“The claim that the original split occurred because of Mahādeva’s Five Points does not appear to be entirely correct. The reason is that the Five Points associated with Mahādeva may have developed within the Caitika or Caitika-related traditions, which were later sub-schools of the Mahāsāṃghikas. If that is so, the controversy concerning the Five Points could only have occurred after those schools had already appeared. It therefore could not have been the cause of the original split.” –17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje
Introductory Summary
On Day Four of the Mar-Ngog teachings, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa’s key point was that contrary to popularly held narrative, the original division of the Buddhist Sangha was probably not the result of one person (such as the monk Mahādeva and his five views),or one doctrinal dispute, or one dramatic Buddhist council. The evidence instead points toward a gradual process shaped by Vinaya disagreements, regional development, differing textual traditions, and later sectarian interpretations.
I have created some infographics based on the 17th Karmapa’s teaching on Day Four here in the summary below. The full transcript, with the Tibetan script slides that the Karmapa used are below the summary.
It was interesting to hear a Tibetan account of the nuanced explanations of the split into schools, and that the “demonisation” of the Monk Mahādeva, may have been due to some sectarian bias from one of the schools, rather than the actual main cause of the split.
Who knows, but at the end of the day, it shows a lot of men in robes debating and eventually splitting the original Buddhist sangha. We know little about the nuns, and women around at that time, and their input and conduct. One would almost think from hearing about this history that women did not even exist!
The Northern Five-Stage Chronology
The 17th Karmapa explained how the history of the early Buddhist schools is preserved differently in northern and southern sources. Rather than presenting a single unquestioned account, the Karmapa’s teaching compared traditional explanations with contemporary scholarship and highlighted the need to examine multiple Vinayas, chronicles, inscriptions, and sectarian histories.
The northern discussion began with a five-stage chronology developed by Chinese scholars such as Lü Cheng and Yinshun from sources including Vasumitra’s Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions, Chinese translator, Kuiji’s notes, and Tibetan materials.
The first stage is placed around one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, during the Second Council at Vaiśālī, when disagreement arose over the Ten Points of monastic discipline. This produced the early outlines of the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika factions, although they had not yet completely separated into independent schools.
The second stage involved doctrinal disagreement, especially the Five Points concerning arhats. Early Chinese translations discuss these Five Points but do not name Mahādeva, raising the possibility that the association between Mahādeva and the controversy was a later development.
The third stage is traditionally identified as the actual separation of the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika schools, placed during the reign of King Aśoka at Pāṭaliputra. Subsequent stages describe the emergence of Mahāsāṃghika sub-schools and, later, eleven schools belonging to the broader Sthavira tradition.
Contemporary scholarship and re-assessment: negative portrayal of Mahādeva reflects Sarvāstivāda sectarian bias
Contemporary scholars question whether Mahādeva’s Five Points caused the original schism. Comparative study of the Vinayas suggests that disagreements over monastic discipline and the development of Vinaya rules may have been more important than doctrinal disputes.
The strongly negative portrayal of Mahādeva appears especially in later Sarvāstivāda sources and may reflect sectarian bias. Some traditions instead describe Mahādeva as a respected elder, while Yinshun suggested that there may even have been two different historical figures named Mahādeva.
Aśoka’s own inscriptions also emphasize preserving harmony within the Sangha, suggesting that the division of the schools may already have been developing before his reign rather than being caused by a single council under his patronage.
A Gradual and Geographical Process
Modern scholars increasingly understand the formation of the Buddhist schools as a gradual geographical development. As Buddhism spread across India, communities became separated by distance, language, customs, recitation traditions, and differing interpretations. Over time, these regional differences developed into distinct lineages and schools.
This means that no single sectarian source can provide the whole history. Northern and southern accounts, Vinayas, inscriptions, histories, and commentaries must be studied comparatively.
