“In the past, there was only one, the Sarvāstivāda, but after the Bhagavān Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, other schools arose, and since they were based on this, it became the foundation, and it was called the Sarvastivada, the ‘all-that-exists’ school’ is explained. This shows that there was originally only one Sarvāstivāda (All-That-Exists) school. Later, after the death of the Dharma King Ashoka, the others split due to differences in recitation languages, dialects and other factors. There was no other before that school.” —from Śākyaprabha’s Prabhāvatī (Words for the Novices)
“When 160 years had passed since the Bhagavān’s parinirvāṇa, at the time King Dharmāśoka ruled in the city called Pāṭaliputra because of the arising of certain points, a great schism occurred in the Sangha. At that time it first divided into two schools, the Mahāsāṃghika, and Sthavira.” —Acharya Bhaviveka
Introductory/Summary
On Day 3 of the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa’s teachings on the Origin of Secret Mantra, in terms of the Early Buddhist schools, he continued with a detailed examination of the four factions described in the Chinese and Tibetan translations of the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between the Schools. This time referring to Kujji’s third explanation of them, and in terms of their geography. [Author note: Kuiji (632–682 CE), also spelled Kui Ji, was a prominent Tang dynasty Chinese Buddhist monk and the chief disciple of the famous translator and traveler Xuanzang. He is widely regarded as the de facto founder and first patriarch of the Faxiang (Dharma-Characteristics) or Chinese Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) school of Buddhism.]
This is the first time I have heard of these four main groups within Early Buddhism. When I did a Google search online for them, they did not come up either. Thus it is a unique and helpful contribution by the 17th Karmapa to original scholarship on this topic in the Tibetan language, but also from the supreme hard of on the four main Tibetan Buddhist lineages.
According to Kuiji’s third explanation of the four main groups, these names describe different spiritual qualities and levels of practice:
- the Nāga group ཀླུ་ཡི་ཚོགས། – consisted of argumentative people associated with those who violated their vows.
- Outlier མཐའ་འཁོབ་པའི་ཚོགས། [I would translate this more as “borderland”] – referred to people whose speech and minds remained outside the Dharma.
- Learned མང་དུ་ཐོས་པའི་ཚོགས། [lit. listened to many] – consisted of disciplined and highly educated ordinary practitioners.
- Venerable བཙུན་པའི་ཚོགས། – referred to noble beings who had realised the truth.
Disagreement over the Five Points of Mahādeva divided these factions into supporters and opponents, contributing to the original separation of the Sangha into the Mahāsāṃghika and Sthavira schools [Author’s note: The term Sthavira (Sanskrit for “elder”, or Thera in Pali)].
I have created some infographics below of maps/ and charts to complement and expand on the 17th Karmapa’s teaching in a visual sense. I looked for such charts online but could not find any, so I hope these will be useful for others researching Early Buddhism too.
A Geographical Interpretation
Nāga and Outlying factions were associated with eastern and southern India
The 17th Karmapa also gave brief explanation on how modern scholars have interpreted the four factions/groups mainly according to their geographical locations.
The Nāga and Outlying/Borderland factions were associated with eastern and southern India. They supported reform and represented an early form of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition. The Nāga faction was centred around Pāṭaliputra, Vaiśālī, and the Gangetic plain, where the Sangha enjoyed considerable political and royal support.
The Outlying faction developed in more remote regions where Buddhism had recently spread. Although conservative communities criticised these monks for adapting the Vinaya and lacking traditional education, their more flexible approach may have helped prepare the ground for the later development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in southern India.
The Conservative Western Factions: Venerable and Learned
The two other groups: the Venerable and Learned factions were associated with western and northwestern India and represented early forms of the more conservative Sthavira tradition.
The Venerable faction flourished in places such as Mathurā, Kashmir, and Gandhāra. It strongly emphasised strict Vinaya discipline, respect for elders, and the study of Abhidharma.
The Learned faction was connected with areas such as Śrāvastī and Sarnath. These communities preserved the sūtras and the Four Āgamas and were linked with Ānanda’s lineage. Although traditional, they were somewhat more flexible than the Venerable faction.
