Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/128

112 Buddhist Philosophy [ CIl The Schools of Theravada Buddhism. There is reason to believe that the oral instructions of the Buddha were not collected until a few centuries after his death. Serious quarrels arose amongst his disciples lor rather amongst the successive generations of the disciples of his disciples about his doctrines and other monastic rules which he had enjoined upon his followers. Thus we find that when the council of Vesali decided against the Vrjin monks, called also the Vajjiputtakas, they in their turn held another great meeting (Mahasailgha) and came to their own decisions about certain monastic rules and thus came to be called as the Mahasailghikas 1. According to Vasu- mitra as translated by Vassilief, the Mahasailghikas seceded in 400 B.C. and during the next one hundred years they gave rise first to the three schools Ekavyavaharikas, Lokottaravadins, and Kukkulikas and after that the Bahusrutlyas. In the course of the next one hundred years, other schools rose out of it namely the Prajflaptivadins, Caittikas, Aparasailas and Uttarasailas. The Theravada or the Sthaviravada school which had convened the council of Vesali developed during the second and first century B.c. into a number of schools, viz. the Haimavatas, Dharmaguptikas, Mahlsasakas, Kasyaplyas, Sankrantikas (more well known as Sautrantikas)and the Vatsiputtriyas which latter was again split up into the Dharmottarlyas, Bhadrayanlyas, SammiUyas and Chan- nagarikas. The main branch of the Theravada school was from the second century downwards known as the Hetuvadins or Sarvastivadins 2 . The ltfahiibodlzi.lJaJ!lSa identifies the Theravada school with the Vibhajjavadins. The commentator of the Kathii- vatthu who probably lived according to Mrs Rhys Davids some- time in the fifth century A.D. mentions a few other schools of Buddhists. But of all these Buddhist schools we know very little. Vasumitra (100 A.D.) gives us some very meagre accounts of 1 The ft-fahiivG1!lsa differs from DipaVG1!ZSa in holding that the Vajjiputtakas did not develop into the Mahasanghikas, but it was the Mahasanghikas who first seceded while the Vajjiputtakas seceded independently of them. The ft-fahiibodhiva1!lsa, which according to Professor Geiger was composed 975 A.D.-IOOOA.D., follows the Maha- varpsa in holding the Mahasanghikas to be the first seceders and Vajjiputtakas to have seceded independently. Vasumitra confuses the council of Vesiili with the third council of Pa!aliputra. See introduction to translation of Ka/hiivat/hu by Mrs Rhys Davids. ! For other accounts of the schism see 1r Aung and llrs Rhys Davids's translation of Kalhiivatthu, pp. xxxvi-xlv.