From "An Outline of the Crux of Eight Schools," (八宗綱要) published by BDK in translation from Leo Prüden as "Essentials of Eight Traditions," ch. III p. 35:
The rest can be downloaded for free at BDK. Obviously this is not necessarily a historically accurate document. I've never heard of a specific monk named "Venerable Dharmagupta" before, for instance.Question: Why is this tradition termed the Ritsu [Vinaya] tradition?
Answer: The Vinayapitaka is its basic, authoritative text; so it is termed the Ritsu tradition.
Question: How many sectarian divisions are there with regard to the Vinayapitaka?
Answer: There are various sectarian divisions with regard to the Vinayapitaka. There is a twofold division, a fivefold division, an eighteenfold division, and a five-hundredfold division. In the fifty-odd years during which the Tathagata was in the world, he preached in a dispersed manner to fit the variety of human capacities. After he entered into extinction, his disciples assumed the leadership [of the Sangha]. They compiled [the Tripitaka], and this compilation is termed a single work. This is the Great Vinayapitaka, recited in eighty sections. For one hundred years after the extinction of the Buddha, the five masters, one after the other, faithfully transmitted [the Vinayapitaka]. It was of one flavor, and there was not yet any division of it into differing views. After a period of one hundred years, this text gradually came to be divided into two sectarian divisions, five divisions, twenty divisions, and even into five hundred divisions. These differing views arose in contention, like stormy waves. This was also the case with the scriptures and commentaries. As the Tripitaka teachings were radically divided, so too did the Vinayapitaka come to form differing collections according to the differing views. Thus did the pitakas divide, forming various literary corpuses. In this way the number of the divisions is very many, but they do not exceed in scope the twenty sectarian groups. Thus with regard to the Vinaya there are also twenty sectarian divisions. Each of these various sectarian groups was diffused widely throughout all of India. However in all only four Vinayapitakas and five commentaries on them were transmitted to China. The four Vinayas are
(1) the Vinaya in Ten Recitations, which makes up sixty-one fascicles in its Chinese translation. This is the Vinayapitaka of the Sarvastivadins.
(2) the Fourfold Vinaya, which makes up sixty fascicles. This is the Vinayapitaka of the Dharmaguptakas.
(3) the Mahasamghikavinaya, which in Chinese translation comprises forty fascicles. This is the Vinayapitaka of the Sthaviravadins, those of the two original divisions within the Sangha who were inside the cave, since the name “Mahasanghika” is common to both groups.
(4) the Fivefold Vinaya, which in translation comprises thirty fascicles. This is the Vinayapitaka of the Mahisasakas.
Only the pratimoksa section of the Vinayapitaka of the Kasyapiyas was transmitted to China; the full text has not yet been introduced to China. All these four Vinaya pitakas were translated into Chinese, and all of them were circulated in China, but the only one that was to be carried on in later ages was the Fourfold Vinaya tradition of the Dharmaguptakas. The five commentaries are:
(1) the Binimoron (Vinayamatrka);
(2) the Matokurokkaron (Sarvastivada Vinayamatrka), which is based on the Sarvastivadavinaya;
(3) the Zenkenron ('Clear-Sighted Commentary, Samantapasadika), which explains the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka;
(4) the Sappataron, which comments on the Vinayapitaka of the Sarvastivadins;
and (5) the Myoryoron (Mingliaolun, Commentary of Clear Understanding), which is a commentary on the Vinayapitaka of the Sammatiyas.
In addition to the above, various other Vinaya works of the Mulasarvastivadins, such as the Vinaya in the New Translations [of Iching] have also been transmitted to China. Nevertheless it was the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka that had the deepest ties with this land, China. In ancient times, before the time of the Vinaya Master Chihshou (566-635), all of the various Vinayas were in confusion, and there was not one that was exclusively studied to the exclusion of all the others. Chihshou and the Vinaya Master of Mt. Chungnan, Taohsuan (595-667) composed the Gobukubunsho (Wupuch’iifench’ao, On the Differences between the Five Vinayapitakas) and examined the circumstances of the first ordination in China. Both of these masters relied exclusively on the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka in their examinations of the nature of this ordination, and they also relied on this same Vinayapitaka in discussing the practices subsequent to ordination. From that time up to the present, only this school [of Vinaya practice and study] has been transmitted to Japan. It is for this reason that we shall narrate the essentials of the arising of just this one Vinaya tradition—that of the Dharmaguptakas—and so explain the history of its transmission and diffusion.
