三論玄義 1.14

1.14

次別明造論緣起。然所以造論者，如上所明，如來為失道故說經，論主為迷經故造論。為失道故說經，此是根本失；論主為迷經故造論，此是枝末失。又佛為失道者說經，此失謂一往失；論主為迷經故造論，此失即失中更起失。所以然者，以其迷道此是一失，如來說經為令入道而復迷經，故是失中失也。一往之失謂利根人，聞經即悟。失中之失謂鈍根人也。問：何等是迷經之人？答：即是諸部異執。言諸部異執者，或二部、或五部、或十八部、或二十部、或五百部。言二部者，如來二月十五日入涅槃，諸聖弟子四月十五日於王舍城祇闍崛山中結集三藏，爾時即有二部名字：一上座部，謂迦葉為上座。迦葉上陳如一夏，為佛以法付屬迦葉，名上座部也。迦葉所領但有五百人，依《智度論》則有千人。二大眾部，即界外大眾，乃有萬數，婆師波羅漢為主，此云淚出，常悲苦眾生而淚墮也。即五比丘中之一人，而年大迦葉，教授界外大眾。所以有二眾。迦葉有五百羅漢，前入界內結集三藏；後多人來結集三藏，迦葉並不許之。有二因緣：一者五百皆聰明人故、二者已羯磨竟故。依《智度論》，阿闍世王但設千人食，故餘人來不得。從是以來至佛滅度後百一十六年，但有二部名字，未有異執。百一十六年外有舶主兒名摩訶提婆，端正聰明，作三逆罪，後入佛法。凡有二事：一者取諸大乘經內三藏中釋之。諸阿羅漢結集法藏時已簡除此義，而大眾部用此義，上座部不用之。因爾起諍，遂成二部。二者摩訶提婆自作偈言「餘人染污衣，無明疑他度，聖道言所顯，是諸佛正教。」以此一偈安置戒後，布薩誦戒竟亦誦此一偈。此偈有五事：一餘人染污衣者，提婆不淨出污衣，而誑弟子言：「我是阿羅漢，實無不淨，但是天魔女以不淨污羅漢衣。」故云餘人染污衣。然此一語有虛有實。其實是凡夫，誑弟子說如上事，是故為虛。魔女實能以不淨污羅漢衣，是故為實。其眾諍其所說或虛或實，故分二部。二云無明者，然羅漢乃無三界受生無明，而有無知習氣無明，故云無明。時眾或言羅漢有無明、或言無無明，因此起諍故分二部。三云疑者，須陀洹果乃於三解脫門無疑，而於外事有疑，故云疑也。四他度者，鈍根初果而不自知得初果，問善知識。善知識為說，於三寶四諦無疑是初果相。其自觀察，方知得初果，故云他度。五聖道言所顯者，然得聖道時，亦有言所顯。如身子當口誦偈時即得初果，故云言所顯。時眾諍此五義或是或非，故成二部也。問：此二部執何義異耶？答：義異乃多，今略明其一。大眾部執生死涅槃皆是假名，上座部執生死涅槃皆是真實。至二百年中，從大眾部又出三部。于時大眾部因摩訶提婆私度住央崛多羅國，此國在王舍城北。此部將《華嚴》、《般若》等大乘經雜三藏中說之。時人有信者、有不信者，故成二部。不信者唯言：阿難等三師所誦三藏此則可信，自三藏外諸大乘經皆不可信。復有信大乘者，有三因緣：一者爾時猶有親聞佛說大乘法者，是故可信；二者自思量道理應有大乘，是故可信。三者信其師故，是故可信。言三部者：一、一說部。此部執生死涅槃皆是假名，故云一說。二、出世說部。此部言：世間法從顛倒生業，業生果，故是不實。出世法不從顛倒生，故是真實。三、灰山住部。前二從執義受名，此因住處為目（此山有石，堪作灰。此部住彼山中修道，故以為名）。其執毘曇是實教，經律為權說故。彼引經偈云「隨宜覆身、隨宜飲食、隨宜住處，疾斷煩惱。」隨宜覆身者，有三衣佛亦許，無三衣佛亦許。隨宜飲食者，時食佛亦許，非時食亦許。隨宜住處者，結界住亦許，不結界亦許。疾斷煩惱者，佛意但令疾斷煩惱。此部甚精進，過餘人也。至二百年中，從大眾部內又出一部，名多聞部。大眾部唯弘淺義，棄於深義。佛在世時有仙人，值佛得羅漢，恒隨佛往他方及天上聽法。佛涅槃時，其人不見，在雪山坐禪。至佛滅度後二百年中，從雪山出覓諸同行，見大眾部唯弘淺義不知深法，其人具足誦淺深義。深義中有大乘義，成實論即從此部出。時人有信其所說者，故別成一部，名多聞部。於二百年中，從大眾部更出一部，名多聞分別部。佛在世時，大迦旃延造論解佛阿含經。至二百年，大迦旃延從阿耨達池出，更分別前多聞部中義。時人有信其所說者，故云多聞分別部。於二百年滿有一外道，名大天。爾時摩伽陀國有優婆塞大弘佛法，諸外道為利養故皆剃頭出家，便有賊住比丘，大天為賊住主。大天身自出家，所度弟子依大天眾出家受戒，爾時眾人共諍斯事。上座部云：和上無戒及破戒，闍梨有戒，大眾亦有戒，受戒則得，戒從大眾得。大眾知和上無戒，而與共受戒者，大眾得突吉羅罪。問：戒既不從和上得，何故稱和上名？答：欲令受戒後和上攝錄教誨弟子耳。薩婆多用此解。餘部言：和上無戒及破戒，大眾有戒，則不得戒，戒從和上得故。因此諍論，遂不容大天，徒眾因爾別住山間。於此山間執義又異，故有支提山部及北山部。佛得道及轉法輪處、大眾處，名支提。此處有山，名支提山。於彼山北別有山，名北山部也。大眾部合別數，或五或七或八。言五部者，初一說部、二出世說部、三灰山住部，此初破成三也。次多聞部、次多聞分別部，故成五部。言七部者，因外道分成二部，謂支提山部及北山部。前五因內執起，後二因外道起，故成七部。言八部者，則數根本大眾部也。次上座弟子部者，佛滅度後，迦葉以三藏付三師：以修多羅付阿難，以毘曇付富樓那，以律付優婆離。阿難去世，以修多羅付末田地，末田地付舍那婆斯，舍那婆斯付優婆掘多，優婆掘多付富樓那，富樓那付寐者柯，寐者柯付迦旃延尼子。從迦葉至寐者柯二百年已來無異部。至三百年初，迦旃延尼子去世，便分成兩部：一上座弟子部、二薩婆多部。所以分成二部者，上座弟子但弘經，以經為正，律開遮不定。毘曇但釋經，或過本或減本，故不正弘之，亦不棄捨二藏也。而薩婆多謂毘曇最勝，故偏弘之。從迦葉至掘多，正弘經。從富樓那稍棄本弘末，故正弘毘曇。至迦旃延大興毘曇。上座弟子部見其棄本弘末，四過宣令遣其改宗，遂守宗不改。而上座弟子部移往雪山避之，因名雪山住部。三百年從薩婆多出一部，名可住子弟子部，即是舊犢子部也。言可住子弟子部者，有仙人名可住。有女人，是此仙人種，故名可住子。有阿羅漢，是可住女人之子，故名可住子。此部是此羅漢之弟子，故名可住子弟子也。舍利弗是羅睺羅和上，羅睺羅是可住子和上，此部復是可住子之弟子。舍利弗釋佛九分毘曇名法相毘曇，羅睺羅弘舍利弗毘曇，可住子弘羅睺羅所說，此部復弘可住子所說也。次三百年中從可住子部復出四部，以嫌《舍利弗毘曇》不足，更各各造論，取經中義足之。所執異故，故成四部：一法尚部，即舊曇無德部也。二賢乘部。三正量弟子部，有大正量羅漢，其是弟子，故名正量弟子部。此三從人作名。四名密林部，從住處作名也。三百年從薩婆多部復出一部，名正地部。有婆羅門，是國師，名正地部，善解四韋陀。出家得羅漢，取四韋陀好語莊嚴佛經，執義又異。時人有信其所說，故別為一部。三百年中從正地部又出一部，名法護部。其本是目連弟子，得羅漢，恒隨目連往色界中，有所說法皆能誦持，自撰為五藏：三藏如常，四呪藏、五菩薩藏。有信其所說者，故別成一部也。三百年中從薩婆多部又出一部，名善歲部。迦留陀夷是其父，及多比丘尼是母。七歲得羅漢，值佛聞法皆能誦持，撰集佛語次第相對，破外道為一類、對治眾生煩惱復為一類。時人有信其所說者，故別為一部也。三百年中從薩婆多部又出一部，名說度部。謂五陰從此世度至後世，得治道乃滅。亦名說經部，謂唯經藏為正，餘二皆成經耳。從上座部都合有十一部、大眾部有七部，合成十八部，足根本二部為二十部。而羅婆多傳有異世五師、有同世五師。異世五師者，一迦葉、二阿難、三末田地、四舍那婆斯、五優婆掘多。此五人持佛法藏各得二十餘年，更相付屬，名異世也。同世五師者，於優婆掘多世即分成五部，一時並起，名同世五師。一曇無德、二摩訶僧祇、三彌沙塞、四迦葉維、五犢子部。又《大集經》亦明五部，而《文殊師利經》、《部執論》及羅什《分別部論》，此三皆明二十部。所以有五部復有二十部不同者，取其始終異執故有二十，取其當世盛行故但說五部。而言五部一時起者，則與上二十部義相違，或可見聞各異故也。所言五百部者，《智度論》釋《般若．信毀品》云「佛滅度後五百歲後，有五百部。不知佛意為解脫故，執諸法有決定相，聞畢竟空如刀傷心。」龍樹、提婆為諸部異執失佛教意，故造論破迷也。問：論主為並破諸部？亦有不破耶？答：凡有四句。一破而不取。若是諸部所說乖大小乘經自立義者，則破而不取。故《智度論》呵迦旃延弟子云「三藏無此說，摩訶衍中亦無此說，蓋是諸論義師自作是說。」即是其事。二取而不破。如《文殊問經》云「十八及本二，皆從大乘出。無是亦無非，我說未來起。」三亦破亦取。破諸部能迷執情，收取諸部所迷之教。四不破不取，就正道門未曾有破亦無所取也。

