“The first consideration concerns the Vinaya definition of a schism in the Saṅgha. A schism occurs when members of a monastic community can no longer remain together or carry out the formal activities of the Saṅgha as a single body.
The Vinaya gives a precise definition. When monastics living within the same ecclesiastical boundary fall into serious discord and can no longer perform the poṣadha confession ceremony, formal motions or other communal acts of the Saṅgha together, this constitutes a schism. A formal schism is therefore primarily a matter of Vinaya procedure.”
“The travel records of the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yijing provide important evidence. During their journeys in India, they visited many monasteries in which Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks lived together. Some monasteries followed only the Foundation Vehicle traditions, while others were predominantly Mahāyāna. In still other monasteries, monks of both traditions resided together…. Their doctrinal views may have differed considerably. Mahāyāna and Foundation Vehicle monks did not necessarily hold the same philosophical positions. Nevertheless, these differences of view alone did not create a formal schism. The decisive issue was whether they remained harmonious in their Vinaya practice and communal procedures.”–17th Karmapa (Day Two, Mar-Ngog teachings)
The Origins and Development of the Early Buddhist Schools
In the second day of the Mar-Ngog Summer 2026 teaching, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje examined the historical division of the early Buddhist Saṅgha into the schools traditionally known in Tibetan Buddhism as the “eighteen schools.”
Although accounts of Buddhist history often move quickly from the life of the Buddha and the early councils to the emergence of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the 17th Karmapa stressed that the development of the early Buddhist schools is equally important.
“Just as the study of the Mahāyāna is important, the study of the eighteen schools is something we must understand. They are equally important.”
The schools of Nikāya (Sanskrit for “school) Buddhism form the institutional and disciplinary foundations upon which later Buddhist traditions developed. Every surviving lineage of monastic ordination belongs to one of these early Vinaya traditions. It is therefore impossible to understand the history of Buddhist monasticism—or the transmission of monastic vows—without studying the formation and development of these schools.
Despite differences in doctrine, interpretation and discipline, the early schools shared a common Buddhist identity:
“They were exactly the same in being Buddhists who went for refuge to the Three Jewels.”
The 17th Karmapa explained that their divisions arose primarily from differing interpretations of the scriptures and the Vinaya, and not from a rejection of the Buddha, Dharma or Saṅgha, an essential pre-requisite for being considered a “school” of Buddhism. The distinction between schools should therefore not be understood simply as the formation of small rival groups. A school required a coherent doctrinal or disciplinary position, a stable community of supporters and a self-sustaining lineage.
At first when I saw the subject matter of this teaching, I thought it was a bit dry and academic, but after listening and reading about it, I realised that it revealed something essential for all Buddhists to understand, that Buddhist philosophy and practice was flexible and adapted and transformed to the cultures, languages and geography of where it was being studied, transmitted and practiced. Also, that a schism only occurs in monastic communities, for very specific reasons related to Vinaya rules and doctrine.
That adaptability was one of it major strengths, and explains how and why 21st Century Buddhist study and practice, also demands change and acceptance of cultural and social differences particularly related to the social role and status of women.
But also, the schisms and splits in the original Buddhist community reminds us of “human all too human” as Nietzsche said. The first Buddhist schism is often described as a historical split, but it also points to something immediate: how quickly a human mind turns difference into distance. Causes can be debated, dates can be revised, and stories can compete. What remains close is the moment a reaction is noticed, the moment a label forms, the moment separation feels easier than listening.
The Criteria for a Buddhist School
Interestingly, the 17th Karmapa identified five principal criteria by which a distinct Buddhist school may be recognised. And that “ordinary disagreements” alone are not sufficient for there to be a division or “schism” :
- There must be a fundamental and unresolved disagreement concerning the meaning of scripture, the interpretation of doctrine or the practice of the Vinaya. Ordinary disagreements alone are insufficient. The disagreement must become serious enough that the parties can no longer reconcile their positions.
- Each side must possess stable communal support. A disagreement involving only one or two individuals does not create a school. A continuing community must form around the disputed position.
- The community must possess its own distinctive view and a self-sustaining lineage of Vinaya transmission. These internal structures allow it to continue as an identifiable tradition.
- Its members must take refuge in the Three Jewels and accept the Buddha as their teacher. This is the indispensable internal criterion for being Buddhist.
- Other Buddhists must generally recognise the tradition as belonging to Buddhism. This external recognition distinguishes an accepted Buddhist school from a movement regarded by the wider Saṅgha as non-Buddhist.
The followers of Devadatta, for example, formed a separate community but were not regarded as an independent Buddhist school because they did not fulfil all these criteria, such as the main one of taking refuge in the Buddha as the teacher.
The status of the Vātsīputrīyas was also disputed, since some schools regarded them as Buddhists only in name.
I found this particularly interesting as these days, particularly non-Tibetan/Western Buddhists mistakenly think every “disagreement” is a schism, and it is used to shutdown genuine debate and questions about conduct and ethics and governance of a Buddhist community. Particuarly if one is a survivor/whistleblower on misconduct. This was the ifrst time I heard the definition of what a schism atually means. Which is a very specific term and application in the monastic Buddhist community.
