Vinaya Essentials from the Four-Part Vinaya (四分律拾毗尼義鈔)

I will outline the meaning of schism in the Sangha briefly in five sections.

The first section on the distinct nature of schism in the Sangha. Some explain it in terms of the Three Jewels, some in terms of ordinary beings and noble ones, and some in terms of stages, which are three: first, the outer ordinary being, a nominal monk who has only outward deportment but no real virtue, hence called a "nominal monk"; second, the inner ordinary being, the harmonious Sangha who understands principles and is free from conflict, hence called "harmonious"; third, the true Sangha who clearly understands principles, hence called "true." Some explain it in terms of function, which are four. Now, to be concise, we divide it into two in terms of superior and inferior, because the karma-procedure Dharma-wheel has differences. This karma-procedure Sangha, because it has no superior virtue to manifest, is named according to its outward trace. The Dharma-wheel has two aspects: first, in terms of conditions, the wheel is explained as the Tathagata's true teaching, which can express the wheel-practice and give rise to wheel-understanding, hence called a wheel; second, in terms of essence and understanding, the wheel is the uncontaminated insight into emptiness, which transforms ordinary beings into noble ones, hence called a wheel. According to the Four-Part Vinaya, one must take both principle and practice into account; only when these two are divided does the karma of schism come about. Because it is the Sangha, there is practical harmony; because it is the Jewel, there is principled harmony. Once these two harmonies are broken, the Dharma also becomes different. Therefore the Abhidharma says: "To abandon the Eightfold Path and teach another path is the wheel being broken." Within one boundary, two communities each separately perform the Pravāraṇā and karma-procedure—this is the Sangha being broken. Also, according to the Four-Part Vinaya, there are also two harmonies. First, the practice-wheel: because the Buddha taught the four reliances, the group of five heretics lost their shared practice, and this is called breaking the practice-wheel. Therefore the Four-Part Vinaya says: "The Sangha is broken by two matters—false speech and similar speech." If one breaks the Dharma of the community but does not take the five dharmas as the means of breaking, and if losing understanding is called breaking, then the five hundred monks who received conversion and lost understanding would be breaking the Sangha—why wait for Gayā? This is precisely breaking the practice. As for the community-Dharma-wheel: originally it was one harmony, but now it divides into two separate groups; reciting the precepts and performing karma-procedure is called breaking. Therefore the Four-Part Vinaya says: "The Sangha is broken by two matters—performing karma-procedure and accepting." The essentials of the Śāriputra Sutra from beginning to end require both parties before the karma of schism is accomplished. If we speak in terms of reality, the practice-Dharma is a cause for completing the Sangha; because it breaks the Dharma of the karma-wheel house, it is called breaking—there is no separate Dharma-wheel Sangha to be broken. The karma-procedure is also a Dharma for governing the community and a cause for completing the Sangha; because it breaks the Dharma of the karma-procedure Sangha house, it is called breaking. It does not mean breaking the karma-procedure Sangha itself. The above are all explained in terms of practical matters concerning the breaking. The Abhidharma says: "Non-form and non-mind are the essence." Now the Vinaya masters analyze that the Sangha is a nominal designation, gathering four to form the Sangha; outside the four there is no separate essence, and they point to the four persons as the essence. Therefore the Four-Part Vinaya says: "The Sangha means four persons, more than four persons, and so on."

Now, on the second interpretation regarding breaking the Dharma-wheel: if we ask how the breaking of the Dharma-wheel is explained, there are only three ways. What are the three interpretations of "breaking"?

It refers to the Eightfold Path, which is regarded as the wheel. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood—these three belong to the category of Precepts and form the hub. Right View and Right Thought—these two belong to the category of Wisdom and form the spokes. Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration—these two belong to the category of Concentration and form the rim. Right Effort belongs to the category of Diligence and is the one who turns the wheel. These four together make up one vehicle capable of crushing birth and death, and so it is called the wheel.

Now, if we take practice as the essence of the wheel, there are three kinds: first, what one ought to attain but does not attain—this is explained as "breaking." Second, losing the attainment—this is explained as "breaking."

