This text purports to delineate the process of schism between various groups within the Saṃgha (小乘十八部/小乘二十部/部派佛教) in the hundred years following the Buddhaʼs parinirvāṇa, and the doctrines of the various groups. It falls into two sections. The first section corresponds to Ch. 15, “Distinctions” 分別部品, in the second fascicle of the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā 文殊問經; the second section is marked “compiled by the Dharma Master [Kumāra-]Jīva” 羅什法師集. The text first describes the most fundamental schism between the 'Greater Congregation' (Mahāsāṃghika, 摩訶僧祇/大衆) and the 'Elders' (Sthavira 體毘履/上座). It then describes the first wave of further schisms by which originated from the Mahāsāṃghikas the three schools of the 'Exponents of the Doctrine of Unity' (Ekavyāvahārika, 一說); the 'Mountain[-Dwelling exponents of the doctrine of a] Worldly [Buddhahood]' (Kaukuṭtika-Laukikavādin, 山世間說); and the 'Cave Dwellers' (窟居). In a further wave of schisms, the same basic lineage is described as giving rise to the 'School of Extensive Learning' (Bahuśrutīya, 多聞部), the 'School of Nominal Posits' (Prajñaptivādin, 施設論部), the Caityaśaila 支提伽, Avaraśaila 佛婆羅 and Uttaraśaila 鬱多羅施羅. Thus, nine schools in all eventually developed from the Mahāsāṃghika lineage. On the other side, the Sthaviras are described as having first split into the Sarvâstivādin 薩婆多部 and Haimavata 雪山部 branches. From the Sarvâstivādins subsequently developed the Vātsīputrīya 犢子部; and from the Vātsīputrīyas in turn developed the Dharmôttarīya 達摩鬱多梨部, Bhadrayānīya 跋陀羅耶尼部, and the Saṃmitīya 彌離部, for a total of six schools. In another wave of schisms, from the Sarvâstivāda further developed the Mahīśāsaka 彌沙部, who then gave rise in turn to the Dharmaguptaka 曇無德部; the Sarvâstivāda further gave rise to the Kāśyapīya 優梨沙 (also known as 迦葉惟) 部, and the Sautrântikas—thus leading to a total of twenty schools in all.

This text is ascribed to Vasumitra, who may or may not be the figure of the same name considered responsible for the compilation of the Mahāvibhāṣā  阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 T 1545 and the authorship of the 阿毘達磨界身足論 *Abhidharma-dhātu-kāya-pāda-śāstra, T 1540. The actual authorship of this text is far from a simple matter, and it is also entirely possible that the text, or at least some of the material it contains, is significantly later than its putative author. For a discussion of the problem of authorship and a summary of some Japanese scholarship on the topic, see Teramoto and Hiramatsuʼs “Kaidai” 解題, 1–4. The traditions contain two main conflicting accounts: one on which a single Vasumitra is responsible for all these various texts; and one on which there are in fact two Vasumitras. Tāranātha even attributes the doxographical text at issue here to a third, much later Vasumitra again, the author of a commentary on Vasubandhuʼs Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. Teramoto and Hiramatsu point out that this indicates at least that there was much uncertainty in the tradition on this question of the authorship of the text. Teramoto and Hiramatsu conclude that little can be said with certainty except that we must "infer that it is the work of someone among the adherents of the Sarvâstivāda, written upon the basis of traditions within that school, which was then attributed to Vasumitra as a prominent authority within the school, and subsequently, through a progressive process of editing and supplementation, assumed the form in which we find it today;" 4. Paul Demiéville notes that "the theses attributed to the various schools in the treatise of Vasumitra only evince a weak degree of agreement with those attributed to them in the Vibhāṣā," “L'origine” 24 fn. 6; which would argue against the authorship of the two works by the same figure. Against these considerations, however, we must also weigh the fact that Bareau, at least, considers all Vasumitras to be one, and to date to approx. 350 CE. Certainly, there are reasons to think that the apparently earliest Chinese version of the text, the Shiba bu lun T 2032, dates to around Kumārajīvaʼs time, even if it may not necessarily be a translation by Kumārajīva himself, as Demiéville thinks (see below).

The present translation, T 2032, is ascribed to Paramârtha 眞諦, but so is T 2033, a variant translation of the same text. Paul Demiéville is of the opinion that T 2032, the present text, was in fact translated by Kumārajīva, for the following reasons: it mentions Kumārajīvaʼs name, T 2032.17c29.html">2032.17c29; it speaks of Chinese as "the language of Qin (秦言), 18a14; Jizang believed that it was Kumārajīvaʼs work; see Demiéville, “Les versions” 48 n. 1.

For Tib. see Ōtani 5639, Tōhoku 4138. In addition to the modern-language translations listed below, Demiéville mentions that the text was translated from the Tibetan version into Russian very early by Wassiliew, and thence into German by Schiefner (Der Buddhismus, seine Dogmen, Geschichte und Literatur, St Petersburg 1860).

Further references

Bareau, André. 1955. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit véhicule. Saïgon:  École française d'Extrême-Orient.

Demiéville, Paul. 1924. “Les versions chinoises du Miliṇḍapañha .”  Bulletin de l'école française d'extrême-orient 24 : 1–253.

----. 1931–32. “L'origine des sectes bouddhiques d'apres Paramartha.”  Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 1 : 15–62.

Masuda, Jiryo, trans. 1925. Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools: A Translation of the Hsüan-Chwang Version of Vasumitraʼs Treatise. Leipzig:  Verlag der Asia Major.

Nattier, Janice J. 1977. “Mahāsāṃghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism.”  History of Religions 16 : 237–272.

Teramoto Enga 寺本婉雅. 1974. Zō-Kan-Wa sanyaku taikō I bu shū rin ron 漢和三訳対校異部宗輪論 . Tokyo:  Kokusho kankōkai.

Tsukamoto Keishō. 2004. The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines. Berkeley:  Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. BDK English Tripiṭaka 76-I

Yao Zhihua 姚治華 . 1996. Yi bu zong lun lun 異部宗輪論 . Kao-hsiung/Gaoxiong:  Foguang chubanshe.

[Chinese Buddhist Canonical Attributions Database]