Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c28: Chapter II

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c28

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II

v2.c28.1

If the suttas in the Nikāyas and the rules in the Vinaya, the compilation of a greater portion of which may be placed during the reign of Ajātasattu and his successors, be scrutinised, it will be found that the disruptive forces were already at work within the Saṅgha even at the time of Ajātasattu, *i.e.*, soon after Buddha's death. These forces were not totally absent during the life-time of Buddha as is evidenced by the story of Kauśāmbī and the episode of Devadatta. In the Nikāyas¹ also appear a few apprehensive statements regarding the possibility of dissensions in the Saṅgha and the condemnation of *saṅghabheda* as one of the five extreme offences like patricides, matricides and so forth. In the Vinaya, there are elaborate directions as to when a dissension among the monks should be regarded as a regular or an irregular *saṅghabheda*. In the proceedings of the First Council also, is noticeable a rift in the lute in the refusal of Purāṇa of Dakkhiṇāgiri to accept *in toto* the texts adopted by Mahākassapa and his followers as *Buddhavacana*. His insistence on the introduction of a few disciplinary rules clearly shows a lack of unanimity among the monks immediately after Buddha's death.²

v2.c28.2

¹ Majjhima, III, p 65; Mahāvagga, X. 3 1; Kathāvatthu, XIII. 1

v2.c28.3

² See my *Early Monastic Buddhism* (henceforth abbreviated as EMB), I, p. 331-2.

v2.c28.4

*The story of Kosambī*

v2.c28.5

At Kosambī, there were two teachers, one a Dhammadhara and the other a Vinayadhara, both imparting instructions in their respective subjects to two different groups of students. One day the Dhammadhara teacher committed a very light offence through inadvertence and when pointed out he expressed regret for it, but this was talked about by the Vinayadhara teacher among his students and lay-devotees. The students and lay-admirers of the Dhammadhara teacher became offended at this provocative attitude of the Vinayadhara teacher and his followers, and there was a sharp cleavage not only between the two groups of students but also between their respective lay-devotees. Buddha intervened, and at first failed to make up the difference, and it was out of sheer disgust that he preferred to retire to the forest to be served by an elephant than by quarrelling people of the world. At this attitude of the Teacher, the quarrelling teachers, students and lay public came to their senses and settled their dispute.¹ This episode cannot strictly be called a *sanghabheda*, but it shows the possibility of dissensions in the Sangha.

v2.c28.6

¹ *Mahāvagga*, X; *Majjhima*, Kosambisutta; *Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā*, Kosambivattha. In the Gilgit ms. of the *Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya*, the story remains substantially the same with slight variations in geographical details.

v2.c28.7

*The episode of Devadatta*

v2.c28.8

The episode of Devadatta is almost a *sanghabheda* though it is not recognised as such in the Vinaya. Devadatta was an advocate for more austere discipline and requested the Teacher to make the following five rules compulsory for all monks²:—

v2.c28.9

² *Cullavagga*, VII. 3. 14; *Jātakas*, I, p. 34.

v2.c28.10

That the monks
(i) should live all their life in the forest;
(ii) subsist solely on doles collected out-doors;
(iii) dress themselves in rags picked out of dust-heaps;
(iv) dwell always under a tree and never under a roof;
(v) never eat fish or flesh.

v2.c28.11

Buddha could not agree with Devadatta. He believed more in person's own initiative than in obligatory rules, and so he left to the monks the option of observing the rules. This was too much for Devadatta, who departed to Gayāsīsa with a number of disciples who supported him. It is said that at the instance of Buddha, Sāriputta and Moggallāna later on won them over to Buddha's side.¹

v2.c28.12

¹ Yuan Chwang writes that he saw three Buddhist monasteries at Karṇasuvarṇa, where, in accordance with the teaching of Devadatta, milk-products were not taken as food. Watters, II, pp. 191, 192. I-tsing states that milk is an unlawful food. See Takakusu, I-tsing, p. 43.

v2.c28.13

*Apprehensive statements in the Nikāyas*

v2.c28.14

Though Buddha did not admit that there was any dissension in his Saṅgha, he was fully conscious of the possibility of such dissensions. It is clear from his sayings here and there that he strongly apprehended dissensions among his followers. He laid stress upon the importance of samaggā parisā (concord in the saṅgha) and pointed out in one of his last discourses that so long as his disciples would perform the ecclesiastical functions in concord, the welfare of the Saṅgha was assured. Once Cunda and Ānanda approached him with the news of the death of Nigaṇtha Nātaputta and informed him about the quarrels that immediately followed his death among his disciples. Buddha assured them that among his disciples there was no disagreement as far as his fundamental teaching, consisting of the 37 *Bodhipakkhiya dhammas*,¹ was concerned. There might be, after his death, he said, some differences of opinion relating to *abhi-dhamma* (*atireka-dhamma* = minor points of doctrine),² *ājīvājīva* (minor rules of livelihood) and *adhi-pātimokkha* (minor rules of discipline) but these should be treated as negligible (*appamattake*), but should there be any differences relating to the fruits (*magga*), path (*paṭipadā*) or the congregation (*sangha*), it would be a matter of regret and cause harm to the gods and the people.³ In differences of minor matters, as mentioned above, his instruction was that the erring monks should be politely pointed out that they were putting a different interpretation on a text or misreading a text, and that in the interest of the Sangha, they should give it up; for practical purposes, he suggested, that a sane and reasonable member among the erring monks should be selected for the purpose.⁴ In the *Sanghādisesa* section of the *Pātimokkha* appear similar instructions (*vide* rules 10-11) with the addition that if the erring monk or monks do not change their views, he or they should be treated as guilty of the *Sanghādisesa* offence. In the *Anguttara*⁵ there is a reference to Ānanda complaining to Buddha that Anuruddha’s disciple Bāhiyo was in the habit of picking up quarrels among the monks and causing dissension in the Sangha while his teacher would not say a word to him. Buddha pacified Ānanda by saying that Anuruddha had never interfered in Sangha matters, and that all such disputes had so far been settled by himself or Sāriputta and Moggallāna.