Question: If that is so, then I should also take attainment to explain "harmony." Why then does the Four-Part Vinaya say that "harmonious" refers to one karma-procedure and so on, up to more than four people?

Second rebuttal: This is difficult to answer. Let us explain: the earlier reference to karma-procedures and so on is still spoken from the perspective of the teaching, clarifying "breaking" and "attainment." But the one who truly attains harmony through principle and realizes the truth is called a harmonious Sangha.

The three aspects of breaking are explained as breaking: Devadatta and his four companions are the ones who break; the five hundred are those who are broken.

Question: If that is so, why does the Four-Part Vinaya say that "companions and faction" means four or more who assist as companions and faction, even countless numbers? Now if you take the five hundred as the ones broken, then "assisting companions and faction" contradicts the Vinaya.

Answer: If they break the practices, the five are the breakers and the five hundred are the broken.

Question: If that is so, why is it said they incur a transgression requiring confession? Answer: They incur the transgression of breaking by themselves. This is the second point. Because the Four-Part Vinaya says that confession is contrary to Ananda's counsel. If they break the communal procedures, then the five hundred are also breakers, because they jointly with others perform illegal karma-procedures, and they are also the broken because they retain their original name.

If we speak from the perspective of the teaching Dharma: originally one, now divided—therefore it is called breaking. Breaking has three aspects: first, the chief breaker—Devadatta; second, companion breakers—the four companions; third, assisting breakers—the five hundred. These three types of people are the breakers; the Sangha is what is broken. Why? Before the Sangha was broken, they were one harmonious assembly with the Buddha and were not called "broken." Dividing into two groups means originally one, now separate—this is called breaking.

As the Nasenaya says: When Devadatta was about to destroy the Sangha, it was exactly mealtime. It is the constant custom of all Buddhas that if the Sangha is broken at mealtime, by evening they reunite. Also the Five-Part Vinaya says: At the recitation of the precepts on the fifteenth day, Devadatta proclaimed the five rules. The five hundred took the tally sticks; only Ananda and the stream-enterers did not take them. At that time, Shariputra and Maudgalyayana and the great arhats were all absent from the assembly. So he led the five hundred away to recite the precepts separately. This is explained in detail in that text.

The thirty-second: refuting the claim that women have separate natures. If their natures were separate, there would be nine kinds. First, regarding monks: since monks differ from nuns, and the karma ritual also extends to nuns. As for the wheel of Dharma, laypeople are not included, for laypeople provide no grounds for confusion. Within the Path, only those who are fully equipped obtain the Dharma in full.

Question: If we follow the Nirvana Sutra, which says that in Jambudvipa, a woman manifested a female body and attained Buddhahood, and all who saw her said it was most wondrous—as fully explained in that sutra—then how is it that the Five-Part Vinaya states that women have five obstacles and cannot become Shakra, Mara, Brahma, a wheel-turning king, or the Dharma King of the three realms? Does this not refute the wheel of Dharma?

Answer: What I now say is this: she did not attain Shakyamuni's own reward-body as a man awakening to the path. This is a provisional teaching about the past, and should be understood in that same way as explained there. Moreover, when it says a woman attains Buddhahood—when a woman cultivates the path and later attains Buddhahood, that is the male fruit; but for the sake of the causal stage, she is still named by the causal identity.

The second type is a false Buddha who is different: he breaks the karma ritual but does not claim himself to be a Buddha, nor does he conduct the karma ritual. Therefore, the Dharma-wheel Sangha requires one person who claims himself to be a Buddha, for the Buddha holds the Dharma wheel. That is why Devadatta, who also had thirty marks, was called a Buddha.

Third, regarding the difference in number: The meaning is as explained in the treatise. To speak in terms of ultimate reality, among those being divided there is also the Tathagata, so there are five persons. Since each side has five, that makes ten persons. Yet the text says nine because the Buddha does not belong to the Sangha, and since we are speaking of creating a schism in the Sangha, the Buddha is omitted.

Question: If the Buddha is not included in the Sangha, then Devadatta — being an false Buddha — is also not included in the Sangha, and there should only be eight persons.