Next, explaining specifically the conditions that gave rise to the composition of the treatises: The reason for composing the treatises is, as explained above, that the Tathāgata preached sūtras because [beings] lost the Way, while the treatise masters composed treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras. Preaching sūtras because [beings] lost the Way concerns the root loss; the treatise masters composing treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras concerns branch-and-leaf losses. Furthermore, the Buddha preaching sūtras for those who lost the Way refers to an initial loss; the treatise masters composing treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras refers to giving rise to further loss within loss. Why is this so? Being confused about the Way is one loss; the Tathāgata preached sūtras to cause them to enter the Way, yet they were again confused about the sūtras, and therefore this is loss within loss. The initial loss refers to people of sharp faculties who awaken upon hearing the sūtras. The loss within loss refers to people of dull faculties. Question: Who are the people confused about the sūtras? Answer: They are the diverse tenets of the various schools. Regarding the 'diverse tenets of the various schools': there are either two schools, or five schools, or eighteen schools, or twenty schools, or five hundred schools. Regarding the 'two schools': on the fifteenth day of the second month the Tathāgata entered nirvāṇa, and on the fifteenth day of the fourth month the noble disciples compiled the Tripiṭaka in the Gṛdhrakūṭa mountain at Rājagṛha. At that time, there were already the names of two schools: first, the Sthaviravāda (Elder School), which took Kāśyapa as the elder. Kāśyapa was senior to Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya by one summer retreat; because the Buddha entrusted the Dharma to Kāśyapa, it was called the Sthaviravāda. Those led by Kāśyapa numbered only five hundred persons, or one thousand according to the *Dàzhìdù lùn*. Second, the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly School), namely the great assembly outside the boundary, which numbered in the tens of thousands, with the arhat Vāṣpa as their leader. This [name] means 'shedding tears'; he was always sorrowful over suffering sentient beings and shed tears. He was one of the five monks and was older than Kāśyapa; he taught the great assembly outside the boundary. This is why there were two assemblies. Kāśyapa had five hundred arhats who first entered inside the boundary to compile the Tripiṭaka; later, many people arrived to compile the Tripiṭaka, and Kāśyapa did not permit any of them. There were two reasons: first, because the five hundred were all wise men; second, because the karman had already been completed. According to the *Dàzhìdù lùn*, King Ajātaśatru only provided food for one thousand people, and therefore the remaining people could not come. From then until one hundred and sixteen years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, there were only the names of the two schools, without diverse tenets. Beyond one hundred and sixteen years, there was a merchant’s son named Mahādeva, upright and intelligent, who committed three inexpiable offenses and later entered the Buddha's Dharma. In all, there were two matters: First, he took various Mahāyāna sūtras and placed them within the Tripiṭaka to explain them. When the arhats compiled the treasury of Dharma, they had already set this meaning aside; the Mahāsāṃghika used this meaning, while the Sthaviravāda did not use it. Because of this, dispute arose, and they subsequently formed two schools. Second, Mahādeva personally composed a verse: 'Tainted by others’ garments / Ignorance, doubt, and crossing over through others / The noble path is revealed through words / This is the true teaching of the Buddhas.' He placed this one verse after the precepts; after reciting the precepts at the poṣadha, he would also recite this one verse. This verse contains five points: First, 'tainted by others' garments': Mahādeva discharged impurity, which soiled his robes, and he deceived his disciples, saying: 'I am an arhat and truly have no impurity; it is only that daughters of celestial Māras have soiled the arhat’s robes with impurity.' Hence he said, 'tainted by others' garments.' Yet this statement has both the false and the true. In reality he was an ordinary person, and in deceiving his disciples he spoke the above matter; therefore it was false. Māra's daughters can indeed soil an arhat’s robes with impurity; therefore it was true. The assembly disputed whether what he said was false or true, and therefore split into two schools. Second, regarding 'ignorance': an arhat lacks the ignorance that leads to taking birth in the three realms, yet still has the ignorance of the vāsanā of non-knowing; hence it is called 'ignorance.' The assembly at the time either said that arhats have ignorance or said that they lack ignorance; because of this dispute arose, and therefore they split into two schools. Third, regarding 'doubt': those with the fruit of srotāpanna are without doubt regarding the three gates of liberation, yet have doubt regarding external matters; hence it is called 'doubt.' Fourth, 'crossing over through others': those of dull faculties who attain the first fruit do not know themselves that they have attained the first fruit, and ask a good friend. The good friend explains to them that being without doubt regarding the Three Jewels and the Four Noble Truths is the mark of the first fruit. Examining themselves, they only then know that they have attained the first fruit; hence it is called 'crossing over through others.' Fifth, 'the noble path is revealed through words': when attaining the noble path, it is also revealed through words. For example, when Śāriputra recited a verse with his own mouth, he immediately attained the first fruit; hence it is said to be 'revealed through words.' The assembly at the time disputed whether these five points were right or wrong, and therefore formed two schools. Question: What different tenets did these two schools uphold? Answer: The doctrinal differences are indeed many; here we briefly explain one. The Mahāsāṃghika held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both prajñapti; the Sthaviravāda held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both real. In the course of two hundred years, another three schools emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika. At that time, because Mahādeva had been privately ordained, the Mahāsāṃghika lived in Aṅguttarāpa, which is north of Rājagṛha. This school mixed Mahāyāna sūtras such as the *Avataṃsaka* and *Prajñāpāramitā* into the Tripiṭaka to explain them. Among the people of that time, some believed and some did not believe; therefore two schools were formed. Those who did not believe solely said: 'The Tripiṭaka recited by the three masters such as Ānanda is credible; all the Mahāyāna sūtras outside of the Tripiṭaka are not credible.' Those who believed in the Mahāyāna did so for three reasons: first, at that time there were still those who had personally heard the Buddha preach the Mahāyāna Dharma, and therefore it was credible; second, through their own reasoning they inferred that there must be a Mahāyāna, and therefore it was credible; third, because they had faith in their teacher, it was credible. Regarding the three schools: 1. The Ekavyāvahārika (One Utterance School). This school held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both prajñapti; hence it was called 'One Utterance.' 