by a group of reformists called Sthaviras who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya to prevent what they held to be certain lax disciplinary practices. This may or may not have been directly related to the meeting at Vaisali. This issue over new Vinaya rules eventually led to a split from the conservative majority, called the Mahāsāṃghikas who rejected these rules. This view is supported by the Vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. The Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, while the Theravāda version has 75 rules. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya also contains evidence for this, since they discuss how the Mahāsāṃghika disagree with the Sthavira additions to the Vinaya (Mahāsāṃghikavinaya, T.1425, p. 493a28-c22.). Virtually all scholars agree that this second council was a historical one. There is no agreement however on the dating of the event or if it was pre- or post-Ashoka (304–232 BCE). Third council during reign of Ashoka In striking contrast to the uniform accounts of the Second Council, there are records of several possible "Third Councils". These different accounts often function to authorize the founding of one particular school or other. However, they all at least agree that it took place at Pataliputra, emperor Ashoka's capital. Theravāda account According to the Theravāda commentaries and chronicles, the Third Buddhist Council was convened by the Mauryan king Ashoka at Pātaliputra (today's Patna), under the leadership of the monk Moggaliputta Tissa. Its objective was to purify the Buddhist movement, particularly from opportunistic factions and heretics which had only joined because they were attracted by the royal patronage of the sangha. The king asked the suspect monks what the Buddha taught, and they claimed he taught views such as eternalism, etc., which are condemned in the canonical Brahmajala Sutta. He asked the virtuous monks, and they replied that the Buddha was a "Teacher of Analysis" (Vibhajjavādin), an answer that was confirmed by Moggaliputta Tissa. The Council proceeded to recite the scriptures once more, adding to the canon Moggaliputta Tissa's own book, the Kathavatthu, a discussion of various dissenting Buddhist views and the Vibhajjavādin responses to them. According to this account, this third council also seems to have led to the split between the Sarvastivada and the Vibhajjavāda schools on the issue of the existence of the three times. This doctrine seems to