The name ‘Mulasarvastivadin, ’ accepted by modern scholars as denoting those who handed on the extant Mulasarvastivada-vinaya, has been subject to reconsideration since 1998, when Fumio Enomoto attempted a refutation of the understanding on the ground that the term ‘mula, ’ semantically implying ‘the origin, or the orthodoxy, of all denominations, ’ is not to be regarded as a term of qualification indicating a different sect from Sarvastivadin, and offered the conclusion that Mulasarvastivadin is nothing other than Sarvasitvadin.His argument, clear and accurate in the comprehension of the use of the term ‘mula’ in relevant texts, is still in need of re-examination. The examples afforded by Enomoto merely show that those who follow the compilers of the Mulasarvasivada-vinaya, e. g. Sakyaprabha and Yijing, are in full support of Enomoto in the apprehension of term ‘mula, ’ but they do not tell us anything of the fact that the compilers of a different text belonging to the Sarvastivadins, the Shisong lu, for example, regard their own sect as identical with Mulasarvastivadin. On the contrary, the explicit statement by Yijing of the fact that the Shisong lu does not belong to Mulasarvastivadadins adamantly insists on the need to distinguish between these two lines of compilers.For differentiating several groups associated with the Sarvastivadins, the name ‘Mulasarvastivadin, ’ applied at present exclusively to the group of compilers of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya, has no room for confusion, whereas the term ‘Sarvastivadin, ’ applicable by right to the compilers of all the relevant texts, is misleading if it is to be applied in fact to a specific group, such as the compilers of the Shisong lu. Current studies on the vinayas suggesting the possibility of the existence of different groups of Sarvastivadin must be taken into account: it is the use of ‘Sarvastivadin, ’ not that of ‘Mulasarvastivadin, ’ that should be subject to careful reconsideration.