So next time someone tells you that you’re causing a schism by demanding answers about something or someonne within a community, make sure you are ready to respond with this definition of “schism” to defeat it!
Conditions That Encouraged Division: social, geographical, linguistic and political conditions
The division of the Saṅgha was not caused by a single event. It arose through the interaction of several social, geographical, linguistic and political conditions.
Different lineages of teachers and disciples developed distinctive approaches to education and practice. Communities associated with the disciples of Upāli, Ānanda and Pūrṇa, for example, emphasised different areas of the teachings, including Vinaya, Sūtra and Abhidharma.
Language also played an important role. As Buddhist texts were transmitted through different vernaculars, dialects and hybrid languages, variations arose in terminology, interpretation and recitation. Language alone may not have caused a schism, but linguistic differences could reinforce other disagreements.
Geography was another significant factor. Buddhist communities spread across regions with different climates, customs, political systems and economic conditions. Rules that were practical in one region could be difficult to apply in another. This encouraged different interpretations concerning how strictly particular Vinaya regulations should be observed.
Political interference could further intensify internal disputes. The teaching cites the reign of Emperor Aśoka as an example of how the intervention of rulers and ministers may have affected relations within the Saṅgha.
“When all of these conditions come together, it becomes easier for divisions to arise and for the schools to separate.”
Here is a Youtube video clip I made (with specially arranged and translated English subtitles of this section of the teaching).
The First Division of the Saṅgha: Eastern and Western
Approximately one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, a dispute arose concerning ten controversial practices, traditionally known as the “Ten Points.” A council of seven hundred arhats was convened at Vaiśālī, but the disagreement was not completely resolved. The Saṅgha consequently divided into an eastern and a western faction.
The western faction was generally more conservative and maintained that the established disciplinary traditions should continue without alteration. The eastern faction adopted a more flexible position, holding that certain rules might be adjusted according to circumstances, time and place.
The Southern or Theravāda transmission regards this Vinaya dispute as the original division of the Saṅgha. The Northern traditions, however, maintain that the true division occurred later at Pāṭaliputra as a result of doctrinal disagreements, particularly those associated with the “Five Points of Mahādeva.”
Most contemporary scholars, according to the teaching, give greater weight to the Southern account. A formal schism in the Saṅgha is defined principally through Vinaya: members living within the same monastic boundary become unable to perform communal rites, including confession ceremonies and formal acts of the Saṅgha, together.
“Even if they have different views, as long as their Vinaya and their procedures are the same, they have not split into different schools.”
Historical accounts of Chinese pilgrims such as Xuanzang and Yijing support this conclusion. They recorded Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks living within the same monasteries. Although their philosophical views differed, they could live and perform communal rites together because they followed the same Vinaya procedures.
The Five Points of Mahādeva are therefore unlikely to have caused the original division. They appear primarily in Sarvāstivāda sources, are not clearly attested in Mahāsāṃghika texts and seem to have emerged after the first separation between the Sthaviras and Mahāsāṃghikas had already occurred.
The Principal Historical Sources: Northern and Southern traditions
The history of the early schools is preserved through both Northern and Southern textual traditions. One of the most important Northern sources is the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions ( Samayabhedoparacanacakra), preserved in Tibetan and in three Chinese translations. Xuanzang’s Chinese translation is considered the most complete. His disciple Kuiji also composed detailed notes explaining its terminology and historical background.
Other important Northern sources include texts presenting the Mahāsāṃghika and Dharmaguptaka perspectives. These accounts are valuable because they sometimes differ sharply from Sarvāstivāda narratives and preserve alternative understandings of the early divisions.
The principal Southern sources include the Dīpavaṃsa, the Mahāvaṃsa and Buddhaghosa’s commentarial works. By comparing these accounts, scholars can identify sectarian assumptions, reconstruct historical developments and examine how different traditions understood their own origins.
The Four Factions
According to Xuanzang’s translation, four factions emerged within the Saṅgha:
- the Nāga faction,
- the Outlying faction,
- the Learned faction and
- the Venerable faction.
Different explanations associate these groups either with rival leaders and followers or with distinct educational and disciplinary lineages.
In one interpretation, the Nāga faction represented powerful figures associated with Mahādeva, while the Outlying faction consisted of their followers. The Learned and Venerable factions represented educated monastics and spiritually accomplished elders.
In another interpretation, the Nāga faction referred positively to learned and fearless upholders of the Vinaya, associated with the lineage of Upāli. The Learned faction was linked with those deeply trained in scripture, particularly the lineage of Ānanda. While the Venerable faction included masters of profound meaning and Abhidharma. The Outlying faction referred to poorly educated or undisciplined monastics.
These differing explanations demonstrate the difficulty of reconstructing the earliest divisions. The surviving accounts were written from particular sectarian standpoints, and the same names could acquire very different meanings in different sources.
