buddha daily wisdom image

mn.104 Majjhima Nikāya (Middle Discourses)

At Sāmagāma

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Sakyan country at Sāmagāma.

Now on that occasion the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta had just died at Pāvā. On his death the Nigaṇṭhas divided, split into two; and they had taken to quarrelling and brawling and were deep in disputes, stabbing each other with verbal daggers: “You do not understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. How could you understand this Dhamma and Discipline? Your way is wrong. My way is right. I am consistent. You are inconsistent. What should have been said first you said last. What should have been said last you said first. What you had so carefully thought up has been turned inside out. Your assertion has been shown up. You are refuted. Go and learn better, or disentangle yourself if you can!” It seemed as if there were nothing but slaughter among the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta’s pupils. And his white-clothed lay disciples were disgusted, dismayed, and disappointed with the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta’s pupils, as they were with his badly proclaimed and badly expounded Dhamma and Discipline, which was unemancipating, unconducive to peace, expounded by one not fully enlightened, and was now with its shrine broken, left without a refuge.

Then the novice Cunda, who had spent the Rains at Pāvā, went to the venerable Ānanda, and after paying homage to him, he sat down at one side and told him what was taking place.

The venerable Ānanda then said to the novice Cunda: “Friend Cunda, this is news that should be told to the Blessed One. Come, let us approach the Blessed One and tell him this.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” the novice Cunda replied.

Then the venerable Ānanda and the novice Cunda went together to the Blessed One. After paying homage to him, they sat down at one side, and the venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One: “This novice Cunda, venerable sir, says thus: ‘Venerable sir, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta has just died. On his death the Nigaṇṭhas divided, split into two…and is now with its shrine broken, left without a refuge.’ I thought, venerable sir: ‘Let no dispute arise in the Sangha when the Blessed One has gone. For such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans.’”

“What do you think, Ānanda? These things that I have taught you after directly knowing them—that is, the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right kinds of striving, the four bases for spiritual power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven enlightenment factors, the Noble Eightfold Path—do you see, Ānanda, even two bhikkhus who make differing assertions about these things?”

“No, venerable sir, I do not see even two bhikkhus who make differing assertions about these things. But, venerable sir, there are people who live deferential towards the Blessed One who might, when he has gone, create a dispute in the Sangha about livelihood and about the Pātimokkha. Such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans.”

“A dispute about livelihood or about the Pātimokkha would be trifling, Ānanda. But should a dispute arise in the Sangha about the path or the way, such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans.

“There are, Ānanda, these six roots of disputes. What six? Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is angry and resentful. Such a bhikkhu dwells disrespectful and undeferential towards the Teacher, towards the Dhamma, and towards the Sangha, and he does not fulfil the training. A bhikkhu who dwells disrespectful and undeferential towards the Teacher, towards the Dhamma, and towards the Sangha, and who does not fulfil the training, creates a dispute in the Sangha, which would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans. Now if you see any such root of dispute either in yourselves or externally, you should strive to abandon that same evil root of dispute. And if you do not see any such root of dispute either in yourselves or externally, you should practise in such a way that that same evil root of dispute does not erupt in the future. Thus there is the abandoning of that evil root of dispute; thus there is the non-eruption of that evil root of dispute in the future.

“Again, a bhikkhu is contemptuous and insolent…envious and avaricious…fraudulent and deceitful…has evil wishes and wrong view…adheres to his own views, holds on to them tenaciously, and relinquishes them with difficulty. Such a bhikkhu dwells disrespectful and undeferential towards the Teacher, towards the Dhamma, and towards the Sangha, and he does not fulfil the training. A bhikkhu who dwells disrespectful and undeferential towards the Teacher, towards the Dhamma, and towards the Sangha, and who does not fulfil the training, creates a dispute in the Sangha, which would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans. Now if you see any such root of dispute either in yourselves or externally, you should strive to abandon that same evil root of dispute. And if you do not see any such root of dispute either in yourselves or externally, you should practise in such a way that that same evil root of dispute does not erupt in the future. Thus there is the abandoning of that evil root of dispute; thus there is the non-eruption of that evil root of dispute in the future. These are the six roots of dispute.

