With reference to the religious history of India, consider the following statements : 1. Sautrantika and Sammitiya were the sects of Jainism. 2. Sarvastivadin held that the constituents of phenomena were not wholly momentary, but existed forever in a latent form. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Lists several named Buddhist sects (Mahasanghikas, Sthaviravadins, Sarvastivadins) showing Buddhism historically split into distinct schools with characteristic names.

A student could compare the form and suffix of 'Sautrāntika' with these Buddhist school names to judge whether it fits the naming pattern of Buddhist schools.

Notes that Buddhism divided into many splinter groups (Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.), indicating a precedent for many internal Buddhist schools emerging over time.

Using a basic list of known Buddhist schools, a student could check whether Sautrāntika is cited among such Buddhist splits in other standard references or maps of doctrinal lineages.

Records traveler Hiuen-Tsang observing numerous Buddhist monasteries and explicitly refers to the Mahayana school, illustrating the historical prominence and variety of Buddhist schools in India.

A student could use Hiuen-Tsang's accounts (or maps of his travels) to see whether he or similar sources mention Sautrāntika among Buddhist communities encountered.

Distinguishes 'sramanic sects of Buddhism and Jainism' as two separate categories in historical conflicts, indicating that Sramanic traditions produced distinct Buddhist and Jain groups rather than a single shared sect.

A student could use this separation to eliminate the possibility that a named sramanic group belongs to both traditions and instead look for Sautrāntika in Buddhist-specific lists.

Describes internal organization and lineage terminology for Jainism (Tirthankaras, sect leadership), implying Jain groups are treated with their own naming and founder patterns.

A student could compare these Jain naming/lineage patterns with the form 'Sautrāntika' to see whether it aligns more with Jain or Buddhist nomenclature.

This snippet shows Jainism had named group identities (Nirgranthas) and that Mahavira's followers were organized into distinct monastic and lay groups.

A student could use this pattern to look for whether 'Sammitiya' appears in lists of named Jain groups or monastic orders (like Nirgranthas) in other sources.

The text explicitly asks to 'Explain the schism in Jainism,' indicating Jainism experienced internal divisions and multiple sects.

A student could consult schism descriptions (e.g., lists of sects arising from splits) to see if 'Sammitiya' is named among them.

The Ajivikas are presented as one of several contemporary ascetic sects distinct from Buddhism and Jainism, illustrating that many closely named sects coexisted in the same Sramanic milieu.

A student could use this context to check whether 'Sammitiya' might instead belong to a different Sramanic tradition (Ajivika, Buddhist, etc.) rather than Jainism.

Discussion of the wide geographic spread and varied regional expressions of Jainism (literature, sculptures, temples) suggests many local or regional sectarian names could exist.

One could search regional Jain traditions and lists of local Jaina sect names (particularly in Prakrit/Sanskrit/Tamil sources) to find any reference to 'Sammitiya'.

Reference to the formation of Jaina sanghas (e.g., Dravida Sangha) and named teachers implies formal organizational units that often carried specific sect or subsect names.

A student might check records of Jaina sanghas and their disciples/lineages to see if 'Sammitiya' corresponds to a sangha or lineage within Jainism.

Identifies the Sarvāstivādins as a distinct Buddhist sect that developed 'new ideas', implying doctrinal positions worth investigating.

A student could follow this by looking up what the specific 'new ideas' were (e.g., doctrines attributed to Sarvāstivāda) to see if they concern the temporal status of dharmas.

States that Buddhism gave rise to several schools with differing principles and methods, signalling internal philosophical diversity about core topics like the nature of dharmas and impermanence.

Use this to justify comparing different Buddhist schools' teachings on momentariness versus persistence (for example, checking whether any school explicitly denies absolute momentariness).

Emphasises treating traditions as 'schools of thought' with multiple aspects (philosophical, spiritual), supporting the idea that one must examine doctrinal/philosophical claims within particular schools.

A student could therefore probe the philosophical literature of the Sarvāstivāda specifically (rather than treating 'Buddhism' monolithically) to test the statement about dharmas.

Notes early Buddhism developed distinct critiques and positions, which indicates early Buddhist movements formulated alternative metaphysical claims rather than a single unified teaching.

This encourages checking whether Sarvāstivāda's metaphysical claims (e.g., about time and existence of dharmas) differ from other early schools' emphasis on momentariness.