again Jains were numerous.

For all Central India and Bengal the pilgrim's statistics tell the
same tale, namely that though Buddhism was represented both by
monasteries and monks, the Deva-temples and unbelievers were also
numerous. The most favourable accounts are those given of Kanauj,
Ayodhya and Magadha where the sacred sites naturally caused the devout
to congregate.

The statistics which he gives as to sects are interesting.[250] The
total number of monks amounted to about 183,000. Of these only 32,000
belonged definitely to the Mahayana: more than 96,000 to the Hinayana,
and 54,500 studied both systems or at any rate resided in monasteries
which tolerated either course of study. Some writers speak as if
after our era Mahayanism was predominant in India and the Hinayana
banished to its extreme confines such as Ceylon and Kashmir. Yet about
A.D. 640 this zealous Mahayanist[251] states that half the monks of
India were definitely Hinayanist while less than a fifth had equally
definite Mahayanist convictions. The Mahayana laid less stress on
monasticism than the Hinayana and therefore its strength may have lain
among the laity, but even so the admitted strength of the Hinayana is
remarkable. Three Hinayanist schools are frequently mentioned, the
Sthaviras, Sarvastivadins and Sammitiyas. The first are the well-known
Sinhalese sect and were found chiefly in the south (Conjeevaram) and
in East Bengal, besides the monks of the Sinhalese monastery at Gaya.
The Sarvastivadins were found, as their history would lead us to
expect, chiefly in the north and beyond the frontiers of India proper.
But both were outnumbered by the Sammitiyas, who amounted to nearly
44,000 monks. The chief doctrine[252] of this sect is said to have
been that individuals (puggalo) exist as such in the truest sense.
This doctrine was supported by reference to the sutra known as the
Burden and the Burden bearer.[253] It does not assert that there is a
permanent and unchangeable soul (atta) but it emphasizes the reality
and importance of that personality which all accept as true for
practical purposes. It is probable that in practice this belief
differed little from the ordinary Brahmanic doctrine of metempsychosis
and this may be one reason for the prevalence of the sect.

I-Ching, though he does not furnish statistics, gives a clear
conspectus of Buddhist sects as they existed in his time. He starts
from the ancient eighteen sects but divides the