The Southern or Pali Account
The southern tradition draws principally on the Dīpavaṃsa, Mahāvaṃsa, Buddhaghosa’s Samantapāsādikā, and the commentary on the Kathāvatthu. Its later historical tradition also connects the schism with the dispute over the Ten Points at Vaiśālī.
Yet the early Pali Vinaya, in its account of the Council of the Seven Hundred, only records the rejection of the Ten Points. It does not say that the Sangha immediately split or that the Mahāsāṃghika school arose at that time. Similar silence appears in other Vinaya traditions.
Only later chronicles describe the defeated monks forming a separate Mahāsaṅgīti, or “Great Compilation,” which supposedly became the Mahāsāṃghika school. This gap suggests that the familiar southern narrative of the schism was itself a later historical reconstruction.
In any case, it was interesting to learn that one of the main contentions was concerns about monks breaking their precepts by the Elders.
FULL TRANSCRIPT (DAY FOUR) 17th Karmapa teaching
Exploring the Original Split into Schools: Time, Place and Causes
I would like to begin by offering my greetings to the noble members of the Sangha who are listening over the internet, as well as to all my other Dharma friends who are listening. I wish you all good health today.
Our topic for today concerns the original split of the Buddhist schools. The other day, we first spoke about explanations of the original split found in the northern Buddhist sources. We also discussed the different explanations based on documents found in the Tengyur.
Today, I would like to give a summary of the explanations of the original split according to the northern Buddhist sources. I thought this would be helpful. These sources are primarily Chinese, but they also include Tibetan materials.
NORTHERN BUDDHIST SOURCES
The Five-Stage Chronology of the Split into Schools
The summary of the explanations of the original split in the northern Buddhist sources is based on what is called the five-stage chronology of the split into schools.
There was a great Chinese scholar named Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1896–1989) , who lived toward the end of the Qing dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. He was a very learned Chinese Buddhist scholar who knew Sanskrit, Pali, and Tibetan.
There was also the Chinese master Yinshun. He was an influential Buddhist researcher in China and was also a monastic.
These scholars used several sources, including:
- Vasumitra’s Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions;
- the notes of Xuanzang’s student Kuiji; and
- the Tibetan translation of Ācārya Bhavya’s explanation of the differences between the schools.
They considered all these documents, but primarily used the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions as their main source.
They reconciled and compiled the different accounts of the development of the Buddhist schools and created a new framework called the five-stage chronology of the split into schools.
I thought it would be helpful to explain this five-stage chronology as a summary of the accounts of the split in the northern transmission.
Stage One: The Vinaya Controversy
The Time and Place
The first stage occurred approximately one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, during the Second Council at Vaiśālī.
The Causes and Conditions and Result
The causes and conditions for the controversy concerned relatively minor differences in the observance of the precepts. In particular, there were differing positions concerning the Ten Points: whether these practices were permissible or impermissible.
Two opposing sides developed. This became the first major internal controversy within the Sangha.
Because of this controversy, the initial forms of the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika factions appeared. At that time, they were not yet formally called the Sthavira school and the Mahāsāṃghika school. However, we could say that the seeds of these two traditions first appeared then.
Stage Two: The Debate about the Dharma
The second stage was a debate concerning the Dharma. The first controversy had primarily concerned the Vinaya and had created disagreement within the Sangha. The second controversy involved the Dharma, philosophical views, and doctrinal questions. This created a further basis for the Sangha to divide.
The Time and Place: 150 years after Buddha’s parinirvāṇa
This stage is said to have occurred between one hundred and one hundred and fifty years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. It took place in Pāṭaliputra, near present-day Patna, the capital of the Indian state of Bihar.
The Causes and Conditions and Result: The Five Points concerning Arhats
The main cause of this controversy was doctrinal disagreement. The principal issue concerned five points or five views that raised questions about the nature and qualities of arhats.
Because of this controversy, the Sthaviras and Mahāsāṃghikas once again became opponents.
At first, the disagreement concerning the Vinaya had produced two factions. Then, because of disagreement concerning the Dharma, they again became opposing parties and divided more distinctly.
