大乘義章 7.35

7.35

第一門中釋名辨相。言五逆者，謂殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血、破和合僧。此之五種，經名為逆，亦名無間。何故此五偏名為逆？以其背恩違福田故。殺父殺母背恩故逆、餘三違於福田故逆：殺阿羅漢、破和合僧、違僧福田；出佛身血、違佛福田。問曰：三寶皆是福田，以何義故不說違法？釋言：謗法重於五逆，是故不入五逆罪中，其猶五逆不入四重。此五何故名無間業？釋有四義：一趣果無間故曰無間。故《成實》言「捨此身已，次身即受，故名無間。」二受苦無間。五逆之罪生阿鼻獄，一劫之中苦苦相續無有樂間，因從果稱，名無間業。三壽命無間。五逆之罪生阿鼻獄，一劫之中壽命無絕，因從果因名為無間。四身形無間。五逆之罪生阿鼻獄，阿鼻地獄縱曠八萬四千由旬，一人入中身亦遍滿，一切人入身亦遍滿，不相障礙，因從果號，名曰無間。名義如是。次辨其相。前之四種，相顯可知。破僧難識，今宜廣辨破僧之義。汎釋有二：一破羯磨僧、二破法輪僧。於中略以六句分別：一明破法、二明破人、三明破時、四明破處、五明破相、六明破性。言破法者，法有二種：一邪、二正，邪為能破、正為所破。就正法中，汎釋有三：一出家眾法，謂百一羯磨。出家之者，詳崇不乖方得成僧，若不如是不名為僧，是故名為出家眾法。二出家行法，所謂四依：一盡形壽樹下常坐、二盡形壽著糞掃衣、三盡形乞食、四盡形有病服陳棄藥。共行此法方名出家方名為僧，若不行此不名為僧，是故名為出家行法。三隨行別法，所謂禮拜學問誦經坐禪念定，乃至修習無漏聖慧。如是一切隨人異習，非出家者同崇之法，是故名為隨行別法。三中前二是其僧法，出家之行；後之一種道俗通行，不止出家，不名僧法。就僧法中，初者是其羯磨僧法，第二是其法輪僧法。是僧者是，其所破非。僧法者，非是所破。所破如是。何者能破？破羯磨中更無別法，破法輪僧用於五邪：一者乞食、二者糞掃衣、三樹下坐、四不食酥鹽、五不食魚肉。前三相似，後二妄語。以此五種翻違正法，故名為破。破法如是。次辨破人。於中有三：一明所破、二明能破、三就能所辨定多少。就所破中有其二種：一羯磨僧。出家之中具戒比丘四人已上，不簡凡聖，在一界內，於彼百一羯磨之法同遵不乖，名羯磨僧。二法輪僧。出家之士，不簡凡聖，同行如來四依正法，和而不乖，名法輪僧。有人說言：四真諦者是其法輪，會諦之人名法輪僧。然彼四諦，乃是隨人別行法中法輪之義，非僧法中戒僧法輪。若當四諦是法輪者，調達破僧，應說五諦翻違四諦，以說五邪翻四依故。明知四依是其法輪。若言聖人會諦之者是法輪僧，在家聖人應名為僧。彼非僧故，明知不以會諦之人為法輪僧。良以世人所取謬濫，今以四句辨之令異。辨相云何？一者法輪而非無漏，謂出家凡夫奉行四依故名法輪，未證聖道故非無漏。二者無漏而非法輪，謂在家聖人內有聖解故名無漏，不行四依故非法輪。三者無漏亦是法輪，謂出家聖人內有聖解故曰無漏，奉行四依故名法輪。四非無漏亦非法輪，謂在家凡夫內無聖解故非無漏，不行四依故非法輪。以此辨之，相別可知。此二僧中，破羯磨僧通破凡聖，凡僧乖聖亦名破故。破法輪僧，在凡非聖，聖信成就不可壞故。所破如是。次辨能破。破羯磨僧，見愛俱能；破法輪僧，局在見行，以利根人方能破故。又破羯磨，通其淨行毀禁之人，除犯重者皆能破之；破法輪僧局在清淨，以毀禁人，人不信故不能破僧。故《雜心》云「久清淨人乃能破僧。」能破如是。次就能破所破之人辨定多少。破羯磨僧，於一界內極少八人得成破僧，彼此成眾，別作法故。破法輪僧，於一界內極少九人，方得成破。何故須九？正眾四人是其所破，邪眾五人是其能破，故須九也。邪眾之中何故須五？調達一人自稱為佛，餘四為眾，故須五也。問曰：邪中有佛有眾故須五者，正中亦有佛之與眾，何不說十乃說九乎？釋言：正中雖復有佛，佛非僧攝，是故不論。邪中調達雖自稱佛，體實是僧，故說為五。又正破時，佛不在眾；若佛在眾，調達比丘無有威德不能破僧，故不論佛。問曰：破彼羯磨僧時，兩眾異處別作羯磨，故須彼此並皆成眾。破法輪者，但破行法不關眾事，何須彼此皆成眾乎？釋言：有以。破法輪者，必須羯磨和眾忍可邪法方行，故須彼此皆成眾矣。破人如是。次辨破時。於中有二：一明破時、二明破竟久近之時。正破時者，破羯磨僧時節寬長，從佛在世乃至法末皆得破之。破法輪僧時節短促，唯佛在世，不通末代。故《雜心》云「不結界前後，牟尼般涅槃，瘜肉未出時，及無第一雙，於此六時中，則無破法輪。」不結界一、破僧前二、破僧後三、牟尼涅槃四、瘜肉未出五、無第一雙六，此六時中無破法輪。不結界者，破法輪時必依羯磨，羯磨依界，故不結界不得破僧。言前後者，彼破僧前及破僧後，此二時中眾僧一味不可破壞，故無破僧。已涅槃者，佛涅槃後，無正師故亦無邪師，故無破僧。所言瘜肉未出時者，調達惡人，起於惡戒惡見之患，如瘡瘜肉，此未出時亦無破僧。無第一雙，舍利、目連此之二人，弟子中標名第一雙，此未有時則無破僧。何故如是？調達見佛有勝弟子，學佛別蓄勝弟子故。又此二人能和合僧，故有此雙，方起破僧。蓋乃是其佛力、法力、一切眾生善根之力，故使然矣。問曰：世尊未出之時亦無破僧，何故不論？釋言：六時不破僧者，有僧時說。佛未出時，本未有僧，知後就何說為不破？是以不論。以此六時不破僧故，名為短促。問曰：破僧前後二時，一王舍城調達比丘，宣說五邪，行籌和眾，五百新學受籌之時；二在伽耶，邪正兩眾別作法時。此二時中，何時正破？釋言：二時俱有破義。王舍行籌破行法時，伽耶布薩破眾法時，是故二時皆名破僧。問曰：伽耶別作布薩，乃破眾法，不關行儀。何故名為破法輪乎？彼作羯磨，忍邪必定，故亦名為破法輪矣。此正破時，破竟久近還復和合，如經中說「不經一宿，僧還和合。」何因故和？由舍利弗及目連故。目連以通，令其調達眠而不覺；又現勝通，化彼新學五百比丘，令其生信。舍利辨說，令其生解，還來歸正。故得和合。破時如是。次辨破處。如論中說「破羯磨僧在三天下，除欝單越，彼無僧故。破法輪僧，唯在閻浮，不在餘方。」何故如是？論自釋言「此有正道故有邪道，此有正師故有邪師，故在閻浮。」又破羯磨局在界內，所損之處亦在界內。破法輪者，破處局在一界之內，所損遍滿三千世界。故律經言「三千世界一時之中，應學不學、應誦不誦、應習禪定不習禪定，乃至應入無漏聖道不得入之。」破處如是。次辨破相。破羯磨僧，要是大僧一界之內，下極八人分為兩眾，彼此各作如法羯磨，方名破僧。若一處作、一處不作，此直名為別眾羯磨，不成破僧。又設二處並作羯磨，若當作其非法羯磨以法羯磨，皆不成破，以其所作非僧法故。破法輪者，亦是出家具戒之人，在一界內下極九人，正眾有四、邪眾有五，調達一人自稱大師，宣說五邪，四人忍可違背正眾，不得同崇四依之法，名破法輪。有人釋言：調達五人，化彼正眾四人從邪，方名破僧。故須九人。是義不然。化正從邪，破僧所損，非是破僧。所言破者，本是一和，今分兩和，方名破僧，與破羯磨大況相似。問曰：向前破羯磨中，兩眾皆作如法羯磨方名破僧。破法輪中，何不如是，一正一邪乃名破乎；釋言：兩異，不得相類。前破羯磨，情乖故破，非是法乖，故無別法。破法輪者，法乖故破，故立邪法翻違正軌，名為破矣。破相如是。次明破性。破僧何性？若論破罪，是其口業不善之性。若論所破，不和合性。不和性者，是四相中第四壞相，三性之中是不隱沒無記性也。破僧如是。此破僧中，破羯磨僧罪輕非逆；破法輪僧，罪重故逆。上來第一釋名辨相（此一門竟）。

The first gate explains names and distinguishes their characteristics. As for the 'five deadly sins' (ānantarya), they refer to killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an arhat, causing the blood of a Buddha to flow, and causing a schism in the Saṅgha. These five are designated in the sūtras as 'treasons' (ni), and also termed 'immediacies' (ānantarya). Why are these five exclusively named 'treasons'? Because they turn one's back on kindness and go against fields of merit. Killing father and killing mother are treason because they turn one's back on kindness. The remaining three are treason because they go against fields of merit: killing an arhat and causing a schism in the Saṅgha go against the field of merit that is the Saṅgha; causing the blood of a Buddha to flow goes against the field of merit that is the Buddha. Question: The Three Jewels are all fields of merit; on what grounds is going against the Dharma not mentioned? Answer: Slandering the Dharma is graver than the five deadly sins; hence it is