Answer: The Tathagata, as the jewel of Buddhahood, is not false or deceptive in essence, so he is not included in the Sangha. Devadatta, who called himself a Buddha, is not truly a Buddha in essence, so he is counted together, making nine in total.

Another explanation: The Tathagata is present in the assembly and would never cause a schism, because of his majestic power he cannot be spoken of in that way. As for Devadatta, if there were no schism in the Sangha, how could the example not be established?

Fourth, regarding the distinction of boundaries: To break the karma-monks, the ritual action must be performed within the monastic boundary and does not extend beyond it. To break the Dharma-wheel monks, the monks who do the breaking must carry out the ritual action within the boundary, while those who are broken may be both inside and outside, because they all receive the false teaching. Another interpretation: within the same boundary, they receive the false teaching from outside monks who come to the boundary from beyond and receive the false teaching, so it extends both inside and outside. Here, breaking the communal Dharma is always within the boundary. If one breaks the practice-Dharma, it extends both inside and outside. Therefore, at Rajagaha, when the five practices were proclaimed, it was Devadatta doing so, and it went as far as the great thousandfold world, so the Dharma-wheel did not turn. Thus we know that breaking the practice-Dharma extends both inside and outside the boundary.

Question: When an unwholesome earth deity proclaimed the five practices, three thousand were lost in understanding. If a wholesome earth deity proclaimed the Four Noble Truths and they attained the path, would the six heavens also attain the path?

Answer: The wholesome is difficult and the unwholesome is easy; they should not be conflated.

Question: Earlier it was said that those who can break the monks must be within the boundary. To accomplish the breaking of the Dharma-wheel, ritual action is required. But if there is only breaking of the karma-monks, how can there also be breaking of the Dharma-wheel monks?

Answer: Although ritual action is required, it does not require breaking the karma-monks. Therefore there are two distinctions. What are they? If one does not first perform the ritual action, one cannot accomplish the counter-breaking of the Tathagata's communal Dharma. It is essential to break both the practice and the communal wheels before it is fully accomplished. Therefore ritual action is required.

The question of the Sangha of monks who break karmic rites: when worldly and ultimate Sangha are both broken, does it mean the noble ones should experience disturbance and break the Dharma-wheel Sangha? Only worldly monks are broken; the ultimate Sangha understands and penetrates false and correct views. Thus here the Mixed Mind commentary offers one interpretation: those from the stage of inner ordinary beings downward are called worldly Sangha. Regarding their own share they do not regress; regarding others' share and superior progress they ought to attain but do not, hence called "broken." From the stage of seeing the truth onward they are called ultimate Sangha. Whether regarding self or others together, they cannot be broken.

Question: If inner ordinary beings' other-share non-attainment is called "broken," why does the scripture say, "I observe no one among humans and gods who breaks the harmonious Sangha"? One interpretation: the scripture explains from the perspective of what has already been attained; the treatise explains from the perspective of what has not yet been attained. Scripture and treatise speak from different angles, so there is no contradiction. Another interpretation: the teachings of ordinary beings have two aspects. First, the secret teachings of the Great Vehicle—the scripture says there is no breaking. Second, the manifest breaking shown in the Small Vehicle—the treatise says there is breaking.

Another interpretation: the two minds of warmth and summit are called worldly Sangha—their own share is not lost, but their other share can be broken. From the stage of patience onward they are called ultimate Sangha—self and others are both indestructible. According to the Completion of Reality treatise: from dry wisdom downward is called worldly Sangha—their own share is not broken. From the stage of birth-emptiness onward, self and others are both indestructible. Thus that treatise says: ordinary beings are frivolous and restless, therefore easily broken. If one has attained even worldly emptiness and non-self mind, one still cannot be broken—how much less so the undefiled!

Another interpretation: if we consider what is broken by the wheel of practice, only ordinary beings are broken, because they must endure. Therefore what the collective Dharma breaks extends through both ordinary and noble. Since it is not due to patience—regarding ordinary beings there are two types. First, those of fixed capacity: at that time they are certain to hear the Dharma-wheel and attain realization; hearing and reflection cannot possibly be broken. Second, those of unfixed capacity: suppose there are no evil superior conditions; at that time they should hear and must attain understanding—this is precisely what Devadatta broke.

