365bet娱乐

The 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 narrates that after the end of the first one hundred year and at the beginning of the second century of the First Buddhist Council, a great schism had happened in the doctrine of the Theras. The history of Buddhism followed a dark period after the session of the First Great Council. Political unrest, internal conflict, social, economical and religious conditions had deep effect on its practice. However, the Dhamma and the Vinaya as settled in the First Council were successfully followed by the disciples of the Buddha. But gradually differences and relaxation in the rules of the 厂补峁単丑补 were demanded by the new entrants who were not able to follow the rigid rules of discipline.

According to 笔腻濒颈 tradition of the Cullavagga, Khandaka XII, a century after the 辫补谤颈苍颈产产腻苍补 of the Buddha, the Second Council was convened by seven hundred Arahants at 痴腻濒耻办腻谤腻尘补 of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 during the time of King 碍腻濒腻蝉丑辞办补

Cause:

Some Vajjian monks of Vaisali (present Basrha village at Muzaffarpur district in Bihar) tried to have legal sanction to the ten unlawful points (Dasavatthuni) of Buddhism. K膩kandakaputta Yasa of 碍补耻艣腻尘产颈 happened to notice during his stay at 惭补丑腻惫补苍补 at Ku峁�膩g膩ra hall of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 that, on one Uposatha day the Vajjian monks placed a copper bowl with water in the middst of the Bhikkhu-厂补峁僩丑补 and asked the 鲍辫腻蝉补办补蝉 to contribute some gold or silver coins or kah膩panas (Skt. K膩r峁Ｄ乸a峁�) for the need of the community.Yasa openly protested against this and asked the donors not to offer any money, as the use of gold and silver was strictly prohibited in the Vinaya.

Being angry by the attitude of Yasa, the Vajjian monks imposed on him the act of expiation (Pa峁璱s膩raniya Kamma). The person on whom this punishment is conferred has to ask the insulted persons forgiveness. For that reason Yasa went to the 鲍辫腻蝉补办补蝉 but did not beg perdon, instead he told the fact before the 鲍辫腻蝉补办补蝉 and argued that their work was against the Master鈥檚 instructions codified in the Vinaya rules.The 鲍辫腻蝉补办补蝉 were persuaded by the advocacy of Yasa and regarded the Vajjian monks as lawbreakers. The suspended monks became furious by this and pronounced again on Yasa the act of suspension (ukkhepaniya-kamma) 110 for not acknoledging his offences.

After being expelled from the 厂补峁単丑补, Yasa went to his native place 碍补耻艣腻尘产颈. From there he sent messengers to the Bhikkhus of Avanti, P膩峁環eyya (West India) and the South inviting them to assemble and take necessary steps against these irreligious works. He personally went to the Thera 厂补尘产丑奴迟补 厂腻峁嘺惫腻蝉颈 who then resided at the 础丑辞驳补峁単腻 hill (on the high Ganges) and requested him to take up this question in earnest. Ven. 厂腻峁嘺惫腻蝉颈 agreed to do so. About the same time sixty Arhats from P膩峁環eya, eighty-eight from Avanti and the Southern Country came in response to Yasa鈥檚 invitation and assembled on the 础丑辞驳补峁単腻 hill. But, they failed to find any solution. They went to the Thera Revata of Sureyyawho was then the chief of the 厂补峁単丑补. Revata was not willing to involve in this problem. He started wandering from place to place. After many attempts, the monks got hold of him at 厂补丑补箩腻迟颈.

On the advice of Sambhuta 厂腻峁嘺惫腻蝉颈, Yasa told the Theara Revata the reason that made him come to here. One by one, Bhikkhu Yasa brought up the ten points and asked for his opinion. Each one of them was declared to be invalid by the Thera Revata.

The Vajjian monks also tried similarly to have Revata鈥檚 consent for their deeds. They offered valuable things to him. But Revata did not agree with their proposal. After that they approached Uttara, a pupil of Revata and made him agree to speak on their behalf. Yet, Revata refused them.

At last Revata suggested the monks to solve the dispute at Vaisali, the place of its origin. The venerable 厂补产产补办腻尘颈 who was residing at 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 received Revata and his followers along with 厂补尘产丑奴迟补 S膩nav膩si with great enthusiasm. So the business of the second council started with seven hundred monks with the financial support by 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 at 痴腻濒耻办腻谤腻尘补.