The 17th Karmapa’s teaching therefore encourages a comparative and critical study of the early Buddhist schools. These traditions should not be viewed merely as rival sects, but as communities that developed through complex combinations of disciplinary interpretation, regional adaptation, language, lineage and historical circumstance. Their study is essential for understanding the development of Buddhist doctrine, the Vinaya and the monastic institutions inherited by later Buddhist traditions.
Mar-Ngog Teachings, 17th Karmapa: DAY TWO
FULL TRANSCRIPT WITH SCREENSHOTS
Five Causes and Conditions for the Formation and Division of Schools
Different Lineages of Masters and Disciples
One of the causes and conditions is that we have different lineages of masters and disciples. Because of these different lineages, they can sometimes become a condition for the schools to split.
To take one example, around one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, according to the Sarvāstivāda text, The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, there were several factions at that time: the Nāga faction, the Learned faction, the Venerable faction, and the Outlying faction.
These different factions or parties appeared within the Saṅgha. Among them, the Nāga faction primarily represented the lineage of the disciples of Upāli, who was greatest in explaining the Vinaya. The Learned faction was the lineage of the students of Ānanda, and the Venerable faction was the lineage of Pūrṇa, the Abhidharma master.
There was also another faction of the Saṅgha consisting of people who were not included in those three. This was the Outlying faction.
Most of the [unclear] were included in the Outlying faction. This also included monastics who were not very diligent in their study or practice, who were very lazy, or who had violated the discipline. These were all included in the Outlying faction.
When we have these four different factions, each of them had its own lineage that it could point to. In terms of their practices and their type of education, they were different. This made it easier for them to split into schools. This is one of the conditions.
Differences of Language
Another condition is differences of language. The reason is that, when you are using different languages, the way you think about the views is slightly different, or the way you transmit the lineage is different because it is a different language. When the teachings are spread and spoken in a different language, there is a different transmission.
Because the language is different, the way you understand it is also different. For these reasons, because of differences in language, when they discussed the three [unclear], they had different explanations. This was also one condition for the split.
Proof of this comes from a commentary on the verses by Śākyaprabha, titled [unclear]. I do not need to read it literally, but basically what it says is that, after the death of the Dharma King Aśoka, the arhats recited the texts in vernaculars, dialects, and hybrid languages—that is, in different languages.
They recited the Vinaya texts in these different languages. Because of this, the teachings split into the eighteen different schools. Because the Vinaya was recited differently in different languages, they split into the eighteen schools. There were people who said this.
If we ask whether language alone is sufficient to cause a split, we cannot say that language alone is enough. However, when there are different languages in addition to other circumstances, it is not impossible that this could cause a split.
Differences of Locale
Another important condition for the split is a difference of locale.
The reason is that there are different regions of India. There is different topography: somewhere high and somewhere low, somewhere cold and somewhere hot. There are different situations in every area, as well as different local customs.
There are also different political situations, different economic situations, and different cultures. There are many differences.
Because of this, differences also developed between the different communities of the Saṅgha. For example, when we spoke about the Second Council, we talked about the Western Saṅgha and the Eastern Saṅgha and how they divided.
The main reason for this split was geographical difference. We spoke about that last year. Geographical differences are therefore also a condition for causing a split into schools.
Political Interference
Another condition is political interference. When kings or political leaders interfere, this can also become a factor in the division into schools.
For example, during the time of Aśoka, there was the original split into schools. One major factor was that Aśoka used his power to interfere forcefully in the internal affairs of the Saṅgha.
This had a real influence on the division of the Saṅgha. This is something we can see.
The Interaction of the Different Conditions
In any case, when we think about all the conditions we have just discussed, they are all related to one another. When all of these conditions come together, it becomes easier for the schools to split, and the divisions become more pronounced.
- External Conditions for the Division of a community into a School
The second factor concerns the external conditions necessary for a division within the Saṅgha to develop into a distinct school.
When a dispute arises, each side must attract a meaningful body of support. It is not enough for only one or two individuals, or a small number of people, to disagree. The opposing positions must each be supported by a sufficiently substantial group.
Moreover, this support cannot be merely temporary. It must remain stable over a significant period of time. When a dispute attracts sustained support on both sides, the conditions exist for a lasting division and the eventual formation of separate schools.
These are the external conditions for the division of the Saṅgha into schools.
- Internal Conditions for the Continuity of a new School
The third factor is the internal conditions concerning the characteristics that enable a school to maintain itself as an independent tradition.
A school must possess its own distinctive views or interpretations. It must also have a self-sustaining lineage of Vinaya transmission. In other words, it must be capable of transmitting its own monastic discipline and ordination lineage from one generation to the next.
The combination of a distinctive doctrinal position and an independent Vinaya lineage is necessary for a school to continue as a stable and recognisable tradition.
These are the internal conditions for the continuity of a school.