Question: At what period did this Dharmaguptakavinaya tradition first begin to flourish?
Answer: Before the various sects divided one from another, only one flavor [of the doctrine] was faithfully transmitted. While the Tathagata was still in the world, he preached [the Dharma] in a dispersed manner, to suit the variety of individual capacities. One hundred years after the extinction of the Buddha, the scriptures were compiled and widely circulated. In a period one hundred-odd years [after the extinction of the Buddha], the Arhat Dharmagupta narrated [a new Vinaya pitaka] that accorded with his views, thus creating a separate sectarian group. It was at this time that this Vinayapitaka first appeared.
Question: When was this tradition transmitted to China and to Japan?
Answer: During the Ts’ao Wei Dynasty the Venerable Dharmakala first carried out an ordination ceremony. During the Yao Ch’in Dynasty, the Tripitaka Master Buddhayasas first [translated and] transmitted the complete text of a Vinayapitaka. This is the history of the transmission of the precepts into China. As for Japan, in the past, during the Tempyo period, two Japanese masters, Yoei and Fusho, travelled to T’ang Dynasty China, and there they asked the great preceptor Chienchen (Ganjin) of the Tamingssu Monastery [to come to Japan], He promptly acceded to their request and began his journey to Japan. The calamities encountered on his way were extremely numerous, yet he regarded them as nothing. For some twelve years he bore the difficulties of the open sea, being thrown back to shore by heavy waves six times. His will remained totally unwearied, and on the sixth occasion [sic] he finally reached Japan. He was requested to reside as abbot in the Todaiji Monastery. The joy of the Emperor Shomu, of the princes, and of all the court officials was unbounded. They had an ordination platform erected in front of the sanctuary of the main image, Vairocana, and there an ordination ceremony was carried out. The emperor, the empress, and in all some four hundred persons all received the precepts. Later [this ordination platform] was moved to the west of the Great Buddha Sanctuary, and there it was constructed separately in the Kaidan’in (the Chapel of the Ordination Platform). From that time forward until the present, these ordinations have been performed yearly, without interruption. In all of the provinces of Japan, the precepts in the Vinaya pitaka were very widely practiced at this time. There was no one who did not study them. In addition the Toshodaiji Monastery was constructed, from whence the precepts and the Vinayapitaka were transmitted and propagated. This has continued without interruption up to the present day. The transmission of the teaching of the precepts and the Vinayapitaka to Japan is solely due to the efforts of the great preceptor Chienchen.
Question: How many patriarchs does this tradition recognize?
Answer: From the Venerable Mahakasyapa up to the recent Sung Dynasty, their numbers have been many, both in general enumeration and in their more specific enumeration. They are as follows. The Buddha is the master of the teaching and is beyond logical classification. Then there are the Venerable Mahakasyapa, Ananda, Madhyantika, Sanakavasin, Upagupta, Dharmagupta, and Dharmakala; the Vinaya Masters Fats’ung, Taolu, Huikuang, Taoyiin, Taohung; and the Vinaya Masters Chihshou, the Mt. Chungnan Master Taohsiian, Chouhsiu, Taoheng, Hsingkung, Huicheng, Fapao, Yianpiao, Shouyen, Wuwai, Faying, Ch’uheng, Ts’ewu, Yink’an, Ts’ech’i, and Yianchao. If, however, we count the patriarchs from the origin of this specific [Dharmaguptaka] school to the master Taohsuan, we find that there are nine patriarchs, since we start the count with the Venerable Dharmagupta. The order after Taohsian is as given above. If we look at the Japanese transmission, we have the Vinaya Masters Taohsian, Hungching, Chienchen (Ganjin) daisojo, Fachin (Hoshin) daisozu, Jupao (Nyoho) shosozu, Buan sojo, and others.
