Is it on the website? And other question to @sujato Bhante . It’s seems hard to accept that Mahasingka is a early group Vinaya. Because the Theravada says that the Great Council made a Vinaya that looks old. And I read that there is two Vinaya of them and that one is a later one and corrupt maybe even with Chinese modifications. The Dīpavaṃsa is the one that say they made a Vinaya that looks old. If that was the case did this was a subject of investigation in any study? Because what if it’s true? Because the earliest inscription of them mentions Sarvāstivāda going to teach them the truth. Doesn’t that sound as if they maybe had things wrong? Or it can be also that it was a group created at 1 council but not in circles of the real disciples of Buddha. It’s like a group of converts not fully understanding the Dhamma.
You may be interested in my Sects & Sectarianism, which discusses some of these points. Some of the appendices go in more detail.
But in brief: All Vinayas include earlier and later material, and were composed over the same general period of time. The patimokkhas are unquestionably among the earliest Vinaya material, so any historical study of the Vinaya should start there.
However, if we are to distinguish them by date, generally speaking the Pali Vinaya in most respects seems at least as early if not earlier than other extant Vinayas. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no reason to believe the Mahasanghika Vinaya is especially early, and many reasons to think it is late.
I did read some chapter of your book Bhante . I really agree that probably Theravāda after become another sect. Will read some more thank you.