Aug 10

The Milieu of the Saṅgha at the Time of the Split into Schools

Origins of Secret Mantra • Day Two

24 July 2026

His Holiness continued from yesterday’s teaching session, further expounding on the causes and conditions of the split into schools.

When studying Buddhist history, it is customary to first learn about the life story of the Buddha, then the councils that occurred after his Mahāparinirvāṇa, followed by the chapter on the patriarchs of the teachings. Next comes the split into schools which precedes the chapter on the development of Mahāyāna and so forth.

The split into schools, also known as the period of the eighteen schools, is a pivotal chapter in the history we must understand, one that is just as important as the study of the Mahāyāna. Another name for this period is Nikāya Buddhism [Ed. ‘‘Nikāya’ (Sanskrit for ‘assemblage’/‘school’) refers to the Buddhism of the schools, not to be confused with the Five Nikāyas i.e., the core of the Sūtra Piṭaka]. Without exception, all traditions of Buddhism, in particular the monastic vows, originate from one of the eighteen schools of Nikāya Buddhism. Regardless of whether the tradition is Foundation vehicle, Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna, it can be traced back to those first eighteen schools and for this reason it is important for us to understand what these eighteen schools represent.

However, within many of our monasteries, the Karmapa added, there are many of those who haven’t even heard the names of the schools, and aren’t familiar with the process of the split, the development of the sub-schools and their doctrines. An unfortunate situation, he said, and encouraged everyone to take this opportunity to study them together. Thus, building on the previous session, he continued with a further elaboration on the circumstances that led to these divides.

Whatever their differences (whether concerning vows or views), it is important to note that all of the schools were indisputably Buddhist i.e., they took refuge in the Three Jewels. For example, we are familiar with the term “four elder and eight younger Kagyu lineages” and we understand that the various Kagyu lineages principally belong to the Dagpo Kagyu lineage, but with some differences. Similarly, the ancient eighteen schools (in essence, over twenty) were all Buddhist, each characterised by some particular features.

Five General Criteria to Help Us Determine How Separate Schools Could Come to Exist and Be Identified as Such

1.  An Impasse

There must have been some fundamental opposition or difference regarding the way of following the vinaya, or regarding the meaning or content of the sūtras which led to a parting of the ways with no way of bringing the factions back together. That was the main circumstance, but the reasons were many; they were intricate and very complex.

Lineages

For example, over time, different lineages of masters and disciples were formed. This could eventually, become a condition for schools to split.

Around 100 years after the Mahāparinirvāṇa, a few factions existed: 

  • The Nāga faction — stemmed from Venerable Upāli, known for his exceptional abilities to explain the vinaya 
  • The Learned faction — stemmed from Ānanda
  • The Venerable faction — stemmed from Venerable Pūrṇa, the Abhidharma master.
  • The Outlying faction — those who were not included in the above three. Most of the monks belonged to this faction. Also, the not very diligent ones in their study or practice were counted into that group.

Therefore, their inclinations made it easy for them to split into schools.

Languages

Another example is language: use of a different language can alter somewhat how one thinks about the view. Or, it can morph transmission and explanation. This all affects the reception and understanding in one’s mind. Such initially subtle variation can, over time, grow into a split.

In his Illuminating Commentary of the Verses for Novices of the Noble Mūlasarvāstivādins (Skt. Āryamūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikā-vṛttiprabhāvatī) Śākyaprabha wrote that after the death of the Dharma King Aśoka , the arhats began to recite the scriptures in the vernacular, using dialects and hybrid languages. Gradually the scriptures were changed from Sanskrit, and, as a result, the teachings split into eighteen forms.

Is language enough to cause a split? We can’t say that language alone is enough to cause an actual split, but when paired with enough additional conditions, it is not impossible that it would be.

Locale

Geographical divide is another important condition for a split to happen. The topography dictates the atmospheric setting which gives birth to different customs, politics, economics, culture and so forth. Naturally, set among such contrasting influences, the saṅgha communities were affected differently as well. One main reason for the original split of the saṅgha was geographical — when saṅgha from the East and from the West failed to agree over Ten Points.

