for the Buddha, who, in reference to various specific
issues, is said to “discriminate” carefully rather than to
take an exclusivist position. In their accounts of the
council at Pataliputra, later Pali sources use the term
Vibhajyavadato describe the correct teaching of the
Buddha, and within Pali materials the name continues
to be used as one among several names for the Ther-
avada sect. A third-century C.E. inscription links the
term Vibhajyavadawith the Sthaviras located in the re-
gions of Kashmir, Gandhara, Bactria, Vanavasa (i.e.,
Karnataka), and the island of Sri Lanka. This connec-
tion between the Vibhajyavadins and the northwest-
ern regions of Kashmir, Gandhara, and Bactria clearly
indicates that Vibhajyavada was not simply another
name for the Theravada school. The Mahs ́asakas,
Dharmaguptakas, and the Kas ́yapyas, attested in in-
scriptions from the Northwest, are all connected by
later sources with the Vibhajyavadins. As a result, the
name Vibhajyavadamight be best characterized as a
loose umbrella term for those, excluding the Sarvasti-
vadins, who belonged to the original Sthavira branch.
A review of the many specific doctrinal views ex-
plicitly attributed to the Vibhajyavadins in the scholas-
tic literature of the Sarvastivadins supports this
interpretation. These viewpoints do not form a coher-
ent group, but rather are unified simply by virtue of
being opposed to respective Sarvastivada positions. For
example, the Vibhajyavadins are said to support that:
thought is inherently pure; form (rupa) occurs even in
the formless realm (arupyadhatu); a subtle form of
thought remains in states claimed to be without
thought; PRATITYASAMUTPADA(DEPENDENT ORIGINA-
TION) and the path (marga) are unconditioned; there
is no intermediate state (antarabhava) between rebirth
states; clear comprehension (abhisamaya) of the FOUR
NOBLE TRUTHSoccurs in a single moment; worthy ones
(arhat) cannot retrogress from their level of religious
attainment; and finally, that the time periods (adhvan)
are permanent in contrast to conditioned factors,
which are impermanent. Various doctrinal positions
attributed to the Mahs ́asakas, Dharmaguptakas, Kas ́-
yapyas, or the Darstantikas are also assigned to the
Vibhajyavadins, but each of these schools is character-
ized by views distinct from the others. For example,
the Mahs ́asakas and the Dharmaguptakas disagreed
on whether or not the Buddha should be considered
as a part of the monastic community and on the rela-
tive merit of offerings to each. The Mahs ́asakas saw
offerings to the community, which included the Bud-
dha, as more meritorious, and the Dharmaguptakas
advocated offerings to the STUPAas representing the
unsurpassed path of the Buddha, who is distinct from
and far superior to the community.
Also associated with the Vibhajyavadins, the Ther-
avada school became dominant in Sri Lanka and
Southeast Asia and survives there to the present day.
The connection of the Theravada school to the origi-
nal Sthavira branch is clearly indicated by its Pali name
thera,which is equivalent to the Sanskrit, sthavira,and
by close ties to the Mahs ́asaka school suggested by
both textual and doctrinal similarities. Traditional
sources claim that Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka
by the missionary Mahinda, either after the death of
Buddha’s direct disciple, ANANDA, or during the reign
of As ́oka in the mid-third century B.C.E. By the fourth
century C.E., the Theravada school had divided into
three subgroups, distinguished by their monastic cen-
ters: the Mahaviharavasins from the Mahavihara
founded at the time of the introduction of Buddhism
to Sri Lanka; the Abhayagirivasins, dating from some
two centuries later; and finally the Jetavanyas, dating
from the fourth century C.E.
The Theravada textual collection, including both
canonical and extensive extracanonical and commen-
tarial texts, is the only early Buddhist collection extant,
in toto,in an Indian language (Pali). Theravada doc-
trinal positions often accord with those attributed to
the Vibhajyavadins, in opposition to those of the Sar-
vastivadins. For example, like the Vibhajyavadins, the
Theravadins claim that thought in its fundamental
state is pure, that there is no intermediate state (an-
tarabhava) between rebirth states, that clear compre-
hension (abhisamaya) of the four noble truths occurs
in a single moment, and that worthy ones (arhat) can-
not retrogress from their level of religious attainment.
Perhaps the most distinctive view adopted by the Ther-
avadins is that of a fundamental and inactive state of
mind (bhavan ̇ga), to which the mind returns after each
discrete moment of thought, and by which one rebirth
state is connected with the next. Further, regarding the
Sarvastivada claim that factors exist in the past and fu-
ture, the Theravadins adopt the position that only pre-
sent factors exist. However, on some positions the
Theravadins agree with the Sarvastivadins (e.g., that
there are five possible rebirth states; that all forms of
defilement are associated with thought), and on still
others, they differ from both the Vibhajyavadins and
the Sarvastivadins (e.g., that NIRVANAis the only un-
conditioned factor). Thus once again, a doctrinal pic-
ture of the various early Indian Buddhist schools
reveals a complex mosaic of both shared and distinc-
tive doctrinal positions.MAINSTREAMBUDDHISTSCHOOLS