Question: If breaking ordinary monks means "ought to attain but do not," and this is called breaking the Dharma-wheel Sangha—then if I kill a non-returner, making them unable to attain arhatship in the final mind of the vajra, there should be the offense of killing an arhat.

Answer: Both non-returners and arhats can be killed. Why must one kill a non-returner to prevent them from attaining arhatship? By the conclusive superior karma of killing, one commits the irreparable offense of killing an arhat. This is because the Sangha of realization can never be broken. Therefore, regarding those who can be broken, one breaks them and causes them not to attain—establishing the irreparable offense of breaking the wheel.

One interpretation: here it is clarified that breaking the Sangha directly obstructs the understanding of principle, preventing meeting with the noble. Therefore breaking ordinary beings conclusively establishes the offense. Killing inherently does not obstruct understanding—though one kills a non-returner, the vajra mind does not obstruct arhat understanding.

Another interpretation: the Three Jewels share a single head and have the meaning of simultaneous destruction. Though one kills a non-returner, it does not simultaneously destroy arhatship, nor is it shared—so they do not mutually accomplish. For example, another interpretation: the single thought of vajra cannot be destroyed—this is stated hypothetically.

Question: If so, should offerings to noble and ordinary alike—regarding the noble—obtain merit or not? Answer: They do not. Question: If so, do they not incur the offense of breaking the noble? Answer: It is not the same. The understanding of the already-attained noble cannot be broken. Therefore, regarding "ought to attain but do not," both ordinary and noble Sangha can be offered to. Thus there is no need to offer to ordinary beings to obtain the merit of the noble.

The sixth point: even when directions and regions differ, the reasoning remains the same as explained above.

The seventh point concerns differences in time. The karma ritual extends throughout the final age, while the Dharma-wheel exists during the Buddha's presence — these six times are not incompatible, as the treatises also explain. Question: In the six times, when we speak of "before and after," is this in relation to the schism, making a before and after? Since there is no second schism, this was the old interpretation. Regarding the eight difficulties, should the Buddha's before and after be divided into two difficulties? Answer: Here we base it on the time of the schism and regard it in terms of before and after; that [other view] regards the two Buddhas speaking together in between.

The eighth point, regarding the differences in offenses:

One who causes a schism in the monastic community through an invalid act commits a lighter offense of thullaccaya, which can be confessed, and it is not an anantarya offense—because here it is a case of the orthodox side disrupting the orthodox side, so it is only a schism of the Sangha. But one who causes a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha commits thullaccaya, and the substance of this offense is grave; it is an anantarya offense and cannot be confessed—because it is the heterodox side disrupting the orthodox side, and it completely destroys the Three Treasures.

Question: Earlier, Devadatta's schism of the Sangha and the Dharma-wheel obstructed the earlier entry into the understanding of principle. Now two offenses are concluded [for him]—why is that not answered?

Answer: These two aspects are mutually dependent. If there were no Sangha, the Dharma-wheel would not turn; if the Dharma-wheel does not turn, the Sangha gains no benefit. Cutting off the Dharma-wheel also causes the loss of understanding of principle. Therefore, in terms of cutting off the Dharma and harming the Sangha, it is fitting to conclude a single offense.

Question: Devadatta broke apart individual monks but did not [thereby] cut off their understanding of principle. Yet if the offense is not attributed to the individuals but is summed up against the Sangha, what then?

Answer: According to Devadatta's original intention, he precisely wished to cause a schism in the Sangha. If he had only got three people, that was not his original aim; his intention would not be fulfilled, and no anantarya offense would be established. [But] when he breaks away four or more, his intention is fulfilled, and the anantarya offense is established.

Another explanation: If these four hear and reflect [on the Dharma] but are not broken apart by him, they are gathered together and become the Sangha-Treasure, benefiting the world. But because he breaks their understanding of principle, there is nothing to gather together, and the meaning of the Sangha-Treasure benefiting the world is lost. Therefore, in terms of harming individuals but with reference to the Sangha, the offense is incurred.