Chinese and Tibetan Accounts
The 17th Karmapa then explained how the Chinese translation clearly describes four factions, while the Tibetan translation appears to mention only three. The teaching suggests that this may be the result of translation or scribal errors.
The expression translated as “elder Nāga” may originally have referred to two separate groups: the Elder and Nāga factions. Similarly, the “Eastern” faction in the Tibetan version may correspond to the Outlying faction. A comparison with an original Sanskrit text would therefore be necessary to resolve these uncertainties.
Different Accounts of the Root Schools
Tibetan sources preserve several conflicting explanations of the earliest Buddhist schools.
Some texts maintain that there was originally only one school, the Sarvāstivāda. Others describe an initial division into the Mahāsāṃghika and Sthavira schools, usually connected with disputes during or after the reign of King Aśoka.
Other traditions identify three root schools: the Sthavira, Mahāsāṃghika, and Vibhajyavāda. The most influential Tibetan presentation, however, follows Vinītadeva and describes four root schools from which the eighteen Buddhist schools later developed.
Distinguishing Features of the Four Schools
The 17th Karmapa then finished with a brief explanation as to how Tibetan scholars also distinguished the four root schools according to their teacher lineages, languages of scriptural recitation, monastic robes, insignia, and naming customs.
For example, the Sarvāstivādins were associated with Rāhula’s lineage and Sanskrit recitation, while the Mahāsāṃghikas were connected with Mahākāśyapa and the Apabhraṃśa language. The Sāṃmitīyas traced their lineage to Upāli, and the Sthaviras to Kātyāyana. These differences illustrate the diversity of languages, customs, disciplinary traditions, and textual lineages that developed within the early Buddhist Sangha.
Here is the full transcript below. I have also created this special video of a clip (with my translated subtitlies added to the original Tibetan), regarding the explanation of the geographical reasons for the split into four main groups.
FULL TRANSCRIPT (DAY THREE)
The Eighteen Buddhist Schools: Four Main Factions (Third Explanation and Geographical Differences)
“I would like to offer my greetings to everyone listening over the internet, including the noble community of the Sangha, as well as all my Dharma friends, male and female. I would like to wish you all tashi delek. Now, you can all hear me, right?
The Third Explanation of the Four Factions: their individual differences/practice
Today we will continue from the other day, we were discussing about the translation of the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between the Schools according to Xuanzang’s translation. And this description of how at the time of Aśoka there were different views or disagreements about positions on there being four different factions. The four factions/groups are:
- Nāga ཀླུ་ཡི་ཚོགས།
- Outlier མཐའ་འཁོབ་པའི་ཚོགས། [I would translate this more as “borderland”]
- Learned མང་དུ་ཐོས་པའི་ཚོགས། [lit. listened to many]
- Venerable བཙུན་པའི་ཚོགས།
Now how do we explain them? There is a commentary on Xuanzang’s translation of the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences between Scriptural Traditions by a direct disciple of Xuanzang’s by the name of Kuiji. So, Kuiji wrote his notes on this treatise and he gave three different explanations of these. Yesterday, we spoke about the first and second explanations.
Today, we come to the third explanation, which is primarily a division in terms of the difference between ordinary noble beings and their level of practice among these four factions.
- Nāga ཀླུ་ཡི་ཚོགས།
The Nāga explanation is they were those who enjoy disputes, primarily people who like to argue, people who like conflict, these are the main personages. The reason why they’re called the Nāga faction is because they’re supporters of those who violate their vows. They are friends of the wicked and are as fierce as elephants, and so they were called the Nāga faction.
2. Outlier མཐའ་འཁོབ་པའི་ཚོགས།
When we describe the outlying faction, outlying here means a remote place, a place without much development, and that is one way to understand it. So at this point, in terms of the third explanation, the outlying means the people who’ve never heard the Dharma, whose mouths have never spoken the Dharma, and their mental content is outside of the Dharma, so this type of person is called the outlying faction.
3. Learned མང་དུ་ཐོས་པའི་ཚོགས།
The third faction is the learned faction, the way this is described, as it says that the learned faction are those ordinary individuals who perfect discipline, and in addition to that, they had learned a great deal and were very learned. So they dwelt in the conduct of the learned, and so for that reason they were called the learned faction.