v2.c28.15

¹ Viz., (i) four *satipaṭṭhānas*; (ii) four *sammāppadhānas*; (iii) four *iddhipādas*; (iv) five *indriyas*; (v) five *balas*; (vi) seven *bojjhangas*; (vii) eight-fold path. See *Digha*, XVI, 50; *Majjhima*, II, pp. 77, 103, 104; *Lalitavistara* (Bibl. Ind.), pp. 34-37; *Sangīti-paryāya* in *JPTS.*, 1904-5, pp. 71, 75.

v2.c28.16

² *Atthasālini*, p. 2.

v2.c28.17

³ *Majjhima*, II, p. 245, cf *Digha*, III, p. 117f.

v2.c28.18

⁴ *Majjhima*, II, pp. 238-9

v2.c28.19

⁵ *Anguttara*, II, p. 239.

v2.c28.20

Failing to make up differences by polite persuasion, Buddha’s instruction was to take resort to the seven methods of adhikaraṇasamathas, defined in the Majjhima and the Pātimokkha.¹ Buddha attributed all quarrels to selfish motives of the monks or their possession of certain wicked qualities. He held out the prospect of a happy and glorious life like that of the god Brahmā to a monk in after-life as the result of any act of his that would serve to re-unite the groups of monks separated from one another, while he declared that the monk sowing dissension among his brethren is doomed to perdition for an aeon.²

v2.c28.21

¹ See EMB., I, p. 307-8.

v2.c28.22

² Aṅguttara, V, pp. 73, 75, 78; Cullavagga, vii. 5.

Definition of Saṅghabheda

v2.c28.s1.1

Every quarrel or difference of opinions among the bhikkhus was not characterised by Buddha as a saṅghabheda. It is thus described in the Vinaya: “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 bhikkhus 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 deliberately by putting forward a doctrine known to be false, or at least doubtful, or with the express intention or object of thereby injuring the Dhamma.”[¹] This definition obviously represents the opinion of the conservative school of the Theravādins who usually looked upon all those who differed from them with an eye of suspicion and ascribed an evil motive to their entertainment of the dissenting views. It is very likely that the dissenters held an honest belief that their views were devoid of any evil motive of injuring the Dhamma. It will, therefore, be apparent from a neutral standpoint that evil intention is not an essential factor of the sanghabheda. The real essentials are:—(1) belief in a dissentient religious view regarding either one or more points of faith or discipline; (2) entertainment of the dissenting view by eight, or more than eight, fully ordained monks; (3) the division taken among the aforesaid eight or more monks must show a majority on the side of the dissenters. When the disunion is confined to eight monks, it is called Sangharāji. This restriction as to number forming the essential of sangharāji shows that it might at any moment develop into a sanghabheda, by drawing an additional monk into the difference. Of course, bonafide belief and the full ordination of monks are necessary requisites.[²]

v2.c28.s1.2

¹ Vinaya Texts (S. B. E.), pt. iii, p. 271 n.

v2.c28.s1.3

² Cullavagga, vii, 5, 1; Milindapañha, p. 108: “No layman can create a schism, nor a sister of the order, no one under preparatory instruction, nor a novice of either sex. It must be a bhikkhu under no disability, who is in full communion and co-resident” (S. B. E., vol. xxxv, p. 163).

Differences in the First Council Proceedings

v2.c28.s2.1

In the proceedings of the First Council it will be observed that Mahākassapa was keen on securing the approval of all the senior monks, particularly, of Gavampati and Purāṇa, of the texts settled by his Council as *Buddhavacana*.¹ Gavampati remained neutral, i.e., he did not wholeheartedly accepted the proceedings of the Council as final while Purāṇa expressed his inability to accept the same as the words of the Teacher.² He further insisted on the incorporation into the Vinaya of eight rules relating to food.³ The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya not only upheld these eight rules as pointed out by Prof. Przyluski⁴ and also gave special recognition to Purāṇa as one of the foremost teachers of the time.

v2.c28.s2.2

¹ See *EMB*, I, p. 331-2.

v2.c28.s2.3

² *Cullavagga*, xi. 1 11.

v2.c28.s2.4

³ The eight rules (as translated by Suzuki from Chinese) are:— (i) cooking food indoors; (ii) cooking indoors; (iii) cooking of one' own accord; (iv) taking food of one's own accord; (v) receiving food when rising early in the morning; (vi) carrying food home in compliance with the wish of the giver; (vii) having miscellaneous fruits; and (viii) eating things grown in a pond.

v2.c28.s2.5

⁴ Przyluski, *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*

v2.c28.s2.6

All these testimonies clearly indicate that the seeds of dissensions had already been sown in the Saṅgha during Buddha's life-time and that these sprouted forth in full vigour in the second century after Buddha's demise.⁵

v2.c28.s2.7

⁵ See Infra, Ch. VII.

Linked texts (19)