Lzh Dg Bu Vb Ss 8Making a Groundless Accusation Out of Anger

– FOUR-PART VINAYA

– SAṄGHĀDISESA

8. GROUNDLESS DEFAMATION

A. ORIGIN OF THE RULE

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling on Vulture Peak Mountain, near the city of Rājagṛha. At that time, the Venerable Dabba-Mallaputta, having attained arhatship, was sitting in meditation in a secluded place, and his mind reflected: "This body is impermanent. What means should I now employ to seek what is lasting?" The Venerable then thought: "Should I not exert myself fully in offering service by distributing lodgings for the Saṅgha and inviting the Saṅgha in turn to go to meal offerings?"

At that time, in the late afternoon, Dabba-Mallaputta left his place of meditation, adjusted his robes, went to where the Blessed One was, paid homage at the feet of the Buddha, and sat to one side. He then addressed the Blessed One:

"Just now, while sitting in meditation in a secluded place, I reflected thus: 'This body is impermanent. What means should I now employ to seek what is lasting? Should I not exert myself fully in offering service by distributing lodgings for the Saṅgha and inviting the Saṅgha in turn to go to meal offerings?'"

The Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus:

"Dabba-Mallaputta should be appointed as the one who distributes lodgings for the Saṅgha and invites the Saṅgha in turn to go to receive meals."

By a motion-and-one-proclamation act, a capable person in the assembly should be appointed, and the motion should be made as follows:

"Venerable Saṅgha, please listen. If the time is right for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha consent to appoint Dabba-Mallaputta to distribute lodgings for the Saṅgha and to invite the Saṅgha in turn to go to meal offerings. This is the motion.

"Venerable Saṅgha, please listen. The Saṅgha now appoints Dabba-Mallaputta to distribute lodgings for the Saṅgha and to invite the Saṅgha in turn to go to receive meals. Those elders who consent to the Saṅgha's appointing Dabba-Mallaputta to distribute lodgings for the Saṅgha and to invite the Saṅgha in turn to go to meal offerings, please remain silent; those who do not consent, please speak.

"The Saṅgha has consented to appointing Dabba-Mallaputta to distribute lodgings for the Saṅgha and to invite the Saṅgha in turn to go to meal offerings. Please remain silent. I record this matter thus."

At that time, Dabba-Mallaputta then distributed lodgings for the Saṅgha. Those of similar inclinations were grouped together as a community: forest-dwellers with forest-dwellers, alms-gatherers with alms-gatherers, rag-robe wearers with rag-robe wearers, those who do not perform the act of making additional food with those who do not, one-sitting eaters with one-sitting eaters, one-handful eaters with one-handful eaters, those who sit at charnel grounds with those who sit at charnel grounds, those who sit in open spaces with those who sit in open spaces, those who sit under trees with those who sit under trees, those who always sit with those who always sit, those who sit anywhere they arrive with those who sit anywhere they arrive, three-robe wearers with three-robe wearers,

those of the beinac group with those of the beinac group, those of great learning with those of great learning, Dharma teachers with Dharma teachers, Vinaya bearers with Vinaya bearers, those who practice meditation with those who practice meditation.

At that time, visiting bhikkhus came to Rājagṛha, and Dabba-Mallaputta distributed lodgings to them in suitable order. At that time there was an elder bhikkhu who, toward dusk, went up to Vulture Peak Mountain. The Venerable Dabba-Mallaputta emitted light from his hand to distribute the lodgings. He said:

"Here is the room. Here is the rope bed. Here is the wooden bed. Here is the large mattress and the small mattress. Here is the pillow. Here is the floor covering. Here is the spittoon. Here is the urine vessel. Here is the place for defecation. Here is the pure ground. Here is the impure ground."

The Blessed One praised him, saying:

"Among my disciples, in the distribution of lodgings for the Saṅgha, Dabba-Mallaputta is foremost."

At that time, Bhikkhu Mettiya came to the city of Rājagṛha. Dabba-Mallaputta distributed lodgings to the visiting bhikkhus in suitable order, beginning from the ranks of the senior monks. That bhikkhu Mettiya, being of junior standing in the community, received a poor room and poor lodging requisites. Mettiya then became angry and said: "Dabba-Mallaputta shows favoritism — those he likes he gives good rooms and good lodging requisites; those he does not like he gives poor rooms and poor lodging requisites. Why has the Saṅgha appointed such a partial person to distribute the Saṅgha's lodgings?"

