promulgated an edict inveighing against future divi-
sions within the community and sent missionaries to
spread the Buddha’s teaching throughout his kingdom
and beyond.
This particular account of a council at Pataliputra,
found only within Pali sources, may reflect a conflict
limited to the predecessors of the later THERAVADA
school. However, the so-called schism edict promul-
gated during the reign of King As ́oka provides addi-
tional evidence of concern about discord within the
Buddhist monastic community during the third cen-
tury B.C.E. that was sufficient to warrant secular in-
tervention. Despite differences in the scholarly
interpretation of certain directives presented within
the edict, it clearly condemns formal division within
the monastic community (san ̇ghabheda) and declares
that the community of monks and nuns should be
united. Thus, this edict implies the presence of or at
least the threat of divisions within a community that
ideally should be united and stable.
Hence, the traditional sources do not paint a coher-
ent picture of the reasons for the first schism, but in-
stead offer two radically different possibilities, each
reflected in later sectarian accounts. The Theravada and
Mahasamghika sources cite differences in the monastic
disciplinary code, and the Sarvastivada sources, differ-
ences in doctrinal interpretation. The former possibil-
ity finds support in the oldest Mahasamghika account
of the schism, the S ́ariputrapariprccha (Questions of
S ́ariputra).Here the Mahasamghikas object to an at-
tempt to tighten discipline through an expansion of the
monastic disciplinary code and prefer instead to pre-
serve the more restricted disciplinary rules as they stood.
Scholarly consensus also prefers the view that the
earliest distinct Buddhist groups emerged not through
disagreements over doctrine, but rather through dif-
ferences in their lineages of ORDINATION(upasampada)
and in monastic disciplinary codes (VINAYA). While va-
riety in doctrinal interpretation certainly existed even
in the early period, the definition of formal division
within the monastic community, which was eventually
to be accepted by all groups, specifies monastic disci-
pline as the key factor in the formation of independent
groups. If this was indeed the case, then the names of
schools reflecting differences in doctrinal interpreta-
tion, which are preserved in the later scholastic and
COMMENTARIAL LITERATURE, cannot automatically be
assumed to denote independent monastic communi-
ties, additionally defined by different ordination
lineages and monastic disciplinary codes. These doc-
trinally distinguished school names may instead have
functioned simply as heuristic labels, meaningful
within the context of doctrinal interpretation, scholas-
tic debate, and teaching lineages, but having limited
significance in the life of the monastic community as
a whole. Such an interpretation would be consistent
with the reports of Chinese pilgrims that monks of dif-
ferent doctrinal persuasion resided together within the
same monastery, where they were presumably unified
by the same ordination lineage and monastic discipli-
nary code. Distinct monastic disciplinary codes (vinaya)
of only six schools have been preserved: Mahasamghika,
MAHIS ́ASAKA, DHARMAGUPTAKA, Theravada, SARVASTI-
VADA ANDMULASARVASTIVADA. Therefore, at the very
least, these six school names denote independent
groups with distinct lineages of authority and separate
monastic communities. In general, relations even
among schools distinguished on the basis of monastic
disciplinary code were generally not hostile. All prac-
titioners were to be accepted as disciples of the Bud-
dha, and to be treated with courtesy, regardless of
differing disciplinary or doctrinal allegiances.Traditional mainstream schools
Traditional sources maintain that eighteen schools
emerged following the first schism, but since more
than thirty school names are recorded, the number
eighteen may have been chosen for its symbolic sig-
nificance. The variety of names points to different ori-
gins for the schools, including a geographical locale
(e.g., Haimavata, “those of the snowy mountains”), a
specific teacher (e.g., Vatsputrya, “those affiliated
with Vatsputra,” or Dharmaguptaka, “those affiliated
with Dharmagupta”), a simple descriptive qualifica-
tion (e.g., Mahasamghika, “those of the great com-
munity,” or Bahus ́rutya, “those who have heard
much”), or a distinctive doctrinal position (e.g., Sar-
vastivada, “those who claim that everything exists,” or
Vibhajyavada, “those who make distinctions,” or
SAUTRANTIKA, “those who rely upon the sutras”). The
later doxographical accounts, each of which is colored
by its own sectarian bias, do not agree on the chronol-
ogy or on the order in which the schools emerged, but
instead give temporal primacy to the particular group
or school with which they were affiliated. They do,
however, tend to agree on the basic filiation of the
schools with either the Sthavira or the Mahasamghika
branch and generally concur that the additional
schools were formed within a century or two of the
first schism.MAINSTREAMBUDDHISTSCHOOLS