The early Buddhist schools refers to the Indian Buddhist "doctrinal schools" or "schools of thought" (Sanskrit: ) which arose out of the early unified Buddhist monastic community (Saá¹ gha) due to various schisms in the history of Indian Buddhism. The various splits and divisions were caused by differences in interpretations of the monastic rule (Vinaya), doctrinal differences and also due to simple geographical separation as Buddhism spread throughout the Indian subcontinent.
The early Buddhist community initially split into two main NikÃÂyas (monastic groups, divisions): the Sthavira ("Elders"), and the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika ("Great Community"). This initial split occurred either during the reign of Aà Âoka (c. 268-232 BCE) or shortly after (historians disagree on the matter).
Later, these groups became further divided on doctrinal grounds into numerous schools of thought and practice (each with their own monastic rules and doctrinal Abhidharma texts). Some of the main sects included the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins ("Temporal Eternalists"), the Dharmaguptakas ("Preservers of Dharma"), LokottaravÃÂdins ("Transcendentalists"), the PrajñaptivÃÂdins ("Conceptualists"), the VibhajyavÃÂdins ("Analysts"), and the PudgalavÃÂdins ("Personalists"). According to traditional accounts these sects eventually proliferated into 18 (or, less-commonly, 20) different schools.
The textual material shared by the early schools is often termed the early Buddhist texts and these are an important source for understanding their doctrinal similarities and differences. There were various works of Abhidharma and other treatises written by these schools that contain more unique doctrines specific to each school.
According to the scriptures (Cullavagga XI.1 ff), three months after the parinirvÃÂá¹Âa of Gautama Buddha, some of the arahants among his disciples held a councilâÂÂpresided over by MahÃÂkÃÂà Âyapa, one of the most senior disciplesâÂÂat Rajagaha (Rajgir), with the support of king AjÃÂtasattu, and there recited the teachings of the Buddha. The scriptures of the various schools differ, in their accounts of the council, as to what was actually recited there. An elder monk named PurÃÂá¹Âa is recorded as having said: "Your reverences, well-chanted by the elders are the Dhamma and Vinaya, but in that way that I heard it in the Lord's presence, that I received it in his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind."; this is taken by Paul Williams to suggest some disagreement about the accuracy of the canon even at that time. According to TheravÃÂda tradition, the teachings were divided into various parts and each was assigned to an elder and his pupils to commit to memory, and there was no conflict about what the Buddha taught.
Some scholars argue that the First Council did not actually take place.
The expansion of orally transmitted texts in early Buddhism, and the growing distances between Buddhist communities, fostered specialisation and sectarian identification. One or several disputes did occur during AÃ Âoka's reign, involving both doctrinal and disciplinary (Vinaya) matters, although these may have been too informal to be called a "council". The Sthavira school had, by the time of AÃ Âoka, divided into three sub-schools, doctrinally speaking, but these did not become separate monastic orders until later.
In TheravÃÂdin tradition, the first schism's precipitating dispute is supposed to have occurred during the Second Council at Vaishali, approximately one hundred years after Gautama Buddha's parinirvÃÂá¹Âa; the result of the council wasâÂÂaccording to this traditionâÂÂthe first schism in the Saá¹ gha, between the Sthavira and the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika, though the exact cause of the split is not well agreed-upon. While the Second Council probably was an historical event, details regarding its course and outcome are less certain.
Lamotte and Hirakawa both maintain that the first schism in the Buddhist Saá¹ gha occurred during the reign of Aà Âoka; Collett Cox places the date slightly later, writing that "most scholars would agree that even though the roots of the earliest recognised groups predate Aà Âoka, their actual separation did not occur until after his death." Only two ancient sources (the and BhÃÂviveka's third list) place the first schism before Aà Âoka, and only one (the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika ) attributes it to a dispute on Vinaya; several (especially SthaviravÃÂdin) sources give the cause as a dispute over doctrine.
The various splits within the monastic organizations went together with the introduction and emphasis on Abhidharmic literature by some schools. This literature was specific to each school, and arguments and disputes between the schools were often based upon these Abhidharmic writings. However, modern scholars generally hold the first schisms to have been based upon disagreements on Vinaya (monastic discipline), though it is also asserted thatâÂÂby or earlierâÂÂthey could be based upon doctrinal disagreement. Pre-sectarian Buddhism, however, did not have Abhidharmic scriptures, except perhaps for a basic framework, and not all of the early schools developed an Abhidharma literature.