Early Chinese Translations and the lack of a name Mahādeva
The Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions has three different Chinese translations.
In that earliest translation, it is said that three bhikṣus taught the Five Points or Five Views. Later, the master Paramārtha translated another version of the text. In his translation, it says that an explanation of five non-Buddhist points or views spread within the Sangha and gave rise to a great controversy.
Both the earliest Chinese translation and Paramārtha’s translation explain the controversy concerning the Five Points. However, neither of them mentions the name Mahādeva. From this, we might infer that the manuscripts available to those translators did not yet associate the controversy with Mahādeva.
Another possibility is that the Sarvāstivādins later attributed all Five Points to a person named Mahādeva and developed a new account around him. This is also possible.
The Tibetan Account
In the Tibetan tradition, there is Je Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. According to this account, the first person to explain the Five Points was Mahādeva. After Mahādeva passed away, the Five Points were propagated by the bhikṣu Bhadra.
In any case, this second stage concerns the initial development of disputes about the Dharma.
Stage Three: The Actual Split into the Original Schools approximately one hundred and sixty years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa
The third stage is the actual split into the original schools.
The Time and Place
This is said to have occurred during the reign of King Dharmāśoka, approximately one hundred and sixty years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. The controversy took place at Pāṭaliputra.
The Causes, Conditions and Result: The Final Separation
At that point, the Sangha continued to discuss and dispute the Five Points. Eventually, there was no way to reconcile the opposing positions, and the factions separated into distinct schools. This is recognized as the original split of the Buddhist schools.
Before this, there had been different positions and two groups that did not get along with one another. However, they had not yet completely separated into independent schools.
During the reign of King Dharmāśoka, the actual separation into the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika schools is said to have occurred at Pāṭaliputra.
This original division also became the basis for the later split into numerous sub-schools.
Stage Four: Sub-Schools of the Mahāsāṃghikas
The fourth stage concerns the sub-schools that split from the Mahāsāṃghika tradition.
Everything described before this point concerned the original split. From this stage onward, we are discussing the development of sub-schools.
The Time of the Division
The division of the Mahāsāṃghikas into sub-schools is said to have occurred approximately two hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa.
The Causes, Conditions and Result: Internal Disagreements
After the original division, there were two principal schools: the Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas.
Disagreement and disharmony first developed within the Mahāsāṃghika school. As a result, it divided into several sub-schools.
According to Vasumitra’s Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions, disagreements continued within the Mahāsāṃghika tradition until it gradually divided into schools including:
- the Ekavyāvahārika;
- the Lokottaravāda;
- the Kukkuṭika; and
- several others.
Eventually, there were nine major schools associated with the Mahāsāṃghika tradition.
Stage Five: Sub-Schools of the Sthaviras
Following the divisions within the Mahāsāṃghika tradition, disagreements also developed within the Sthavira school.
The Time of the Division
This is said to have occurred between two hundred and three hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa.
The Causes, Conditions and Result: The Eleven Sthavira Schools
After the Mahāsāṃghika school had divided into several sub-schools, the Sthavira school also began to divide.
According to the Chinese translation of the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions, doctrinal disagreements within the Sthavira tradition resulted in the formation of schools including:
- the Sarvāstivāda;
- the Haimavata;
- the Mahīśāsaka;
- the Dharmaguptaka;
- the Kāśyapīya;
- the Sautrāntika; and
- other schools.
In the end, there were said to be eleven Sthavira schools. All eleven were understood to belong to the broader Sthavira tradition.
This framework, developed during the period of the Republic of China, presents the original split and the later development of the sub-schools as a five-stage chronology.
Contemporary Scholarly Views of the Five-Stage Chronology and the Five Points of Mahādeva
How do contemporary scholars view this five-stage chronology? Modern scholars generally say that it is heavily influenced by Sarvāstivāda accounts. This is because it is based primarily on the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions, which presents the Sarvāstivāda perspective.
