The author and Fujimoto Akira are currently arguing over the validity of the author’s book, Indo Bukkyō Hen-i Ron インド仏教変移論. In order to settle this arguement, it is necessary to ascertain whether the commentary on the saṃghabheda in the Karma-nirdeśa of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is referring to the same saṃghabheda case as is narrated in the Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahāvihāra （Pāli） Vinaya. If the commentary refers to the same case of saṃghabheda as discussed in the Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahāvihāra Vinaya, then Fujimoto’s theory is correct; if not, mine is correct.
To confirm this point, I examined the original text of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and an extremely serious fact came to light. Although there is a sentence in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya that clearly indicates that the descriptions of saṃghabheda in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya have nothing to do with the case of saṃghabheda discussed in the Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahāvihāra Vinaya, when Fujimoto quoted the relevant passage from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya in his article, he deleted that sentence and presented it as if the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya refers to the case of saṃghabheda in the Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahāvihāra Vinaya. This is a sign that Japanese Buddhist studies is in danger of falling into a state of academic crisis. Fujimoto’s scholarship should be criticized for its basic stance.
The above discussion is the first disproof to Fujimoto’s theory, and this paper further presents two facts that disprove Fujimoto’s theory.
Disproof 2: Unlike its corresponding parts in the other Vinaya texts, the word saṃghabheda does not appear in the Kośāmbakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Of extant Vinaya texts, it is only in the Kośāmbakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya that the incident that took place there is not regarded as a saṃghabheda. Therefore, there is no way that the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, which was written in the school that used the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as their Vinaya, would treat the incident of the Kośāmbakavastu, which is not a saṃghabheda, as a saṃghabheda.
Disproof 3: There are two independent chapters in Gunaprabha’s Vinayasūtra, Cakrabhedavastu and Karmabhedavastu. Their contents support my theory, and there is no mention of anything related to the saṃghabheda case which is same as the case told in the Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahāvihāra Vinaya.
Based on the above facts, Fujimoto’s theory is totally refuted.