TheravÃÂdin sources state that, in the 3rd century BCE, a council was convened under the patronage of AÃ Âoka. Some scholars argue that there are certain implausible features of the TheravÃÂdin account which imply that the Third Council was ahistorical. The remainder consider it a purely TheravÃÂda-VibhajyavÃÂda council.
According to the TheravÃÂdin account, this council was convened primarily for the purpose of establishing an official orthodoxy. At the council, small groups raised questions about the specifics of the Vinaya and the interpretation of doctrine. The chairman of the council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book, the KathÃÂvatthu, which was meant to refute these arguments. The council sided with Moggaliputta and his version of Buddhism as orthodox; it was then adopted by Emperor AÃ Âoka as his empire's official religion. In Pali, this school of thought was termed VibhajjavÃÂda, literally "thesis of [those who make] a distinction".
The distinction involved was as to the existence of dharmas in the past, future, and present. The version of the scriptures that had been established at the Third CouncilâÂÂincluding the Vinaya, Sà «tra, and Abhidharma Piá¹Âakas (collectively known as the )âÂÂwas taken to Sri Lanka by Emperor Aà Âoka's son, the monk Mahinda. There it was eventually committed to writing in the Pali language. The Pali Canon remains the most complete set of surviving NikÃÂya scriptures, although the greater part of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin canon also survives in Chinese translation (along with parts of otherâÂÂsometimes unidentifiedâÂÂcanons); some parts exist in Tibetan translations; and some fragments exist in Sanskrit manuscripts, and in some other Indo-Aryan languages (e.g., GÃÂndhÃÂrë).
Some time after the reign of AÃ Âoka, further divisions began to occur within the Buddhist movement, and a number of additional schools emerged. ÃÂtienne Lamotte divided the mainstream Buddhist schools into three primary doctrinal types:
One Sthavira factionâÂÂbased (in part) in Sri Lanka, and in certain areas of South India (such as Vanavasi in the southwest and the Kañci region in the southeast)âÂÂbegan to call themselves the VibhajyavÃÂdins; this group later ceased to refer to themselves specifically as "VibhajjavÃÂdins", but reverted to calling themselves "Theriyas", after the earlier Theras (Sthaviryas). Still later, at some point prior to the Dëpavaá¹Âsa (4th century), the Pali name TheravÃÂda was adopted and has remained in use ever since for this group.
Other groups included the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, the Dharmaguptakas, the Saá¹Âmitëya, and the PudgalavÃÂdins. The PudgalavÃÂdins were also known as VÃÂtsëputrëyas, after their putative founder. Later, this group became known as the Saá¹Âmitëya school, after one of its subdivisions. It died out around the 9th or 10th century. Nevertheless, during most of the early medieval period, the Saá¹Âmitëya school was numerically the largest Buddhist group in India, with more followers than all the other schools combined. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdin school was most prominent in the Northwest India, and provided some of the doctrines that would later be adopted by the MahÃÂyÃÂna. A related group was the SautrÃÂntika school, which only recognised the authority of the sà «tras, and which rejected the Abhidharma transmitted and taught by the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika wing of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda. Based on textual considerations, it has been suggested that the SautrÃÂntikas were actually adherents of Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda. The relation between the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda and the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda, however, is unclear.
All of these early schools of NikÃÂya Buddhism eventually came to be known collectively as "the eighteen schools" in later sources. With the exception of the TheravÃÂdaâÂÂand, in Tibet alone, the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂdaâÂÂnone of these early schools survived beyond the late medieval period (by which time, several were long-extinct already); however, a considerable amount of the canonical literature of some of these schools has survived, mainly in Chinese translation. Moreover, the origins of specifically MahÃÂyÃÂna doctrines may be discerned in the teachings of some of these early schools; in particular, those of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika and the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda.