Contemporary scholars have therefore compared not only Sarvāstivāda texts, but also the Vinayas and historical materials of other Buddhist schools. On the basis of this comparative research, they have proposed several changes and refinements to the traditional five-stage chronology.
The Primary Cause of the Split: Interpretation of Vinaya rules
The first question concerns the primary causes and conditions of the split into schools.
The dominant view of many contemporary scholars is that the split occurred because of developments in the Vinaya. It did not originally happen because of debates about philosophical tenets (drub-tha).
The traditional view, whether presented in Chinese or Tibetan sources, is that the original division was caused by Mahādeva’s Five Points, which raised doubts concerning arhats.
Contemporary scholars, however, have compared the Vinayas of the different Buddhist schools, particularly the Prātimokṣa texts. The section concerning the training rules in the Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa is shorter and may preserve an earlier form. On this basis, some scholars suggest that the Sthaviras increased the number of precepts or elaborated the Vinaya, while the Mahāsāṃghikas retained a simpler and earlier form of the rules.
According to this interpretation, disagreement concerning the development and interpretation of the Vinaya may have been a major cause of the original division.
Mahādeva and the Five Points
Did Mahādeva Cause the Original Split?
The claim that the original split occurred because of Mahādeva’s Five Points does not appear to be entirely correct. The reason is that the Five Points associated with Mahādeva may have developed within the Caitika or Caitika-related traditions, which were later sub-schools of the Mahāsāṃghikas. If that is so, the controversy concerning the Five Points could only have occurred after those schools had already appeared. It therefore could not have been the cause of the original split.
Who said that the original division occurred because of the Five Points? This explanation is found later, particularly in Sarvāstivāda sources.
For example, the Mahāvibhāṣā, or Great Exposition, portrays Mahādeva as a terrible person who committed the Five Heinous Acts and caused division within the Sangha. The elaborate story of Mahādeva and the Five Points is first presented in sources connected with the Great Exposition.
Later, Sarvāstivāda authors may have portrayed the Five Points as the cause of the original split in order to denigrate the Mahāsāṃghika tradition.
In actuality, the controversy concerning Mahādeva’s Five Points may not yet have occurred at the time of the original division. It only developed later.
[Here is a short reel I made with English sub-titles of this clip].
The Traditional History of the Bhikshu Mahādeva
I spoke at some length about Mahādeva last year, but to summarize briefly, the traditional story portrays him as someone who had accumulated the karma of the Five Heinous Acts.
He was said to be extremely clever and capable, and therefore very skilled at deceiving other people. He developed the Five Views, which were considered mistaken, and persuaded many people to accept them.
According to this traditional explanation, the Sangha had remained harmonious until Mahādeva created controversy, divided the arhats, and destroyed the harmony of the Sangha.
Contemporary scholars, however, often argue that this portrayal is an expression of Sarvāstivāda sectarian bias rather than reliable history.
The Possibility of Two Mahādevas
The Chinese master Yinshun suggested that there may historically, there may have been two respected masters named Mahādeva.
One may have been a scholar associated with the Mahīśāsaka or Mahāsāṃghika tradition and an important master of the Sangha during the time of Aśoka.
The other may have lived later and been connected with the foundation of the Caitika schools.
Thus, there may have been two different figures named Mahādeva.
Furthermore, some Mahāsāṃghika and Pali sources describe Mahādeva as an elder worthy of great respect.
For this reason, the claim that Mahādeva was a wicked person who committed the Five Heinous Acts and caused the original schism may simply represent the biased position of the Sarvāstivāda school. It should not automatically be accepted as historical fact.
King Aśoka and the Harmony of the Sangha
According to contemporary scholarship, King Aśoka tried to resolve disputes and maintain harmony. He did not attempt to destroy or divide the Sangha.
The traditional explanation sometimes connects the division of the schools with a council held at Pāṭaliputra during Aśoka’s reign. It is said that Aśoka supported this council and that the division occurred in connection with it.