4. Venerable བཙུན་པའི་ཚོགས།
Now the fourth is the venerable faction. The venerable faction is in terms of this third explanation. The venerable faction basically means those noble beings, who had the wisdom of realizing the nature of the truth, and who, by following the nature of the Dharma realized the meaning of the truth. So these were called the Venerable faction.
So there was disagreement and conflict between the four factions, and so for that reason. The main locus of the dispute was the five points of Mahādeva, and because of their different understandings and the way their different ways of explaining it, they came into disputes, into conflict, and because they had the conflict, there were two factions that supported the five points of Mahādeva, two that were against them.
In this way they split into two schools, and so for this reason, they were divided into four factions, and because of that there is the original split into the schools. So these are the three explanations taught in the treatise distinguishing the differences between scriptural traditions. Now we’ve completed that explanation of those three ways of explaining it.
Modern scholars’ explanations: Geographical differences
Next, I would like to speak about the explanations modern scholars give regarding the four factions. If we talk about the explanations of modern scholars, the main way modern scholars explain it is primarily according to geographical areas and differences.
The primary people who explain it this way are the modern Chinese scholar from the period of the Republic of China named Ying Sun, as well as the Japanese scholar Hirakawa Akira.
So they and other scholars primarily combined the study of geography with the spread of Nikāya Buddhism and in their research, and they found that the four factions taught in the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions, the differences between the four factions are primarily due to geographical distance differences.
The Eastern and Southern Groups
The eastern and southern regions of India were the places where the people who wanted to change primarily lived, and this is like an early form of the Mahāsāṃghika. At that time, the Mahāsāṃghika itself had not actually been established, but there was like an early form of it in the early period, in eastern and southern India. The Sangha from these regions of eastern and southern India, ended up being two groups and they both supported the five points of Mahādeva.
So when talking about Buddhist philosophy of other areas, they said that there had to be changes. So this was one group of the two groups.
The Nāga Faction
So of these two factions, the first of them is the Nāga faction. So the Nāga faction, in terms of geography, is from the eastern regions of central India. So it’s from Pāṭaliputra, the capital of Magadha, and Vaiśālī, and also in the lower and central parts of the Gangetic plain, in terms of geography. The situation or the nature of this geographical area is that these regions were like the political and cultural hub of the Magadha Empire. So the Sangha in this region became very well-known.
There were numerous Sangha communities there, and the royal rulers of that region also gave a lot of support and protection to the sangha. For this reason, they had considerable political strength. So, the Nāgas of the Nāga faction should be understood as meaning these people.
The Outlying Faction
The second is the outlying faction. In terms of the geography, this is southern India what is now called Andhara Pradesh. Basically, these were areas that were east and southeast of central India. They are far away from the cultural hub in the Gangetic plain. It was a place where Buddhism had recently spread, and so the situation in these areas was that people from like the Sthavirada school, from the conservative western regions, but at that point they weren’t called the Sthavirada. Initially, they newly formed communities in the southwestern regions. It was said they did not know Sanskrit well. They did not have much education. They did not respect all of the precepts.
For example, in the account of that, in the chapters on discipline of the Vinaya, there is the chapter on leather, for example. So in central India, it does talk about how the precepts of the Vinaya, such as about wearing leather shoes and so forth, they need to be changed in different areas. However, the way people from the conservative western regions viewed it, they believed these people did not properly apply the rules, and so they called them the outlying factions as a derogatory term.
However, in actuality, these people from the outlying regions actually had new energy and ready wanted to introduce more reforms. And later, the seeds of the later spread of Mahāyāna Buddhism, in southern India came from the outlying faction at the time, because they wanted to change things. They had a more relaxed and wider view.
For that reason, the seeds of the later spread of Mahāyāna in that area was plainted by this. For example, it’s like the people at the Caityaśaila school and others that spread in that area.
These are some things that we’ll speak about later when we speak about this spread of the Mahāyāna. So we have spoken about the two factions from the eastern and the southern regions, the Nāga and Outlying Factions. These are primarily talking about the schools from the east and the south.
