Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c28.s1: Definition of Saṅghabheda

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c28.s1

Language
English

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).

Linked texts (2)