“Ānanda, there are these four kinds of litigation. What four? Litigation because of a dispute, litigation because of an accusation, litigation because of an offence, and litigation concerning proceedings. These are the four kinds of litigation.

“Ānanda, there are these seven kinds of settlement of litigation. For the settlement and pacification of litigations whenever they arise: removal of litigation by confrontation may be provided, removal of litigation on account of memory may be provided, removal of litigation on account of past insanity may be provided, the effecting of acknowledgement of an offence, the opinion of the majority, the pronouncement of bad character against someone, and covering over with grass.

“And how is there removal of litigation by confrontation? Here bhikkhus are disputing: ‘It is Dhamma,’ or ‘It is not Dhamma,’ or ‘It is Discipline,’ or ‘It is not Discipline.’ Those bhikkhus should all meet together in concord. Then, having met together, the guideline of the Dhamma should be drawn out. Once the guideline of the Dhamma has been drawn out, that litigation should be settled in a way that accords with it. Such is the removal of litigation by confrontation. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by removal of litigation by confrontation.

“And how is there the opinion of a majority? If those bhikkhus cannot settle that litigation in that dwelling place, they should go to a dwelling place where there is a greater number of bhikkhus. There they should all meet together in concord. Then, having met together, the guideline of the Dhamma should be drawn out. Once the guideline of the Dhamma has been drawn out, that litigation should be settled in a way that accords with it. Such is the opinion of a majority. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by the opinion of a majority.

“And how is there removal of litigation on account of memory? Here one bhikkhu reproves another bhikkhu for such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat: ‘Does the venerable one remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I do not, friends, remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat.’ In his case removal of litigation on account of memory should be pronounced. Such is the removal of litigation on account of memory. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by removal of litigation on account of memory.

“And how is there removal of litigation on account of past insanity? Here one bhikkhu reproves another bhikkhu for such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat: ‘Does the venerable one remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I do not, friends, remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat.’ Despite the denial, the former presses the latter further: ‘Surely the venerable one must know quite well if he remembers having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I had gone mad, friend, I was out of my mind, and when I was mad I said and did many things improper for a recluse. I do not remember, I was mad when I did that.’ In his case removal of litigation on account of past insanity should be pronounced. Such is the removal of litigation on account of past insanity. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by removal of litigation on account of past insanity.

“And how is there the effecting of acknowledgement of an offence? Here a bhikkhu, whether reproved or unreproved, remembers an offence, reveals it, and discloses it. He should go to a senior bhikkhu, and after arranging his robe on one shoulder, he should pay homage at his feet. Then, sitting on his heels, he should raise his hands palms together and say: ‘Venerable sir, I have committed such and such an offence; I confess it.’ The other says: ‘Do you see?’—‘Yes, I see.’—‘Will you practise restraint in the future?’—‘I will practise restraint in the future.’ Such is the effecting of acknowledgement of an offence. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by the effecting of acknowledgement of an offence.

“And how is there the pronouncement of bad character against someone? Here one bhikkhu reproves another for such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat: ‘Does the venerable one remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I do not, friends, remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat.’ Despite the denial, the former presses the latter further: ‘Surely the venerable one must know quite well if he remembers having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I do not, friends, remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat. But, friends, I remember having committed such and such a minor offence.’ Despite the denial, the former presses the latter further: ‘Surely the venerable one must know quite well if he remembers having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘Friends, when not asked I acknowledge having committed this minor offence; so when asked, why shouldn’t I acknowledge having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ The other says: ‘Friend, if you had not been asked, you would not have acknowledged committing this minor offence; so why, when asked, would you acknowledge having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat? Surely the venerable one must know quite well if he remembers having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I remember, friends, having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat. I was joking, I was raving, when I said that I did not remember having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat.’ Such is the pronouncement of bad character against someone. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by the pronouncement of bad character against someone.