Political interference

When kings/political leaders interfere, this too could be a factor leading to a split. For example, the texts which place the split during the time of Aśoka’s reign mention Aśoka using his power to forcefully interfere in the internal situations of the saṅgha.

Thus, the aforementioned conditions are all related to each other, and their confluence added to the momentum leading to greater splits.

2. External conditions

The external condition begins with a dispute within the saṅgha. For it to lead to a split, each faction in the dispute needs a certain level of support and that support needs to be stable, lasting for a period of time, not temporary. 

3. Internal conditions

A necessary condition for a school to be able to sustain itself is having its own particular view and a self-standing vinaya lineage. 

4. The internal criterion 

Taking refuge in the Three Jewels is the indisputable pre-requisite for a school to be considered Buddhist, otherwise a school might exist but it would not be considered Buddhist. It is the grounds for the Buddhist view, meditation and conduct.

5. The external criterion

Buddhists in general must accept that this school is actually a Buddhist school.

For example, during the Buddha’s lifetime, Devadatta led five hundred bhikṣus and caused a schism in the saṅgha. They withdrew and created their own community — but this cannot be considered a split into a school because the internal [fourth] criterion was not met: they did not go for refuge to the Three Jewels, and they did not accept the Buddha as their teacher. Neither was the fifth criterion met: Buddhists in general did not consider Devadatta’s followers to be Buddhist. They thought of them as practicing non-Dharma.

Similarly, during the period of Nikāya Buddhism, the Vātsīputrīyas considered themselves Buddhists, but other schools said they were Buddhists in name only, and there were some who called them non-Buddhist extremists. Therefore, it is questionable whether that school met all five criteria.

Was the Disagreement About the Vinaya the Key Cause of the Original Split? — The Two Accounts.

For one hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, the saṅgha at a fundamental level remained harmonious. However, as the saṅgha spread into different regions and diverse communities, there came to be disagreements about the vinaya over the permissibility of the Ten Points (discussed at length in the previous year’s teachings). At that time, seven hundred arhats held a council in Vaiśālī but were unable to resolve the disagreement and heal the split. Thus, two groups were formed: 

  • the Western faction — more conservative with their attachment to tradition stronger, they insisted that precepts should be observed exactly as before and
  • the Eastern faction — more liberal, maintained that the precepts could be accepted or discarded  according to the time and place, and that this should be done. 

Can this be identified as the exact point of the split of the saṅgha into two groups? There are two ways of answering this question.

  • The Southern transmission affirms

Their position was that it occurred primarily due to disputes over vinaya practice, leading to the original split into two schools, the Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika.

  • The Northern transmission denies

Seen through the lens of the Northern transmission, the original split occurred primarily due to disagreements about doctrine. While they do not deny the disputes and the formation of some factions over the vinaya in Vaiśālī, according to them, this was not the original split. Instead, the actual original split occurred later due to a dispute about doctrine in the city of Kusumapura (City of Flowers, another name for Pāṭaliputra, today’s Patna), attributable to Mahādeva’s Five Points.

Who is correct?

Most contemporary researchers largely concur with the position of the Southern transmission due to the following line of reasoning:

Firstly, a “schism in the saṅgha” (Skt. saṅghabheda) is clearly defined in the Vinaya, which states that, if — due to mutual disagreement — the poṣadha (confession ceremony) and other communal acts (karma) come to be performed separately within a single monastic boundary, this constitutes a schism in the saṅgha. Therefore, mere disagreement in views or tenets alone does not constitute a schism of the saṅgha.

