1. Now the venerable Upâli 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
Upâli said to the Blessed One: 'The expressions, Lord, "disunion in the Samgha,"
and "schism in the Samgha," are used 1. How much, Lord, goes to make disunion
and not schism in the Samgha, and how much goes to make both disunion and schism
in the Samgha?'
'If one is on one side, Upâli, 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,
Upâli, is disunion in the Samgha, and not schism.
If, Upâli, 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 (etc., as
before)--then this, Upâli, is disunion in the Samgha, and not schism.
'If, Upâli, four are on one side, and other four
p. 266
are on the other side, and a ninth tell them (&c., as before)--then this, Upâli,
is both disunion in the Samgha, and it is schism 1.
(A separation) of nine, Upâli, or of more than nine, is both disunion in the
Samgha, and it is schism.
'A Bhikkhunî, Upâli, 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
Sâmanera, 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 2 who can make (one of the number
requisite to form) a schism.'
2. 'There is the expression, Lord, "schism in the Samgha." How much, Lord, does
it require to constitute a schism in the Samgha?'
'They put forth 3, Upâli, 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 Tathâgata as taught
and spoken by him (5), or what has been taught and spoken by the Tathâgata as
not taught
p. 267
and spoken by him (6), or what has not been practised by the Tathâgata as
practised by him (7), or what has been practised by the Tathâgata as not
practised by him (8), or what has not been ordained by the Tathâgata as ordained
by him (9), or what has been ordained by the Tathâgata 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) 1, and perform independently Uposatha, and
Pavâranâ, and (official) acts of the Samgha. So much, Upâli, does it require to
constitute a schism in the Samgha.'
3. 'There is the expression, Lord, "concord in the Samgha." What, Lord, does it
require to constitute concord in the Samgha?'
'They put forth, Upâli, what is not Dhamma as not Dhamma (and so on through the
Eighteen Points down to the end).
24. 'To what (result of Karma), Lord, does that
p. 268
man give rise who brings about a schism in the Samgha when it is in concord?'
'He gives rise, Upâli, 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 Samgha is (doomed) to remain for a Kalpa in states of
suffering and woe 1.
He who delights in party (strife), and adheres not to the Dhamma, is cut off
from Arahatship:
Having broken up the Samgha 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 Samgha when it has been split up?'
'He gives rise, Upâli, to the highest merit, and for a Kalpa is he happy in
heaven.
"Blessed is concord in the Samgha, 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 Samgha, when it was at strife, he is happy for a Kalpa in
heaven."'
5. 'Can it be, Lord, that one who breaks up the Samgha is irretrievably (doomed)
to remain for a Kalpa in states of suffering and woe?'
'Yes, Upâli, that can be.'
'Can it be, Lord, that one who breaks up the Samgha 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, Upâli, that can be.'
p. 269
'Who then, Lord, [comes under the first head?]'
'In case, Upâli, a Bhikkhu gives out what is not Dhamma as Dhamma, directing his
opinion and his approval and his pleasure and his intention 1 (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 2; and makes
publication thereof 3, giving out tickets, and saying, "Take this
(voting-ticket): approve this (opinion) 4. This is Dhamma; this is Vinaya; this
is the teaching of the Master,"--a man, Upâli, who thus divides the Samgha, 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 . . .
p. 270
(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 . . .
(d) . . . 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 .
. .
(g) . . . 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 .
. .
(h) . . . 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 Samgha, 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, Upâli, a Bhikkhu gives out what is not Dhamma as Dhamma [and so on
successively
p. 271
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 1.'
________________________
Here ends the Third Portion for Recitation.
=====================
Here ends the Seventh Khandhaka, on Divisions in the Samgha.
Footnotes
265:1 Samgha-râgi and samgha-bhedo. See Mahâvagga X. 1, 6, where other
expressions, not here referred to, are also used.
266:1 That is, stated shortly, it requires the breaking up of a body of at the
least nine Bhikkhus to make a schism.
266:2 Pakatatto samâna-samvâsako samâna-sîmâya thito. On the two last of these
expressions, see our notes on Mahâvagga 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 (eg. Kullavagga I, 5, 1; I, 6, 1; I, 27, 1; II, 1, &c.,
where we have rendered it shortly 'a regular Bhikkhu').
266:3 The first ten of the following list recur word for word in the Aṅguttara
Nikâya I, 11, 1-20 (Adhammâdi-vagga), and the whole eighteen above in the
Mahâvagga X, 5, 4, 5.
267:1 Both the exact Pâli 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 parisam in both cases.
267:2 On the whole of the following section, compare above, VII, 3, 16, where
much of the phraseology recurs.
268:1 On this line see our note above on VII; 4, 7.
269:1 Vinidhâya ditthim, vinidhâya khantim, vinidhâya rukim, vinidhâya bhâvam.
These expressions all recur in the Sutta-vibhaṅga, Pâkittiya 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
ditthe sute khantim akubbamâno (of the Arahat) at Sutta Nipâta IV, 13, 3, and
the standing use of the verb khamati, at the end of the Kammavâkâs.
269:2 Bhede adhamma-ditthi; literally, 'in the schism (there will be) doctrine
that is against the Dhamma.'
269:3 Anussâveti, which is here equivalent to the technical 'publication'
required in the English law of libel and slander.
269:4 See the note above on VII, 4, 1.
271:1 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).
0 comments:
Post a Comment