Ru-Yi Meditation Center
Itivuttaka · The Book of the Ones · Chapter Two

Schism in the Saṅgha

The Book of the Ones, Chapter Two

Audience
Mendicants in general — no named individual, no location, no occasion, and no mention of Devadatta or any specific historical schism
Form
A single prose declaration followed by a six-line verse restating the same point
Length
Under a minute to read
Pairing
First of a matched contrast with Iti 19 — this discourse names schism as harmful to gods and humans; Iti 19 names harmony as beneficial to them
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — brief, but naming one of the tradition’s gravest concerns

Why this discourse, eighteenth

It would be easy to assume a discourse titled “Schism in the Saṅgha” tells the story of Devadatta’s attempt to split the community — that narrative exists elsewhere in the canon (including a very short scene preserved in the Udāna). This text does not tell that story. It names schism itself, in the abstract, as the single worst thing that can arise for the world’s harm, and states what it does to those caught inside it.

Reading guide

No names, no history

It is worth being direct about what this discourse does not contain: no Devadatta, no account of any actual historical rift, no description of how a schism begins or is resolved. What it offers instead is a general claim about a single “one thing” — framed with a rhetorical question-and-answer the text asks of itself: “What one thing? Schism in the Saṅgha.” Whatever the reader may already know about Devadatta from other sources, this text is not drawing on that story; it stands on its own.

“For the detriment and suffering of the people”

The scale of the claim is unusually large for such a short text. Schism is described as arising “for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans” — not merely damaging to the monastics directly involved, but to a far wider circle, gods included. This is among the strongest claims of consequence made anywhere in this short chapter of the Itivuttaka.

What splitting actually does

The discourse names the concrete behavior schism produces: “When the Saṅgha is split, they argue, insult, block, and forsake each other.” This is not abstract; it is a list of specific, recognizable breakdowns in a community’s functioning. The discourse then names the effect on outsiders too: “This doesn’t inspire confidence in those without it, and it causes some with confidence to change their minds.” A schism’s damage, in other words, is not contained within the community where it occurs.

The verse: hell, named directly

The verse does not soften the prose’s claim; it sharpens it. A person who causes schism “remains for the eon in a place of loss, in hell,” having taken “a stand against the teaching” and ruined “their sanctuary” by “favoring factions.” The closing couplet restates it with no ambiguity: “After causing schism in a harmonious Saṅgha, they burn in hell for an eon.” Among the consequences named across this chapter of the Itivuttaka, this is one of the starkest and most specific.

Read against its pair

Iti 19, immediately following, states the positive mirror of this claim almost word for word — harmony, not schism, as the one thing that benefits gods and humans. Reading the two together makes the structure obvious: the Itivuttaka is not simply condemning schism in isolation, it is contrasting an entire community’s worst possible state against its best.

Key terms

saṅghabheda — “schism in the Saṅgha,” the subject named directly in this discourse’s title and its own internal question-and-answer.
“for the harm… of gods and humans” — the discourse’s unusually wide scale of consequence, extending schism’s damage beyond the monastic community itself.
“argue, insult, block, and forsake” — the discourse’s concrete list of what a split Saṅgha actually does to itself.
“favoring factions” — the verse’s description of what a schismatic does, in contrast with taking a stand on the teaching itself.
an eon in hell — the verse’s stated consequence for one who causes schism in a harmonious Saṅgha, among the starkest results named in this chapter.

The text

The discourse in full. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.

§2“One thing, mendicants, arises in the world for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans. What one thing? Schism in the Saṅgha. When the Saṅgha is split, they argue, insult, block, and forsake each other. This doesn’t inspire confidence in those without it, and it causes some with confidence to change their minds.”

The Buddha spoke this matter. On this it is said:

§3“A schismatic remains for the eon
in a place of loss, in hell.
Taking a stand against the teaching,
favoring factions, they ruin their sanctuary.
After causing schism in a harmonious Saṅgha,
they burn in hell for an eon.”

§4This too is a matter that was spoken by the Blessed One: that is what I heard.

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10
What single “one thing” does this discourse say arises for the harm and suffering of gods and humans alike?
Correct: B. The discourse names this directly, in its own internal question-and-answer.
Question 2 of 10
Does this discourse narrate the story of Devadatta or any specific historical schism?
Correct: C. The reading guide is explicit that this text contains no such narrative, unlike some other texts in the canon.
Question 3 of 10
What four things does the discourse say happen when the Saṅgha is split?
Correct: A. This is the discourse's concrete list of what a schism actually produces.
Question 4 of 10
According to the discourse, what effect does a schism have on people outside the Saṅgha?
Correct: D. The discourse explicitly extends schism's damage beyond the monastic community itself.
Question 5 of 10
According to the verse, what happens to a schismatic?
Correct: B. This is among the starkest consequences named in this chapter of the Itivuttaka.
Question 6 of 10
What does the verse say a schismatic does, in taking “a stand against the teaching”?
Correct: C. “Taking a stand against the teaching, favoring factions, they ruin their sanctuary.”
Question 7 of 10
Which discourse forms this one's matched contrast, and what does it address?
Correct: A. Iti 18 and Iti 19 state near-mirrored claims about the worst and best states of the community.
Question 8 of 10
Does this discourse name a specific place, audience member, or occasion?
Correct: B. No location or named individual appears anywhere in the text itself.
Question 9 of 10
How wide a scale of harm does the prose statement claim for schism?
Correct: D. The reading guide notes this as an unusually large claim of consequence.
Question 10 of 10
What is this discourse's structural relationship to Iti 19, according to the reading guide?
Correct: C. Reading the pair together makes the contrast between them explicit.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0

Further reading

← PreviousIti 17 · A Trainee (2nd)