Secondly, the Sanskrit word for “school” is “nikāya” [lit. an assemblage/association (esp. of persons who perform the same duties)] which is itself primarily a matter of precept lineage, not differing tenets. Whether a fully ordained monk belongs to a particular school depends chiefly on whether his prātimokṣa precept-lineage follows that school’s tradition. They didn’t look at philosophical differences for this. According to the travel records of Xuanzang (玄奘) and Yijing (义净), some monasteries in India were only Mahāyāna and some belonged only to the Foundation Vehicle but many monasteries housed monks of both the Mahāyāna and Foundation Vehicle residing together — showing that as long as they shared the same rituals and procedures — they could co-exist. Even though the differences in view existed, they were not enough for a schism within the saṅgha to occur.

Thirdly, as the teaching expanded into different regions, the vinaya came to be adapted to local customs. Differing understandings arose concerning “exemption/non-offense” (Skt.anāpatti) within the vinaya (i.e. the relaxation of discipline), shaped by climate, local customs and habits. As a result, distinct and independent precept-lineages gradually formed.

What is the rationale behind most contemporary scholars’ refutation of the theory that the differing views of the schools (Mahādeva’s Five Points) were the cause of the original split? 

1. The conflict between sectarianism and historical evidence

Mahādeva’s five points primarily derive from the Abhidharma scriptures, that is, from the Sarvāstivādins’ Great Exposition (Skt. Mahāvibhāṣa) and the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra) which are texts included in the Abhidharma Piṭaka , whereas Mahāsāṃghika texts do not mention the Five Points of Mahādeva. The Sarvāstivāda texts display a strong attachment and bias toward their own school, evident from their assertions that theirs was the true lineage of the Sthaviravāda. As a traditional school they held that arhatship was the ultimate result, while the Mahāsāṃghika regarded the Buddha’s realisation as superior. They insisted that the main reason the saṅgha initially split was Mahādeva’s Five Points, blaming him for the schism.

2. It does not match the procedures of monastic discipline

In early Buddhism, there were disagreements among bhikṣus within the saṅgha regarding doctrine (for example, whether arhatship was the ultimate result or not) but they all acted according to the same vinaya rules and it did not cause a split. Having the same rules meant that the confession ritual (poṣadha), was based on the same rules thus they could all perform it together. Had disagreements about vinaya rules (such as the Ten Points) occurred, following the same confession ritual and thus staying together would have become difficult. Therefore, there is greater evidence for arguing that the main cause of the split into schools was disagreements over vinaya rules.

3. The issue of the Five Points actually occurred later

According to researchers, the dispute about the Five Points occurred after the appearance of the Mahāsāṃghika school. It arose because the positions of “viewing the Buddha as supreme” and “viewing arhats as lesser” had grown stronger within the Mahāsāṃghika. Thus, Mahāsāṃghikas already existed and it is impossible that they could have been the reason for the original split into Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika.

An Introduction to the Relevant Documents

Texts of the Northern Transmission

In the Northern transmission, the primary source is The Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra) by the Sarvāstivāda master Vasumitra (ca. 2nd century CE). There are three different translations of this text in the Chinese canon and comparing them has proven invaluable for research. In Tibetan, there is only one.

1. The earliest of the three Chinese translations is titled The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools (十八部论 or Shíbā Bù Lún), in one fascicle, by an unknown translator from the later Qin dynasty, early 5th c. C.E.

2. The second Chinese translation is titled The Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools (Ch. 部执异论 or Bù Zhí Yì Lùn), also in one fascicle, translated by Master Paramārtha (mid-6th c.) of the Chen dynasty. It primarily presents the positions of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) and Mahāsammitīya schools. Paramārtha is known as Yangdak Denpa in Tibet and is recognized for his Mind Only views.

This translation is concordant with the Tibetan translation of Ācārya Bhavya’s (possibly Bhāvaviveka, ca. 6th c.) Explaining the Classification of the Differences Between the Schools (Skt. Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyāna), translated by Atiśa and Naktso Lotsawa Tsultrim Gyalwa.