- The Internal Criterion: Refuge in the Three Jewels
The fourth factor is the internal criterion for determining whether a community may be regarded as a Buddhist school. the reason we call it a interior criterion, is that no matter what school you’re talking about, whatever its size, it’s a fundamental thing, they must go to for refuge to the Three Jewels. Without refuge in the Three Jewels, a community cannot be included among the Buddhist schools.
This is an indispensable criterion. Not every religious or monastic group can be considered a separate Buddhist school merely because it has formed an independent community.
Refuge in the Three Jewels provides the foundation for Buddhist view, meditation and conduct. Without this basis, a group cannot properly be regarded as Buddhist.
- The External Criterion: Recognition by Other Buddhists
The fifth factor is the external criterion.
A school must be generally recognised by other Buddhists as an authentic Buddhist tradition. It is therefore not sufficient for a community simply to declare itself Buddhist. The wider Buddhist community must also accept it as belonging within Buddhism.
So this is actually an absolutely necessary criteria. Not everyone can be considered a different school.
The Example of Devadatta
The importance of these criteria can be illustrated by the example of Devadatta.
During the Buddha’s lifetime, Devadatta led approximately five hundred bhikṣus away from the main Saṅgha and established a separate monastic community. This created a schism within the Saṅgha. You wonder can this be considered a disciple school? The answer is no, Devadatta’s community cannot be regarded as a separate Buddhist school.
It failed to fulfil both the internal and external criteria.
First, Devadatta and his followers did not properly go for refuge to the Three Jewels, since they did not continue to accept the Buddha as their teacher. The internal criterion was therefore not fulfilled.
Second, the wider Buddhist community did not recognise Devadatta’s movement as an authentic Buddhist tradition. It was regarded as non-Dharma rather than as a legitimate school within Buddhism. The external criterion was therefore also absent. The first and the fifth criteria were not met. The first, they did not go for a refuge to the Three Jewels. They did not accept the Buddha as their teacher. for that reason, the first criteria was not met.
The fifth criteria was also not met. For example, the Buddhists in general did not consider Devadatta as elder, followers of Devadatta as elders. They considered this to be non-Dharma. They did not think of it as being authentic Buddhism. So, the fifth criteria was also not fulfilled.
For these reasons, Devadatta’s community cannot be classified as one of the Buddhist schools, despite having separated from the Saṅgha.
The Question of the Vātsīputrīya School
Among the traditionally recognised eighteen schools was the Vātsīputrīya school.
The Vātsīputrīyas regarded themselves as Buddhists. However, some other schools described them as Buddhists in name only, while others questioned whether they should be regarded as Buddhists at all.
The reasons for these criticisms will be discussed separately. For the present, the important point is that is it questionable as to whether the Vātsīputrīyas fulfilled all five criteria, particularly the fifth criterion: recognition by the wider Buddhist community.
Their example demonstrates that a school’s status did not depend solely upon its own self-identification. Recognition by other Buddhist traditions was also an important factor in determining whether it was accepted as an authentic Buddhist school.
The Original Division of the Sangha: the Western and Eastern
Now, following this, I will first speak about the original split of the school, so about a hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Sangha got a fundamental level remained harmonious. It was unified. then as the Sangha is spread into the different regions and there were more and more Sangha of communities, and even for this reason, there became to be disagreements about the Vinaya, the 10 points, the 10 impermissible points. So what this is called is the dispute over the 10 points.
Now, last year we spoke about that. the other day we spoke about it. The 10 points, there are the question about the dispute about whether the 10 points for permissible are impermissible because of these disputes, the 700 arhats gathered in Vaiśālī. they held the council, but even though they held the council, they weren’t able to entirely hear the script, they weren’t able to prevent to resolve the disagreement. Because they were unable to resolve the disagreement in the end, the Sangha is split into two groups.
So there was the Western faction and the Eastern faction, there are these two. Now, the Western faction were a little bit more conservative, they had more attachment to the tradition. they held that the however we did it before, we have to go exactly that semonesia, just said that they have to go exactly that same way. that group was called the Western faction. the Eastern faction was a little bit more liberal.
They had a more liberal way of thinking. what they felt is that the precepts could also be accepted or discarded according to the time and place. So that they wouldn’t be right not to change them according to the time and place. This is the Eastern faction and so the end, the Eastern faction and the Western faction, they both split into two. However, but at that time, whether they split into two groups at that point, it can be identified as the original split into schools or not.
If you ask whether it can, in their two different ways, you can answer this question.
Northern and Southern Accounts of the First Schism
The Southern Account: Vinaya practice differences
The first account is that of the Southern transmission, represented by the Theravāda traditions of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar.
According to the Southern tradition, the original division of the Saṅgha arose primarily from disagreements concerning Vinaya practice. The dispute over monastic discipline at Vaiśālī resulted in the division of the Saṅgha into eastern and western factions.
From this perspective, the separation into these two factions constituted the original split into distinct Buddhist schools.
The Northern Account: doctrinal differences
The Northern traditions do not identify the events at Vaiśālī as the original division into schools.
They acknowledge that the Vinaya dispute at Vaiśālī produced two factions within the Saṅgha. However, they maintain that this was not yet a formal division into separate schools.
