Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31.s5.1

v2.c31.s5.1

Now the questions that can be raised are: To which of the two causes is due the schism? Or is the schism due to both the causes? We prefer the second alternative and may account for the two traditions thus: The division of monks began with the differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the ten Vinaya rules some time before the appearance of Mahādeva (or Nāga)¹ i.e., during the reign of Kālāsoka. It was about half a century after this event that Mahādeva or Nāga propounded his five dogmas during the reign of king Nanda and his disciple Sthiramati propagated it further. As regards the fact that the tradition of the breach of ten Vinaya rules appears in the Vinaya texts and the Ceylonese chronicles while the tradition about Mahādeva’s five dogmas appears in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of Vasumitra’s and other writers’ text on the doctrine of the schools, we may state that the Vinaya texts being concerned with the disciplinary aspect of the religion passed over the doctrinal differences while Vasumitra and other writers being more concerned with doctrinal differences than with disciplinary rules, considered it unnecessary to repeat the ten un-Vinayic acts of the Vesālian monks. The sources of information of the Ceylonese chronicles being the Vinaya texts, these also passed over the doctrinal differences, Yuan Chwang, being an annalist, was interested in both doctrines and disciplines and so he recorded the divergences in regard to both. It is quite probable that the schism began with disciplinary rules and in course of time, incorporated matters of doctrine.