2. The Lokottaravāda (Transmundane Utterance School). This school said: mundane dharmas produce karma from inversion, and karma produces fruits; therefore they are unreal. Transmundane dharmas do not arise from inversion; therefore they are real. 3. The Bāhuśrutīya or Kaukkulika (Ashen Mountain School). The former two received their names from the tenets they upheld; this one was named after their dwelling place (this mountain had stone capable of being made into ash; this school dwelt in that mountain to practice the Way, hence the name). They held that the Abhidharma is the real teaching, while sūtras and vinaya are provisional teachings. They cited a verse from a sūtra: 'Covering the body as appropriate, eating and drinking as appropriate, dwelling as appropriate, quickly sever defilements.' 'Covering the body as appropriate' means that if one has three robes, the Buddha also permits it; if one lacks three robes, the Buddha also permits it. 'Eating and drinking as appropriate' means that eating at the proper time the Buddha permits, and eating at improper times he also permits. 'Dwelling as appropriate' means that dwelling inside a delineated boundary is permitted, and not delineating a boundary is also permitted. 'Quickly sever defilements' means that the Buddha's intention is only to have one quickly sever defilements. This school was extremely vigorous, surpassing other people. In the course of two hundred years, another school emerged from within the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Bahuśrutīya (Much-Hearing School). The Mahāsāṃghika only propagated shallow meanings and discarded profound meanings. When the Buddha was in the world, there was an ascetic who encountered the Buddha and attained arhatship, constantly following the Buddha to other worlds and the heavens to listen to the Dharma. When the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, this person was not seen, as he was sitting in meditation in the Snow Mountains. In the course of two hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, he emerged from the Snow Mountains to seek fellow practitioners. Seeing that the Mahāsāṃghika only propagated shallow meanings and did not know the profound Dharma, this person fully recited both the shallow and profound meanings. Among the profound meanings were Mahāyāna doctrines; the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* originated from this school. People of the time believed what he said, and therefore a separate school was formed, called the Bahuśrutīya School. In the course of two hundred years, yet another school emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Prajñaptivāda (Bahuśrutīya-vibhajya School). When the Buddha was in the world, Mahākātyāyana composed a treatise explaining the Buddha's Āgama sūtras. At two hundred years, Mahākātyāyana emerged from Lake Anavatapta and further differentiated the meanings within the previous Bahuśrutīya School. People of the time believed what he said; hence it was called the Prajñaptivāda School. At the close of two hundred years, there was a tīrthika named Mahādeva. At that time in the country of Magadha, there was an upāsaka who greatly promoted the Buddha's Dharma; tīrthikas, for the sake of material gain, all shaved their heads and went forth, and so there were thief-dwelling monks, with Mahādeva as the chief