According to the Northern account, the actual split occurred later in the city of Pāṭaliputra, also known as Kusumapura.
Pāṭaliputra is the ancient name of present-day Patna, the capital of the Indian state of Bihar. In some texts, the city is called Kusumapura, meaning “the City of Flowers.”
The Northern tradition maintains that the original division occurred there because of a dispute concerning doctrinal views. From this perspective, the earlier disagreement at Vaiśālī created rival factions, but the formal division into schools resulted from doctrinal controversy at Pāṭaliputra.
These, then, are the two principal differing positions preserved in the Northern and Southern transmissions. It is not possible simply to declare one account correct without examining the historical and disciplinary evidence.
Why Vinaya Differences Were Probably Decisive
The Position of Contemporary Researchers
Most contemporary researchers tend to agree more closely with the Southern or Theravāda account.
The principal reason is that the original division of the schools appears to have arisen from disagreements concerning Vinaya discipline rather than from differences in doctrine alone.
Several considerations support this conclusion.
The Vinaya definition of a Schism in the Saṅgha (Sanghabeda)
The first consideration concerns the Vinaya definition of a schism in the Saṅgha. There’s a very clear definition of a schism in the Vinaya.
A schism occurs when members of a monastic community can no longer remain together or carry out the formal activities of the Saṅgha as a single body.
The Vinaya gives a precise definition. When monastics living within the same ecclesiastical boundary fall into serious discord and can no longer perform the poṣadha confession ceremony, formal motions or other communal acts of the Saṅgha together, this constitutes a schism.
A schism of the Saṅgha is therefore primarily a matter of Vinaya procedure. For this reason, it is likely that the original division into schools was rooted in disagreements concerning monastic discipline.
A schism in the Sangha cannot become the main reason for a schism in the Sangha. for that reason, the original split into schools probably must have come down to the Vinaya.
The Meaning of Nikāya
The Sanskrit term for a school is nikāya. It is primarily related to the precept lineage. It’s not related to the different tenets. It’s related to different prātimokṣa lineage.
In this context, the term is primarily connected with a lineage of monastic precepts rather than with a particular philosophical doctrine. More specifically, it refers to a lineage of prātimokṣa vows and Vinaya transmission.
When determining the school to which a fully ordained bhikṣu belongs, the decisive factor is the lineage through which the monastic vows were received. The question is not primarily what philosophical position the monk holds, but from which Vinaya and ordination lineage the vows were transmitted.
Doctrinal views and philosophical tenets are therefore not the principal basis for identifying a monastic school.
Evidence from Xuanzang and Yijing
The travel records of the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yijing provide important evidence.
During their journeys in India, they visited many monasteries in which Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks lived together. Some monasteries followed only the Foundation Vehicle traditions, while others were predominantly Mahāyāna. In still other monasteries, monks of both traditions resided together.
This was possible because the monks followed the same Vinaya procedures and performed the same communal rites. As long as they shared a common system of monastic discipline, they could live and carry out the formal activities of the Saṅgha together.
Their doctrinal views may have differed considerably. Mahāyāna and Foundation Vehicle monks did not necessarily hold the same philosophical positions. Nevertheless, these differences of view alone did not create a formal schism.
The decisive issue was whether they remained harmonious in their Vinaya practice and communal procedures.
Doctrinal Difference Alone Does Not Create Schism
The historical evidence therefore suggests that differences in doctrine do not automatically produce a division within the Saṅgha.
Monastics may hold different philosophical views while continuing to live within the same monastery, observe the same Vinaya and participate in the same communal ceremonies.
A formal schism occurs only when disagreements become serious enough to prevent the Saṅgha from acting together according to the Vinaya. For this reason, it cannot be stated categorically that the original divisions of the Saṅgha were caused by doctrinal differences. The stronger evidence suggests that disputes concerning Vinaya discipline and monastic procedure were the decisive factors.
Mahādeva’s Five Points
The Vinaya and the Original Division into Schools
Adapting the Vinaya to Different Regions
Another reason for their split is that, as the Vinaya spread into different languages, there was the question of whether the Vinaya could take account of the customs of the area.
As it spread into different regions, they could accord it to the different climatic conditions and different local customs. They said that there were areas where they had to relax the rules, and that was a condition.
They therefore had different understandings of this. Because of these differences, there were different ways of understanding how to relax the strictures. These then became constructions that created different lineages of view, and they became different self-standing transmissions of the vows.
For this reason, many contemporary scholars say that the original split into schools came down to the Vinaya. It was not about the views.
Mahādeva’s Five Points Disagreement over the Cause of the Split
When we speak about views, we are primarily speaking about the bhikṣu Mahādeva’s Five Points. The Five Points are the five views of Mahādeva.
Some people say that it was because of disagreements over these that there was a split into schools. Contemporary scholars say that there is more support for the dispute and split being related to disagreements about the Vinaya.
There are a few who say that it happened because of Mahādeva’s Five Points. What are the reasons why most scholars do not accept that the split occurred because of disputes about the view?
