second and first century B.C. into a number of schools, viz. the Haimavatas, Dharmaguptikas, Mahis’asakas, Kas’yapiyas, Sa@nkrantikas (more well known as Sautrantikas) and the Vatsiputtriyas which latter was again split up into the Dharmottariyas, Bhadrayaniyas, Sammitiyas and Channagarikas.  The main branch of the Theravada school was from the second century downwards known as the Hetuvadins or Sarvastivadins [Footnote ref 2].  The Mahabodhiva@msa identifies the Theravada school with the Vibhajjavadins.  The commentator of the Kathavatthu who probably lived according to Mrs Rhys Davids sometime 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

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  The Mahava@msa differs from Dipava@msa in holding that the Vajjiputtakas did not develop into the Mahasa@nghikas, but it was the Mahasa@nghikas who first seceded while the Vajjiputtakas seceded independently of them.  The Mahabodhiva@msa, which according to Professor Geiger was composed 975 A.D.—­1000 A.D., follows the Mahava@msa in holding the Mahasa@nghikas to be the first seceders and Vajjiputtakas to have seceded independently.

Vasumitra confuses the council of Vesali with the third council of Pa@taliputra.  See introduction to translation of Kathavatthu by Mrs Rhys Davids.]

[Footnote 2:  For other accounts of the schism see Mr Aung and Mrs Rhys Davids’s translation of Kathavatthu, pp. xxxvi-xlv.]

113

certain schools, of the Mahasa@nghikas, Lokottaravadins, Ekavyavaharikas, Kakkulikas, Prajnaptivadins and Sarvastivadins, but these accounts deal more with subsidiary matters of little philosophical importance.  Some of the points of interest are (1) that the Mahasa@nghikas were said to believe that the body was filled with mind (citta) which was represented as sitting, (2) that the Prajnaptivadins 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 Kathavatthu 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 considered 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