not included among the five deadly sins, just as the five deadly sins are not included among the four major offences (pārājika). Why are these five called 'immediate' (anantara) karmas? The explanation has four meanings: First, immediacy in proceeding to the fruition; hence they are called 'immediate'. Thus the *Tattvasiddhi* states: 'After giving up this body, one immediately receives [the retribution] in the next body; hence it is termed immediate.' Second, immediacy in suffering pain. For the offense of the five deadly sins, one is born in the Avīci Hell, where for the duration of a kalpa pain upon pain is continuous without any interval of joy; the cause takes its name from the fruit, and it is called 'immediate karma'. Third, immediacy of lifespan. For the offense of the five deadly sins, one is born in the Avīci Hell, where throughout an entire kalpa one's lifespan never terminates; the cause is named 'immediate' after the cause of the fruition. Fourth, immediacy of bodily form. For the offense of the five deadly sins, one is born in the Avīci Hell. The Avīci Hell is eighty-four thousand yojanas in length and breadth; when one person enters it, their body fills it completely, and when all beings enter it, their bodies also fill it completely without mutual obstruction; the cause takes its designation from the fruit, and is called 'immediate'. Such are the names and meanings. Next, we distinguish their characteristics. The characteristics of the preceding four kinds are obvious and easily understood. Causing a schism in the Saṅgha is difficult to discern, so it is appropriate now to explain the meaning of schism in the Saṅgha at length. Generally explained, there are two kinds: first, schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions (karmasaṃghabheda); second, schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma (dharmacakrasaṃghabheda). Within this, we distinguish it briefly by six clauses: 1. clarifying the Dharma that is split; 2. clarifying the persons who split it; 3. clarifying the time of the split; 4. clarifying the place of the split; 5. clarifying the characteristics of the split; 6. clarifying the nature of the split. As for 'the Dharma that is split', Dharma is of two kinds: first, wrong; second, right. The wrong is that which can split, and the right is that which is split. Within the right Dharma, generally explained, there are three kinds: First, the collective Dharma of renunciants, which refers to the hundred and one karmas (ecclesiastical transactions). When those who have gone forth carefully uphold them without deviation, they thereby form a Saṅgha; if it is not so, they are not called a Saṅgha; therefore it is called the collective Dharma of renunciants. Second, the practice-Dharma of renunciants, which refers to the four reliances (niśraya): 1. dwelling constantly under trees for one's whole life; 2. wearing rag robes for one's whole life; 3. begging for food for one's whole life; 4. taking discarded medicine when sick for one's whole life. Only when one practices this Dharma together is one called a renunciant and called a Saṅgha; if one does not practice this, one is not called a Saṅgha; therefore it is called the practice-Dharma of renunciants. Third, the distinct dharmas followed according to inclination, which refer to prostrations, study and inquiry, chanting sūtras, sitting in meditation, mindfulness and samādhi, up to cultivating untainted noble wisdom. All such things are individual practices followed according to the person, not dharmas collectively revered by all renunciants; therefore they are called distinct dharmas followed according to inclination. Among the three, the first two are Saṅgha-dharmas, the practices of renunciation; the latter one is common to both the religious and secular, not restricted to renunciants, and is not called Saṅgha-dharma. Within Saṅgha-dharma, the first is the Saṅgha-dharma of monastic transactions; the second is the Saṅgha-dharma of the wheel of the Dharma. What constitutes the Saṅgha is [the person]; that which is broken is