Conflict Between Sectarianism and Historical Evidence
The first is the conflict between sectarianism and the historical evidence.
We are now going to think about the conflict between sectarianism and historical evidence. We talked a lot about the Five Points of Mahādeva last year.
Discussions of Mahādeva’s Five Points primarily come from the Sarvāstivāda scriptures, from the greater position of the Mahādeva [unclear], The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, and also from the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.
Within the Mahāsāṃghika scholars, there is no mention of the Five Points of Mahādeva. That is one reason.
The Sarvāstivāda Position
Another reason is that the texts of the Sarvāstivāda school have a very strong attachment to the views of their own school. They have a sort of great conceit that none are right except for their own view, the Sarvāstivāda.
Moreover, the Sarvāstivāda assert that their primary order is a lineage of the Sthaviravāda. This is their main position.
Likewise, the Sarvāstivāda was also a school that spoke about arhatship being the ultimate result. They were a very traditional school.
When such a school later spoke about the Mahāsāṃghika school and the Five Points of Mahādeva, they said that the Buddha was supreme and the arhats were lesser. They said that this was the main cause of the division.
They said that the main reason for the split into schools was the Five Points of Mahādeva. They were insisting upon this, but in actuality it was not so.
The Five Points Do Not Match Monastic Procedures
The second point is that it does not match the procedures of monastic discipline.
If we follow the Northern account and say that the split occurred because of the Five Points of Mahādeva, then that does not match the procedures of monastic discipline.
The reason for this is that, among the bhikṣus in early Buddhism, there could be different positions about the view. However, as long as they all kept the Vinaya rules, agreed and remained harmonious regarding the Vinaya, and there was no disagreement about that within a single boundary, they could perform the poṣadha and so forth, and carry out the motions and other business of the Saṅgha within a single boundary.
Even if they had different views, as long as their Vinaya and their procedures were the same, they had not split into different schools.
When they became different according to the Vinaya discipline, such as with the Ten Points, this became the basis for a split based on Vinaya discipline.
When that happened, it became a situation in which the members of the Saṅgha were unable to remain together. Because they had different disagreements regarding the prohibitions of the Vinaya, there was no way they could remain together.
The main condition therefore has to come down to whether they were harmonious in terms of the Saṅgha or not. It is not correct to say that it happened merely because of different views.
The Five Points Appeared Later
The third point is that the Five Points actually appeared later.
This is related to the first point I mentioned. The Five Points are the five views of Mahādeva, but the time when they appeared was later. It was after the appearance of the Mahāsāṃghika school.
The original split into the two schools had already occurred. The Theravāda and the Mahāsāṃghika schools had already appeared.
Not only that, but within the Mahāsāṃghika school there came to be two different views: regarding the Buddha as supreme and regarding the arhats as lesser. These positions and ideas had grown stronger within the Mahāsāṃghika.
Because this had already occurred, it is not possible that the Five Points could have been the reason for the original split into schools.
For that reason, you cannot say that the five views were the main cause of the split into schools, because the original split occurred earlier and the five views appeared later.
A later factor could not have caused the original split into two schools.
In general, these are the main different ways of describing the original split into schools.
Authoritative Texts on the Division into Schools
The Principal Northern Sources
Next, I would like to give an introduction to the relevant documents.
What are the authoritative texts concerning the division into schools?
Within the Northern tradition, the primary source is the text called The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
This is the most important text in the Northern tradition describing the division into schools.
Three Chinese Translations
There are actually three different Chinese translations of The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
Because there are three different translations, we can compare and examine them. For that reason, they are invaluable for research.
Next, I will introduce these three different translations. In Tibetan, there is only one translation of The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, but in Chinese there are three.
- The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools
The first is what we call The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools, which in Chinese is called “Shirababu-lun.”
It was translated during the Later Qing dynasty. It is not clear who the translator was. There is no clear translator’s colophon.
This is the earliest of the three. The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools is the earliest translation, and it is in one fascicle.
2. The Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools
The second is The Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools. That is also one fascicle. It was translated by the master Paramārtha of the Chen dynasty. He is known as Yangdak Denpey in Tibetan.
He is known in Tibetan for his views. This primarily holds positions of the Middle Way and Mahāsāṃghika schools.
This translation and our Tibetan translation of Bhāviveka’s explanation of the differences between the schools, translated by Atiśa and Nagtso Lotsawa, are very similar in their content.
3. The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools: Xuanzang’s Translation
The third is called The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools ( Samayabhedoparacanacakra, 異部宗輪論)
This was translated during the Tang dynasty by Xuanzang. It is an authentic text of the Sarvāstivāda school and is the most complete of the three different translations.
The most complete translation is therefore the translation by Xuanzang. It was translated into Tibetan during the ancient translation period by Paṇḍita Saṅghabhadra. It is called The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
This is very similar to Ācārya Vinītadeva’s short teaching on the different schools, derived from The Wheel Distinguishing the Development of the Different Scriptural Traditions.