The next morning, Dabba-Mallaputta invited the Saṅgha in order to go to the meal offering.

At that time, in the city of Rājagṛha, there was a donor who every year would prepare a fine meal to offer to the Saṅgha. Bhikkhu Mettiya's turn that day was to be invited there. That donor's household, having heard that Bhikkhu Mettiya would come to receive the meal in due order, spread inferior seat coverings outside the gate to receive him, and the seat cloth and food offered were also of poor quality. Bhikkhu Mettiya, having received such inferior food, became even more angry and said:

"Dabba-Mallaputta shows favoritism — those he likes he gives good rooms and good lodging requisites; those he does not like he gives poor rooms and poor lodging requisites. Because he does not like us, he gave me a poor room and poor lodging requisites. This morning, because he does not like us, he invited us to receive inferior food. Why has the Saṅgha appointed such a partial bhikkhu to distribute lodgings for the Saṅgha and to invite the Saṅgha to meal offerings?"

At that time, in the city of Rājagṛha, there was a bhikkhunī named Mettiyā, the younger sister of Bhikkhu Mettiya. Hearing that Bhikkhu Mettiya had come to the city of Rājagṛha, she went to where the bhikkhu was and asked after him:

"Was the journey tiring? Was it very arduous?"

With such kind words of inquiry, Bhikkhu Mettiya remained silent and gave no reply. The bhikkhunī asked:

"Venerable sir, what fault have I committed that you do not answer?"

Bhikkhu Mettiya said:

"What is there to speak of with you? I am being harassed by Dabba-Mallaputta, and you cannot help me."

The bhikkhunī asked:

"What means do you wish me to employ so that Dabba-Mallaputta will no longer harass the Venerable?"

Bhikkhu Mettiya said:

"Wait until the Buddha and the Saṅgha of bhikkhus are assembled, then go before the assembly and say: 'Venerable Sirs, this is truly something unwholesome, unsuitable, not good, not in accordance with the Dharma — something that should not be, something untimely! I had been relying on a place free from fear and distress; why have fear and distress now arisen? Why has fire arisen within water? Dabba-Mallaputta has violated me.' The Saṅgha will then come together and carry out the act of expulsion. In this way, he will no longer come to harass me."

The bhikkhunī said:

"What difficulty is there in this? I can do it."

Then Bhikkhunī Mettiyā went before the Saṅgha… and spoke as described above.

At that time, Dabba-Mallaputta was sitting not far from the Buddha. The Blessed One knew, yet still asked:

"Did you hear what this bhikkhunī said?"

The Venerable replied:

"Blessed One, I heard it. The Blessed One knows this matter."

The Blessed One said:

"Now one should not answer in such a way. If it is true, say it is true. If it is not true, say it is not true."

Dabba-Mallaputta, having heard the Blessed One's teaching, rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt on his right knee, placed his palms together, and addressed the Buddha:

"From the time of my birth until now, I have never recalled performing an impure act even in a dream, much less performing an impure act while waking."

The Blessed One said:

"Well done, well done, Dabba-Mallaputta. You should speak thus."

At that time, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

"You should examine and question this Bhikkhu Mettiya. Do not allow a groundless accusation of a non-celibacy offence to be made against this pure bhikkhu Dabba-Mallaputta. If a groundless accusation of a non-celibacy offence is made, it incurs a grave offense."

The bhikkhus replied:

"So be it, Blessed One."

The bhikkhus, following the Buddha's teaching, went to where Bhikkhu Mettiya was and questioned him thoroughly about the matter from beginning to end:

"What is the nature of this affair? Is it truly so? Do not make a groundless accusation of a non-celibacy offence. This Bhikkhu Dabba-Mallaputta is a pure person. If a groundless accusation of a non-celibacy offence is made, it incurs a grave offense."

When Bhikkhu Mettiya was questioned by the bhikkhus, he reported that:

"I know that Dabba Māllputta is one of pure conduct and that no such act took place. But when I came to the city of Rājagaha, he was distributing rooms, lodgings, and sleeping furnishings on behalf of the Sangha. He assigned us inferior rooms and inferior sleeping furnishings.