[cf. Appendix 2: A Study of the Ten Points]

Proceedings of the council:

The main purpose of the council was to examine the validity of ten indulgences (dasavatthuni) of a section of 痴别艣腻濒颈补苍 monks. According to 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, The session began with seven hundred monks and the selected members in the council were the best among the monks. At the beginning, there was much confused talk and fruitless discussions. In order to avoid further waste of time, the matter was referred to a committee consisting of four monks from the east and four from the west.

The committee was formed by Ubb膩hika (arbitration) process. The process complies with the rules laid down by the Buddha. The Cullavagga, 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 and 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 give the names of the eight Theras of the committee which are as follows: 厂补产产补办腻尘颈, 厂腻濒丑补, Khujjasobhita and 痴腻蝉补产丑补驳腻尘墨 from the East (P膩cinak膩); and Revata, 厂补尘产丑奴迟补 S膩nav膩si, Yasa and Sumana from the West (笔腻惫别测测补办补). Of them 痴腻蝉补产丑补驳腻尘墨 and Sumana were the pupils of Anuruddha; the rest were the disciples of 膧苍补苍诲补.

According to Cullavagga 厂补产产补办腻尘颈 was recognised as the 厂补峁単丑补thera on the Buddhist world and Revata as the leader of the council. According to 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 Vinaya, Yasa was the president of the council. Ajita was the elected seat-regulator and was authorised to recite the 笔腻迟颈尘辞办办丑补 and was the secretary of that arbitration court.

According to Bu-ston, both 厂补产产补办腻尘颈 and khujjasobhita were of equal importance. Thus, it is seen that there was no elected president in the second council and the matter was entrusted to a committee of jury.

When the 厂补峁単丑补 started to examine the ten points raised by the Vajjian monks, the great thera Revata skilled in questioning questioned the thera 厂补产产补办腻尘颈 on each one of these points.Every point was examined separately and elaborately. After a deep and thorough discussion the ten points were declared unlawful as these points were against the Vinaya discipline. Thus the great theras proved the error of the heretical bhikkhus who practised the ten indulgences.

The unanimous verdict of the council declared the conduct of the Vajjian monks to be unlawful.

According to 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, the second council had been continued for eight months on the Ku峁�膩g膩ra hall of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈. The vajjian monks did not accept the resolutions adopted by the second council and as a result they were expelled from the 厂补峁僩丑补. They had a separate great council (惭补丑腻蝉补峁単墨迟颈) consisting of ten thousand members. There they altered some portions of the Suttas and Vinaya and texts like 笔补谤颈惫腻谤补 which is an abstract of the Vinaya, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, the 笔补峁璱蝉补尘产丑颈诲腻, the Niddesa and some portions of the 闯腻迟补办补 and produced new ones. They also changed the original rules regarding nouns, genders, composition and the ornamentations of style.

A common 笔腻濒颈 narrative of the second council is found in the Vinayas of the several sects of the Northern traditions e.g. the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s, the 惭奴濒补-厂补谤惫腻蝉迟颈惫腻诲颈苍蝉, the Darmaguptasand the 惭补丑墨蝉腻蝉补办补蝉.In spite of minor differences in these narratives, the subject matter discussed is more or less same in the 笔腻濒颈 tradition and in the northern tradition. The narratives of the Second Council described in the Cullavagga are also found in the Tibetan and Chinese sources and the 膧谤测补-惭补帽箩耻艣谤墨-尘奴濒补-kalpa of the Sanskrit source with slight variation.

Buddhaghosa in his 厂补尘补苍迟补辫腻蝉腻诲颈办腻 mentions that, seven hundred Arahats recited the Dhamma and the Vinaya at the end and a new edition of 笔颈峁璦办补蝉; 狈颈办腻测补蝉, 础峁単补蝉 and Dhammakkhandas were made.

The Historical Authenticity of the Second Council:

It appears from different accounts that the authenticity of the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council is much more controversial than the 搁腻箩补驳峁环补 Council. The 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 describes the Second Council at two places. The first description is similar to that found in the Cullavagga and the second one gives some elaborate informations.

The 笔腻濒颈 traditions and the Northern traditions differ in many ways. According to Pali traditions the second council had happened hundred years after the 辫补谤颈苍颈产产腻苍补 of the Buddha. It is hundred and ten years by the northern traditions.