not. Saṅgha-dharma is that which is broken. Such is that which is broken. What is that which can break? In breaking monastic transactions, there is no other distinct doctrine; in breaking the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma, five wrong views are employed: 1. begging for food; 2. rag robes; 3. dwelling under trees; 4. not eating clarified butter and salt; 5. not eating fish and meat. The first three are similar [to the Buddha's discipline], while the latter two are false speech. Because these five overturn and contradict the right Dharma, it is called breaking [the wheel of Dharma]. Such is the Dharma that is broken. Next, we distinguish the persons who break it. Herein there are three: 1. clarifying those who are broken; 2. clarifying those who can break; 3. determining the number based on the agents and the objects. Regarding those who are broken, there are two kinds: First, the Saṅgha of monastic transactions. Among renunciants, four or more fully ordained bhikṣus, regardless of whether ordinary persons or noble ones, residing within a single boundary (sīmā), collectively uphold without deviation that hundred and one karmas; this is called the Saṅgha of monastic transactions. Second, the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma. Men who have gone forth, regardless of whether ordinary persons or noble ones, who together practice the Tathāgata's right Dharma of the four reliances in harmony without deviation; this is called the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma. Some say: the four noble truths are the wheel of the Dharma, and those who realize the truths are called the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma. However, those four truths are the meaning of the wheel of the Dharma within the distinct dharmas practiced according to the person, not the wheel of the Dharma of the precept Saṅgha within Saṅgha-dharma. If the four noble truths were the wheel of the Dharma, then when Devadatta split the Saṅgha, he should have preached five truths to overturn the four truths; but since he preached the five wrong tenets to overturn the four reliances, we clearly know that the four reliances are the wheel of the Dharma. If one says that noble ones who realize the truths are the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma, then householder noble ones should be called the Saṅgha. Since they are not the Saṅgha, we clearly know that those who realize the truths are not taken to be the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma. Because people in the world grasp this confusedly, we now distinguish it with four clauses to make it distinct. What are the characteristics? 1. Wheel of the Dharma but not untainted: this refers to ordinary renunciants who practice the four reliances and are therefore called the wheel of the Dharma, but because they have not yet realized the noble path, they are not untainted. 2. Untainted but not the wheel of the Dharma: this refers to householder noble ones who internally possess noble understanding and are therefore called untainted, but because they do not practice the four reliances, they are not the wheel of the Dharma. 3. Both untainted and the wheel of the Dharma: this refers to renunciant noble ones who internally possess noble understanding, hence called untainted, and who practice the four reliances, hence called the wheel of the Dharma. 4. Neither untainted nor the wheel of the Dharma: this refers to householder ordinary persons who internally lack noble understanding, hence not untainted, and do not practice the four reliances, hence not the wheel of the Dharma. By discerning it in this way, the distinct characteristics can be known. Between these two Saṅghas, schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones, for when an ordinary Saṅgha deviates from noble ones, it is also called a schism. Schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma resides among ordinary persons and not noble ones, because the faith of noble ones is perfected and cannot be destroyed. Such are those who are