The Northwestern and Western Groups
In terms of the people from the western and northwestern regions, these are the more conservative groups. They had greater attachment to the old ways. Basically, they’re like an early form of the Sthaviravada school. At that point, the Sthavira itself hadn’t yet truly formed, but they’re like an early seed of it. Now these two factions also had a very traditional way of viewing things, a very traditional way of practice. They preserved it this way. And also they studied and researched the Abhidharma and were like the upholders of the Abhidharma.
The Venerable Faction
So of these two factions there, the first of these is the venerable faction. And the venerable faction in terms of geography was from central and western India, including Mathurā, as well as the northwest regions, including Kashmir, and likewise also in Gandhāra.
They included the Sangha from these regions in terms of the geographical nature of that area. At that time, the northwest was a place with a very strong traditional culture. And the Vinaya precepts were held historically.
At that time, the Sangha in that region, when they spoke of elders, they considered elders to be like arhats. And they thought of them as being like deities, which was very important. In particular, they said that you need to follow Vinaya discipline exactly as it had been preserved and practised before. They felt like you had to ready protect these. They also they focused their studies on the Abhidharma.
Later this became the place of the Kashmiri Sarvāstivāda. They came from the area of Kashmir. So this is the place where the Sthaviravada would later become very strong. So this is a very conservative area. When we talk about the elders we are talking about a noble community, like the elders were considered like arhats, like deities.
The Learned Faction
The second faction is the learned faction. So in terms of region, they are from the central and upper Gangetic plain. Basically, it’s in the region like Śrāvastī, as well as the Ṛṣipatana at Sarnath. So these are the places where the Buddha actually lived, where he actually traveled during his lifetime. In terms of the geographical situation, the Sanghas in that area were primarily in the lineage of Ānanda and they upheld the sūtras.
They had really great study of the oldest Buddhist scriptures, such as the four Agamas, and understood them. For that reason, in terms of the study of the texts, they had a very strong tradition of this. And they were very traditional. They had a great affection and devotion for the tradition. They were a little bit more relaxed in their views.
It was a little bit different than the Venerable one. The learned had a somewhat more liberal view or relaxed views compared with the Venerable School.
This way of explanation is the way the contemporary or modern scholars have examined the four different factions, and Xuanzang’s translation of the Treatise on the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions.
Comparison with the Tibetan Translations
Finally, we also need to look at how to compare the Tibetan translations of The Wheel, Distinguishing the Different Scripture Traditions, with Xuanzang’s translation. Now as I said before, in Xuanzang’s translation, it says that there are four factions, the Nāga, Outlying, Learned, and Venerable Factions.
But the Tibetan translation of the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions is slightly different. It says in Proclaiming and Propagating the Five points (གནས་ལྔ་པོ་དེ་དག་པར་རྗེས་སུ་རྗོད།), there was the:
- Elder Nāga,
- Eastern, and
- Learned.
They proclaimed or propagated the same five points and then two schools were established the Mahāsāṃghika and Sthavira schools. If we look at this Tibetan translation of that text it says that the Elder Nāga, Eastern, and Learned, it teaches only three factions not four.
So if we look at the wording, it says, “The way I understand it is this. ” I think that there’s another way that this can be explained. Another reason is that in the Tibetan tradition it says the Elder Nāga, and I think that actually it combines the word as “Elder” and “Nāga”.
But instead of reading it that way, I think it should be talked about as two separate terms, the elder and Naga. I think that you can explain it as in the reason why is that in the Chinese tradition there is the word that appears as venerable. Now the word “venerable” can also be used as a translation for elder. So for that reason, instead of saying “the Elder Nāga”, you’d say the elder and the Naga. So you can say that the Elder and Nāga should be presented as separate words.
Likewise it says the easterners there. Here, eastern here is the Sangha of the eastern region. And there was a tradition of calling them the outliers, the outlying faction. So for that reason the eastern faction and the outlying faction are actually in one faction of the Sangha. I think it would be okay to say it in this way.
The Tibetan translation of the Wheel Distinguishing Different Scriptural Traditions is actually difficult to understand. I think that there are many scribal errors and mistakes. In the future, it would be good if we later compare this Tibetan translation to a Sanskrit original, it actually would be necessary to compare the two.
