俱舍論記 18.10

18.10

「論曰至行蘊所攝」者，釋上三句出僧破體，以不相應中不和合為性。問：不和合性以何為體？古德空法師解云：「不和合性以聖法上非得為體，由此起故不得入聖。雖異生性先於聖法亦有非得，容得入聖。」空法師意說：無漏八正是和合體，以是聖僧和合德故。若能破此，名破法輪僧。而諸論但言破凡僧者，破有近、遠。由近破凡事和合僧故不得入聖，遠破聖僧，是故聖僧是正所破。由破此重，獲無間罪。難云：諸論但言破凡非聖。而言破聖，與論相違。夫論破僧，破和合性。若得聖已即不可破，若未得聖何所破耶？此即違理。今解云：不和合性以和合上非得為體。謂僧未破有和合性，同共和合許有聖道，僧由有此和合性故容得入聖。若僧被破，捨和合性、有不和合性起，由彼破此和合性故不得入聖，故成無間。既不成就彼和合性，即以和合體上非得為不和合性。問：破僧不和合，非得以為體。亦可僧和合，以彼得為體。解云：諸法未必皆相翻立，如異生性以非得為體，聖性非唯以得為體。問：破法輪僧、破羯磨僧，為體同不？古德休法師解云：「破僧體有二種：若破法輪僧，以非擇滅為體。若破羯磨僧，以不和合為體。法輪僧上無有和合作羯磨事，唯有緣差不生法故，所以非擇滅為體。羯磨僧有和合作羯磨事，後被破已，由捨和合故，以不和合為體。」難云：若說破羯磨僧以不和合為性，此亦無違。若言破法輪僧以非擇滅為體，此即不然。諸論皆說所破僧體不和合性。言破法輪非擇滅性，豈不相違？若言論據羯磨僧說。不爾，論據法輪僧故。又空法師意解：若破法輪僧，以法輪理和合上非得為體。若破羯磨僧，以羯磨事和合上非得為體。難云：總言非得，義亦不違。若言以彼聖法非得為破法輪僧體，此即不然，准前破故。今解云：兩種破僧不和合性，皆以和合性上非得為體。若破法輪僧，以法輪和合上非得為性。若破羯磨僧，以羯磨和合上非得為性。

Regarding "The commentary says: ... it is subsumed under the skandha of formations": this explains the first three lines and identifies the entity of schism, taking disharmony (asāmagrī) among the non-associated [formations] as its nature. Question: What is the entity of the nature of disharmony? The ancient worthy Dharma Master Kong explained: "The nature of disharmony takes non-acquisition (aprāpti) regarding noble dharmas as its entity; because this arises, one cannot enter the noble state. Although the nature of an ordinary being (pṛthagjanatva) also previously involves non-acquisition regarding noble dharmas, one still has the capacity to enter the noble state." Dharma Master Kong's intention is to say: the eightfold noble [path] free of outflows is the entity of harmony, because it is the harmonious virtue of the noble Saṃgha. If one can split this, it is named a schism of the wheel of Dharma. While the various treatises only speak of splitting the ordinary Saṃgha, schism has proximate and remote aspects. Through proximately splitting the ordinary Saṃgha harmonious in practical matters, one cannot enter the noble state; remotely it splits the noble Saṃgha, and therefore the noble Saṃgha is the primary object of the schism. Because splitting this is grave, one incurs the uninterrupted sin. An objection is raised: The treatises only speak of splitting the ordinary, not the noble. To say it splits the noble contradicts the treatises. When treatises discuss schism, it is breaking the nature of harmony. If nobility has already been attained, it cannot be broken; if nobility has not yet been attained, what is there to break? This contradicts reason. Now it is explained: the nature of disharmony takes non-acquisition regarding harmony as its entity. That is, before the Saṃgha is broken, it possesses the nature of harmony; being mutually harmonious, the noble path is admitted to be possible, and because the Saṃgha possesses this nature of harmony, it is capable of entering nobility. If the Saṃgha is split, it relinquishes the nature of harmony and the nature of disharmony arises; because that [person] destroys this nature of harmony, they cannot enter nobility, hence constituting an uninterrupted [offense]. Since they do not possess that nature of harmony, non-acquisition regarding the entity of harmony is taken as the nature of disharmony. Question: If the disharmony of schism takes non-acquisition as its entity, could harmony of the Saṃgha also take acquisition as its entity? The explanation says: dharmas are not necessarily established by mutual opposition; for instance, the nature of an ordinary being takes non-acquisition as its entity, yet the nature of a noble one does not take solely acquisition as its entity. Question: Are the entities of schism of the wheel of Dharma (cakra-bheda) and schism of monastic proceedings (karma-bheda) identical or not? The ancient worthy Dharma Master Xiu explained: "The entity of schism is of two kinds: schism of the wheel of Dharma takes uncalculated cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as its entity. Schism of monastic proceedings takes disharmony as its entity. Within the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma, there is no harmony in performing formal acts (karma); there is only the non-arising of dharmas due to deficient conditions, which is why it takes uncalculated cessation as its entity. The Saṃgha of monastic proceedings possesses harmony in performing formal acts; later, when split, due to relinquishing harmony, it takes disharmony as its entity." An objection is raised: If one says schism of monastic proceedings has disharmony as its nature, there is no contradiction here either. But if one says schism of the wheel of Dharma takes uncalculated cessation as its entity, this is incorrect. All treatises state that the entity of the split Saṃgha is the nature of disharmony. To say that splitting the wheel of Dharma is the nature of uncalculated cessation—how could that not be contradictory? If one says the treatises speak based on the Saṃgha of monastic proceedings, this is not so, for the treatises speak based on the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong's intended interpretation was: schism of the wheel of Dharma takes non-acquisition regarding the harmony in principle of the wheel of Dharma as its entity; schism of monastic proceedings takes non-acquisition regarding the harmony in practical matters of formal acts as its entity. An objection is raised: To speak generally of non-acquisition does not contradict the meaning. But to say that the non-acquisition of those noble dharmas is the entity of the schism of the wheel of Dharma is incorrect, refuted as above. Now it is explained: the nature of disharmony in both kinds of schism takes non-acquisition regarding the nature of harmony as its entity. Schism of the wheel of Dharma takes non-acquisition regarding harmony in the wheel of Dharma as its nature; schism of monastic proceedings takes non-acquisition regarding harmony in formal acts as its nature.