The place of the council, reign of the king at that time and the number of participants differ in different accounts. The monastries like 痴腻濒耻办腻谤腻尘补, Ku峁�膩g膩ras膩l膩, Kusumpura; the kings like 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补, Nanda, 惭补丑腻辫补诲尘补 and 础艣辞办补 are found in different narratives. The number of participants varies from 700 to 1,,.

Yuan Chwang and the Tibetan Dulv膩 give some extra information about eight members of a jury which is shown in the table below:

Name of the members of judges.	Age	Residence mentioned in the...
		[Cullavagga]	摆顿耻濒惫腻闭	[By Yuan-Chwang]
厂补产产补办腻尘颈	140	痴补颈艣腻濒颈	痴补颈艣腻濒颈	鈥�-
Khujjasobhita	120	of the East	笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补	笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补
厂腻濒丑补	120	of the East	厂辞峁嘺办补	痴补颈艣腻濒颈
Revata	120	Soreyya	Sahadsha	Sa-han-no
Sambhuto 厂腻峁嘺惫腻蝉颈	120	Ahogang膩 hill	惭腻丑颈蝉尘补迟颈	惭补迟丑耻谤腻
Yasa	165	of the West	厂辞峁嘺办补	Kosala
痴腻蝉补产丑补驳腻尘颈办补	120	of the East	厂腻峁僰腻艣测补	鈥�-
Sumana	120	of the West	鈥�-	鈥�-

In the above table first six Theras are pupils of 膧苍补苍诲补 and the rest are the pupils of Anuruddha. In spite of these minor differences there is substantial agreement on the genesis of the council and the matter discussed and decided.

H.Oldenberg, R.O, Franke throw doubt on the genuinness of the council as it had no connection with the Sacred Texts.

H.Kern is of the view that the council at 痴补艣腻濒颈 has a historical base but had no connection with the schism of the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁噂丑颈办补蝉.

M.Hofinger says that the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council convened to settle the conflict between the Vajjiputtakas and the rest of community is not a fiction. The council account is previous to the schism which separated the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s from the Sthaviras. The legend was gradually grown and was accepted by all traditions.

In spite of conflicting materials of the narratives of the council and of the various opinions of the scholars the narration of Second Council has been accepted as genuine by the majority resulting in a schism in the Buddhist 厂补峁僩丑补.

笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council on 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 Five Points:

The Second great Council at 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 was followed after sometime by another council known as the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単墨迟颈 attended by 10, monks. The first doctrinal controversy arose in the Buddhist 厂补峁単丑补 due to the five suggestions of 惭补丑腻诲别惫补, in this 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単墨迟颈. The traditions of Bhavya, Vasumitra and 痴颈苍墨迟补诲别惫补 have the same opinion that the division in the original 厂补峁単丑补 into Sthavira and the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 arose due to five points of 惭补丑腻诲别惫补 and not because of ten un-Vinayik acts of Vajjian monks. According to non-笔腻濒颈 soueces (Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese) this 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council of 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 five points regarding the status of an Arahat was held during the reign of 惭补丑腻辫补诲尘补 or Nanda Circa 110-137 A.N.

The 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council of Northern tradition is mentioned only in the the following works in Tibetan and Chinese versions only.

1. The Mah膩praj帽膩p膩ramit膩 (鲍辫补诲别艣补) 艢腻蝉迟谤补 (Taisho, 1509, p.a.).

2. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra of Vasumitra or the Wheel of the statements of the dissension of the doctrines. (Taisho,No. 2031-2033; Tanjur-Mdo, XC, No. ii).

3 & 4. The 狈颈办腻测补产丑别诲辞惫颈产丑补峁単补惫测腻办丑测腻苍补 of Bhavya, two lists. (Tanjur-Mdo XC, No. 11).

The five views of 惭补丑腻诲别惫补 are as follows:

1. An Arahat may commit a sin under unconscious temptation.(Kathavatthu, II. 1)

2. One may be an Arahat and not know it. (Kathavatthu, II. 2)

3. An Arahat may have doubts on matters of doctrine. (Kathavatthu, II. 3)

4. An Arahat cannot attain arahatship without the help of a teacher. (Kathavatthu, II. 4)

5. The path is attained by an exclamation as 鈥榓ho鈥� i.e., one meditating seriously on religion may take such an exclamation as 鈥楬ow sad鈥� and by so doing, he attains progress towards perfection. (Kathavatthu, II. 3 & 4, XI,).

