Schools of Buddhism in Early Indian Inscriptions
Summary
Early Buddhist inscriptions rarely identify the sectarian affiliation of the monks who donated or attended rituals. This paper examines rock‑cut and pillar inscriptions from around the first century BCE to the second century CE in order to identify the schools to which the donors belonged and, by doing so, reconstruct the diversity of early Buddhism. Modern historians often view the schism between the Sthaviravāda (the elders) and the Mahāsaṃghika (the great assembly) as the first major split in the Buddhist community; the Mahāsaṃghikas argued for a plurality of supernatural Buddhas and were regarded by later Theravādins as more innovative. The author shows that several terms found in inscriptions—Saphineyakas (or Sabbhinyekas), Vākiliyas, Tāpasiyas, Apaguriyas, Aparājitas and Lāṃkudiyas—likely refer to long‑forgotten schools or guilds. He proposes that the Saphineyakas were followers of the Sapurisā, the “elect”; the Vākiliyas may have been disciples of Vakkali; and the Tāpasiyas represent ascetics who emphasised austerities. The Junnar cave inscriptions and a Mathura pillar inscription are analysed in detail to show how individual donors identified themselves and what these titles may signify. Comparison with canonical literature suggests that some of these names correspond to groups such as the Prahānikas, who emphasised brahmacarya, while others may have been regional orders that have left no literary record. By assembling this epigraphic evidence, the paper demonstrates that the Buddhist community was far more pluralistic than the canonical texts imply, with numerous local schools flourishing alongside the major orders. The inscriptions also reveal how the schism between the elders and the Mahāsaṃghikas encouraged doctrinal experimentation and the development of new sects. In concluding, the author argues that epigraphic study is essential for reconstructing the social history of early Buddhism because it preserves the names of communities that the canonical chronicles ignore.
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
The article demonstrates that early Buddhist inscriptions contain a rich vocabulary of sectarian labels. By mapping these labels onto the known doctrinal schools and hypothesising about otherwise unattested groups, the author shows that the early Buddhist community was not a single unified order but a constellation of regional schools and guild‑like associations. Epigraphic evidence thus complements the canonical literature and gives us a more nuanced picture of how Buddhism evolved in the centuries after the Buddha’s death.