27b: The 9th Rains Retreat (Schism) – 945 

 

me; if these monastics do not perform the Invitation ceremony together with me, 
if they perform the Invitation ceremony without me; if they do not carry out a 
formal act of the order (

Saṅgha-kamma

) together with me, if they will carry out 

a formal act of the order without me; if they do not sit on a seat together with 
me, if they sit on a seat without me; if they do not sit to drink gruel together 
with me, if they sit to drink gruel without me; if they do not sit in a refectory 
together with me, if they sit in a refectory without me; if they do not dwell 
under the same roof with me, if they dwell under one roof without me; if they 
do not pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms, 
together with me, if they will pay respect according to seniority, greet or 
worship with joined palms without me; by doing so, there will be dispute, strife, 
fighting, there will be schism in the order, there will be altercation in the order, 
dissension in the order, differences in the order. Monastics, knowing this, the 
monastic, should confess the guilt even out of faith in the Saṅgha to ward off 
schism and promote unity.” 

After delivering this discourse for unity of Saṅgha, the Buddha rose from the 
seat and departed. 

The monastic versed in the discourses had honestly expressed his desire to 
confess and to ask for pardon, if he had committed an offence when the 
monastic versed in the discipline made a complaint at first. When he was 
told subsequently that any offence committed through thoughtlessness and 
without volition does not amount to offence or a wrong act he sincerely 
thought he was free from guilt. 

Had the Buddha decided to blame those versed in the discipline for suspending 
the monastics versed in the discourses on such grounds, they would have accused 
him of taking sides with their opponents, thus exposing themselves to the risk of 
committing an offence against him, a demerit that could direct them to the 
realms of misery. 

Again, the monastic versed in the discourses had knowingly left a certain 
amount of water in the cup and as such, he was guilty of an infringement of a 
light offence (

dukkaṭa-āpatti

). His disciples had expressed their opinion that 

such a judgment was legally invalid, through attachment to their teacher. 

Had the Buddha decided to approve the judgment of those versed in the 
discipline on such grounds, the disciples of the monastic, who was versed in the 
discourses, would naturally accuse him of taking sides with their opponents thus