In any case, in the Tibetan translation of the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural Traditions, I think it talks about the four factions of Mahādeva. Now, it doesn’t say Mahādeva particularly, but it does point to the five views. And it speaks about the introduction of them. It says that the elder Nāga, Eastern and the Learned disagreed over the five views. Then because of that, they split into the two different schools. So it seems like in the Tibetan translation there are only three factions, not four.
Accounts of the Original Root Schools in the Tibetan translations
When we look at how the original root schools split according to the Tibetan translation, it is quite difficult. The reason it is so difficult is the treatises preserved in the Tibetan translation in the Tengyur, when they explain how the schools split, some say there was one root school, some that there were two root schools, other that there were three or four. So there are actually four different systems.
So, first, I’ll speak about in terms of the system asserting that there is one root school.
- Asserting one root original school: Śākyaprabha’s Prabhāvatī (Words for the Novices)
“This is primarily according to the chapter on Prabhāvatī (“The Luminous” or “Illuminating”), an autocommentary titled Āryamūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikā-vṛttiprabhāvatī (དགེ་ཚུལ་གྱི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པའི་འགྲེལ་པ་འོད་ལྡན “Illuminating Commentary of the Verses for Novices of the Noble Mūlasarvāstivādins”) by Śākyaprabha (8th Century Buddhist master).
And it says:
“In the past, there was only one, the Sarvāstivāda, but after the Bhagavān Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, other schools arose, and since they were based on this, it became the foundation, and it was called the Sarvastivada, the ‘all-that-exists’ school’ is explained. This shows that there was originally only one Sarvāstivāda (All-That-Exists) school. Later, after the death of the Dharma King Asoka, the others split due to differences in recitation languages, dialects and other factors. There was no other before that school.”
The Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda. That was the assertion that there was only one original school.
Asserting two root original schools
There is also system asserting two original root schools, and this tradition comes from the Explanation of the Differences Between Schools by Acharya Bhāviveka. This is found within his great treatise that refutes the non-Buddhist schools, and this is a section from that. It teaches three different ways that the original schools split. In the first of these, it speaks about how there was a split into two original schools:
“When 160 years had passed since the Bhagavān’s parinirvāṇa, at the time King Dharmāśoka ruled in the city called Pāṭaliputra because of the arising of certain points, a great schism occurred in the Sangha. At that time it first divided into two schools, the Mahāsāṃghika, and Sthavira.”
In any case, this is saying that during the reign of King Aśoka, there were several disputes. And because of this there was a huge disagreement and that was the situation that led to the formation of two different schools. So these two schools are the Mahāsāṃghika school and the Sthavira school.
Similarly, there is the text called The Ornament of the Sage’s Intent by Ācārya Abhayākaragupta, which says this:
“Moreover, one of the years, according to the Vinayabhāṣya, 100 years after the parinirvana of the Bhagavān of the Lord of Sages, differences regarding the teachings first divided into two schools. the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika.”
So, according to this it is actually very similar to the explanation in the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences between Scriptural traditions.
It also says in Je Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India, that this is a Sthaviravada account of the original split. I think that this is correct because it says the same thing in the schools of the Theravāda. The Sthaviravada account says the same thing, so I think that this is correct. It also matches the explanation found in the Wheel Distinguishing the Different Scriptural traditions.
There is another explanation, there is another school that says that because of the dispute over the five points of Mahādeva, there was a split into the Sthaviravada and Mahāsāṃghika schools. Because of that, they developed the split into a further four. It says first that there were two schools, and then because of that, they split further into four schools.
It has a slightly different way of explaining this. In any case, what we’ve said before, what I’ve just mentioned is there are two different explanations of the original split being into two schools.
A further account of the split into two root schools: the wicked “mara” who split the schools
Another explanation of the original split being into two schools is also found in Ācārya Bhaviveka’s Explaining the Differences between the Schools. This is the third explanation. It says:
“137 years had passed since the Bhagavān’s parinirvāṇa.”
Here the number of years is different. The dynasty doesn’t correct it. Before it said that “during the time of Dharma King Ashoka”, and another way of saying this is “137 years passed after the Bhagavān’s parinirvāṇa”.
