What a title!
Anyways, something just occurred to me.
Sanghabheda & Heresy are very similar terms, cross-culturally. They come from different peoples in different circumstances and worldviews, but, in their way, they are very similar.
We all know what sanghabheda is. It is the splitting of the sangha. Or the causing of a schism within it.
A heretic is someone who knows the true faith, departs from it, and encourages others to join him. For instance, the Catholic Church considers Martin Luther a heretic.
Modern day Lutherans, though, are not considered heretics. Neither are Buddhists, or Muslims for instance, by the “technical” definition.
This is because they were born into that system. They never apostatized to a “deranged” doctrine and encouraged others to do so with them, because they were born to it.
By its most technical definition, heresy is a splitting of the “true religion”. I can think of no better parallel in Buddhism as sanghabheda.
Now here is where others may disagree.
I think this to the point where I believe that “heresy” is a good English translation of the term “sanghabheda”. If I was a qualified and published translator, you would be reading suttas & vinaya text that has “sanghabheda” rendered in English as “heresy” or “heretic” depending on the grammar.
What do you think of that? Does the term “heretic” seem un-Buddhist to you? I ask only because many Buddhists have told me that “heresy” is a foreign concept to Buddhism.
If you were reading a Dharma text and encountered the word “heretic” or “heresy”, would you be offput?
What do you think of “heresy” as a translation for “sanghabheda”?