For example, the southern Indian Holy Mahasamghika School spread north to the Snow Mountain region as the Andhra Dynasty rose, replacing the Himavata School that had been destroyed by King Pushyamitra. In South India, further schisms gave rise to the Apara, Arya, Puravara, Apara-vanavasa, and Vajra (Vajra-vanavasa) Schools. In Sri Lanka, the Holy Theravada School split into the Abhayagiri, Jetavana, and Mahavihara residential schools. There was also the Sautrantika School, which inherited Ananda’s (Qingxi’s) lineage, prioritized the sutra pitaka, and held views very different from the Sarvastivada. It traces directly back to the First Council system, and was active in the northern Indian kingdom of Takshashila (the Sautrantika master Kumaralata composed his treatises there). The Sankrantika within the Sarvastivada later adopted Sautrantika thought. Around 50 CE, the Mulasarvastivada received the patronage of King Kanishka of the Kushan Dynasty; after five hundred scholars compiled its texts, the Abhidharmamahavibhasa was produced.

Throughout the process of Buddhist sectarian division, the rise and decline of individual schools varied with the times. Over centuries of transmission, northern and southern transmission records diverge significantly. The Northern Chronicle of the Lineage of the Dharma Treasury records that Ananda transmitted the Dharma to Sanakavasa (T50, p303b), while the Treatise on the Analysis of Merits records that Ananda transmitted the Dharma to Majjhantika and Mahinda (T25, p37b). These accounts clearly omit several intermediate generations. By recasting Sanakavasa and Majjhantika (along with the Theravada Mahinda) as direct disciples of Ananda, they create a chronological discrepancy of roughly a century. The same discrepancy appears in dating the accession of King Ashoka. Adjusting the chronology to align with the fact that Sanakavasa and Majjhantika were disciples of roughly the fifth generation after the Buddha resolves many of these inconsistencies across both northern and southern transmission records.

After the Vesali Council, the number of monks in the internal elder faction was small, but after they formed the Theravada Vinaya lineage, their cohesion was strong. The Mahasamghika Vinaya lineage, by contrast, had far more monks and a much wider geographical reach, making it naturally more prone to schism. Combined with the different lineage transmissions within it, the external faction naturally formed the three Holy Schools (Holy Mahasamghika, Holy Vatsiputriya, and Holy Sarvastivada). Once these schools entered into dispute with the Theravada School that followed the elder Vinaya lineage, they split into even more sects. Nor were the various schools entirely isolated from one another: when compiling Abhidharma texts and their own Vinayas, each school recorded that it had participated in the Vesali Council, merely indicating that each had referenced other schools’ Abhidharma to revise and supplement their own materials. So while northern and southern transmission records differ, both are equally worthy of serious consideration.

(Originally published in Journal of the Chung-Hua Buddhist Studies, No. 3, 1990; slightly revised here. The attached Outline History of the Sectarian Schools follows.)

---

Outline History of the Sectarian Schools Lin Chong-an

(1) This account is based on a synthesis of materials from both northern and southern transmission traditions:

(2a) In the year of the Buddha’s parinirvana, Mahakassapa summoned five hundred monks including Upali, Rahula, Aniruddha, and Ananda to Rajagaha to hold the First Council. First, Ananda recited the Four Agamas, after which Upali recited the Vinaya (sources: Mahasamghika Vinaya; Sarvastivada Vinaya, Miscellaneous Affairs, scroll 39). To ensure the teachings of the sutras and Vinaya were not lost, Mahakassapa also compiled the Matrka (source: Sarvastivada Vinaya, Miscellaneous Affairs, scroll 40).

(2b) After the Rajagaha Council, Purna arrived and raised seven objections to the Vinaya. The seven disputed points were: 1) storing or cooking food overnight within the monastery, 2) cooking food oneself, 3) receiving food by taking it directly from another person’s hand, 4) picking and eating fruit directly from a tree, 5) drawing water directly from a pond to receive, 6) eating fruit that has not been purified by a lay attendant and had its seeds removed (source: Mahisasaka Five-Part Vinaya).

