Cullavagga, Khandaka 7, Chapter 5

1. Now the venerable Upāli went up to the Blessed One, and bowed down before him, and took his seat on one side. And when he was so seated, the venerable Upāli said to the Blessed One: 'The expressions, Lord, "disunion in the Saṃgha," and "schism in the Saṃgha," are used^[1]. How much, Lord, goes to make disunion and not schism in the Saṃgha, and how much goes to make both disunion and schism in the Saṃgha?'

'If one is on one side, Upāli, and two on the other side, and a fourth makes a formal proposition, and gives them voting-tickets, saying, "This is according to the Dhamma, and according to the Vinaya, and according to the teaching of the Master. Take this (ticket) and give your sanction to this (opinion)"—then this, Upāli, is disunion in the Saṃgha, and not schism.

If, Upāli, two are on one side, and other two are on the other side, and a fifth . . . . (and so on up to) and an eighth tell them something (&c., as before)—then this, Upāli, is disunion in the Saṃgha, and not schism.

'If, Upāli, four are on one side, and other four are on the other side, and a ninth tell them (&c., as before)—then this, Upāli, is both disunion in the Saṃgha, and it is schism^[2].

(A separation) of nine, Upāli, or of more than nine, is both disunion in the Saṃgha, and it is schism.

'A Bhikkhunī, Upāli, cannot make (one of the requisite number to cause) a schism, though she may help to produce a schism—nor a woman novice, nor a Sāmaṇera, male or female, nor a layman, nor a laywoman. It is only a Bhikkhu who is in full possession of all his privileges, and belongs to the same communion, and is domiciled in the same district^[3] who can make (one of the number requisite to form) a schism.'

2. 'There is the expression, Lord, "schism in the Saṃgha." How much, Lord, does it require to constitute a schism in the Saṃgha?'

'They put forth^[4], Upāli, what is not Dhamma as Dhamma (1), or what is Dhamma as not Dhamma (2), or what is not Vinaya as Vinaya (3), or what is Vinaya as not Vinaya (4), or what has not been taught and spoken by the Tathāgata as taught and spoken by him (5), or what has been taught and spoken by the Tathāgata as not taught and spoken by him (6), or what has not been practised by the Tathāgata as practised by him (7), or what has been practised by the Tathāgata as not practised by him (8), or what has not been ordained by the Tathāgata as ordained by him (9), or what has been ordained by the Tathāgata as not ordained by him (10), or what is no offence as an offence (11), or what is an offence as no offence (12), or what is a slight offence to be a grievous offence (13), or what is a grievous offence to be a slight offence (14), or what is (a rule regarding) an offence to which there is an atonement as without atonement (15), or what is (a rule regarding) an offence to which there is no atonement as admitting of atonement (16), or what is a grave offence as not .a grave offence (17), or what is not a grave offence as a grave offence (18). In these Eighteen Points they hinder and mislead (their followers)^[5], and perform independently Uposatha, and Pavāraṇā, and (official) acts of the Saṃgha. So much, Upāli, does it require to constitute a schism in the Saṃgha.'

3. 'There is the expression, Lord, "concord in the Saṃgha." What, Lord, does it require to constitute concord in the Saṃgha?'

'They put forth, Upāli, what is not Dhamma as not Dhamma (and so on through the Eighteen Points down to the end).

^[6]4. 'To what (result of Karma), Lord, does that man give rise who brings about a schism in the Saṃgha when it is in concord?'

'He gives rise, Upāli, to a fault (the result of which) endures for a Kalpa, and for a Kalpa is he boiled in Niraya.'

"He who breaks up the Saṃgha is (doomed) to remain for a Kalpa in states of suffering and woe^[7].

He who delights in party (strife), and adheres not to the Dhamma, is cut off from Arahatship:

Having broken up the Saṃgha when it was at peace he is boiled for a Kalpa in Niraya."

'To what (result of Karma), Lord, does that man give rise who brings about reconciliation in the Saṃgha when it has been split up?'

'He gives rise, Upāli, to the highest merit, and for a Kalpa is he happy in heaven.

"Blessed is concord in the Saṃgha, and the support of those who are at peace!
He who delights in peace, adhering to the Dhamma, is not cut off from Arahatship:
On reconciling the Saṃgha, when it was at strife, he is happy for a Kalpa in heaven."'

5. 'Can it be, Lord, that one who breaks up the Saṃgha is irretrievably (doomed) to remain for a Kalpa in states of suffering and woe?'

'Yes, Upāli, that can be.'

'Can it be, Lord, that one who breaks up the Saṃgha is not doomed to be reborn in states either of suffering or of woe; that he is not doomed to remain so in such states for a Kalpa; and that he (his position) is not irretrievable?'

'Yes, Upāli, that can be.'

'Who then, Lord, [comes under the first head?]'