A great dispute arose against Mahadeva鈥檚 five points. 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 theory hit directly the heart of the Buddhist philosophy. The Sthaviras said that these were 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 invention, and against the words of the Buddha. These tenets were discussed seriously among the four parties in the Buddhist 厂补峁単丑补 at 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 and there arose immense controversies. The main thrust of 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 thesis is that an Arhat is a human being who is subject to human failings, viz. defilement, ignorance, doubt, the dependence on a teacher as to the success to the path.

Many traditional accounts mentioned this schismatic person 惭补丑腻诲别惫补. The Shan-颁丑颈别苍-濒耻-痴颈产丑腻峁Ｄ� and different 笔腻濒颈 works referred 惭补丑腻诲别惫补. Mahadeva was a religious person and was capable of taking leadership. Moggaliputta-tissa Thera sent him to the 惭补丑颈峁�a尘补峁囜笉补濒补 (Andhra Pradesh) after the third council of 础艣辞办补.

In the Mah膩sa峁噂hika tradition he was a monk having the responsibility to develope the ancient Vinaya 笔颈峁璦办补.

According to Sammitiya tradition, in the previous birth he was the 惭腻谤补 alias Bhadra an expert in black magic who tried a lot to split the assembly of monks.

A.Bareau thinks that, the head of the future 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 sect who was a man of great personality and influence was this Mahadeva.

According to Bhavya, the five point opinions of Mahadeva was warmly received by the learned monks, as a result the 厂补峁単丑补 had been divided into various sects.

The 笔腻濒颈 碍补迟丑腻惫补迟迟丑耻 described these five points as heretical tenets.

Reshaping of the Canon:

According to 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁僩丑颈办补蝉 reshaped the entire canon by rejecting the 笔补谤颈惫腻谤补, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, Pa峁璱sa峁僢hid膩, the Niddesa and some of the 闯腻迟补办补s. They composed new texts and changed the ornamentation of style.

According to 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补, the Mah膩y膩nists added in the canon, the sutras such as Avata峁僺ik膩, the Praj帽膩p膩amit膩 [笔谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻?], the 狈颈谤惫腻峁嘺, the 艢谤墨尘腻濒腻, the 痴颈尘补濒补办墨谤迟颈 and 厂耻惫补谤峁嘺辫谤补产丑腻峁�a. 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s were divided into three sects due to the insertion of these 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 sutras in the canon.

Yuan Chwang said that the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s had five canonical books, named 厂奴迟谤补蝉, Vinaya, Abhidharma, Samyukta and 顿丑腻谤补峁嚹� 笔颈峁璦办补 collected in the council.

From the above discussion it is clear that with the rise of the sects the Buddhist canonical books had been reshaped.

The Date, Place and sovereign of the 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council:

There is a lot of controversy about the date when the schism occurred and under whom and where the 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 council on 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 five points was convened. According to 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 and the Mah膩praj帽膩p膩ramit膩 艢腻蝉迟谤补, schism follows the council of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 which is in 100 A.N. According to Vasumitra鈥檚 account it is 116 A.N. or more than

years after 笔补谤颈苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺 of the Buddha. It is 137 A.N. according to 狈颈办腻测补产丑别诲补惫颈产丑补峁噂补惫测腻办丑测腻苍补鈥檚 second list and 160 A.N. according to first list of the same.

Most of the sources are unanimas that 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 was the venue of the council. The Sarv膩stiv膩din and Sammitiya traditions asserted that it was 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 or Kusumapur膩, the capital of Magadha. The 惭补丑腻蝉补峁僩丑颈办补 and Sinhalese traditions do not give any name or place. The Vibh膩峁Ｄ� mentioned, the schism happened at 碍耻办办耻迟腻谤腻尘补 monestary of 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Kusumapur膩.

Great confusion arose in determining the reigning king connected with the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council and 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 council on 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 five point. The two 础艣辞办补s viz. 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 and 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补 of 笔腻濒颈 tradition corresponds to only one 础艣辞办补 of the Sanskrit tradition.