(3a) One hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, during the reign of King Suggasena of Vesali, the Vinaya master Yasa from Mathura in the west engaged in a dispute with the Vajjian monks of Vesali over ten points of practice. Yasa gathered seven hundred senior monks from the lineages of Ananda, Aniruddha, and Upali to hold the Vesali Council (source: Samanta-pasadika).

(3b) The ten disputed points were: 1) that salt and ginger stored together remain pure, 2) that eating food by taking it with two fingers is pure, 3) that eating a second time after leaving the assembly is pure, 4) that traveling beyond the village to eat is pure, 5) that mixing ghee, honey, rock sugar, and curd is pure, 6) that drinking grape wine (sugarcane liquor) is pure, 7) that using alms bowls of any size is pure, 8) that continuing to practice as one did before the council’s rulings is pure, 9) that seeking permission to continue old practices is pure, 10) that accepting and keeping gold, silver, and money is pure (source: Mahisasaka Five-Part Vinaya, ‘Chapter of the Gathering of Seven Hundred’).

(3c) At the Second Council in Vesali, the Vinaya was compiled first, with the ordering of pacittiya and other precepts reorganized. The sutras were compiled next, and works including the Dhammapada and Jataka were assembled into the Khuddaka Nikaya (Minor Collection). After the council, the Buddhist sangha split into two Vinaya lineages: the Theravada (Elder) lineage and the Mahasamghika (Great Assembly) lineage.

The Sthavira Vinaya lineage constituted the "new Vinaya" (the precept provisions had been reordered, producing a new code; few studied the new version, yet they were the elders [sthavira], so the lineage took its name from its senior members — hence Sthavira). The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya lineage constituted the "old Vinaya" (more studied the old version, so the lineage was named accordingly — hence Mahāsāṃghika). (Source: Śāriputraparipṛcchā Sūtra)

(4a) During the sixty-three years between the 137th and 200th years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa (under Kings Nanda and Mahāpadma), the widely scattered monastics of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya lineage first convened their "four assemblies" to deliberate on the Five Propositions. Finding themselves in disagreement, they entered into doctrinal dispute, and later came into conflict with the Sthavira Vinaya lineage as well. (Sources: Nikāyabhedopadeśa; Samayabhedoparacanacakra; etc.)

(4b) What were the four assemblies? First, the Nāga-Elephant Assembly; second, the Borderland Assembly; third, the Much-Hearing Assembly; fourth, the Great Virtue Assembly.

Their Five Propositions, as the verse has it:

"Tempted by others, ignorant, doubtful, led by others to enter; The path arises through a cry — this is called the true Buddhist teaching."

(4c) Those drawn into the dispute included disciples of the Mahākāśyapa and Ānanda lineages, disciples of the Upāli lineage, disciples of the Kātyāyana lineage, and disciples of the Śāriputra and Rāhula lineages.

Among these, the line of transmission descending from the Council of Vaiśālī became the Sthavira School, which advocated "analytical distinction" (vibhajyavāda).

In the east, disciples in the Upāli line descending from Jotidāsa formed the Mahāsāṃghika, which advocated "single declaration" (ekavyavahāra) and endorsed the Five Propositions.

The Vātsīputrīya monks of the Śāriputra and Rāhula lineage formed the Vātsīputrīya School, which affirmed an "ineffable self" (avācyātman).

In the west, Ānanda-lineage disciples who had not taken part in the Council of Vaiśālī formed the Sarvāstivāda, which held that "all three times truly exist."

(4d) After sixty-three years of dispute, the Saṃgha had split into four noble schools: within the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya lineage — (a) the Noble Mahāsāṃghika, (b) the Noble Vātsīputrīya, (c) the Noble Sarvāstivāda; and within the Sthavira Vinaya lineage — (d) the Noble Sthavira. Within the Mahāsāṃghika there further arose five branches: the Ekavyāvahārika, the Lokottaravāda, the Kaukkutika, the Bahuśrutīya, and the Prajñaptivāda. The Prajñaptivāda took shape when Kātyāyana-lineage disciples propagated the Dharma in the kingdom of Magadha. (Source: Sanlun xuanyi, fascicle 2)