Question: If breaking apart individuals is [reckoned as] a Sangha-schism offense when summed up against the Sangha, then if I kill four individual people, should that also be summed up against the Sangha as one offense?

Answer: It is not analogous. In killing, the lives [of the individuals] are distinct, so offenses are reckoned separately. In schism, the reckoning is based on the intention, and also because it is one Dharma simultaneous [with the Sangha], so the offense has its measure of lesser or greater.

The ninth category, different karmic retribution, concerns those who split the monastic community. One who breaks the karmic assembly falls into the Avici Hell for one kalpa. As for one who breaks the Dharma-wheel assembly, the retribution is as described in the treatises.

At the time of the fourth schism, Devadatta first established a false Three Refuges and was able to create the cause for schism, but the schism was not yet complete. So the monks reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha said, "Do not cause a schism."

The Tathagata's Dharma briefly has two kinds: first, the practice-based teachings, which are the Four Reliances and the Eightfold Path; second, the assembly-based practices, which are the recitation of the precepts and the karmic procedures.

Now Devadatta, imitating the Buddha, also taught two kinds of reliance: first, he established five false practices as the practice teachings, opposing the Tathagata's Eightfold Path and Four Reliances; second, he established false karmic procedures as the assembly practices, opposing the Tathagata's true assembly practices.

As for the location: at Rajagaha, the five practices were accepted and the schism in practice teachings began. Later, at Gaya, the karmic procedures and recitation of precepts opposed the assembly practices, and only then was the schism complete, with the false teachings fully established. Therefore, the Mahasanghika Vinaya says: Devadatta went toward Gaya, and the Buddha sent Ananda to call him back. He said to Ananda, "I will not go. From today onward, I will not participate in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha affairs—the fortnightly recitation, the invitation, the recitation of precepts, and so on. Whether I study or not, I will follow my own will."

Ananda thought, "This is a harmful matter. If this evil rumor spreads, will it not destroy the Sangha?"

After calling him back a second time, the six groups of monks said to one another, "The ascetic Gautama will surely call us a third time. Let us each make up our minds and perform the karmic procedure first, so that fame will spread to future generations." Then the fortnightly recitation was completed. By the time of the third call, the recitation of precepts was already finished. The Buddha himself heard of this and spoke the verse about purity like the full moon, telling Ananda, "The non-Dharma assembly has already performed the fortnightly recitation. Those who follow the Dharma should perform the fortnightly recitation themselves."

By this evidence, the schism occurred at Gaya.

Question: If Devadatta was called but did not come, and not all were assembled, and he acted separately, would he not still commit an offense? With four companions sharing the Sangha, he would not commit the grave offense. If not called, he should commit a separate offense. Why is it said he did not commit an offense?

Answer: Because it is not a heavy offense, it is simply not an offense. But after one schism, the false and true are no longer counted together, and each performing their own procedures is no obstacle. Therefore it is said there is no offense.

Question: Since Devadatta's practice teachings differed from the true ones, what about the assembly practices?

Answer: The assembly practices also differed. Therefore the Mahasanghika Vinaya says: Devadatta wished to cause a schism. What was not prohibited in the previous procedures—the four parajikas and so on, up to the settlement of disputes according to the Dharma—he prohibited, and what was prohibited he did not prohibit. Furthermore, the seven karmic procedures were opened or restricted differently, and practices for monastics and laypeople differed. He made new interpretations of the nine divisions of scripture, with different meanings and flavors, and different wording, reciting and teaching them himself.

Since people knew the assembly practices differed, how were the karmic procedures different? Perhaps they performed many announcements without karmic procedures, or performed karmic procedures without announcements, or performed karmic procedures first and announcements afterward, or simply made single announcements. Or they added or subtracted words, reversed the beginning and end—these are called false karmic procedures.

If the monks believed and accepted these two false teachings, only then was the schism fully accomplished and the false teachings complete, and only then did it become a grave offense.