The Foundations of Buddhism

The Word of Buddha: Scriptures and Schools 51

doctrinal grounds. What was of public concern was living by the

monastic rules, not doctrinal conformity. We are dealing here

with orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. The implications of this state of

affairs were not fully realized in the earlier scholarly studies of

the formation of the Buddhist schools, such as Andre Bareau's

important work, Les Sectes bouddhiques du petit vehicule.

It is not surprising to find then that the earliest indication in

Buddhist \Vritings of schismatic tendencies in the Sangha con-

cerns interpretation of the Vinaya and not questions of Buddhist

doctrine. As with the first 'communal recitation', the ancient

sources that have come down to us via various schools are in broad

agreement that one hundred years-the figure is likely to be

approximate-after the death of the Buddha a dispute arose con-

cerning ten points of Vinaya. A group of senior monks convened

at Vaisali (Pali Vesali:), decided against the ten points, and ini-

tiated a second communal recitation of the scriptures.

The traditions preserved in the ancient sources concerning the

Buddhist councils and the division of the Sangha into its various

schools are complex and inconsistent. Despite the scholarly

discussion that has been devoted to them, a satisfactory inter-

pretation of these sources explaining the contradictions and

presenting a coherent and consistent history of Buddhism in the
centuries after the death of the Buddha has yet to be worked
out. It seems clear that, at some point after the'Vaisali meeting,
the primitive Sangha formally divided into two parties each of
which thenceforth had its own ordination traditions. The ancient
accounts are inconsistent as to what provoked the split. Some
suggest that it was the result of a dispute over five points, later
associated with a monk named Mahadeva, concerning the nature
of the arhat. That this was indeed the cause of the division was
accepted by Bareau. Other ancient sources attribute the division
to a disagreement over questions of Vinaya, and the more recent
scholarship suggests that this is the explanation to be preferred.
According to this view a reformist group in the Sangha proposed
tightening discipline on certain matters of Vinaya, while the
majority were happy to leave things as they stood. Since the two
parties failed to come to an agreement, the Sangha divided