Dg Kd 16Settlement

– FOUR-PART VINAYA

SETTLING DISPUTES

1. SEVEN MEANS OF SETTLING DISPUTES

1. Face-to-Face Vinaya

The Blessed One was dwelling in the land of Śrāvastī. At that time, Kālodāyin went together with the group of six bhikkhus to bathe in the river Aciravatī. When Kālodāyin finished bathing and came up onto the bank, he put on the robe of one of the group of six bhikkhus without looking, thinking it was his own. Having put it on, he departed. When the group of six bhikkhus finished bathing and came up onto the bank, they did not see their own robe but saw the robe of Kālodāyin, and they immediately said: "Kālodāyin has stolen our robe." At that time, a formal act of expulsion was carried out against the absent party.

Kālodāyin heard of this matter and, having doubts, went to the presence of the Blessed One, prostrated himself at his feet, sat to one side, and reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One asked:

"With what intention did you take the robe?"

Kālodāyin replied:

"I thought it was my own robe and so I took it. I had no intention of stealing."

The Buddha taught:

"In that case, there is no offense. However, one should not put on a robe without looking at it. Nor should one, when a person is absent, carry out formal acts such as the act of censure, the act of expulsion, the act of placing under dependence, the act of forbidding entry into the households of laypeople, the act of formal accusation, or the act of dismissal. If such formal acts are carried out, they are not valid, and moreover one incurs an offense of duṣkṛta. From this day forth, I shall establish for the bhikkhus the rule of face-to-face vinaya for settling disputes. The face-to-face vinaya should be proclaimed thus."

2. Recollection Vinaya

When the Blessed One was dwelling in the city of Rājagṛha, at that time Dabba Mallaputta had not committed any grave offense of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all said that he had committed grave offenses and asked him: "Do you recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya?" Since he did not recall having committed pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, he replied: "I do not recall committing such grave offenses." He then said to the bhikkhus: "Venerable elders, please do not keep questioning me." Yet the bhikkhus continued to question him without ceasing. He thought: "What should I do?" He then reported the matter to the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha taught:

"From this day forth, permission is given to carry out for Dabba Mallaputta the recollection vinaya by means of the formal act of one announcement and three motions."

The procedure is as follows: Dabba Mallaputta should come before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his sandals, touch his right knee to the ground, join his palms, and make the following announcement:

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, Dabba Mallaputta, have not committed any grave offense. The bhikkhus say that I have committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked me, 'Do you recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya?' I do not recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya, and so I replied, 'I do not recall committing such grave offenses. Venerable elders, you should not keep questioning me.' Yet the bhikkhus continued to question me without ceasing. Now, having no recollection of wrongdoing, I come before the Sangha to request recollection vinaya. I humbly request that the Sangha grant me recollection vinaya. Out of compassion."

The second and third times, the same request is made. Among the assembly, one who is capable of carrying out the formal act should be appointed to make the following announcement based on the above matter:

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Dabba Mallaputta has not committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all say that he has committed the grave offenses of pārājika through sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked, 'Do you recall committing the grave offenses of pārājika through sthūlātyaya?' This bhikkhu does not recall committing any grave offense and replied, 'I do not recall having committed any grave offense.

Venerable elders, please do not question me.' Yet the bhikkhus persisted in questioning him and would not stop. This bhikkhu does not recollect having committed an offense, and now comes before the Sangha to request recollection vinaya. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha consents to grant this bhikkhu recollection vinaya.

This is the announcement.

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Dabba Mallaputta has not committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all say that he has committed the grave offenses of pārājika through sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked, 'Do you recall committing the grave offenses of pārājika through sthūlātyaya?' This bhikkhu does not recall committing any grave offense and replied, 'I do not recall having committed any grave offense.

Venerable elders, please do not question me.' Yet the bhikkhus persisted in questioning him and would not stop. This bhikkhu does not recollect having committed an offense, and now comes before the Sangha to request recollection vinaya. Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha's granting Dabba Mallaputta the recollection vinaya, please remain silent.

Those who do not consent, please speak. This is the first motion."

