Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/129

v] Schools of Buddhisnz 113 certain schools, of the Mahasanghikas, Lokottaravadins, Ekavya- vaharikas, Kukkulikas, Prajftaptivadins and Sarvastivadins, but these accounts deal more with subsidiary matters of little philo- sophical importance. Some of the points of interest are (I) that the Mahasanghikas were said to believe that the body was filled with mind (citta) which was represented as sitting, (2) that the Prajnap- tivadins held that there was no agent in man, that there was no untimely death, for it was caused by the previous deeds of man, (3) that the Sarvastivadins believed that everything existed. From the discussions found in the Kathiivatthu also we may know the views of some of the schools on some points which are not always devoid of philosophical interest. But there is nothing to be found by which we can properly know the philosophy of these schools. It is quite possible however that these so-called schools of Buddhism were not so many different systems but only differed from one another on some points of dogma or practice which were con- sidered as being of sufficient interest to them, but which to us now appear to be quite trifling. But as we do not know any of their literatures, it is better not to make any unwarrantable surmises. These schools are however not very important for a history of later Indian Philosophy, for none of them are even referred to in any of the systems of Hindu thought. The only schools of Buddhism with which other schools of philosophical thought came in direct contact, are the Sarvastivadins including the Sautrantikas and the V aibhaikas, the Y ogacara or the Vijftanavadins and the Madhyamikas or the Siinyavadins. We do not know which of the diverse smaller schools were taken up into these four great schools, the Sautrantika, V aibhaika, Y ogacara and the Madhyamika schools. But as these schools were most important in relation to the development of the different systems in Hindu thought, it is best that we should set ourselves to gather what we can about these systems of Buddhistic thought. When the Hindu writers refer to the Buddhist doctrine in general terms such as "the Buddhists say" without calling them the Vijftanavadins or the Y ogacaras and the Siinyavadins, they often refer to the Sarvastivadins by which they mean both the Sautrantikas and the V aibhaikas, ignoring the differ- ence that exists between these two schools. It is well. to mention that there is hardly any evidence to prove that the Hindu writers were acquainted with the Theravada doctrines