thief-dweller. Mahādeva himself went forth, and the disciples he ordained went forth and received the precepts within Mahādeva's assembly; at that time, everyone disputed this matter. The Sthaviravāda said: 'If the preceptor (upādhyāya) lacks precepts or has broken precepts, while the ācārya has precepts and the assembly also has precepts, receiving the precepts is successful; the precepts are obtained from the assembly. If the assembly knows that the preceptor lacks precepts and yet transmits the precepts together with him, the assembly incurs a duṣkṛta offense.' Question: Since precepts are not obtained from the preceptor, why invoke the preceptor’s name? Answer: It is merely intended that after receiving the precepts, the preceptor should take charge of and instruct the disciple. The Sarvāstivāda adopts this explanation. Other schools said: 'If the preceptor lacks precepts or has broken precepts, even if the assembly has precepts, one does not obtain the precepts, because precepts are obtained from the preceptor.' Due to this dispute, they ultimately would not tolerate Mahādeva, and his followers consequently lived separately among the mountains. Within these mountains, the tenets they upheld differed again; hence there were the Caityaśaila and Uttaraśaila schools. Places where the Buddha attained enlightenment, turned the Dharma wheel, and where the great assembly gathered are called caityas. In this place there was a mountain called Caitya Mountain. To the north of that mountain there was another mountain; hence the Uttaraśaila School. Counting the divisions of the Mahāsāṃghika, there are either five, seven, or eight. Regarding the 'five schools': first, the Ekavyāvahārika; second, the Lokottaravāda; third, the Kaukkulika—these were the initial split into three. Next the Bahuśrutīya, and next the Prajñaptivāda; thus forming five schools. Regarding the 'seven schools': because of the tīrthika, it divided into two schools, namely the Caityaśaila and Uttaraśaila. The previous five arose from internal tenets, while the latter two arose from the tīrthika; hence forming seven schools. Regarding the 'eight schools': this counts the root Mahāsāṃghika School as well. Next, regarding the Sthaviraputra School: After the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, Kāśyapa entrusted the Tripiṭaka to three masters: he entrusted the sūtras to Ānanda, the Abhidharma to Pūrṇa, and the Vinaya to Upāli. When Ānanda passed away, he entrusted the sūtras to Madhyāntika; Madhyāntika entrusted them to Śāṇakavāsin; Śāṇakavāsin entrusted them to Upagupta; Upagupta entrusted them to Pūrṇa; Pūrṇa entrusted them to Mecaka; Mecaka entrusted them to Kātyāyanīputra. From Kāśyapa to Mecaka, during these two hundred years, there were no different schools. At the beginning of the three-hundredth year, Kātyāyanīputra passed away, and it subsequently divided into two schools: first, the Sthaviraputra School; second, the Sarvāstivāda School. The reason it divided into two schools is that the Sthaviraputra only propagated the sūtras, taking the sūtras as primary, while the Vinaya is unfixed in terms of permissions and prohibitions. The Abhidharma merely explains the sūtras, either exceeding the original or falling short of the original; therefore they did not propagate it as primary, nor did they discard the other two baskets. The Sarvāstivāda, however, held that the Abhidharma was supreme, and therefore promoted it predominantly. From Kāśyapa to Upagupta, they propagated the sūtras as primary. From Pūrṇa, they gradually discarded the root and promoted the branches, and therefore propagated the