Cullavagga of the Theravadins does not throw any light on the second council.

笔腻濒颈 sources like the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 and the 厂补尘补苍迟补辫腻蝉腻诲颈办腻 mention the name of the King 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 and that the Third Council held at 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 in 236 A.N. under 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补.

Vasumitra, says that the 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 council was held under the patronage of 础艣辞办补 in 100 A.N. 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council is absent in his narration.

笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补 tells of a second gathering at Kusumapura during the time of 础艣辞办补 the great, of Magadha in 116 A.N.

Yuan Chwang knows only one 础艣辞办补 whom he names Wu-Yan or O-Shukia and places his reign 100 A.N.

Only Bhavya of the Sammitiyas reported that Nandas were the sovereigns of Magadha and at the time of 惭补丑腻辫补诲尘补鈥檚 reign a council following the second one of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 of the Sthaviras was held.

The 惭补丑墨蝉腻蝉补办补蝉, the Dharmaguptas and the 厂迟补惫颈谤补惫腻诲颈苍蝉, narrate the Second Council took place 110 years after the parinirv膩na of the Buddha without any mention of the reigining king and the subsequent council after the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈.

Various informations from several ancient traditions creat great confusion among scholars like W.Geiger, Filliozat, Andre Bareau, and M.Hofinger. After comparing all the traditions like Sinhalese, Burmese, Nepalese, Jain, and Brahmanical along with the 笔耻谤腻苍补蝉 they believe 笔腻濒颈 sources more dependable for understanding the history of Buddhism.

Jacobi prefers Jain texts. He believes 碍腻办补惫补谤苍颈苍 or 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 is the 鲍诲腻测颈苍 of the Jain Texts because both of them transfered the royal residence from 搁腻箩补驳峁环补 to 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补.

The Vibh膩峁Ｄ� and S膩riputraparip峁沜ch膩 厂奴迟谤补 are also silent about the reigning king. According to Dr.Sumangal Barua, if the arbitrator king of 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council on 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 five points was 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补, at least traditional accounts would not have fotgotten his name. The judgement was given in favour of majority rather than in support of the elite as does 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补 in the Third Council of the 罢丑别谤补惫腻诲补 tradition. It implies that the king was not interested to know what is right or wrong. Therefore it seems that he was not a Buddhist ruler and therefore definitely not 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补.

It is asserted in the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, that at the time of 痴补艣颈腻濒颈 Council King 础艣辞办补, son of 厂颈蝉耻苍腻驳补 was reigning in 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补. In 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, he is 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补.

J. Fillozat identifies 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 as 碍腻办补惫补谤苍颈苍, son of 厂颈蝉耻苍腻驳补 of the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 and as 碍腻办补惫补谤苍颈苍 of the 础艣辞办腻惫补诲腻苍补. Geiger also says in favour of Fillozat. Thus, it becomes clear that 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 and 顿丑补谤尘腻艣辞办补 are different personalities.

Vasumitra says that as 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 ruled from 90 A.N. to 118 A.N. and 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 Council of Northern tradition took place in 116 A.N. then it had to take place under 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补鈥檚 reign. J.Filliozat thinks that, it was King 碍腻濒补艣辞办补 who reigned at the time of 痴补艣腻濒颈 Council.

Bu-ston says that the council was held at the Kusumapura monestry of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 under the king Dhamm膩艣oka.

According to 罢腻谤腻苍腻迟丑, it was king Nandin of Licchavi race at Kusumapuri monestry. But Filliozat says that this happy king Nandin is actually King 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补, son of 厂颈蝉耻苍腻驳补 of the Licchavi race. 罢腻谤腻苍腻迟丑 also says that, the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council was held at the time of King 础艣辞办补, son of Nemitta, because the Licchavis ruled over 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 and it was a part of Magadha since the King 础箩腻迟补蝉补迟谤耻鈥檚 reign. Another reason to recognize King Nandin as King Asoka is due to the fact that, the king of Magadha must rule over 痴补艣腻濒颈 when the council was held.

The 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 and the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 clearly say that the Second Council of Vaisali results in schism at the time of King 碍腻濒腻蝉辞办补. Several other sources narrate that the Nanda dynasty was ruling simaltaneously and in the year 137 A.N. and that 惭补丑腻辫补诲尘补 replaced the Nanda. But the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 described 惭补丑腻辫补诲尘补 as the founder of the Nanda dynasty. The name Nanda is the name of a dynasty and not describes any personal name.