The second and third times, the same is said.

"The Sangha has consented to grant Dabba Mallaputta the formal act of recollection. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. This matter is thus recorded."

"From this day forth, bhikkhus are permitted to establish the recollection vinaya for settling disputes. The recollection vinaya should be proclaimed thus."

3. Non-Madness Vinaya

The Blessed One was dwelling in the city of Rājagṛha. At that time there was a bhikkhu named Nandika who was mad and deranged of mind, and who repeatedly committed various offenses, conducted himself in ways unbecoming a śramaṇa, spoke without restraint, and came and went without observing proper deportment. When his mind had recovered, the bhikkhus said that he had committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya.

The bhikkhus asked Nandika: "Do you recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya?" He replied: "Previously I was mad and deranged of mind, and at that time I repeatedly committed various offenses, came and went without observing proper deportment. I did not do so intentionally; it was due to madness. Venerable elders, please do not keep questioning me about those matters." Yet the bhikkhus continued to question him insistently without ceasing.

That bhikkhu thought: "What should I do?" He then reported the matter to the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha taught:

"Permission is given for the Sangha to grant bhikkhu Nandika the non-madness vinaya by means of the formal act of one announcement and three motions, according to the following procedure: Bhikkhu Nandika should come before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his sandals, touch his right knee to the ground, join his palms, and say:

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, bhikkhu Nandika, was mad and deranged of mind, and at that time I repeatedly committed various offenses, came and went without observing proper deportment. Afterward I recovered.

The bhikkhus asked me, 'Do you recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya?' I replied, 'Previously I was mad and deranged of mind, and at that time I repeatedly committed various offenses, came and went without observing proper deportment. It was not done intentionally but was due to my deranged mind. Venerable elders, please do not keep questioning me.' Yet the bhikkhus continued to question me without ceasing.

Now, being free from madness, I come before the Sangha to request non-madness vinaya. I humbly request that the Sangha grant me non-madness vinaya. Out of compassion."

The second and third times, the same request is made. Among the assembly, one who is capable of carrying out the formal act should be appointed to make the following announcement based on the above matter:

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu Nandika was mad and deranged of mind, repeatedly committed many offenses, spoke without restraint, came and went without observing proper deportment, and afterward recovered. The bhikkhus asked Nandika, 'Do you recall having committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya?' He replied, 'Previously I was mad and deranged of mind, repeatedly committed various offenses, spoke without restraint, came and went without observing proper deportment.

This was due to madness and was not done intentionally. Venerable elders, please do not keep questioning me.' Yet the bhikkhus persisted in questioning him without ceasing. This bhikkhu is now no longer mad, and comes before the Sangha to request non-madness vinaya.

If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha consents, and the Sangha now grants bhikkhu Nandika the non-madness vinaya. This is the announcement.

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu Nandī here was mad and mentally disturbed, committed many offenses, spoke recklessly, and his comings and goings were not in accord with proper deportment; afterwards he recovered. The bhikkhus asked Nandī, 'Do you remember committing the grave offenses of pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or sthūlātyaya?' He replied, 'Before, I was mad and mentally disturbed; I committed many offenses, spoke without restraint; my comings and goings were not in accord with proper deportment.

This was due to madness and was not done intentionally. Elders, please do not keep questioning me.' But the bhikkhus deliberately kept questioning him without cease. This bhikkhu is now no longer mad; he comes before the Sangha to request the non-madness Vinaya.

The Sangha now confers upon the bhikkhu Nandī the non-madness Vinaya. Those Elders who agree that the Sangha should confer upon the bhikkhu Nandī the non-madness Vinaya, please remain silent. Those who do not agree, please speak.

This is the first karmavācanā."

The second and third times are spoken in the same way.

"The Sangha has consented to confer upon the bhikkhu Nandī the non-madness Vinaya. The Sangha consents and therefore is silent. This matter is recorded as such."

From this day forward, bhikkhus are permitted to establish the non-madness Vinaya for the resolution of disputes. The non-madness Vinaya should be spoken thus.