Question: Does the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition have many variant schools within it?
Answer: It did during the T’ang Dynasty. Each of the Vinaya Masters—the Vinaya Master Fali of the Hsiangchou school, Taohsian of Mt. Chungnan, and Huaisu of the Eastern Pagoda (tungt’a) of the Tayiianssu Monastery—set up differing interpretations, and their disciples and followers contended with one another. These are termed the three schools of the Vinaya tradition. Ganjin wajo brought both the Tasu (The Great Commentary) of Fali and the five works of Taohsian to Japan, where all of the various temples and monasteries sponsored lectures on these three T’ang Dynasty schools. Later, however, it was only the school of Taohsiian that survived. All the other schools ceased to be cultivated, having fallen into disuse. For if we consider the matter seriously, in the teachings of the Nanshan Vinaya school (the school of Taohsiian) the precepts and their subsequent practice are in mutual harmony; the practice of the precepts and their external features are both perfect. The Mahayana and the Hinayana paths are harmonized, and learning and practice are in perfect union. Various masters in both the past and the present have vied one with another in praising this school, and the worthies and scholars of all traditions have studied and practiced [this tradition’s teachings]. In the case of the work Gyojisho (Hsingshihch’ao) [by Taohsiian], there were some seventy-three scholars who wrote commentaries on it. Those of this same tradition and those in other places both held [Taohsiian] in the highest esteem. Who is like this patriarch! What other person has been so praised by worthies and by saints! Speaking in broadest terms, from the time of the translation of the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka, the number of masters who composed commentaries on it approach some twenty persons. However the most essential of these commentaries are only three:
(1) the Ryakusho (the abbreviated commentary), in three chiian, by Huikuang;
(2) the Chusho (the medium length commentary), in ten chiian, by the Hsiangbu Vinaya Master (Fa-li);
and (3) the Kosho (the extended commentary), in twenty chiian, by Chihshou. These are termed the Three Essential Commentaries.
Now the teachings of the three T’ang Dynasty schools—those of Fali, Taohsiian, and Huaisu—are largely embraced within these three works. The Master Tingpin composed a commentary on the commentary of Fali, the Jikishugiki (Shihtsung ichi), in ten chiian. Taohsiian upheld and maintained the commentary of Chihshou, and so [the teachings of Chihshou] are one with the teachings of Taohsiian. The Shibun kaishuki (Ssufen k’aitsungchi), in ten chiian, by Huaisu, circulated alone throughout the world [without benefit of commentary]. Each of these works can be said to have exhausted the glories [of the Vinaya tradition], and all have come to serve as reputable guides. Toward the end of the T’ang Dynasty [all these works] flourished in the capital, Loyang. In addition there is the Binitoyo (Pini t’aoyao), in three chiian, of the Master Taoshih, which differs only slightly from the other commentaries. The major and minor commentaries on the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka are all of them in large measure identical in content with those of Taohsuan. All of the commentaries of these six masters were transmitted to Japan, but now only those of the school of Taohstian are popularly studied, with the new principles of Tingpin also occasionally being studied. We shall not narrate the differences in the Vinaya teachings of these three schools, for fear of being prolix. There are five major works in Taohsuan’s literary corpus:
(1) the Gyojisho (Hsingshihch’ao), in three chiian, but now in twelve chiian;
(2) the Kaisho (Chiehsu), in four chiian, but now in eight chiian;
(3) the Gosho (Yehsu), in four chiian, but now in eight chiian;
(4) the Shubinigisho (Shihp’iniich’ao), originally in three chiian, but the last chiian has been lost; now there are only the first and second chiian, which are now divided into four chiian;
and (5) the Bikunisho (Pich’iunich’ao), in three chiian, but now in six chiian.
Taohsuan composed his own commentaries on his Kaisho (Chiehsu) and Gosho (Yehsu), and these, together with his minor works on the Vinaya and his other literary compositions, form a voluminous corpus that cannot be listed in detail here. The Nanshan Vinaya tradition primarily studies these five major works, but its basic text is the Dharmaguptaka Vinayapitaka in sixty chiian and its commentary the Zenkenron.