“In the city of Pāṭaliputra, under King Nanda and Mahāpadma, at that time, there was the great Kāśyapa.”
So this is the second great Mahākāśyapa. Not the same as the original one who was the direct disciple. This was Mahākāśyapa.
“When all the arhats gathered there for the compilation of the scriptures in at that time, there was Mahādeva. They was a monk who wore the robes of a bhikṣu monk who displayed various miracles. Because of that he made the elder nāga school and those who called the learned ones, the learned. And he praised the five points. So these are the people who supported that Mara [demon], and because of that, there was the split into the two schools.”
So this explanation is basically saying, as it is also said in Je Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India, what it says there:
“After Mahādeva passed away, there was someone called Yi Tenpa, the confident one, who fully upheld the five points.”
So the first person who talked about the five points was Mahādeva, but the person who actually disseminated them widely, who wanted to spread them widely in the Sangha, was a Bhikṣu(Gelong monk) called Bhadra. Bhadra widely spread these five points taught by Mahādeva. As a result, there was a great dispute that led to the original split.
So according to this History of Buddhism in India this is said to be an assertion of the Sāṃmitīya school. Likewise, it also says in the Blue Annals that it was thought that Acharya Bhāviveka held this third explanation, the one of the Sāṃmitīya school. So it says that “the author thinks so”.
Bhāviveka’s position was the position of Sāṃmitīya school. But I think that here is what we often say in Tibet the “wicked bhikṣu Bhadra”, but I think there is another way to understand this. When it talks about the wicked Mara Bhadra (bdud sdig to can) according to Acharya Bhāviveka’s answer. It doesn’t say that there is a wicked Mara named Bhadra. So I think there is another way of thinking about it. So there was actually a wicked Mara. But we could say that it is actually the “opponent of everything good” because a Bhadra or zangpo (in Tibetan) means everything excellent. So he wore the robes of a monk, it is talking about his features, it’s not talking about his name. So it says “a wicked Mara” or “the opponent of everything good”, who wore the robes of bhikṣus, if we look at the text itself, it doesn’t actually call him by that name.
But in our Tibetan text, it says “the wicked Mara, named Zangpo or Bhadra”. So I think this is a different answer. I think it’s hard to say that actually isn’t so. But I think if you look, it does not have any word saying that it is named Bhadra or named Zangpo.
In any case, these are two explanations of the way they split into two system schools. So both of these appear in Acarya Bhāviveka texts, as positions of different schools.
The Tradition of saying there were Three Root Schools
Next is a tradition that asserts that there are three original root schools. So this was an explanation given by Bhāviveka. So among the three explanations taught by Bhāviveka, this is actually the second one that there was a split into three original schools.
“Others say the following, the basis was split before. The root divisions were the Sthaviras, the Mahāsāṃghika, and the Vibhajyavādins.”
So this division into three schools, according to Je Tāranātha, is said to be a tradition of the Mahāsāṃghika school. This is what Tāranātha says in his History of Buddhism in India. So that is the position that there were three original schools.
The System of Four Root Schools: Two ways of explaining
The next is the assertion that there are four root original schools. There are two different ways to explain this.
- Vinītadeva system
One of these is the tradition of Vinītadeva [ (7th or 8th century) was an Indian scholar and author of several well-known commentaries]. So in his tradition, this is his digest of the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences between Scriptural Traditions. There’s a lot that he says here in this quote, I don’t need to read of it.
Basically what it is saying is that:
“The Mahāsāṃghikas have five sub-schools. The Sarvāstivādins have seven. The Sthaviravādins have three. And the Maha Sammitiyas have three sub-schools. So, one has to accept that there are four root original schools.”
In Tibet, Vinītadeva’s position that there were four original schools is the most well-known.
For example, Utpalotsa’s text on the philosophical schools says:
“Here 18 schools that have branched from the four root schools should expand according to the text of Ācārya Vinītadeva.”
Utpala’s is a very old text on the philosophical schools.