“And how is there covering over with grass? Here when bhikkhus have taken to quarreling and brawling and are deep in disputes, they may have said and done many things improper for a recluse. Those bhikkhus should all meet together in concord. When they have met together, a wise bhikkhu among the bhikkhus who side together on the one part should rise from his seat, and after arranging his robe on one shoulder, he should raise his hands, palms together, and call for an enactment of the Sangha thus: ‘Let the venerable Sangha hear me. When we took to quarreling and brawling and were deep in disputes, we said and did many things improper for a recluse. If it is approved by the Sangha, then for the good of these venerable ones and for my own good, in the midst of the Sangha I shall confess, by the method of covering over with grass, any offences of these venerable ones and any offences of my own, except for those which call for serious censure and those connected with the laity.’

“Then a wise bhikkhu among the bhikkhus who side together on the other part should rise from his seat, and after arranging his robe on one shoulder, he should raise his hands, palms together, and call for an enactment of the Sangha thus: ‘Let the venerable Sangha hear me. When we took to quarreling and brawling and were deep in disputes, we said and did many things improper for a recluse. If it is approved by the Sangha, then for the good of these venerable ones and for my own good, in the midst of the Sangha I shall confess, by the method of covering over with grass, any offences of these venerable ones and any offences of my own, except for those which call for serious censure and those connected with the laity.’ Such is the covering over with grass. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by the covering over with grass.

“Ānanda, there are these six principles of cordiality that create love and respect, and conduce to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity. What are the six?

“Here a bhikkhu maintains bodily acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity.

“Again, a bhikkhu maintains verbal acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This too is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to…unity.

“Again, a bhikkhu maintains mental acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This too is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to…unity.

“Again, a bhikkhu enjoys things in common with his virtuous companions in the holy life; without making reservations, he shares with them any gain of a kind that accords with the Dhamma and has been obtained in a way that accords with the Dhamma, including even what is in his bowl. This too is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to…unity.

“Again, a bhikkhu dwells both in public and in private possessing in common with his companions in the holy life those virtues that are unbroken, untorn, unblotched, unmottled, liberating, commended by the wise, not misapprehended, and conducive to concentration. This too is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect and conduces to…unity.

“Again, a bhikkhu dwells both in public and in private possessing in common with his companions in the holy life that view that is noble and emancipating, and leads the one who practises in accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering. This too is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity.

“These are the six principles of cordiality that create love and respect, and conduce to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity.

“If, Ānanda, you undertake and maintain these six principles of cordiality, do you see any course of speech, trivial or gross, that you could not endure?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Therefore, Ānanda, undertake and maintain these six principles of cordiality. That will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.”

That is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Ānanda was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

- Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi

- Editor: Blake Walsh


At Sāmagāma

So I have heard.
At one time the Buddha was staying among the Sakyans near the village of Sāma.
Now at that time the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta had recently passed away at Pāvā.
With his passing the Jain ascetics split, dividing into two factions, arguing, quarreling, and disputing, continually wounding each other with barbed words:
“You don’t understand this teaching and training. I understand this teaching and training. What, you understand this teaching and training? You’re practicing wrong. I’m practicing right. I stay on topic, you don’t. You said last what you should have said first. You said first what you should have said last. What you’ve thought so much about has been disproved. Your doctrine is refuted. Go on, save your doctrine! You’re trapped; get yourself out of this—if you can!”
You’d think there was nothing but slaughter going on among the Jain ascetics.
And the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta’s white-clothed lay disciples were disillusioned, dismayed, and disappointed in the Jain ascetics. They were equally disappointed with a teaching and training so poorly explained and poorly propounded, not emancipating, not leading to peace, proclaimed by someone who is not a fully awakened Buddha, with broken monument and without a refuge.
And then, after completing the rainy season residence near Pāvā, the novice Cunda went to see Venerable Ānanda at Sāma village. He bowed, sat down to one side, and told him what had happened.


Ānanda said to him,
“Reverend Cunda, we should see the Buddha about this matter.
Come, let’s go to the Buddha and inform him about this.”
“Yes, sir,” replied Cunda.
Then Ānanda and Cunda went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and Ānanda informed him of what Cunda had said. He went on to say,



“Sir, it occurs to me:
‘When the Buddha has passed away, let no dispute arise in the Saṅgha.
For such a dispute would be for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.’”
“What do you think, Ānanda?
Do you see even two mendicants who disagree regarding the things I have taught from my direct knowledge, that is,
the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening factors, and the noble eightfold path?”
“No, sir, I do not.

