________________
266
KULLAVAGGA.
VII, 5, 2.
are on the other side, and a ninth tell them (&c., as before)—then this, Upâli, is both disunion in the Samgha, and it is schism.
(A separation) of nine, Upáli, or of more than nine, is both disunion in the Samgha, and it is schism.
'A Bhikkhuni, Upåli, 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 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 ?, Upåli, 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 Tathagata as taught and spoken by him (5), or what has been taught and spoken by the Tathagata as not taught
That is, stated shortly, it requires the breaking up of a body of at the least nine Bhikkhus to make a schism.
* Pakatatto samâna-samvâsako samâna-simâya 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 (e. g. Kullavagga I, 5, 1; 1, 6, 1; I, 27, 1; II, 1, &c., where we have rendered it shortly a regular Bhikkhu ').
* The first ten of the following list recur word for word in the Anguttara Nikâya I, 11, 1-20 (Adhammadi-vagga), and the whole eighteen above in the Mahavagga X, 5, 4, 5.
Digitized by
Digilzed by Google