The Vinaya of the Vātsīputrīya (Vātsīputraka) School was the same as the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. (Source: Chu sanzang jiji, fascicle 3)

(5) By the 200th year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, in order to consolidate its doctrinal position after the disputes, the Vātsīputrīya undertook the compilation of an Abhidharma Piṭaka. The Vātsīputrīya elders of the Rāhula lineage were the first to compile the correct teachings (Source: Nikāyabhedopadeśa), producing the Śāriputrābhidharma, which was appended after the Sūtra and Vinaya Piṭakas to form the Tripiṭaka. Because the council drew so many participants, the Southern transmission calls it the "Great Council" (Mahāsaṃgīti).

(6a) In the 218th year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa — long had the Sage been gone, like a sun that had long since set — the city of Pāṭaliputra in the kingdom of Magadha was ruled by a king named Aśoka ("Free of Sorrow"), who held sway over Jambudvīpa. In the 223rd year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the Aśokārāma was completed. Prince Mahinda went forth, taking Moggaliputta Tissa as his upajjhāya (preceptor) and Mahādeva as his ācariya (instructor) for the ten precepts, with the great elder Majjhantika as ācariya for the upasampadā (full ordination). (Source: Samantapāsādikā, fascicle 2)

(6b) At that time, the leading monastics of the various schools gathered in Pāṭaliputra: Moggaliputta Tissa and Mahārakkhita were eminent monks of the Sthavira School; Mahādeva of the Mahāsāṃghika; Majjhantika of the Sarvāstivāda; and Rakkhita of the Vātsīputrīya. Their differing views once again gave rise to doctrinal dispute. The sharpest of these was the clash between Mahādeva and Majjhantika, which centered on the Five Propositions and the "true existence of all three times." Mahādeva's supporters were younger and more numerous; Majjhantika's were older and fewer.

Later, at Moggaliputta Tissa's suggestion, King Aśoka dispatched the eminent monks of the different schools to propagate the Dharma in the border regions. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(7a) After Majjhantika propagated the Dharma in northern India (Kaśmīra and Gandhāra), the Mūlasarvāstivāda took shape, and its influence eventually overtook that of the original Sarvāstivāda based in Mathurā. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(7b) By the end of the third century after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the Kāśyapīya — also called the Suvarṣaka — branched off from the Sarvāstivāda. Early in the fourth century, the Saṃkrāntivāda also branched off.

(7c) Thus the Sarvāstivāda, root and branches together, comprised three schools:

1. The Sarvāstivāda, also called the Hetuvāda; 2. The Kāśyapīya; 3. The Saṃkrāntivāda.

(8a) After Mahādeva propagated the Dharma in southern India (the kingdom of Mahiṣamaṇḍala), the Caityaśaila took shape, and its influence also surpassed that of the original Mahāsāṃghika in eastern India. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(8b) Thus the Mahāsāṃghika, root and branches together, comprised six schools:

1. The Mūlamahāsāṃghika, also called the Ekavyāvahārika; 2. The Lokottaravāda; 3. The Kaukkutika; 4. The Bahuśrutīya; 5. The Prajñaptivāda; 6. The Caityaśaila.

(9a) After Rakkhita propagated the Dharma in northwestern India (the kingdom of Vanavāsī), the Saṃmitīya took shape, and its standing also overtook that of the Vātsīputrīya in central India. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(9b) Later in the third century, three schools further branched off from the Vātsīputrīya: 1. The Dharmottarīya; 2. The Bhadrāyanīya; 3. The Ṣaṇṇagarika (Dense Forest Mountain School).

(9c) Thus the Vātsīputrīya, root and branches together, comprised five schools: 1. The Vātsīputrīya; 2. The Dharmottarīya; 3. The Bhadrāyanīya; 4. The Saṃmitīya; 5. The Ṣaṇṇagarika.