It seems to me that Vinītadeva’s text is a digest of The Treatise on the Distinctions Between the Schools. So, Xuanzang’s translation and Vinītadeva’s short teaching are all very similar.
Other Important Northern Sources
- The Śāriputraparipṛcchā: The Questions of Śāriputra
In addition to these three Chinese translations of The Treatise Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, there are many other important manuscripts. However, there are two that are especially important and which I would like to mention now.
The first is the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, or The Sutra of the Questions of Śāriputra. There is no translator’s colophon. The time of its translation was during the Eastern Jin or Liu Song period.
This primarily presents the position of the Mahāsāṃghika or Dharmaguptaka school. It records the process of the division of the schools from the standpoint of the Mahāsāṃghika school.
It is a little different from the Sarvāstivāda texts, including The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
This sūtra maintains that the authentic and stainless holders of the Buddha’s true Dharma are the Mahāsāṃghikas. In this way, it is different from the other accounts. It offers a distinctly different perspective and therefore becomes a very important text.
2. The Text on the Division of the Relics
The second is the Division of the Relics. Within this text, there is a chapter on the division of the relics. This text was translated during the Liang dynasty by an Indian master, Sanghavarman [ (also known in Chinese as K’ang-seng-k’ai) was a 3rd-century CE Buddhist monk and translator from India or Central Asia].
There is a very famous verse in it that gives the names of each of the different schools. Since this verse speaks about the eighteen schools, it is considered very well-known.
There are many other sources related to this, but there is not enough time to speak about each of them. There is no time now to mention them all.
There is also the question of which texts exist in Tibetan translation and the explanations of the different scholars. I would like to speak about these later and separately. We do not need to speak about them right now.
Sources in the Southern Transmission
The Dīpavaṃsa, Mahāvaṃsa and Buddhaghosa
Next, we have the Southern transmission. When we think about the Southern transmission of Buddhism, what are the important texts related to the division into schools? There are three primary texts.
- The first is the Dīpavaṃsa.
- The second is the Mahāvaṃsa.
- The third is Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the debates.
This also describes the circumstances related to the division into schools, so it is also an important text.
Structure of the Discussion of the Eighteen Schools
The Different Accounts
Now that I have given an introduction to the main source documents, when we speak about the division into the eighteen schools, we need to explain the different accounts of the schools.
The first is the account from the Northern tradition, based primarily on The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
The second is the account of the Southern transmission, based primarily on the Dīpavaṃsa.
The third concerns the derivation of the names of each of the schools and then, the question of who the most well-known scholars of each school were.
Then I will speak about the basic philosophy of each school.
Finally, we will speak about examples of research by contemporary scholars. If we are able to speak about that, it is good. If we cannot, it is not a big matter.
In any case, this is the structure for our discussion of the eighteen schools.
Xuanzang and Kuiji
Xuanzang’s Translation
Within this structure, there is the explanation of the Northern transmission based on The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
As I said before, there are three different translations of The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions. The most complete of them is the translation by Tang Xuanzang. That is the most complete version.
Xuanzang himself translated The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions.
Kuiji’s Notes
There is also a text called Notes on the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions. This was written by Xuanzang’s disciple, Master Kuiji.
These notes give an exact explanation of every single word in the text.
Not only do they give an explanation of every single word, they also give the historical background.
This is therefore an indispensable work for modern research into the division into schools.
The Four Factions in the Saṅgha
The Emergence of Four Factions
Next, I would like to explain Xuanzang’s translation of The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions itself.
There were four different factions that arose. There came to be four parties, rival groups or factions within the Saṅgha. These four factions had different ways of understanding the bhikṣu Mahādeva’s Five Points.
Some said that they should be understood in one way, while others said they should be understood in another way. In the end, they disagreed, and for that reason they split into schools. That is the view of the Sthaviravāda and the Mahāsāṃghika. They said that this is how the original division into schools occurred.
The Names of the Four Factions
Next, I would like to introduce the four different factions.
The four factions are:
- the Nāga faction;
- the Outlying faction;
- the Learned faction; and
- the Venerable faction.
These are the four groups.
This is according to Xuanzang’s translation of The Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions. The way they are described in the Tibetan translation is slightly different. I will speak about that later.
In any case, according to Xuanzang’s translation and Kuiji’s Notes on the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, there were these four factions: the Nāga, Outlying, Learned and Venerable factions.
Illustrations of the Four Factions
I made some illustrations of these bhikṣus, and now you can make many illustrations through AI.
The first shows a king making an offering. This represents the Nāga faction.
The second is a little like a country scene, and that represents the Outlying faction.
On the left below that, all the bhikṣus are looking at texts together. That represents the Learned faction.
On the bottom right, there are bhikṣus sitting in meditation. That represents the Venerable faction.
Three Ways of Explaining the Four Factions
Within the Notes on the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, three different ways of identifying these four factions are given.
- The first explanation is that the distinction occurred according to the leaders and followers of the two factions.
- The second is that it occurred because of differences in transmission and education.