3. The third Chinese translation is titled The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools (Ch. 异部宗轮论 or Yì Bù Zōng Lún) and it was translated by the Tang dynasty master Xuanzang (662 C.E.). This is an authentic text of the Sarvāstivāda school and is the most complete in its contents. It was translated into Tibetan during the ancient translation period by Bande Sangkyong (8th c. C.E.) as The Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions (Tib. གཞུང་ལུགས་གི་བྱེ་བྲག་བཀོད་པའི་འཁོར་ལོ།).

It is very similar to Ācārya Vinītadeva’s digest of the root text titled Short Teaching on the Different Schools from the Wheel of the Development of the Differences Between Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakre Nikāyabhedopadarśana-nāma-saṃgraha) which has no translator colophon.

Other Relevant Texts

Though there are very many manuscripts relevant to this subject, His Holiness mentioned only two for now:

The Sūtra of Śāriputra’s Questions (Skt. Śāriputraparipṛcchā; Ch. 舍利弗問經 Shèlì Fú Wèn Jīng), with no translator’s colophon. Translated into Chinese during the Eastern Qin or Liu Song period. This sūtra records the process of the schism among the schools through the lens of the Mahāsāṃghika (or, according to another view, the Dharmaguptaka). Unlike Vasumitra’s Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions, which represents the Sarvāstivāda viewpoint, this sūtra maintains that the Mahāsāṃghika alone were the authentic and stainless holders of the Buddha’s true Dharma, and thus it offers a distinctly different perspective.

The Sūtra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions (Skt. Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā; Chapter on the Division of the Relics (Ch. 文殊師利問經·分舍利品 Wénshūshīlì Wènjīng Fēn Shèlì Pǐn). This text was translated by the Indian master Saṅghavarman during the Liang dynasty and records the well-known “list of school names in verse”. Here, the names of the various major schools and the process of their development are clearly set out in verse form.

His Holiness explained that he will discuss the texts extant in Tibetan translation and the explanations of Tibetan scholars separately. 

Texts of the Southern Transmission

The relevant texts from the Southern transmission are Dīpavaṃsa (Chronicle of the Island), Mahāvaṃsa (Great Chronicle) and Buddhaghoṣa’s Debates Commentary (Pali: Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā).

Main Topics on the Split of the Schools

Over the following teaching sessions, the Karmapa will explain about the split into schools and their classification from several different viewpoints, covering the following topics:

  1. An explanation from the Northern transmission based primarily on The Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions
  2. The account of the Southern transmission based primarily on the Dīpavaṃsa. 
  3. The derivation of the names of each school
  4. The most well-known scholars of each school
  5. An introduction to the basic philosophy of each school
  6. Examples of research by contemporary scholars (should time permit)
  1. Through the Lens of the Northern Transmission (Part One)

An explanation from the Northern transmission based primarily on The Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions

The Four Factions

Among the aforementioned three Chinese translations of the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions, the most complete is that of Tang Master Xuanzang, named The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools. His student, Tang Master Kuiji (662), composed a commentary on the Wheel Distinguishing the Differences Between the Scriptural Traditions titled Notes on the Treatise on the Scriptures of Different Schools (Ch. 异部宗轮论述记 or Yì Bù Zōng Lún Lùn Shùjì). He provided a commentary on each word of the text as well as the text’s historical background, making it a special, indispensable document for contemporary research into the split into schools. 

According to Xuanzang’s translation and Kuiji’s commentary, one hundred years after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, there were “Four Factions”: 

  1. The Nāga faction (Skt. Nāgahasti-saṅgha/Nāgahastinaḥ; Tib. ཀླུ་ཡི་ཚོགས།; Ch. 龍象眾)
  2. The Outlying faction (Skt. Pratyantajana-saṅgha/Pratyantajanāḥ; Tib. མཐའ་འཁོབ་པའི་ཚོགས།;

Ch. 邊鄙眾)

  1. The Learned faction (Skt. Bahuśruta-saṅgha/Bahuśrutāḥ; Tib. མང་དུ་ཐོས་པའི་ཚོགས།; Ch. 多聞眾)
  2. The Venerable faction (Skt. Bhadanta-saṅgha/Bhadantāḥ; Tib. བཙུན་པའི་ཚོགས།; Ch. 大德眾)

Note: The Tibetan translation gives a somewhat different classification, but that will be discussed later. 