Likewise, the Jonang scholar Je Tāranātha’s, History of Buddhism in India, also says:
“Moreover, it is stated in many tantra scriptures that there are four root schools. And since this way of enumerating the four does not follow the assertion of the Vātsīputrīyas, but instead agrees with this one. All this system should be adopted, as it is compiled from the teachings of Vasubhandu, and its source is excellent.”
Now, the reason it is giving is that it uses the tantras as source. And that is rather strange, because the tantras appeared later. If you say it uses later appearing tantras as source for an earlier school, then that is a difficult situation. It is like getting it chronologically mixed up. But he says that “all this one” should be held. So that our own tradition should be followed. The reason why is because it is compiled from the teachings of Acharya Vasubandhu.” So it comes from his lineage, so it is excellent.
In any case, in Tibetan, when we talk about there being four original schools, this is the most influential, the Vinītadeva explanation of this.
We also have one from Ācārya Padma. So Ācārya Padma is, I am not sure whether this is Guru Padmasambhava, or our precious Ācārya Padma. In any case, in the Questions of a First-Year Novice, some of these, it says he is the Lothruwa Khenpo, which means the person who first asks the novice their age, and it says:
“There are the Sarvāstivādins who have four sub-schools, the Mahāsāṃghikas six, the Sāṃmitīyas five, and the Sthaviravādins three.”
So it is different from Vinītadeva in the number of sub-schools within each of the great schools. But it is the same in saying that there are four root schools. So this way is the same as Vinītadeva’s school. So it is a little bit different, Ācārya Padma, a little bit different in terms of the internal subdivisions, but the root schools are the same. In Tibet, the Vinītadeva’s presentation of four original schools is more influential.
Explanation of the four schools in terms of lineage of teachers, different languages, measurements of robes and conventions for the insignia of monks, names, and suffixes
Another explanation is to say is that the four schools also have their understanding lineage of teachers, different languages, measurements of robes and conventions for the insignia of monks, names, and suffixes.
- Sarvāstivāda. In terms of the lineage, it is the lineage of Rāhula, the language of recitation is Sanskrit, they recite the sutras in Sanskrit. The robe is between twenty-five down to nine strips of patches, and the insignia on the robe is a blue lotus. So they are known by symbols such as flowers, and their monastic names end in Śrī, or Prabhā, or Kīrti, or Bhadra. So these are the endings to the names. First, like Rāhula Śrī and Śrī Bhadra. Their monastic names end in Prabhā, or Śrī, or Kīrti, or Bhadra. So they have a different way of ending names.
- Mahāsāṃghika. In terms of their lineage, their lineage of their arhat Mahākāśyapa, the language of recitation is Apabhraṃśa. Some texts say the Apabhraṃśa, and some people say they recite their sūtras in another language, so they don’t completely agree. I’m just giving what’s in the text, but different scholars explain this slightly differently. It is not absolutely certainly this. In terms of their robes, it has between twenty-three and twenty-seven strips of patches. The monastic insignia is a conch shell. Their names have Jñāna, or Gupta, or Sena as endings to their names.
3. Sāṃmitīya school, the lineage is that of Upāli. And the language is Paiśācī, which is the language of the piśāca spirits. The robe has nineteen strips, it’s the sultika flower. We’re not sure what a sultika is. There is this flower in the sultika, and their names and it was translated as Bhong, or the name of the school, or or Śīla, or in Siṃha.
4. Sthaviravāda, is the lineage of disciples of noble Kātyāyana, the language in which they recite the sūtras is Prakrit. The robe has the same number of strips as the Sāṃmitīya school, the monastic insignia is the wheel.
Their names and suffixes are Ākara, like Ratna Akara, and Śāntivarman, and so forth. They also have names like Khenpo, such as the great preceptor Śāntarakṣita is similar to this. This is another explanation given by Tibetan scholars.
But in terms of the sources, it probably comes from the Vinaya. Now in terms of the names, I think that there are Sanskrit sources. There’s a text about this, it is a Tibetan text whose title is uncertain, there’s a source for that. But this is a well-known explanation of Tibetan scholars about the particular defining characteristics of the four different groups, the language that they recite the sūtras in and so forth. And the size of the robe being slightly different, the way they call their names and their insignia being different. So these are all differences.”