Abhidharma as primary. Arriving at Kātyāyana, the Abhidharma flourished greatly. The Sthaviraputra School, seeing that they discarded the root and promoted the branches, issued a proclamation on four occasions sending them to reform their school, but they held fast to their school and did not reform. The Sthaviraputra School then moved to the Snow Mountains to avoid them; hence they were called the Haimavata (Snow Mountain Dwelling) School. In the three-hundredth year, a school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Vātsīputrīya (Disciples of Kāvāṣṭa's Son), which is the old Vātsīputrīya. Regarding the name 'Vātsīputrīya': there was an ascetic named Kezhu (Vatsa). There was a woman who was of this ascetic's lineage, hence named Vātsī (Kezhu’s daughter). There was an arhat who was the son of this Vātsī woman, hence named Vātsīputra. This school consists of the disciples of this arhat, hence named Vātsīputrīya. Śāriputra was Rāhula’s upādhyāya, Rāhula was Vātsīputra’s upādhyāya, and this school in turn consists of Vātsīputra’s disciples. Śāriputra explained the Buddha’s ninefold Abhidharma, calling it the *Dharmalakṣaṇa-abhidharma*; Rāhula propagated Śāriputra's Abhidharma; Vātsīputra propagated what Rāhula taught; and this school again propagated what Vātsīputra taught. Next, in the course of three hundred years, from the Vātsīputrīya School there further emerged four schools, which, considering the *Śāriputrābhidharma* to be deficient, each separately composed treatises, taking meanings from the sūtras to complete it. Because what they maintained differed, they formed four schools: 1. The Dharmottarīya, which is the old Dharmaguptaka. 2. The Bhadrayānīya. 3. The Saṃmatīya (Disciples of Great Correct Measure); there was a Great Correct Measure arhat, and they were his disciples, hence named the Saṃmatīya School. These three took their names from persons. 4. Named the Channagirika (Dense Forest School), which took its name from their dwelling place. In the three-hundredth year, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Mahīśāsaka (Rectifying the Earth School). There was a Brahman who was a royal preceptor, named Rectifying the Earth, who was well versed in the four Vedas. He went forth and attained arhatship, and took fine phrases from the four Vedas to adorn the Buddhist sūtras, upholding doctrines that differed again. People of the time believed what he said, so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Mahīśāsaka, named the Dharmaguptaka (Dharma Protection School). He was originally a disciple of Maudgalyāyana; having attained arhatship, he constantly followed Maudgalyāyana to the realm of form, and was able to recite and maintain whatever Dharma was taught, compiling it himself into five baskets: the three baskets as usual, the fourth being the dhāraṇī basket, and the fifth being the bodhisattva basket. Some believed what he said, and so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Kāśyapīya (Good Years School). Kālodāyin was his father, and the nun Guptā was his mother. He attained arhatship at seven years of age; encountering the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, he was able to recite and retain it all. He compiled the Buddha’s words in corresponding pairs, grouping together refutations of tīrthikas as one category, and remedies for sentient beings' afflictions as another category. People of the time believed what he said, and so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Saṅkrāntivāda (Explaining Crossing Over School). They held that the five skandhas cross over from this world to a future world, and are