… (sama)g(ra)ṃ śrāvakasaṃghaṃ .i …
… reṇa catuṣkoṭikaḥ
praśnaḥ katamaḥ saṃghabhedo na saṃghavyavasthān(aṃ)
y(athā) … (5) … (saṃgha)bh(e)d(o) n(a) saṃghavyavasthānaṃ
katamas saṃghavyavasthānaṃ na saṃghabhedaḥ
yath(ā) … (6) ... (saṃ)ghabhedaḥ
katamaḥ saṃghabhedaś ca saṃghavyavasthānaṃ ca
yathāpi tat* saṃgho bhinno bhavati … (7) … ca •
katamo naiva saṃghabhedo na saṃghavyavasthānaṃ etān ākārān sthāpayitvā yaḥ kaści …
… ..ṃ .. saṃ(ghabhe)daḥ
syāt saṃghabhedaś ca saṃghanānātvaṃ ca syān naiva saṃghabhedo na saṃghanā(nātvaṃ) …
… (sī)māntarikāya vā • lābhāntarikāya vā cīvarāntarikāya v(ā) … (1) … .. (saṃgha)nānātvaṃ na saṃghabhedaḥ
katamaḥ saṃghabhedaś ca saṃghanānātvaṃ ca
yathāpi tat sa. .e …
… (vyava)sth(i)te ekadvitī(y)ā .. .. .. ḥ sīmāṃ prasraṃbhayati prasrabdhā vaktavyā
yadi dharmavādinaḥ prasraṃbhayanti …
… mi teṣāṃ || ❁ ||
問云何得破僧罪。
(However, see the next record)
答若人非法知是非法。邪見故壞僧。如是得破僧罪。又非法謂是法。邪見故壞僧。得破僧罪。又非法中疑邪見故壞僧。得破僧罪。
問所有破僧。皆是僧諍聲耶。所有僧諍聲。皆是破僧耶。
答或有破僧。無僧諍聲。或有僧諍聲非破僧。或有破僧亦僧諍聲。或非破僧無僧諍聲。
問云何破僧無僧諍聲。
答若僧壞爲二部。未受十四破僧事。是名破僧無僧諍聲。
云何僧諍聲非破僧。
答若諸比丘。執是十四破僧事僧未作二部。是名僧諍聲非破僧。
云何破僧亦僧諍聲。答若僧壞爲二部。受十四破僧事。是名破僧亦僧諍聲。
云何非破僧亦非僧諍聲。答除上爾所事。
問所有破僧。皆是別離僧耶。所有別離僧。皆是破僧耶。
答或有破僧非是別離。或有別離非是破僧。或有破僧亦是別離。或非破僧亦非別離。
云何破僧非是別離。
答若僧破共一處住。是名破僧非是別離。
云何別離非是破僧。
答若二衆別異住。異地異界異施異衣。是名別離非是破僧。
云何破僧亦是別離
答若衆僧壞爲二部。別異住異地異界異施異衣。是名破僧亦是別離。
云何非破僧亦非別離。答除上爾所事。
問所有破僧。皆是僧別異耶。有僧別異。皆是破僧耶。
答或有破僧。非僧別異。或僧別異。非是破僧。或有破僧亦僧別異。或非破僧非僧別異。
云何破僧非僧別異。
答若僧破未別異住。未異地異界異施異衣。是名破僧非是別異。
云何別異非是破僧。
答若僧不破。別異住異地異界異施異衣。是名別異非是破僧。
云何破僧亦是別異。
答若衆僧破爲二部別住。異地異施異界異衣。是名破僧亦是別異。
云何非破僧亦非別異。答除上爾所事。
問若僧破爲二部。若一部捨界。可得捨不
答如法者捨。得名捨。
問若衆僧破。比丘尼應作布薩不。答應作布薩。比丘尼不同事故。
云何破僧。
得無間墮阿鼻地獄。
非法非法想破僧
僧或破僧一切受法耶。或受法一切破僧耶。
答或破僧非受法作四句
云何破僧非受法。
若破僧不受十四事。
云何受法非破僧。
謂受十四事。
倶者亦受十四事亦破僧。
非受十四法非破僧。除是句。
僧壞時捨界成捨不
法語者捨成捨。
僧壞時比丘尼得作布薩不。得作布薩
[Upāli asked:] “To what extent is one person who causes the division of the Community?”