Nevertheless, there are some individuals who appear to live obedient to the Buddha, but when the Buddha has passed away they might create a dispute in the Saṅgha regarding livelihood or the monastic code.
Such a dispute would be for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.”
“Ānanda, dispute about livelihood or the monastic code is a minor matter.
But should a dispute arise in the Saṅgha concerning the path or the practice, that would be for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.
Ānanda, there are these six roots of arguments.
What six?
Firstly, a mendicant is irritable and hostile.
Such a mendicant lacks respect and reverence for the teacher, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and they don’t fulfill the training.
They create a dispute in the Saṅgha, which is for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.
If you see such a root of arguments in yourselves or others, you should try to give up this bad thing.
If you don’t see it, you should practice so that it doesn’t come up in the future.
That’s how to give up this bad root of arguments, so it doesn’t come up in the future.
Furthermore, a mendicant is offensive and contemptuous …
They’re jealous and stingy …
They’re devious and deceitful …
They have wicked desires and wrong view …
They’re attached to their own views, holding them tight, and refusing to let go.
Such a mendicant lacks respect and reverence for the teacher, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and they don’t fulfill the training.
They create a dispute in the Saṅgha, which is for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.
If you see such a root of arguments in yourselves or others, you should try to give up this bad thing.
If you don’t see it, you should practice so that it doesn’t come up in the future.
That’s how to give up this bad root of arguments, so it doesn’t come up in the future.
These are the six roots of arguments.
There are four kinds of disciplinary issues.
What four?
Disciplinary issues due to disputes, accusations, offenses, or proceedings.
These are the four kinds of disciplinary issues.
There are seven methods for the settlement of any disciplinary issues that might arise.
Removal in the presence of those concerned is applicable. Removal by accurate recollection is applicable. Removal due to recovery from madness is applicable. The offense should be acknowledged. The decision of a majority. A verdict of aggravated misconduct. Covering over with grass.
And how is there removal in the presence of those concerned?
It’s when mendicants are disputing: ‘This is the teaching,’ ‘This is not the teaching,’ ‘This is the monastic law,’ ‘This is not the monastic law.’
Those mendicants should all sit together in harmony
and thoroughly go over the guidelines of the teaching.
They should settle that disciplinary issue in agreement with the guidelines.
That’s how there is removal in the presence of those concerned.
And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by removal in the presence of those concerned.
And how is there the decision of a majority?
If those mendicants are not able to settle that issue in that monastery,
they should go to another monastery with more mendicants.
There they should all sit together in harmony
and thoroughly go over the guidelines of the teaching.
They should settle that disciplinary issue in agreement with the guidelines.
That’s how there is the decision of a majority. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by decision of a majority.
And how is there removal by accurate recollection?
It’s when mendicants accuse a mendicant of a serious offense; one entailing expulsion, or close to it:
‘Venerable, do you recall committing the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion or close to it?’
They say:
‘No, reverends, I don’t recall committing such an offense.’
The removal by accurate recollection is applicable to them.
That’s how there is the removal by accurate recollection. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by removal by accurate recollection.
And how is there removal by recovery from madness?
It’s when mendicants accuse a mendicant of the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion, or close to it:
‘Venerable, do you recall committing the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion or close to it?’
They say:
‘No, reverends, I don’t recall committing such an offense.’
But though they try to get out of it, the mendicants pursue the issue:
‘Surely the venerable must know perfectly well if you recall committing an offense that entails expulsion or close to it!’
They say:
‘Reverends, I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.
And while I was mad I did and said many things that are not proper for an ascetic.
I don’t remember any of that,
I was mad when I did it.’
The removal by recovery from madness is applicable to them.
That’s how there is the removal by recovery from madness. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by recovery from madness.
And how is there the acknowledging of an offense?
It’s when a mendicant, whether accused or not, recalls an offense and clarifies it and reveals it.
After approaching a more senior mendicant, that mendicant should arrange his robe over one shoulder, bow to that mendicant’s feet, squat on their heels, raise their joined palms, and say:
‘Sir, I have fallen into such-and-such an offense. I confess it.’