broken. Next, we clarify those who can break. For a schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions, both views and craving can break it; for a schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma, it is strictly confined to one who acts out of views, because only a person of sharp faculties can break it. Furthermore, a schism in monastic transactions can be caused by both those of pure conduct and those who violate the precepts; except for those who commit major offenses (pārājika), all can break it. A schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma is strictly restricted to those who are pure, because if a person violates the precepts, people will not believe them, and they cannot break the Saṅgha. Therefore the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* states: 'Only a person long pure can break the Saṅgha.' Such are those who can break. Next, we determine the number based on those who break and those who are broken. For a schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions, within a single boundary a minimum of eight persons is required to constitute a schism in the Saṅgha, because both sides form an assembly and perform transactions separately. For a schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma, within a single boundary a minimum of nine persons is required before a schism can be constituted. Why are nine needed? Four persons in the right assembly are those who are broken, and five persons in the wrong assembly are those who can break; therefore nine are required. Why are five needed in the wrong assembly? Devadatta alone proclaims himself to be the Buddha, and the remaining four form an assembly; hence five are needed. Question: If five are needed because the wrong [side] has a Buddha and an assembly, then the right [side] also has a Buddha and an assembly; why not say ten, but say nine? Answer: Although the right side also has the Buddha, the Buddha is not subsumed under the Saṅgha, and therefore is not counted. On the wrong side, although Devadatta claims to be a Buddha, his essence is actually a monk of the Saṅgha; therefore they are counted as five. Furthermore, at the very time of the split, the Buddha was not in the assembly; if the Buddha had been in the assembly, the bhikṣu Devadatta would have had no authority and could not have broken the Saṅgha; hence the Buddha is not counted. Question: When causing a schism in that Saṅgha of monastic transactions, the two assemblies perform monastic transactions separately in different places, and therefore both sides must constitute assemblies. But in breaking the wheel of the Dharma, one only breaks the practice-Dharma, which has nothing to do with collective matters; why must both sides form assemblies? Answer: There is a reason. To break the wheel of the Dharma, it is necessary to perform a monastic transaction (karman) to reach consensus and assent to the wrong doctrine before it can be practiced; therefore both sides must form assemblies. Such are the persons involved in the split. Next, we distinguish the time of the split. Herein there are two: 1. clarifying the time of the split; 2. clarifying the length of time until reconciliation after the split. As for the time of the actual split: the time frame for a schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions is broad and long, from the time the Buddha was in the world down to the end of the Dharma, it can always be broken. The time frame for a schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma is short and narrow: it occurs solely while the Buddha is in the world, and does not extend to later eras. Thus the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* states: 'Before or after marking the boundary, when the Muni has entered parinirvāṇa, when the polyp has not yet grown, and when the supreme pair is absent—during these six times, there is no breaking of the wheel of the Dharma.' 1. Not marking the boundary; 2. before the schism in the Saṅgha; 3. after the schism in the Saṅgha; 4. the Muni's nirvāṇa; 5. when the polyp has not yet grown; 6. when the supreme pair is absent. In these six times there is no breaking of the wheel of the Dharma. 