extinguished only when attaining the path of remedy. It was also named the Sautrāntika (Sūtra Explaining School), holding that only the Sūtra Piṭaka is primary, while the other two merely complete the sūtras. In all, there were eleven schools derived from the Sthaviravāda and seven schools from the Mahāsāṃghika, making eighteen schools, which together with the two root schools make twenty schools. Now, the transmission of Revata speaks of the five masters of different eras and the five masters of the same era. Regarding the five masters of different eras: first, Kāśyapa; second, Ānanda; third, Madhyāntika; fourth, Śāṇakavāsin; fifth, Upagupta. These five maintained the Buddha's treasury of Dharma, each for twenty-odd years, entrusting it in succession; hence they are called 'of different eras.' Regarding the five masters of the same era: in the era of Upagupta, it divided into five schools, arising simultaneously, which are called the five masters of the same era: first, Dharmagupta; second, Mahāsāṃghika; third, Mahīśāsaka; fourth, Kāśyapīya; fifth, Vātsīputrīya. Furthermore, the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra* also explains five schools, whereas the *Mañjuśrī-sūtra*, the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra*, and Kumārajīva's *Treatise on the Differentiation of Schools* all explain twenty schools. As to why there is the discrepancy between five schools and twenty schools: taking into account the diverse tenets from beginning to end, there are twenty; taking into account what flourished prominently in that particular era, only five schools are mentioned. Saying that the five schools arose simultaneously contradicts the previous account of the twenty schools, or perhaps it is because what was seen and heard differed. Regarding the 'five hundred schools': the *Dàzhìdù lùn*, in explaining the chapter on 'Faith and Defamation' in the *Prajñāpāramitā*, says: 'After five hundred years following the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, there were five hundred schools. Failing to understand that the Buddha's intention was for liberation, they grasped phenomena as having determined marks, and hearing of ultimate emptiness was like a knife wounding their hearts.' Because the diverse tenets of the various schools lost the intention of the Buddha's teaching, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva composed treatises to refute their delusions. Question: Did the treatise masters refute all the schools completely? Or was there also non-refutation? Answer: There are four propositions in all: First, refuting without accepting: If what the various schools teach contradicts the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna sūtras and sets up arbitrary doctrines, it is refuted and not accepted. Thus the *Dàzhìdù lùn* rebukes the disciples of Kātyāyana, saying: 'There is no such teaching in the Tripiṭaka, nor is there such a teaching in the Mahāyāna; this is merely what the treatise masters have manufactured themselves.' This is an instance of it. Second, accepting without refuting: As the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra* says: 'The eighteen and the root two all emerge from the Mahāyāna. There is neither right nor wrong; I say they will arise in the future.' Third, both refuting and accepting: Refuting the various schools’ ability to foster deluded attachments, while accepting the teachings about which the various schools were confused. Fourth, neither refuting nor accepting: In terms of the gate of the Correct Way, there has never been any refutation, nor is there anything to be accepted.