As they developed different understandings of Mahādeva’s Five Points, they split into the two main schools, the Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika. 

The different ways to identify the four factions:

In Xuanzang’s translation and Kuiji’s commentary there are three explanations.

  1. Leaders and followers, virtuous and unvirtuous
  2. Piṭaka transmission and level of education
  3. Level of practice

The First Explanation: Leaders and Followers, Virtuous and Unvirtuous

The first explanation says: “The split occurred due to the leaders and followers of the two factions” meaning that there were two virtuous and two unvirtuous factions (Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika respectively).

  1. The Nāga Faction/Nāga-Elephant faction [Skt. Nāgahasti-saṅgha; “nāga” – a divine or semi-divine snake-like being; “hastin” – elephant]. In Sanskrit, the word for a nāga can also refer to an elephant. Mahādeva was counted among them. It is said: “A nāga is an elephant, and an elephant is also a nāga.” Such depiction meant that their might was unstoppable and that they were wild and difficult to subdue. 

Through the might of kings and ministers, they criticize the noble saṅgha, due to which others also come into conflict, so their might is unstoppable.

…Their natures are vicious and they do great wrongs, so the noble saṅgha cannot stop them. Thus, they are wild and difficult to subdue.

The noble saṅgha was unable to advise and subdue them. These are people such as Mahādeva, the principal figures in fomenting the dispute.

  1. The Outlying Faction – consisted of the students of Mahādeva. Their mental conduct transgressed the nature of Dharma, so they were “outlying”. They had no praiseworthy qualities, so they were debased. But, they were not the principal figures who fomented the dispute, so their might was not unstoppable. Rather, the reason for calling them by this name is that these “outlying” people supported Mahādeva—they were Mahādeva’s disciples. 
  2. The Learned Faction – These were the scholars who were ordinary beings and who followed the noble ones. They understood the profound meaning, were very learned in the three Piṭakas and therefore encouraged to always think and act virtuously.
  3. The Venerable Faction – consisted of noble beings who had realized the Dharma nature and mastered miracles. Their discipline was pure and their learning vast. They had reached a high level, so they were called Venerable. These were noble beings who had achieved the four results of the spiritual way. 

Conclusion

Among these four factions, two were unvirtuous (one principal and one following) and two were virtuous (also one principal and one following). Mahādeva and those like him were the principals among the unvirtuous and their outlying students were the followers. On the virtuous side, the noble beings were the principals and the learned ordinary beings aligned with them were the followers. 

The Second Explanation: Piṭaka Transmission and the Level of Education

The second explanation says: “The split occurred due to the transmission of the three Piṭakas and the level of education”.

  1. The Nāga Faction – conversely, here they were considered the upholders of the Vinaya. Whether they were ordinary individuals or noble beings, they – powerfully like nāgas and elephants – kept pure discipline, were learned in the Vinaya scriptures and were fearless in the community. They belonged to the transmission of the disciples of Upāli. 
  2. The Outlying Faction – they were ordinary beings, not learned in the scriptures of the three Piṭakas. With broken discipline, they were improper, and being so foolish and ignorant, they were considered the outliers. They were in the same league as Mahādeva, being similar in character. 
  3. The Learned Faction – whether ordinary or noble beings, they had read the sūtras extensively and properly upheld the Buddha’s commands. They were in the line of Ānanda’s disciples. 
  4. The Venerable Faction – whether ordinary individuals or noble beings, they had realized the meaning of the true nature, were learned in the profound nature and had praiseworthy qualities. They were those who propounded the treatises on Abhidharma, who upheld the matrices [Ed. lists and tables of types of phenomena that later developed into the Abhidharma scriptures]. They stemmed from the lineage of the Elder Pūrṇa’s students.