I then gave rise to a mind of resentment and said: 'Dabba Māllputta is partial. Those he favors he gives good rooms and good sleeping furnishings; those he does not favor he gives inferior rooms and inferior sleeping furnishings. Because he does not favor me, he assigned me inferior rooms and inferior sleeping furnishings.' And then, when inviting monks in order to meals, he invited me to a place where the food was poor.

Because of this, my resentment grew all the more, and I said: 'Why does the Sangha entrust such a partial person as this with the distribution of rooms, sleeping furnishings, and the order of invitations to meals?' Yet this Dabba Māllputta is truly one of pure conduct, and no such act took place."

Among the bhikkhus who heard this, those who were of few desires and contentment, who practiced the ascetic disciplines, who were fond of training in the precepts, and who knew shame and remonstrance, reproached the bhikkhu Mettiya:

"Why do you falsely accuse Dabba Māllputta of a breach of pure conduct by means of a groundless charge of impurity of conduct?"

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, paid homage at his feet, sat to one side, and reported this entire matter in full to the Blessed One. The Blessed One, on account of this matter, assembled the bhikkhus and reproached the bhikkhu Mettiya with countless expedient means:

"What you have done is wrong, not in accordance with proper conduct, not in accordance with the practice of a śramaṇa, not in accordance with pure conduct, not in accordance with harmonious behavior—this is something that should not have been done. Why did you falsely accuse one of pure conduct of a breach of pure conduct by means of a groundless charge?"

The Blessed One then said to the bhikkhus:

"There are two kinds of persons who will assuredly enter hell: one who is not of pure conduct yet claims to be of pure conduct; and one who falsely accuses a truly pure person of a breach of pure conduct by means of a groundless charge. These two kinds of persons go straight into hell without interruption."

After reproaching the bhikkhu Mettiya with countless expedient means, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

"This bhikkhu Mettiya is a foolish person, a field in which many seeds of defilement are planted, and he is the first to commit this offense. From this time forward, I shall establish a rule for the bhikkhus, formulated in ten phrases, up to and including the purpose of causing the true Dharma to endure long."

The rule to be recited shall be proclaimed as follows:

B. THE PRECEPT TEXT

Whatever bhikkhu, harboring anger and resentment, falsely accuses a bhikkhu who has not committed a pārājika offense by means of a groundless charge of a pārājika, intending to destroy that person's pure livelihood—if afterward, whether or not he is questioned, the matter comes to be known as groundless, and that bhikkhu says: "I spoke thus out of hatred"—such a bhikkhu has committed a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

C. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Anger: there are ten unwholesome states that serve as conditions for anger to arise. Each of these ten states can independently give rise to anger.

Basis: there are three kinds of basis: basis through seeing, basis through hearing, and basis through suspicion.

—Basis through seeing: actually seeing a breach of pure conduct; seeing the theft of five māṣakas or more than five māṣakas; seeing the taking of a human life. If another person has seen it and one has heard it from them, this is also called basis through seeing.

—Basis through hearing: if one hears that a breach of pure conduct has been committed; hears that five māṣakas or more than five māṣakas have been stolen; hears that a human life has been taken; hears that one has praised oneself for having attained a superhuman state. If that person said it and one has heard it from another, this is also called basis through hearing.

—Basis through suspicion: there are two kinds from which suspicion arises—suspicion arising from seeing, and suspicion arising from hearing. Suspicion arising from seeing: for example, seeing someone enter a forest together with a woman, or emerge from a forest; having no robe on, being naked; one's male organ being impure; the body being defiled; holding a knife with blood on it; being in the company of evil companions.

This is called suspicion arising from seeing. Suspicion arising from hearing: for instance, hearing in a dark place the sound of a bed creaking; hearing the sound of a grass mattress being shifted; hearing the sound of a body moving; hearing the sound of whispered speech; hearing the sound of sexual union; hearing someone say "I have broken pure conduct"; hearing the sound of someone saying they stole five māṣakas or more than five māṣakas; hearing the sound of someone saying "I killed a person"; or hearing someone say "I have attained a superhuman state." This is called suspicion arising from hearing.

Apart from these three bases, if one makes a false accusation using any other means, it is called groundless.

D. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen them commit a pārājika, has not heard that they committed a pārājika, and does not suspect them of committing a pārājika, but nonetheless says: "I saw, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and slanders by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen them commit a pārājika, has not heard that they committed a pārājika, and does not suspect them of committing a pārājika; yet one has given rise to the perception of having seen, heard, or suspected, and afterward has forgotten this perception, and then says: "I saw, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika; one has a doubt regarding that person, but afterward says: "I have no doubt in this matter," yet then says: "I saw, heard, or suspected"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika; one has a doubt regarding that person, but afterward forgets that doubt, and then says: "I saw, heard, or suspected"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika; one has no doubt in this matter, yet says: "I do have a doubt; the pārājika offense was seen, heard, and suspected by me"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika; one has no doubt in this matter, but afterward forgets that one had no doubt, and then says: "I saw, heard, or suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika, and says: "I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika; one has in that instance given rise to the perception of having seen, but afterward has forgotten this perception, and then says: "I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika; one has a doubt in this matter, yet says: "I have no doubt in this matter. I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika; one has a doubt in this matter, but afterward forgets it, and then says: "I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika; one has no doubt in this matter, yet says: "I do have a doubt. I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

If that person is not pure, yet one has not seen that person commit a pārājika; one has no doubt in this matter, but afterward forgets that one had no doubt, and then says: "I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika"—and falsely accuses by means of a groundless charge—this is a saṅghāvaśeṣa.

The cases of hearing and suspicion follow the same pattern. (Further clauses exist here, but as the text is extensive, they are not recorded.)

If a bhikkhu uses any of these four kinds of groundless accusations to falsely accuse a bhikkhu, and the accusation is stated explicitly, the offense is a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if not stated explicitly, the offense is a sthūlātyaya. If one conveys the accusation by means of hand gestures, written communication, a messenger, or by making a sign, and the accusation is clearly understood, the offense is a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if not clearly understood, the offense is a sthūlātyaya.

Apart from the four pārājikas, if one falsely accuses a bhikkhu using other states that disqualify one from being a bhikkhu—saying: "You have committed a borderline offense, you have committed an offense with a bhikkhunī, you received ordination with a thief's intention, you have abandoned both the inner and outer path, you are a paṇḍaka, you killed your father, you killed your mother, you killed an arhat, you have caused a schism in the Sangha, you with evil intent caused the body of the Buddha to bleed, you are a non-human being, you are an animal, you have two faculties"—if stated explicitly, the offense is a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if not stated explicitly, the offense is a sthūlātyaya.

If one conveys it by means of hand gestures, written communication, a messenger, or by making a sign, and the accusation is clearly understood, the offense is a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if not clearly understood, the offense is a sthūlātyaya.

Apart from these non-bhikkhu states, if one uses other groundless charges to falsely accuse a bhikkhu, the offenses are incurred as stated above.

If one uses groundless accusations based on the eight pārajika offenses to slander a bhikkhunī, and does so explicitly, one commits a saṅghādisesa; if not explicitly, one commits a thullaccaya. If one communicates by means of a hand sign, a letter, a messenger, or a gesture, and the meaning is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa; if not clearly understood, one commits a thullaccaya.

Apart from these eight pārajika offenses, if one uses other groundless accusations of conduct unbecoming a bhikkhunī to defame her, and does so explicitly, one commits a saṅghādisesa; if not explicitly, one commits a thullaccaya. If one communicates by means of a hand sign, a letter, a messenger, or a gesture, and the meaning is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa; if not clearly understood, one commits a thullaccaya.

Apart from conduct unbecoming a bhikkhunī, if one uses other groundless accusations to slander a bhikkhunī, one incurs offenses as stated above.

Apart from bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, if one uses groundless accusations to slander another person, one commits a dukkaṭa.

For a bhikkhunī: saṅghādisesa. For a sikkhāmānā, a sāmaṇera, or a sāmaṇerī: dukkaṭa. These are called offenses.

Non-offense: speaking truthfully on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or suspected; speaking in jest; speaking hastily; speaking to oneself; speaking in a dream; intending to say one thing but mistakenly saying another—in these cases there is no offense.

Those who do not commit an offense: the first offender before the rule was established; one who is insane, deranged in mind, or afflicted with pain and torment.

---

Vietnamese translation: Bhikkhu Thích Đỗng Minh and Thích Đức Thắng. Dharmagupta Vinaya, Part One.

Chinese translation: Tripiṭaka masters Buddhayaśas and Zhu Fonian.

Revised and annotated by: Bhikkhu Thích Nguyên Chứng

(Chinese translation, fascicles 1–21; Vietnamese translation, volumes 1 and 2)

Buddhist Studies Editorial Board, 2002