The schools sometimes split over differences concerning the "real" meaning of teachings in the Sà «tra Piá¹Âaka, and sometimes over disagreement concerning the proper observance of Vinaya. These differences became embedded in large works such as the Abhidharmas and commentaries. Comparison of existing versions of the Sà «tra Piá¹Âakas of various sects shows evidence that doctrines from the Abhidharmas sometimes found their way back into the Sà «tra Piá¹Âakas to support the statements made in those Abhidharmas.
Some of these developments may be seen as later elaborations on the teachings. According to Gombrich, unintentional literalism was a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism; i.e., texts were interpreted according to a strict literal reading of the words used therein, with little consideration paid to other hermeneutic techniques.
During the first millennium, monks from China such as Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing made pilgrimages to India and wrote accounts of their travels when they returned home. These Chinese travel records constitute extremely valuable sources of information concerning the state of Buddhism in India during the early medieval period.
By the time the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yijing visited India, there were five early Buddhist schools that they mentioned far more frequently than others. They commented that the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda/Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda, MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika, and Saá¹Âmitëya were the principal early Buddhist schools still extant in India, along with the Sthavira school. The Dharmaguptakas continued to be found in GandhÃÂra and Central Asia, along the Silk Road.
It is commonly said that there were eighteen schools of Buddhism in this period. What this actually means is more subtle. First, although the word "school" is used, there was not yet an institutional split in the Saá¹ gha. The Chinese traveler Xuanzang observed even when the MahÃÂyÃÂna were beginning to emerge from this era that monks of different schools would live side by side in dormitories and attend the same lectures. Only the books that they read were different. Secondly, no historical sources can agree what the names of these "eighteen schools" were. The origin of this saying is therefore unclear.
A. K. Warder identified the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order): SthaviravÃÂda, MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika, VÃÂtsëputrëya, EkavyÃÂvahÃÂrika, Gokulika (a.k.a. Kukkuá¹Âika, etc.), SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, LokottaravÃÂda, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Saá¹Âmitëya, Sannagarika, Bahuà Ârutëya, PrajñaptivÃÂda, Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka, Haimavata (a.k.a. KÃÂà Âyapëya), Dharmaguptaka, Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early Buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the TheravÃÂda school, though the term 'TheravÃÂda' was not used before the fourth century.
A hypothetical combined list would be as follows:
The classic sets of ten, six or four pÃÂramitÃÂs (perfections) were codified and developed by these various schools in later sources. Though the actual ideas of these virtues (such as dhyÃÂna, à Âila, prajñÃÂ, etc.) and the idea of the Buddha's past lives are drawn from early Buddhist sources (such as early JÃÂtakas), they were developed further into specific doctrines about the bodhisattva path and how exactly the Buddha undertook it.
The new schools also developed new doctrines about important Buddhist topics. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins for example were known for their doctrine of temporal eternalism. Meanwhile, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school was known for its doctrine of "transcendentalism" (LokottaravÃÂda), the view that the Buddha was a fully transcendent being.
As the third major division of the various canons, the Abhidharma collections were a major source of dispute among the various schools. Abhidharma texts were not accepted as canonical by the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school and several other schools. Another school included most of their version of the Khuddaka NikÃÂya within their Abhidharma Piá¹Âaka. Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly TheravÃÂda collection, and has little in common with the Abhidharma works recognised by other Buddhist schools. The various Abhidharma philosophies of the various early schools disagree on numerous key points and belong to the period of sectarian debates among the schools.
The earliest texts of the PÃÂli Canon (the Sutta NipÃÂta and parts of the JÃÂtaka), together with the first four (and early) NikÃÂyas of the Sutta Piá¹Âaka, have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Piá¹Âaka. The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned at the report of the First Buddhist Council, directly after the death of the Buddha. This report of the first council does mention the existence of the Vinaya and the five NikÃÂyas (of the Sutta Piá¹Âaka).
Although the literature of the various Abhidharma Piá¹Âakas began as a kind of commentarial supplement upon the earlier teachings in the Sà «tra Piá¹Âaka, it soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life. The various Abhidharma works were starting to be composed from about 200 years after the passing away of the Buddha.
