In 2022, Fujimoto pointed out issues with Sasaki’s （2000） interpretations of the definition of saṅghabheda （dissension and break among the saṅgha; schism）. In response, Sasaki （2022） replied to these criticisms, merely reiterating his two original arguments.
Argument 1: There are two distinct definitions for saṅghabheda; cakrabheda （dissension and break by/related to breaking Śākyamuni Buddha’s teachings） and karmabheda （dissention and break related to disrupting the saṅgha’s activities）.
Argument 2: The definition of cakrabheda was altered to that of karmabheda during the reign of Emperor Aśoka.
On Argument 1: Sasaki confuses definition and incidents. The Vinaya describes two distinct incidents that resulted in saṅghabheda. One is associated with Devadatta and is referred to as cakrabheda, while the other, known as karmabheda, involves the bhikkhus in Kosambi.
It is essential to note that neither cakrabheda nor karmabheda can be considered the precise definition of saṅghabheda; instead, they represent particular incidents.
On Argument 2: It may be reasonable to argue that definitions can evolve over time. However, it is not the case that two distinct incidents （cakrabheda and karmabheda） transitioned from one into the other as time passed.