'Not marking the boundary': when breaking the wheel of the Dharma, one must rely on a monastic transaction, and monastic transactions rely on a boundary; therefore, if the boundary is not marked, one cannot break the Saṅgha. 'Before and after': before that schism in the Saṅgha and after that schism in the Saṅgha; in these two times the Saṅgha is of a single flavor and cannot be broken; hence there is no schism. 'Already entered nirvāṇa': after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, because there is no true master, there is also no false master; hence there is no schism. What is called 'when the polyp has not yet grown': the evil man Devadatta developed the affliction of evil precepts and evil views, like an ulcerous polyp; before this had grown, there was also no schism. 'When the supreme pair is absent': Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, these two persons, are designated as the supreme pair among the disciples; before they existed, there was no schism. Why is it like this? Because Devadatta saw that the Buddha had superior disciples, and imitated the Buddha by separately keeping superior disciples. Moreover, these two persons were able to harmonize the Saṅgha; therefore, only when this pair existed did the schism arise. This was entirely brought about by the power of the Buddha, the power of the Dharma, and the power of the wholesome roots of all sentient beings. Question: When the World-Honoured One had not yet appeared in the world, there was also no schism in the Saṅgha; why is this not discussed? Answer: When it is said that the Saṅgha cannot be broken during six times, this is spoken when there is a Saṅgha. Before the Buddha appeared, originally there was no Saṅgha at all; with reference to what could one subsequently speak of not breaking it? Therefore it is not discussed. Because the Saṅgha cannot be broken in these six times, the time is said to be short and narrow. Question: Regarding the two times of the schism: first, in Rājagṛha when the bhikṣu Devadatta preached the five wrong tenets, distributed voting sticks (śalākā) to achieve harmony in the assembly, and the five hundred novice bhikṣus took the sticks; second, in Gayā when the wrong and right assemblies separately performed monastic rites. In which of these two times does the split actually take place? Answer: Both times possess the meaning of schism. At Rājagṛha, when distributing voting sticks, it was the time of breaking the practice-Dharma; at Gayā, during the poṣadha, it was the time of breaking the collective Dharma; therefore, both times are termed schism in the Saṅgha. Question: Separately performing the poṣadha at Gayā is merely breaking the collective Dharma, unrelated to behavioral norms. Why is it called breaking the wheel of the Dharma? Because by performing the karman, they definitively assented to the wrong doctrine, it is therefore also called breaking the wheel of the Dharma. As for the length of time until reconciliation after this actual schism: as stated in the sūtra, 'Before a single night had passed, the Saṅgha was reconciled once again.' By what cause were they reconciled? It was due to Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana. Maudgalyāyana, using his supernormal powers, caused Devadatta to sleep without waking; he also manifested superior supernormal powers to transform those five hundred novice bhikṣus, causing them to generate faith. Śāriputra used eloquent exposition to cause them to attain understanding and return to the right. Therefore they attained reconciliation. Such is the time of the split. Next, we distinguish the place of the split. As stated in the treatise: 'A schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions occurs in three continents, excluding Uttarakuru, because there is no Saṅgha there. A schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma occurs only in Jambudvīpa, not in other regions.' Why is this so? The treatise itself