(10a) Mahārakkhita, of the original Sthavira lineage, led his monks to propagate the Dharma in the Yona world (the Greek regions), after which the Mahīśāsaka (Great Unforsaken) took shape, also called the Vibhajyavāda. (Sources: Samantapāsādikā; Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra, chapter 15, "On the Distinction of Schools")

(10b) In the 235th year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Moggaliputta Tissa, of the original Sthavira lineage, convened the Council of Pāṭaliputra. Its core was made up of Upāli-lineage monks together with some Ānanda-lineage monks of the Sthavira School. In succession they compiled the Vinaya, Sūtra, and Abhidharma Piṭakas, slightly readjusting the order of precepts in the Vinaya and, for the Abhidharma, drawing on the Vātsīputrīya's Śāriputrābhidharma and reshaping it to fit their own school's view. Among the thousand or so monks who took part were Dhammarakkhita, Majjhima, Mahinda, and others. After the council, they too were sent out to propagate the Dharma in the border regions of India.

(10c) Among them, the monks led by Dhammarakkhita went to the country of Aparantaka and formed the Dharmaguptaka (Dharma-Protector School). (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

The Dharmaguptaka claimed: "We inherit the teacher of the Maudgalya clan" — meaning they took Moggaliputta Tissa as their teacher.

(10d) Many Ānanda-lineage disciples of the original Sthavira School (Majjhima and others) went into the Himalayan region and formed the Haimavata School. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(10e) Mahinda led his following to the Siṃhala kingdom (Ceylon, Sri Lanka), where they formed the Tāmraśāṭīya School. (Source: Samantapāsādikā)

(10f) Thus the Sthavira School, root and branches together, comprised four schools: 1. The Mahīśāsaka, also called the Vibhajyavāda; 2. The Dharmaguptaka; 3. The Haimavata; 4. The Tāmraśāṭīya.

(11) In all, the Noble Sarvāstivāda had three schools, the Noble Sthavira four, the Noble Vātsīputrīya five, and the Noble Mahāsāṃghika six — eighteen schools in total. Of these, seven — the Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Haimavata, Tāmraśāṭīya, Caityaśaila, Saṃmitīya, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda of Kaśmīra and Gandhāra — were formed when Aśoka dispatched eminent monks to propagate the Dharma in the border regions.

(12) In its early period the Sarvāstivāda (also called the Vaibhāṣika School) placed little weight on the Abhidharma Piṭaka. After Moggaliputta Tissa of the Sthavira School compiled the Kathāvatthu, the Sarvāstivāda had Devaśarman (Deva-guardian) compose the Vijñānakāya in refutation. By the 500th year after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Kātyāyanīputra composed the Jñānaprasthāna, fixing the doctrinal position of the Sarvāstivāda once and for all.

(13) After the 500th year following the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the Sautrāntika suddenly rose to prominence and gained wide recognition. Its lineage descended directly from the Ānanda system of the First Council. One center of its activity was the northern Indian kingdom of Takṣaśilā (where the later teacher Kumāralāta drew up the various Sautrāntika treatises; T51, p885a). Its thought differed fundamentally from the Sarvāstivāda and did not branch off from it directly.

(14a) In the later period, numerous sub-schools arose. The southern Indian Mahāsāṃghika, riding the rise of the Āndhra dynasty, spread northward into the Himalayan region and replaced the Haimavata School that Puṣyamitra had destroyed.

(14b) In southern India there were further divisions into the Rājagirika, the Siddhārthika, the Pūrvaśaila, the Uttaraśaila, the Aparaśaila, and the Vajiriyā (Western Rājagirika). (Source: Mahāvaṃsa)

(14c) The Sthavira Tāmraśāṭīya (Mahāvihāra fraternity) of Ceylon split into the Abhayagiri fraternity (29 BCE) and the Jetavanīya fraternity (309 CE). (Source: Mahāvaṃsa)

(14d) In the time of the Kuṣāṇa king Kaniṣka, the Sarvāstivāda convened a council to compile the Tripiṭaka of Sūtra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma. Through the editorial work of five hundred scholars, the Mahāvibhāṣā took shape — the most important Abhidharma treatise of the Sarvāstivāda. (Source: Great Tang Records on the Western Regions)

(15) Indian Buddhism continued to sustain the four noble schools through its middle and later periods. (Sources: Yijing's Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan; Tāranātha's History of Buddhism in India)