| english - Thanissaro Bhikkhu |
русский - khantibalo |
Комментарии |
|
A schism (saṅgha-bheda, literally a split in the Saṅgha) is a division in the Community in which two groups of bhikkhus of common affiliation, with at least five in one group and four in the other, conduct Community business separately in the same territory.
|
|
|
|
The discussion under Sg 10 analyzes how schism comes about.
|
|
|
|
Here we will discuss how bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, and lay supporters should behave once a schism has started and how to bring it to an end.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community originally united around a correct understanding of Dhamma and Vinaya, 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).
|
|
|
|
The Buddha also formulated two saṅghādisesa rules (Sg 10 & 11) to help intercept attempts at schism, and gave special allowances for bhikkhus to try to avoid, prevent, or end schisms, even if it means breaking their Rains-residence (see Chapter 11).
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, the Khandhakas do not depict the Buddha as discouraging people from taking sides in a schism.
|
|
|
|
Instead, he instructs them to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma.
|
|
|
|
He also does not encourage a too-hasty healing of the schism.
|
|
|
|
If a split Community tries to patch up its differences without getting to the root of the matter, the transaction with which unification is announced is invalid and the matter must be opened up again.
|
|
|
|
Thus 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.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Behavior during a schism.
|
|
|
|
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' ... what was not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata as 'spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata' ... what was spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata as 'not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata' ... what was not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as 'regularly practiced by the Tathāgata' ... what was regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as 'not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata' ... what was not formulated by the Tathāgata as 'formulated by the Tathāgata' ... what was formulated by the Tathāgata as 'not formulated by the Tathāgata' ... a non-offense as 'an offense' ... an offense as 'a non-offense' ... a light offense as 'a heavy offense' ... a heavy offense as 'a light offense' ... an incurable offense as 'a curable offense' ... a curable offense as 'an incurable offense' ... a serious offense as 'a not-serious offense' ... a not-serious offense as 'a serious offense.'"
|
|
|
|
A speaker of Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he explains not-Dhamma as "not-Dhamma," Dhamma as "Dhamma," and so forth.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha's teachings.
|
|
|
|
If one cannot clearly judge which side is right (it might be that both sides are wrong, or that they have split over a gray area where the texts leave room for various interpretations), it is best not to get involved.
|
|
|
|
Mv. III. 11.5 gives permission for a bhikkhu to break his Rains-residence if bhikkhus in his Community are striving for a schism and he does not want to be present at the final break.
|
|
|
|
Arguing from this allowance, it would make sense that if a bhikkhu arrives at a Community where the break has occurred and he does not want to get involved in it, he would do well to go elsewhere.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Bhikkhunīs connected to a Community that has split should listen to both sides of the split and then give preference to whichever faction sides with the Dhamma.
|
|
|
|
They should look to the Dhamma-faction for whatever services they expect from the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, such as the exhortation and the scheduling of the uposatha day (see Chapter 23).
|
|
|
|
As for the laity, the texts quote the Buddha as saying that they should give gifts to both factions and listen to their Dhamma.
|
|
|
|
Then, on consideration, they should give their preference to the Dhamma-faction.
|
|
|
|
Notice, however, that in advising the laity to give preference to one faction over another, the Buddha does not say that only one faction should receive alms.
|
|
|
|
After all, the laity may be misinformed about the Dhamma and in a poor position to tell the right faction from the wrong.
|
|
|
|
At the same time, the Buddha has never been recorded as declaring a living being as unworthy of gifts, for that would be tantamount to saying that the being was unworthy to live.
|
|
|
|
Still, there is the instructive tale contained in Mv. X, telling of the schism at Kosambī.
|
|
|
|
After both sides had resisted the Buddha's efforts to settle their differences, he left Kosambī.
|
|
|
|
The lay supporters then forced a settlement by refusing to give alms to either side.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Practicalities.
|
|
|
|
Although the two sides of a schism may be performing separate recitations of the Pāṭimokkha and other Community transactions within the same territory, the transactions of both sides are considered valid as long as they follow the correct motions and announcements appropriate for those acts.
|
|
|
|
Neither side can invalidate or successfully protest the transactions of the other side, for they count of separate affiliations (see Mv.X.1.9-10; Mv.IX.4.7).
|
|
|
|
However — although none of the texts discuss the connection between Mv. X. 1.9-10 and Mv. IX. 4.2, which deals with valid and invalid quorums — it would seem that if the quorums of one side have to be filled by including bhikkhus who joined their faction out of corrupt motives, knowing or suspecting that what they were doing was not on the side of the Dhamma, their transactions would be automatically invalid.
|
|
|
|
If the two sides of the schism are on bad terms, the bhikkhus of each side, whenever sitting down, should sit far enough apart from the members of the opposite side so that they will not act inappropriately toward one another (§).
|
|
|
|
If the two sides are on courteous terms, though, a bhikkhu on one side may sit down near a bhikkhu on the other side, leaving the interval of one seat in between (§).
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
When a schismatic faction arrives at a monastery, the members should be given any lodgings that are vacant (§).
|
|
|
|
If none are vacant, some are to be made vacant, although this should be arranged so that senior bhikkhus are not preempted from lodgings to make way for junior bhikkhus.
|
|
|
|
The advantage of this arrangement is that the resident bhikkhus will not be implicated in the schism and will at the same time be provided some respite from the schismatics' arguments.
|
|
|
|
If two schismatic factions arrive at the same time, it would be wise — keeping the above injunction on sitting places in mind — to give them lodgings separate from each other.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Offerings given to the Community should be shared between both factions.
|
|
|
|
This principle holds regardless of whether the offerings were given before or after the split.
|
|
|
|
Offerings given to a particular faction after the split are for that faction only.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Ending schism.
|
|
|
|
The Canon contains two patterns for resolving a schism, based on the different ways the two schisms during the Buddha's lifetime were resolved.
|
|
|
|
Generalizing from the two patterns, we can make the following observations:
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
(See the instructions for settling a dispute in BMC1, Chapter 11.)
|
|
|
|
After the issue has been resolved, all members of both factions are to meet: No one may send his consent, and even those who are ill must come to the meeting.
|
|
|
|
One of the bhikkhus recites the transaction statement announcing the unification of the Community, and a unity-uposatha is then held (see Chapter 15).
|
|
|
|
That ends the schism.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
This method works only in cases where both factions were acting in good faith, each believing that it interpreted the Dhamma-Vinaya properly.
|
|
|
|
In such cases, differences can be settled by appealing to bhikkhus whose knowledge of the Dhamma-Vinaya is authoritative.
|
|
|
|
There are, however, 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.
|
|
|
|
In these cases, full unification is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Those who acted out of corrupt intent are to be expelled from the Saṅgha (Mv.I.67).
|
|
|
|
Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.
|
|
|
|
If they leave the faction and return to the Community, they are to confess a thullaccaya offense, and they are regular members of the Community as before.
|
|
|