explains: 'Because this [continent] has the right path, it has the wrong path; because this [continent] has the true teacher, it has the false teacher; therefore it is in Jambudvīpa.' Furthermore, a schism in monastic transactions is confined within the boundary, and the harm done is also within the boundary. For breaking the wheel of the Dharma, the place of the split is confined within a single boundary, but the harm done fills the trichiliocosm. Therefore the Vinaya sūtra states: 'At the same moment in the trichiliocosm, those who ought to learn do not learn, those who ought to recite do not recite, those who ought to practice dhyāna-concentration do not practice dhyāna-concentration, up to those who ought to enter the untainted noble path are unable to enter it.' Such is the place of the split. Next, we distinguish the characteristics of the split. For a schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions, it must be that within a single boundary fully ordained monks, at a minimum of eight persons, divide into two assemblies, each performing legal monastic transactions (karman) according to the Dharma; only then is it named a schism in the Saṅgha. If one place performs it and the other does not, this is merely called a transaction by a separate assembly, and does not constitute a schism in the Saṅgha. Moreover, even if both places perform transactions, if they perform an illegal transaction or a legal transaction [defectively], neither constitutes a schism, because what they perform is not Saṅgha-dharma. For breaking the wheel of the Dharma, it must also be renunciants who have taken the full precepts, within a single boundary at a minimum of nine persons, with four in the right assembly and five in the wrong assembly: Devadatta alone proclaims himself the Great Teacher and preaches the five wrong tenets, and the four persons assent to them, opposing the right assembly so that they cannot collectively revere the Dharma of the four reliances; this is called breaking the wheel of the Dharma. Some explain: Devadatta and his four companions convert four persons from that right assembly to follow the wrong path, and only then is it named a schism in the Saṅgha; hence nine persons are needed. This meaning is incorrect. Converting the right to follow the wrong is the harm caused by the schism, not the schism itself. What is called a 'split' is originally one concord, now divided into two concords; only then is it named a schism in the Saṅgha, which is broadly similar to the schism in monastic transactions. Question: Previously, in the schism of monastic transactions, both assemblies had to perform transactions according to the Dharma to be named a schism. Why is it not like that in breaking the wheel of the Dharma, where one right and one wrong constitute the break? Answer: The two are different and cannot be compared. Previously, in breaking monastic transactions, it is a break because feelings have deviated, not because the Dharma has deviated; hence there is no separate Dharma. In breaking the wheel of the Dharma, it is a break because the Dharma has deviated; hence false dharmas are established to overturn and contradict the right norm; this is called a break. Such are the characteristics of the split. Next, we clarify the nature of the split. What is the nature of a schism in the Saṅgha? If we discuss the sin of splitting, it is of the nature of unwholesome vocal karma. If we discuss that which is broken, it is the nature of non-concord. The nature of non-concord is the fourth characteristic, decay, among the four conditioned characteristics; among the three moral natures, it is non-obscured indeterminate nature. Such is the schism in the Saṅgha. Within this schism in the Saṅgha, a schism in the Saṅgha of monastic transactions is a light offense and not an immediacy (anantarya); a schism in the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma is a grave offense and therefore an immediacy. The above is the first gate, explaining names and distinguishing characteristics (this concludes the first gate).