'In case, Upāli, a Bhikkhu gives out what is not Dhamma as Dhamma, directing his opinion and his approval and his pleasure and his intention^[8] (to what he says and does); and in belief that the doctrine (he propounds) is against the Dhamma, and that the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma^[9]; and makes publication thereof^[10], giving out tickets, and saying, "Take this (voting-ticket): approve this (opinion)^[11]. This is Dhamma; this is Vinaya; this is the teaching of the Master,"—a man, Upāli, who thus divides the Saṃgha, is irretrievably doomed to remain for a K al pa in states of suffering and woe.'

[The above paragraph is then repeated in full, reading successively for 'in belief that the doctrine (he propounds) is against the Dhamma, and the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma,' each of the following clauses:—

(b) . . . in belief that the doctrine is against the Dhamma, but that the schism resulting therefrom would be in accordance with the Dhamma . . . (c) . . . in belief that the doctrine is against the Dhamma, but in uncertainty whether the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma or not . . .

(ḍ) . . . in belief that the doctrine is in accordance with the Dhamma, but that the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma . . .

(e) . . . in belief that the doctrine is in accordance with the Dhamma, but in uncertainty whether the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma or not . . .

(f) . . . in uncertainty whether the doctrine is against the Dhamma or not, but in the belief that the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma . . .

(j) . . . in uncertainty whether the doctrine is against the Dhamma or not, and in the belief that the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma . . .

(ḥ) . . . in uncertainty whether the doctrine would be against the Dhamma, and in uncertainty whether the schism resulting therefrom would be against the Dhamma or not . . .]

[The whole paragraph is then again repeated, reading successively for 'gives out that which is not Dhamma as Dhamma' each of the Eighteen Points given in full in VII, 5, 2.]

6. 'Who then, Lord, is one who breaks up the Saṃgha, and yet is not doomed to be reborn in states either of suffering or of woe; is not doomed to remain in such states for a Kalpa; and is not so doomed that his position is irretrievable?'

'In case, Upāli, a Bhikkhu gives out what is not Dhamma as Dhamma [and so on successively through the whole Eighteen Points] without directing his opinion and his approval and his pleasure and his intention thereto, and in the belief that the doctrine he propounds is in accordance with the Dhamma, and that the schism resulting therefrom would be so too^[12].'

________________________

Here ends the Third Portion for Recitation.

=====================

Here ends the Seventh Khandhaka, on Divisions in the Saṃgha.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Saṃgha-rāji and saṃgha-bhedo. See Mahāvagga X. 1, 6, where other expressions, not here referred to, are also used.

[2]:

That is, stated shortly, it requires the breaking up of a body of at the least nine Bhikkhus to make a schism.

[3]:

Pakatatto samāna-saṃvāsako samāna-sīmāya ṭhito. On the two last of these expressions, see our notes on Mahāvagga IX, 4, 8. The first is there wrongly rendered, and should be translated as it is here; see the frequent passages in which the word occurs (ej. Cullavagga I, 5, 1; I, 6, 1; I, 27, 1; II, 1, &c., where we have rendered it shortly 'a regular Bhikkhu').

[4]:

The first ten of the following list recur word for word in the Aṅguttara Nikāya I, 11, 1-20 (Adhammādi-vagga), and the whole eighteen above in the Mahāvagga X, 5, 4, 5.

[5]:

Both the exact Pāli form and the interpretation of these terms are uncertain. Buddhaghosa's notes will be found at p. 325 of H.O.'s edition of the text, and most probably we should there read parisaṃ in both cases.

[6]:

On the whole of the following section, compare above, VII, 3, 16, where much of the phraseology recurs.

[7]:

On this line see our note above on VII; 4, 7.

[8]:

Vinidhāya diṭṭhiṃ, vinidhāya khantiṃ, vinidhāya rukiṃ, vinidhāya bhāvaṃ. These expressions all recur in the Sutta-vibhaṅga, Pācittiya I, 2, 2 and following sections, where the question at issue is whether an erroneous statement is, or is not, a conscious lie. The meaning of the whole is clear, though each of the words is used in a rather uncommon sense. On khanti, compare diṭṭhe sute khantiṃ akubbamāno (of the Arahat) at Sutta Nipāta IV, 13, 3, and the standing use of the verb khamati, at the end of the Kammavācās.

[9]:

Bhede adhamma-diṭṭhi; literally, 'in the schism (there will be) doctrine that is against the Dhamma.'

[10]:

Anussāveti, which is here equivalent to the technical 'publication' required in the English law of libel and slander.

[11]:

See the note above on VII, 4, 1.

[12]:

The sum of the last two sections seems to come to this, that practically such a schism as would have the awful effects set out above in § 4 would be impossible in Buddhism. For not only is a formal putting forward and voting on the false doctrine essential to schism as distinct from mere disagreement, but the offending Bhikkhu must also be quite aware that the doctrine so put forth is wrong, or at least doubtful, and also that the schism resulting from his action will be, or will probably be, disastrous to the Dhamma. In other words, the schism must be brought about by deliberately putting forward a doctrine known to be false, or at least doubtful, or with the express intention or hope of thereby injuring the cause of the Dhamma (that is, of the Truth).