[dosakkhayo]

“As in common law, ignorance of Nature’s laws is not an excuse.”

Before I met Pure Dhamma, I wrote some articles introducing Buddhist books on the Internet.

I thought it was Buddha sasana at the time, so I recommended it to others, saying that it is Buddha’s teachings.

Of course, after learning about Pure Dhamma, I deleted the posts. Because it’s become clear to me that these could no longer be called Buddha sasana.

I wonder whether the act of the past applies to sanghabheda.

To be more precise, could you tell me the kamma patha of sangha bedha?

[Lal]

There are several types of “Saṅghabheda.”

“Saṅghabheda Sutta (AN 10.37)”

“Saṅghabhedakasutta Sutta (AN 4.243)”

“Saṅghabheda Sutta (Iti 18)”

However, saṅghabheda can become an anantariya kamma that will lead to rebirth in an apaya without exception only for a bhikkhu. Furthermore, the version in the first sutta may not be an anantariya kamma, even for a bhikkhu. No one knows the correct Dhamma until heard from a Buddha or a true disciple of the Buddha. I have heard Waharaka Thero explain that in a discourse. If I can find it, I will discuss it here.
– I think the one that qualifies as an anantariya kamma is to do with breaking a Vinaya rule and deliberately splitting the Bhikkhu Sasana. Devadatta did that when he split off and took 500 bhikkhus away. That was one of his anantariya kamma.

[dosakkhayo]

All right, that’s really a lot of comfort. Thank you. Lal.

[Author]

Posts