habodhiva@msa_ identifies the
Theravada school with the Vibhajjavadins. The commentator of the
_Kathavatthu_ who probably lived according to Mrs Rhys Davids sometime
in the fifth century A.D. mentions a few other schools of
Buddhists. But of all these Buddhist schools we know very little.
Vasumitra (100 A.D.) gives us some very meagre accounts of

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The _Mahava@msa_ differs from _Dipava@msa_ in holding that
the Vajjiputtakas did not develop into the Mahasa@nghikas, but it was
the Mahasa@nghikas who first seceded while the Vajjiputtakas seceded
independently of them. The _Mahabodhiva@msa_, which according to
Professor Geiger was composed 975 A.D.--1000 A.D., follows the
Mahava@msa in holding the Mahasa@nghikas to be the first seceders
and Vajjiputtakas to have seceded independently.

Vasumitra confuses the council of Vesali with the third council of
Pa@taliputra. See introduction to translation of _Kathavatthu_ by
Mrs Rhys Davids.]

[Footnote 2: For other accounts of the schism see Mr Aung and Mrs Rhys
Davids's translation of _Kathavatthu_, pp. xxxvi-xlv.]

113

certain schools, of the Mahasa@nghikas, Lokottaravadins,
Ekavyavaharikas, Kakkulikas, Prajnaptivadins and Sarvastivadins, but
these accounts deal more with subsidiary matters of little philosophical
importance. Some of the points of interest are (1) that the
Mahasa@nghikas were said to believe that the body was filled with
mind (_citta_) which was represented as sitting, (2) that the
Prajnaptivadins held that there was no agent in man, that there was
no untimely death, for it was caused by the previous deeds of man,
(3) that the Sarvastivadins believed that everything existed. From
the discussions found in the _Kathavatthu_ also we may know the
views of some of the schools on some points which are not always
devoid of philosophical interest. But there is nothing to be found
by which we can properly know the philosophy of these schools. It
is quite possible however that these so-called schools of Buddhism
were not so many different systems but only differed from one
another on some points of dogma or practice which were considered
as being of sufficient interest to them, but which to us now
appear to be quite trifling. But as we do not know any of their
literatures, it is better not to make any unwarrantable surmises.
These schools are however not very important for a history