The Mahasamghika branch. From the Mahasamghika
branch, according to tradition, initially arose three ma-
jor groups, each of which was associated in later ac-
counts with additional school names. One group, the
Kaukkutika, may have derived its name from the
Kukkutarama Monastery in Pataliputra. The name of
a second group, the Ekavyavaharika (or Lokottaravada)
refers to “those who make a single utterance.” Later
sources interpret this name as reflecting the view that
all phenomena can be described by one utterance,
namely, the fact that all entities exist merely as mental
constructs or provisional designations. However, the
name could also be interpreted as referring to the dis-
tinctive doctrinal position of this school that the Bud-
dha offers only one utterance, namely, a transcendent
utterance. This interpretation would be consistent with
an alternative or possibly later name for this group,
Lokottaravada, or “those who claim that (the Buddha
and his utterance) are transcendent.” Such a concern
with the character of the utterance of the Buddha is
also evident in the views associated with the schools
that emerged from the first group of the Kaukkutika:
namely, the Bahus ́rutya, who claimed that the Bud-
dha offered both transcendent and ordinary teachings,
and the Prajñaptivada, or “those who offer provisional
designations,” which might also imply the claim that
the Buddha utilized not simply transcendent utterance
or absolutely true language, but also provisional des-
ignations or relative language.
Thus, the original Mahasamghika branch appears
to have been divided, at least in part, on the basis of a
difference of opinion concerning the fundamental
character of the Buddha’s teaching, either as exclu-
sively transcendent or as both transcendent and pro-
visional. A third group emerging from the
Mahasamghika branch, the Caitya, centered in the re-
gion of Andhra in southern India, were presumably
named in accordance with their practice of worship at
shrines (caitya). They were also associated with a
teacher, Mahadeva, who adopted and possibly re-
worked the five points concerning the characteristics
of a “worthy one” that were cited by northern Indian
Buddhist sources as the reason for the first schism be-
tween the Mahasamghikas and the Sthaviras.
The Sthavira branch.Later accounts record as many
as twenty or more schools that trace their origin to the
Sthavira branch. Despite inconsistency in these ac-
counts, the first to emerge was probably the Vat-
sputrya (or Sammatya), also referred to as the
PUDGALAVADA, or “those who claim that person(hood)
(pudgala) exists.” The Pudgalavadins were attacked vo-
ciferously by other Buddhists schools for violating the
most basic of Buddhist teachings, namely, that no self
is to be found (anatman). The opponents of the
Pudgalavadins argued that animate beings exist only
as a collection of components or SKANDHA(AGGRE-
GATE), which are conditioned and impermanent. Any
unifying entity such as personhood exists only as a
mental construct or a provisional designation, which
has no reality in itself. For the Pudgalavadins, this view
was tantamount to nihilism. They saw a unifying en-
tity of some type as a necessary basis for the notion of
mutually distinct animate beings and for the continu-
ity of their experience. Otherwise, the phenomena of
moral action, REBIRTH, and religious attainment ac-
cepted by all Buddhists would be impossible. Consis-
tent with this position, the Pudgalavadins also
maintained the existence of an INTERMEDIATE STATE
(antarabhava) after death, a transition state that links
the aggregates of one lifetime with those of the next.
Pudgalavada positions that are presented and criticized
in extant textual sources suggest that the Pudga-
lavadins did not simply defend the existence of per-
sonhood, but also used a distinctive method of
argumentation that challenged the growing rigidity of
stringent Buddhist scholastic analysis. Pudgalavada ar-
guments employ a sophisticated method of negative
dialectics that continues certain tendencies in the ear-
lier sutra dialogues and stands in sharp contrast to their
opponents’ more straightforward, positivist methods.Sarvastivada. Apart from the Pudgalavada, the
Sthavira branch was further divided into two groups:
the Sarvastivada and the Vibhajyavada. Evidence for
an initial threefold split within the Sthavira branch
among the Pudgalavadins, Vibhajyavadins, and Sar-
vastivadins comes from two early scholastic treatises, the
Kathavatthuof the Theravadins and the Vijñanakaya
(Collection on Perceptual Consciousness) of the Sar-
vastivadins. Traditional sources date the Kathavatthu
to the period of King As ́oka (third century B.C.E.), but
the presence in the Kathavatthuof doctrinal positions
associated with each of these three groups does not
prove that adherents of these views formed separate
schools at that time. The earliest inscriptional refer-
ences to the name Sarvastivada, found in the north-
western regions of Kashmir and Gandhara as well as
in the north central region of Mathura, date from the
first century C.E. Both regions are connected by tradi-
tion with prominent early Sarvastivada teachers and
later became strongholds of the Sarvastivada school.MAINSTREAMBUDDHISTSCHOOLS