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 (&c., as before)--then this, Upâli, is disunion in the Samgha, and not schism.
'If, Upâli, four are on one side, and other four
(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
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
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.
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.'
[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 . . .
________________________
Here ends the Third Portion for Recitation.
=====================
Here ends the Seventh Khandhaka, on Divisions in the Samgha.
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).