Traditionally, it is believed (in TheravÃÂdin culture) that the Abhidhamma was taught by Buddha to his late mother who was living in TÃÂvatiá¹Âsa. However, this is rejected by scholars, who believe that only small parts of the Abhidharma literature may have been existent in a very early form. The SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins also rejected this idea, and instead held that the Abhidharma was collected, edited, and compiled by the elders (Sthaviras) after the Buddha's death (though they relied on the Buddha's words for this compilation).
Some schools of Buddhism had important disagreements on subjects of Abhidharma, while having a largely similar Sà «tra Piá¹Âaka and Vinaya Piá¹Âaka. The arguments and conflicts between them were thus often on matters of philosophical Abhidharmic origin, not on matters concerning the actual words and teachings of Buddha.
One impetus for composing new scriptures like the Adhidharmas of the various schools, according to some scholars, was that Buddha left no clear statement about the ontological status of the world â about what really exists. Subsequently, later Buddhists have themselves defined what exists and what does not (in the Abhidharmic scriptures), leading to disagreements.
Oliver Abeynayake has the following to say on the dating of the various books in the Khuddaka NikÃÂya:
<blockquote>The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The texts Sutta Nipata, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, Therigatha (Theragatha), Udana, and Jataka tales belong to the early stratum. The texts Khuddakapatha, Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu, Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Apadana, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka can be categorized in the later stratum.</blockquote>
The texts in the early stratum date from before the second council (earlier than 100 years after Buddha's parinirvÃÂá¹Âa), while the later stratum is from after the Second Council, which means they are definitely later additions to the Sà «tra Piá¹Âaka, and that they might not have been the original teachings by the Buddha, but later compositions by disciples.
The original verses of the JÃÂtakas are recognised as being amongst the earliest part of the canon, but the accompanying (and more famous) JÃÂtaka stories are commentaries likely composed at later dates.
The ParivÃÂra, the last book of the Vinaya Piá¹Âaka, is a later addition.
Early MahÃÂyÃÂna originated, like TherÃÂvada, from the "early Buddhist schools".
Between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the terms "MahÃÂyÃÂna" and "HënayÃÂna" were first used in writing, in, for example, the Lotus Sà «tra. Christian Lindtner suggests that the later MahÃÂyÃÂna schools may have preserved a certain originally Brahmanist conception of a permanent "absolute" that was abandoned by the "orthodox" TheravÃÂda in favour of "the law of universal impermanence"; or rather, they described the absolute in paradoxical terms in order to reconcile contradictions found within the existing Buddhist canon between the views of consciousness (vijñÃÂna) and Nirvana as either permanent or impermanent.
Although the various early schools of Buddhism are sometimes loosely classified as "HënayÃÂna" in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. According to Jan Nattier, MahÃÂyÃÂna never referred to a separate sect of Buddhism (Skt. NikÃÂya), but rather to the set of ideals and doctrines for bodhisattvas. Paul Williams has also noted that the MahÃÂyÃÂna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate Vinaya or ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools, and therefore each bhiká¹£u or bhiká¹£uá¹Âë adhering to the MahÃÂyÃÂna formally belonged to an early school.
Membership in these NikÃÂyas, or monastic sects, continues today with the Dharmaguptaka NikÃÂya in East Asian Buddhism, and the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda NikÃÂya in Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, MahÃÂyÃÂna was never a separate rival sect of the early schools. Paul Harrison clarifies that while MahÃÂyÃÂna monastics belonged to a NikÃÂya, not all members of a NikÃÂya were MahÃÂyÃÂnists. From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both MahÃÂyÃÂna and non-MahÃÂyÃÂna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side. Additionally, Isabella Onians notes that MahÃÂyÃÂna works rarely used the term HënayÃÂna, typically using the term à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna instead.
The Chinese Buddhist monk and pilgrim Yijing wrote about relationship between the various "vehicles" and the early Buddhist schools in India. He wrote, "There exist in the West numerous subdivisions of the schools which have different origins, but there are only four principal schools of continuous tradition." These schools are namely the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika, Sthavira, Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda and Saá¹Âmitëya NikÃÂyas. Explaining their doctrinal affiliations, he then writes, "Which of the four schools should be grouped with the MahÃÂyÃÂna or with the HënayÃÂna is not determined." That is to say, there was no simple correspondence between a Buddhist monastic sect, and whether its members learn "HënayÃÂna" or "MahÃÂyÃÂna" teachings.