Contemporary researchers, however, suggest that the process leading to the division between the Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras may already have begun before Aśoka ascended the throne, perhaps toward the end of the fourth century BCE.
The surviving inscriptions on Aśoka’s pillars show that he emphasized the need for harmony within the Sangha. He sought to preserve unity and stated that those who disrupted the Sangha should be disciplined and punished.
In brief, the inscriptions on the pillars suggest that Aśoka did what he could to promote harmony. For this reason, the traditional explanation associating him directly with the creation of the schism may not be entirely correct.
The Gradual and Geographical Development of the Schools
Contemporary researchers also question the idea that the Buddhist schools divided suddenly because of a single large council or meeting. According to the traditional explanation, a large number of members of the Sangha gathered at a particular time and place. A doctrinal dispute arose, and the Sangha immediately divided into separate schools.
Contemporary researchers often see the process differently. As Buddhism spread throughout India, the different Buddhist communities became geographically distant from one another. In each region, the scriptures were recited somewhat differently. Local languages and customs also differed.
As a natural result, the scriptures, practices, and methods of interpretation gradually changed from one region to another. Eventually, substantial disagreements arose. Distinct communities then gradually became different lineages and schools. From this perspective, the division of the Buddhist schools was a gradual historical process. It did not necessarily happen all at once during a single council.
The Limitations of Relying on a Single Text
The final point is that the account of one school cannot present the entire historical picture.
Traditionally, the chronology, dates, number of schools, and manner in which they divided have often been presented on the basis of the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions.
Contemporary researchers argue that it is not sufficient to rely on this single text.They observe that the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions is heavily influenced by the Sarvāstivāda perspective.
When it is compared with accounts from the southern transmission, particularly the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa, substantial differences become apparent. This shows that no single text can reveal the complete form and nature of the divisions that took place among the Buddhist schools.
Therefore, we should not rely only on the Treatise Distinguishing the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions. We must compare all the different Vinayas, histories, commentaries, and sectarian accounts in order to develop a more complete understanding.
This concludes the summary of the accounts of the split into schools according to the northern transmission.
The Southern Transmission’s Account of the Original Split
Next, I would like to discuss the southern transmission’s explanation of the original split into schools.
The first thing we must understand is that, when we speak about Indian Buddhist history and the division of the schools, the southern transmission—or the Pali tradition—has its own account. It is extremely important to recognize this.
Principal Sources of the Southern Transmission
The main sources used by the southern tradition include:
- the Dīpavaṃsa, or Chronicle of the Island;
- the Mahāvaṃsa, or Great Chronicle;
- Buddhaghosa’s Samantapāsādikā, a commentary on the Vinaya; and
- the commentary on the Kathāvatthu, or Points of Controversy.
These and other works are the principal sources for the southern account.
The Traditional Southern Explanation
According to the traditional southern account, approximately one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, a controversy arose at Vaiśālī concerning the Ten Impermissible Points.
After this, a great council, called a Mahāsaṅgīti or Great Compilation, was held. The original split into schools is said to have resulted from these events.
However, when we examine the texts of the southern transmission closely and compare them with one another, the situation becomes more complicated.
The reasons for the original split and the subsequent development of the sub-schools cannot be reduced simply to the claim that a great council was held because of the Ten Points and that the original division immediately followed.
We need to conduct careful comparative research into the different texts. There were probably several causes, and the historical process was more complicated than the traditional summary suggests.
The Gap between the Pali Vinaya and the Later Chronicles
When we examine the southern tradition, we find a considerable gap between the early Pali Tipiṭaka and the later commentaries, chronicles, and histories.
This gap is important because it shows that the southern Buddhist explanation of the split developed over time. The first question, therefore, is: what does the Vinaya itself say?
The Council of the Seven Hundred in the Cullavagga and No Mention of a Schism
The account of the Council of the Seven Hundred is found in the twelfth chapter of the Cullavagga.
