2

Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?

  • You mean, why it exists in the Sanskrit fragments but not in Chinese/Tibetan translations? Is that so - can you point to some references? – Andrei Volkov Oct 5 '16 at 8:31
  • I am glad you understood. – user17942 Oct 6 '16 at 4:14
1

Today the widely accepted definition of the term “Sangha Bedha” is division among bhikkhus. All Buddhist sects would rather hold on to this erroneous interpretation of the term “Sangha Bedha”, as the true meaning of it is not in the best interests, or even worse – it is anathema to them. What is meant by “Sangha Bedha” is described in at least six suttas in the Pali Canon.

Patama Ananda Sutta and Sangha Bedha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya describes what this Anantariya Kamma – the last of the five heinous acts (Kammas) – mean. If you read through the Suttas, this is what is said:

The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4).

Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?” The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.” Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3

The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.