appear to have been used not to mark distinct com-
munities of practitioners, but simply for heuristic pur-
poses, to represent differences in doctrinal perspective
or teaching lineage. As a result, different source texts
emphasize different factors that contributed to sectar-
ian fragmentation. These contributing factors include
geographical separation, language differences, doctri-
nal disagreements, selective patronage, the influence of
non-Buddhists, lineage loyalties to specific teachers,
the absence of a recognized supreme authority or uni-
fying institutional structure, varying degrees of laxness
regarding or active disagreements over disciplinary
codes, and specialization by various monastic groups
in differing segments of Buddhist SCRIPTURE.
Further, the image of a harmonious early commu-
nity from which distinct sects or schools emerged
through gradual divergence in practice and in teach-
ing must be questioned. Traditional sources attest to
discord among the Buddha’s disciples even during his
lifetime, and relate that at the Buddha’s death one
monk, Subhadra, rejoiced since his followers would
now be free to do as they liked. Similarly, accounts of
the first communal recitation or council held soon af-
ter the Buddha’s death record that one group of prac-
titioners led by Purana rejected the consensual
understanding of the Buddha’s teaching and preferred
instead to transmit it as Purana himself had heard it.
Whether literally true or not, these stories affirm that
the later traditions conceived of their own early his-
tory as involving both consensus and dissent.
The first schism
Virtually all later sources agree that the first schism
within the early Buddhist community occurred with
the separation of the MAHASAMGHIKA SCHOOL, or
“those of the great community,” from the remaining
monks referred to as Sthaviras, or the “elders.” Com-
plex and inconsistent, these traditional sources post-
date the first schism by several centuries and reflect the
biases and viewpoints of separate transmission lin-
eages. Hence, the actual circumstances for the first
schism remain obscure and tied to other roughly con-
temporaneous events that later traditions connect with
possibly three additional early councils. The first of
these events, recorded in the monastic records of vir-
tually all later schools, is the council of Vais ́al, which
most sources date to approximately one hundred years
after the death of the Buddha. Monastic records sug-
gest that this council was convened in response to a
disagreement over certain rules of monastic discipline,
but do not state that the council resulted in a schism.
Later Pali chronicles and the records of Chinese pil-
grims and translators explicitly link the first schism
with the outcome of either the first council immedi-
ately after the death of the Buddha or this second coun-
cil of Vais ́al. They relate that some participants would
not accept the communal recitation of the teaching at
the first council or the decisions concerning the rules
of monastic discipline rendered at the second council.
These dissenters, who constituted the adherents of the
“great community” (mahasamgha), recited a textual
collection of their own and formed a separate Ma-
hasamghika school.
Other northern Indian Buddhist sources, all post-
dating the second century C.E., associate the first
schism with yet another council, claimed to have been
held at Pataliputra during the mid-third century B.C.E.
As a reason for this council, they cite discord over a
doctrinal issue, specifically five points concerning
characteristics of a “worthy one,” or ARHAT. These five
points suggest that arhats are subject to retrogression
from their level of religious attainment or to limita-
tions such as DOUBT, ignorance, various forms of as-
sistance from or stimulation by others, or the
employment of artificial devices such as vocal utter-
ances in the practice of the PATH. Although these
points have been interpreted in traditional and many
modern sources as an attempt to downgrade the sta-
tus of the arhat in general, it is possible that they re-
flect an attempt primarily to distinguish and to clarify
specific stages in religious praxis. The later textual
sources of the northern early Buddhist schools relate
that the supporters of the five points were more
numerous and hence were referred to as the Ma-
hasamghikas, “those of the great community”; the mi-
nority opponents were then referred to as the “elders,”
or Sthaviras.
Finally, Pali sources record yet another council held
in the third century B.C.E. at Pataliputra under the aus-
pices of King AS ́OKA. According to these accounts, af-
ter years of discord within the monastic community,
As ́oka convened a council under the direction of the
Buddhist monk Moggaliputta Tissa in order to rectify
monastic conduct and to root out heretical views. Af-
ter questioning by As ́oka, sixty thousand monks were
expelled from the community, and a select group of
some one thousand monks were charged to set down
the contents of the Buddha’s true teaching. Mog-
galiputta Tissa is said to have recorded both the hereti-
cal views and their refutation in the Pali scholastic text,
the Kathavatthu(Points of Discussion). Pali sources
also relate that at the conclusion of the council, As ́okaMAINSTREAMBUDDHISTSCHOOLS