The senior mendicant says:
‘Do you see it?’
‘Yes, I see it.’
‘Then restrain yourself in future.’
‘I shall restrain myself.’
That’s how there is the acknowledging of an offense. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by acknowledging an offense.
And how is there a verdict of aggravated misconduct?
It’s when a mendicant accuses a mendicant of the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion, or close to it:
‘Venerable, do you recall committing the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion or close to it?’
They say:
‘No, reverends, I don’t recall committing such an offense.’
But though they try to get out of it, the mendicants pursue the issue:
‘Surely the venerable must know perfectly well if you recall committing an offense that entails expulsion or close to it!’
They say:
‘Reverends, I don’t recall committing a serious offense of that nature.
But I do recall committing a light offense.’
But though they try to get out of it, the mendicants pursue the issue:
‘Surely the venerable must know perfectly well if you recall committing an offense that entails expulsion or close to it!’
They say:
‘Reverends, I’ll go so far as to acknowledge this light offense even when not asked.
Why wouldn’t I acknowledge a serious offense when asked?’
They say:
‘You wouldn’t have acknowledged that light offense without being asked, so why would you acknowledge a serious offense?
Surely the venerable must know perfectly well if you recall committing an offense that entails expulsion or close to it!’
They say:
‘Reverend, I do recall committing the kind of serious offense that entails expulsion or close to it.
I spoke too hastily when I said
that I didn’t recall it.’
That’s how there is a verdict of aggravated misconduct. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by a verdict of aggravated misconduct.
And how is there the covering over with grass?
It’s when the mendicants continually argue, quarrel, and dispute, doing and saying many things that are not proper for an ascetic.
Those mendicants should all sit together in harmony.
A competent mendicant of one party, having got up from their seat, arranged their robe over one shoulder, and raised their joined palms, should inform the Saṅgha:
‘Sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me.
We have been continually arguing, quarreling, and disputing, doing and saying many things that are not proper for an ascetic.
If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, then—for the benefit of these venerables and myself—I disclose in the middle of the Saṅgha by means of covering over with grass any offenses committed by these venerables and by myself, excepting only those that are gravely blameworthy and those connected with laypeople.’
Then a competent mendicant of the other party, having got up from their seat, arranged their robe over one shoulder, and raising their joined palms, should inform the Saṅgha:
‘Sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me.
We have been continually arguing, quarreling, and disputing, doing and saying many things that are not proper for an ascetic.
If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, then—for the benefit of these venerables and myself—I disclose in the middle of the Saṅgha by means of covering over with grass any offenses committed by these venerables and by myself, excepting only those that are gravely blameworthy and those connected with laypeople.’
That’s how there is the covering over with grass. And that’s how certain disciplinary issues are settled, that is,
by covering over with grass.
Ānanda, these six warm-hearted qualities make for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling.
What six?
Firstly, a mendicant consistently treats their spiritual companions with bodily kindness, both in public and in private.
This warm-hearted quality makes for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling.
Furthermore, a mendicant consistently treats their spiritual companions with verbal kindness …
This too is a warm-hearted quality.
Furthermore, a mendicant consistently treats their spiritual companions with mental kindness …
This too is a warm-hearted quality.
Furthermore, a mendicant shares without reservation any material possessions they have gained by legitimate means, even the food placed in the alms-bowl, using them in common with their ethical spiritual companions.
This too is a warm-hearted quality.
Furthermore, a mendicant lives according to the precepts shared with their spiritual companions, both in public and in private. Those precepts are unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
This too is a warm-hearted quality.
Furthermore, a mendicant lives according to the view shared with their spiritual companions, both in public and in private. That view is noble and emancipating, and leads one who practices it to the complete ending of suffering.
This too is a warm-hearted quality.
These six warm-hearted qualities make for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling.
If you should undertake and follow these six warm-hearted qualities, do you see any criticism, large or small, that you could not endure?”
“No, sir.”
“That’s why, Ānanda, you should undertake and follow these six warm-hearted qualities.
That will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.”
That is what the Buddha said.
Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda was happy with what the Buddha said.