- The third is that it occurred because of the level of practice, according to ordinary individuals and noble individuals.
The first explanation is that the distinction occurred according to the leaders and followers of the two factions.
- First Explanation: Leaders and Followers
The Nāga Faction
According to the explanation based on differences between leaders and followers, the first is the Nāga faction. Here, the Sanskrit word is nāga. It can refer to nāga spirits, but it can also refer to elephants. It is one word with several meanings.
The Nāga faction can therefore also be understood as the Nāga-Elephant faction. This refers to people such as the bhikṣu Mahādeva.
It is said that a nāga is an elephant and an elephant is also a nāga. There are two meanings here. The first is that nāgas and elephants are very strong, so they cannot be stopped. The second is that they are wild and difficult to subdue.
The reason they were unstoppable and strong is that Mahādeva and the other leaders were leaders among the bhikṣus. They had the support of kings and ministers.
Because they had that support, they criticised the noble Saṅgha. Because the kings stood behind them, they were able to criticise the nobles, meaning the elders. Because of this, they developed great confidence, and there was no way to stop them. This is the reason they were called nāgas.
The second reason is that their natures were vicious and bad. Likewise, their behaviour was coarse and wrong. The noble Saṅgha, meaning the noble beings and elders, were unable to stop them by giving advice. There was simply no way to subdue them.
In this case, if we think of the Nāga faction in terms of individuals, it means people such as Mahādeva, the principal figures in fomenting the dispute.
- The Outlying Faction
The second is the Outlying faction. This refers to the students of Mahādeva.
The reason they are called the Outlying faction is because their mental conduct has transcended the nature of phenomena, so they had gone outside, and they had no place because they were deplaced or outlying.
Normally, when we speak about people who are outlying, we mean people living in remote places who have no education and do not have good conduct. That is the reason they were called the Outlying faction.
They were not the principal figures in fomenting the dispute. They did not have as much support as Mahādeva and the others.
The people in the Outlying faction became supporters of Mahādeva. They were like the students of Mahādeva. For this reason, they were called one of the four factions.
- The Learned Faction
Next is the Learned faction. The Learned faction means the scholars of the time. These individuals were learned and had understood the profound meaning.
They read the Three Piṭakas. Because they had discipline and were well learned, they were ordinary individuals.
- The Venerable Faction
The Venerable faction refers to noble beings who had understood the nature of things. The Venerable faction means people who had realised and mastered the high levels.
Virtuous and Unvirtuous factions
When we think about these four factions, there were both virtuous and unvirtuous factions: two unvirtuous factions and two virtuous factions. Within each, there were principal figures and followers.
In terms of the two unvirtuous factions, the principal figures included Mahādeva and the other bhikṣus, while his students were the followers. These were the two unvirtuous factions.
The second pair [of virtuous factions] were the Learned and Venerable factions. The principal figures were the noble beings, and their followers were the learned ordinary beings.
These were the two factions. That is the first explanation.
Second Explanation: Transmission and Education
Differences in the Three Piṭakas and Education
The second explanation is that the distinction was made according to the transmission of the Three Piṭakas and the level of education.
The Nāga Faction as Vinaya Holders
In this explanation, the Nāga faction refers to beings who, whether ordinary individuals or noble beings, maintained pure discipline. They were learned in the Vinaya scriptures and were fearless within the community.
They were holders of the Vinaya. They were like nāgas or elephants. Here, it basically means the upholders of the Vinaya. It means the better ones. You should understand the term here in a positive sense.
These were the elders in the transmission of Upāli. This is how it should be understood.
The Outlying Faction as Undisciplined Monastics
The second is the Outlying faction. This refers to people who had violated their [unclear] and behaved improperly. For that reason, they were called [unclear]. They were foolish and ignorant, and therefore they were outliers.
Basically, this means ordinary beings who were not learned in the scriptures of the Three Piṭakas.
They had no education and did not maintain their discipline properly. They were ordinary beings and were therefore called the Outlying faction.
These were similar to Mahādeva. At that time, Mahādeva was actually considered one of the Outlying faction.
The Learned Faction as the Lineage of Ānanda
The next is the Learned faction. The Learned faction means people who, whether ordinary beings or noble beings, had read the scriptures extensively and properly upheld the Buddha’s precepts.
For this reason, they were called the Learned faction. These belonged to the lineage of Ānanda’s disciples.
The Venerable Faction as Abhidharma Masters
Then there is the Venerable faction. The Venerable faction means people who, whether ordinary individuals or noble beings, had realised the meaning of the true nature.
They were learned in the profound nature and were praised for their qualities. They were therefore called the Venerable faction.
These were the people who prepared the treatises on Abhidharma, such as the students of [unclear].
This is the second of the different explanations.
Conclusion of the Session
I think it is okay to stop here. We will leave it here after the second explanation.
Next, we have the third explanation according to the Notes on the Treatise Differentiating the Different Scriptural Traditions.
We also have the explanation according to contemporary Saṅgha scholars, and we will speak about those later.