by the desire "to be as comprehensive as possible, to supplement the directives given in the early discourses for progress on the path with a full picture of all aspects of the path in an attempt to provide a complete map of everything in some way related to the path." As Frauwallner explains, due to this scholastic impulse, lists grew in size, different mātṛkās were combined with each other to produce new ones, and new concepts and schemas were introduced, such as the differentiation of cittas and caitasikās and new ways of connecting or relating the various elements with each other. According to Analayo, these various lists were also not presented alone, but included some kind of commentary and explanation which was also part of the oral tradition. Sometimes this commentary included quotations from other sutras, and traces of this can be found in the canonical Abhidharma texts. As time passed, these commentaries and their accompanying lists became inseparable from each other, and the commentaries gained canonical status. Thus, according to Analayo: just as the combination of the prātimokṣa with its commentary was central for the development of the Vinaya, so too the combination of mātṛkās with a commentary was instrumental in the development of the Abhidharma. Thus the use of a mātṛkā together with its exegesis is a characteristic common to the Abhidharma and the Vinaya, whose expositions often take the form of a commentary on a summary list. Therefore, the different Buddhist Abhidharma texts were developed over time as Buddhists expanded their analytical methods in different ways. Since this happened in different communities located in different places, they developed in separate doctrinal directions. This divergence was perhaps enhanced by the various schisms in the Buddhist community and also by geographic distance. According to Frauwallner, the period of the development of the canonical Abhidharma works is between 250 and 50 BCE. By the time the different canons began to be written down, the Abhidharma texts of the different schools were substantially different, as can be seen in how different the Theravāda and the Sarvāstivādin canonical Abhidharma texts are. These differences are much more pronounced than among the other canonical collections (Sutras, Agamas and Vinaya). As such, the Abhidharma collections of the various schools are much more unique to each sect. The various Abhidhammic traditions grew to have very fundamental philosophical disagreements with each other (such as on the status