This thesis is concerned with one chapter of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavastu namely Poṣadhasthāpanavastu. There are four different sections of this thesis: the diplomatic edition of Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya Poṣadhasthāpanavastu, the Tibetan comparative edition, a translation, and an analysis in comparison with the Pāli Khandhaka. The diplomatic Edition of MSVP is made based on the Gilgit manuscript dated around seventh to tenth century CE. There are three different xylographs compared of Tibetan poṣadhasthāpanavastu, i.e., Derge, Lhasa and sTog. The comparison between MSVP and Pākh.Kd made clear that there are some significant differences in the two parts that I have inspected in detail. Regarding the uddāna, I found the reason why they put two uddāna in MSVP. The uddāna used by Mūlasarvāstivādin are very different from that of Pāli tradition. It might well be that Mūlasarvāstivādin uddāna served as a reference to the unabridged text, enabling the readers to find that sūtra, in contrast to the Pāli tradition that uses uddāna for the sake of reciting and memorizing. As for the grounds of suspension, I found that both traditions base their grounds of accusation with the āpatti prescribed in the vinaya and the vipatti. These vinaya rules are also connected and can be grouped into those vipattis too. However, there are two vipattis that need to take into account differently that is to say, śīlavipatti and dṛṣṭivipatti. Practically, only śīlavipatti seems to be the core grounds of suspension; nonetheless, it is not likely we will have the suspension of uposatha/poṣadha nowadays.