[The Buddha said:] “If somebody splits the Community of Disciples of the Tathāgata, he will attain the sin which makes him fall into the Avīci. He also becomes one who commits the ānantarya sin.”
[The Buddha continued to say:] “Upāli, for example, a monk [speaks of] what is not Dharma by means of the conception which is not in accordance with Dharma. Regarding eighteen kinds of the cases, they are completely dealt with in the vinaya.”
[Upāli asked:] “Those who split the Community, do they all cause a conflict of the Community? Or, those who cause a conflict of the Community, do they all split the Community?”
[The Buddha said:] “There is the case that somebody splits the Community, but he does not cause a conflict, and there are four possibilities."
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case that somebody splits the Community, but he does not cause a conflict?”
[The Buddha said:] “It is the case that although the Community split, fourteen events which cause the division of the Community have not occurred. That is the case that somebody spilts the Community, but he does not cause a conflict.”
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case that somebody causes a conflict in the Community, but does not split the Community?”
[The Buddha said:] “It is the case: The fourteen events which cause the division of the Community, have occurred. That is the case that somebody causes a conflict in the Community, but does not split the Community.”
[The Buddha continued to say:] "Also, the case that somebody causes a conflict in the Community as well as splits the Community is like this: When it is the fact that the Community is split, the fourteen events which cause the division of the Community have certainly occurred. That is the case that somebody splits the Community as well as causes a conflict in the Community.”
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case that somebody neither splits the division of the Community nor causes a conflict in the Community?”
[The Buddha said:] “[It is the case] except for those case [aforementioned].”
[Upāli asked:] “When there is division of the Community, does it always [entail] separation [from the Community]? Also, when there is separation [from the Community], does it always [entail] division of the Community?”
[The Buddha said:] “There is the case that somebody splits the Community, but does not become separate [from the Community], and there are four possibilities.”
[Upāli] asked: “What is the case of the division of the Community, but disagreement in the Community does not occur?”
[The Buddha said:] “This is the case: When the Community is split, separation from the Community [already] occurred, or the robe has not been separated [from the owner]. That is the case of the division of the Community, but separation from the Community does not occur.”
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case of separation/disagreement from the Community, but division of the Community does not occur?”
[The Buddha said:] “This is the case: “Two groups having been separated, and then [the rest] was completely [described]. As long as the Community is not split, even though the separation from the Community occurs, the Community has not split.”
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case of division of the Community, and separation from the Community also occurs?”
[The Buddh said:] “This is a case: the Community is split, and separation from the Community occurs by living in two Communities, by [having] the boundary, by attaining [offerings], and by using the robe separately. That is the case of division of the Community, and separation from the Community also occurs.”
[Upāli asked:] “What is the case that the Community is neither split, nor separation of the Community occur?”
[The Buddha said:] “[It is the case] apart from the [aforementioned] cases.”
[Upāli asked:] "Does the division of the Community always entail separation of the Community? Or, does the separation of the Community always entail division of the Community?"
[The Buddha said:] “There might be a case that the Community has been split and the Community is either separated or not separated, and there are four possibilities.”
[The Buddha continued to say:] “If asked, what is the case that the Community has been split, but the Community is not separated?
It is like this: Although the Community has been split, the Community is not separated from two dwelling places and from [distribution of] the robe. Thas is the case that although the Community has been split, the Community is not separated.”
[The Buddha said:] “If asked, what is the case that the Community has been separated, but the Community has not been split?
It is like this: The Community has been separated by two dwelling places, the boundary, and the obtainment [of offering]. That is the case that the Community has been separated, but the Community has not been split.”
[The Buddha said:] “If asked, what is the case that the Community has been split and also separated?
It is like this: The Community has been split and separately settled in two dwelling places, and the other cases were aforementioned.”
[The Buddha said:] “If asked, what is the case that the Community is neither split nor separated? [It is the case] apart from those aforementioned.”
[Upāli asked:] “After the Community has been split, if the boundary is dissolved by the one or the other group from the separated Community, is it deemed that [the boundary] has been dissolved?”
[The Buddha said:] “If [the boundary] is dissolved by the group that preach the dharma correctly, it is deemed that [the boundary] has been dissolved.”
[Upāli asked:] “After the Community has been split, if a group [of monks] stayed separately and settled down, should nuns perform the Poṣadha ceremony?”
[The Buddha said: “Yes,] they should.”
[Upāli asked:] “Why is this?”
[The Buddha said:] “This is because nuns and monks stay separately.”