It begins with the elder Yasa objecting to the Vajjiputtaka bhikṣus engaging in the Ten Practices. He saw them performing these practices and declared that they were contrary to the Vinaya. He then travelled to different regions and gathered a number of senior elders.
Eventually, seven hundred arhats from the eastern and western regions assembled at Vaiśālī and held the Second Council. At this council, they determined that the Ten Points were impermissible and contrary to the Vinaya.
This history is presented in considerable detail in the chapter on the Council of the Seven Hundred in the Theravāda Cullavagga.
However, the account in the Cullavagga ends with the determination that the Ten Points were impermissible. It does not say a single word about the Sangha splitting after the Council of the Seven Hundred. Nor does it mention the establishment of the Mahāsāṃghika school.
This is very similar to the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya’s minor section. That text also speaks about the Ten Points and the Council of the Seven Hundred. However, it does not describe the original split into schools as occurring at that point.
Thus, both Vinaya accounts mention the controversy concerning the Ten Points and the holding of the Second Council, but neither explicitly states that the original division into schools occurred immediately afterward.
Possible Explanations for the Silence
This may show that, at the time these basic Vinaya accounts were compiled, the Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika factions had not yet completely separated into two independent institutions.
Another possibility is that the compilers of the Vinaya did not wish to emphasize the circumstances surrounding a schism in the Sangha. A schism is a serious event. It is therefore possible that the compilers deliberately avoided presenting the history in a way that emphasized division and disharmony.
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya and the Ten Points
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya mentions the impermissibility of accepting gold and silver.
Accepting gold and silver is one of the Ten Points, but the other nine points are not all discussed in the same way. Nevertheless, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya also contains an account of a council involving seven hundred members of the Sangha, similar to the Theravāda tradition.
This suggests that the Council of the Seven Hundred was a historical event accepted across different Buddhist traditions. It is recorded not only in the Theravāda Vinaya but also by a tradition that later became one of its principal opponents.
However, the original split into schools is not clearly identified in the Pali Vinaya as an immediate result of the council. The division probably did not occur directly after the Council of the Seven Hundred.
Had the original split happened immediately, we might expect either the Pali Vinaya or the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya to mention it. Yet neither does so explicitly.
The Later Accounts in the Dīpavaṃsa and the Samantapāsādikā
The clearest description of the original split into schools is not found in the early Vinaya itself. It first appears clearly in the Dīpavaṃsa, which was composed around the third or fourth century CE.
Later, the Mahāvaṃsa, composed in approximately the fifth century, and the Samantapāsādikā, Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Pali Vinaya, presented the account in a more developed form. These later texts say that two results followed from the Second Council.
The Council Supported by King Kālaśoka
The first result was the council supported by King Kālaśoka.
Kālaśoka supported the seven hundred elders who held what the tradition regarded as the authentic council. This is what we normally call the Second Council: a council held by seven hundred arhats under the patronage of King Kālaśoka. The elders determined that the Ten Points were impermissible.
The Great Council of the Defeated Party
According to the later chronicles, the bhikṣus who had defended the Ten Points did not accept the decision of the seven hundred elders. There were said to be a very large number of these monks—perhaps ten thousand.
As a form of protest, they gathered separately and held their own council. They did not accept the Council of the Seven Hundred. Their assembly was called the Mahāsaṅgīti, or Great Compilation of the Dharma, because it included a greater number of participants.
According to this later account, those monks then formed the new Mahāsāṃghika school.
A Later Historical Reconstruction
There is, therefore, a substantial gap between the account found in the Pali Vinaya and the accounts presented in the later historical texts. This suggests that the complete southern description of the original split was a later compilation.
It drew upon accounts found in commentaries on the Kathāvatthu, earlier commentarial traditions, scriptures, chronicles, and historical works. The history was compiled by scholars associated with the Mahāvihāra tradition. It may therefore have been a reconstruction intended, at least in part, to demonstrate the antiquity and orthodoxy of their own school.