On the basis ofthe above discussion we can say that 碍腻濒腻艣辞办补 of the 笔腻濒颈 tradition and Nandin of the Sanskrit sources were the sovreigns respectively during whose reigns the second council of 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 and the another of Northern tradition on 惭补丑腻诲别惫补鈥檚 five points were held.

Dissension in the 厂补峁単丑补 and evolution of early Buddhist Sects:

The Second general Council is remarkable for the dissension in the 厂补峁僩丑补 and evolution of early Buddhist sects. By the informations collected from the Northern traditions, scholars are of the opinion that the conflict was limited within the members of the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council. Rapidly it spread to various 厂补峁僩丑补s. Two main sects: Sthaviras and the 惭补丑腻蝉峁嘺驳丑颈办补蝉 come out as a result. The aim of all the councils was to bring the unity in the 厂补峁単丑补 but here the result was an official recognition of both the divisions.

According to the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 school following the law of nature could not remain unsplitted for a long time. Shortly several sects came into existence having little differences in their Vinaya or the disciplinary rules.

Yuan Chwang asserted that the chief learning centres of the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s were 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 and 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补. Fa-hien also found the followers of the Vinaya of the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 School in these localities. Gradually the Sthaviras started leaving 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 and stayed at Kaus膩mb墨, Mathura and Avanti, where they were influencial and majority in number.

It is asserted in the Dipavamsa that, the dissension in the 厂补峁単丑补 gradually increased and within a century eighteen sects comes out after the 痴补颈艣腻濒颈 council. The orthodox school of the Theras were split up into eleven sects and remained as 罢丑别谤补惫腻诲颈苍蝉 throughout their existence.

The 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 continued to say that, the Sthaviras at first splitted into two main divisions, viz, the 惭补丑颈尘蝉腻蝉补办补蝉 and the Vajjiputtakas. The 惭补丑颈尘蝉腻蝉补办补蝉 then splitted into two divisions: viz, Sabbatthiv膩das and Dhammaguttas. These two divisions further divided into the Sabbatthiv膩das and Kassapikas; the Kassapikas and Samkantikas, and the Suttavadins. From the Vajjiputtakas four schools arose: viz, the Dhammuttarikas, Bhadday膩nikas, Channag膩rikas, and Sammitis. The Sthaviras were splitted into total eleven schools.

The 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s gradually deviated from the original Theravada doctrine and were splitted into seven schools. At first the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 monks were divided into two divisions, namely, the Gokulika and Ekabyoh膩ra. Again, two schisms took place amongst the Gokulikas: the Bahussutaka and the 笔补帽帽补迟迟颈 Bhikkhus. Another division of the Mahasanghikas were the Cetiyas. These five schools were originated from the Mahasanghikas. The future 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 school which emerged in the 1st century A.D. owed their origin from the liberal view of the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补s.

The information of the early Buddhist sects is mainly derived from the following accounts.

Amongst the 罢丑别谤补惫腻诲补 tradition were the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补; Sammitiya by Bhavya and 碍补迟丑腻惫补迟迟丑耻 A峁�峁璦kath膩 by Buddhaghosa.

艢膩riputraparip峁沜ch膩 厂奴迟谤补 and the tradition preserved by the second list of Bhavya belong to the 惭补丑腻蝉补峁単丑颈办补 School.

From the 厂补谤惫腻蝉迟颈惫腻诲补 tradition we get informations from Vasumitra鈥檚 Samayabhedoparacanacakra and the tradition preserved in the first list of Bhavya.

Among the 惭奴濒补-厂补谤惫腻蝉迟颈惫腻诲补 School were the t-sing鈥檚 and 痴颈苍墨迟补诲别惫补鈥檚 tradition.

Thus the dissension in the Sangha ultimately gave rise to eighteen sects (seventeen heretical sects and one original orthodox sect).The number eighteen is traditional but in fact the sects recorded are more than this number. According to 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, heretical sects like Hemavatikas, 搁腻箩补驳颈谤颈办补蝉, Siddhatthas, Pubba and Apparaselikas and sixthly the Apara 搁腻箩补驳颈谤颈办补蝉 arose one after the other.