4. Resolution by Self-Declaration

The Blessed One was staying at the city of Campā, beside the Gaggārā lotus pond. At that time the Blessed One was holding the Uposatha on the fifteenth day, when the moon was full. The Sangha sat surrounding him in an open place. When the first watch of the night had passed, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, touched his right knee to the ground, joined his palms together, and said:

"The first watch of the night has passed; I respectfully request that the Blessed One recite the Precepts."

The Blessed One remained silent. The Venerable Ānanda then returned to his seat. When the middle watch had passed, the last watch had passed, and the signs of dawn had appeared, the Venerable Ānanda again rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, touched his right knee to the ground, joined his palms together, and said:

"Blessed One, the middle watch has passed, the last watch has passed, the signs of dawn have appeared; the Sangha has been sitting for a long time. I respectfully request that the Blessed One recite the Precepts."

The Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda:

"The assembly is not pure. For the Tathāgata to perform the karmavācanā and recite the Precepts in an assembly that is not pure—this cannot be."

The Venerable Ānanda fell silent and returned to his seat. At that moment, the Elder Moggallāna thought: 'There must be someone in the assembly who is not pure, which is why the Tathāgata said, "The assembly is not pure. For the Tathāgata to perform the karmavācanā and recite the Precepts in an assembly that is not pure—this cannot be."'

Thereupon the Elder Moggallāna reflected and surveyed the assembly with his purified divine eye, and saw that impure bhikkhu sitting not far from the Buddha. He was not a true ascetic yet called himself an ascetic; he was not of pure conduct yet called himself of pure conduct; he was one who had broken the precepts and done evil deeds—impure, without wholesome qualities, of wrong view, concealing the evil he had committed—like a hollow tree that, though it has branches and leaves on the outside, is empty and hollow within, without substance.

Having seen this, Moggallāna thought: 'It is because the Blessed One sees this bhikkhu that he said, "The assembly is not pure. For the Tathāgata to perform the karmavācanā and recite the Precepts in an assembly that is not pure—this cannot be."' Thereupon the Elder Moggallāna rose from his seat, went to that bhikkhu, and said:

"Why do you not get up? The Blessed One knows you; the Blessed One has seen you. You should get up and leave this place! You should not sit here."

Moggallāna then seized that bhikkhu by the hand, led him outside the door, and returned to inform the Buddha:

"The assembly is now pure. I respectfully request that the Blessed One recite the Precepts."

The Buddha said:

"Moggallāna, you should not do so. On other occasions you should not do so either. Moggallāna, one must first cause that person to confess his offense, and only then determine the charge. If that person does not confess his offense and the charge is determined, this is not proper. From this day forward I shall establish for the bhikkhus the resolution by self-declaration to settle disputes. The resolution by self-declaration should be spoken thus."

When the Blessed One was staying at the city of Sāvatthī, the bhikkhus there fell into dispute with one another, and the Sangha investigated the offense in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the words of the Buddha.

5. Resolution by the Declaration of the Majority

At that time the Blessed One was staying at Sāvatthī. The bhikkhus there fell into dispute with one another. The Sangha investigated the offense in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the words of the Buddha. At that time, the Buddha said to the bhikkhus:

"The offense should be investigated by many people; the matter should be spoken in accordance with the words of the majority who know the Dharma. From this day forward, for the bhikkhus I establish the resolution by declaration of the majority as a method for settling disputes. It should be spoken thus, employing the declaration of the majority."

6. Resolution by Assignment of Culpability

When the Blessed One was staying at Śākya. There was a bhikkhu named Hastiyavala who delighted in debating with non-Buddhists. When pressed with questions, his later words contradicted his earlier words.

When questioned in the Sangha, it was the same: his later words contradicted his earlier words. In the assembly he deliberately spoke falsehood. At that time the non-Buddhists all rebuked him together, saying: "The disciples of the Śākyan ascetic have no sense of shame; they only engage in falsehood, yet call themselves knowers of the true Dharma.

When pressed with questions, their later words contradict their earlier words. When questioned in the assembly, what they say later contradicts what they said before; they deliberately speak falsely. Where then is the true Dharma in this?" The bhikkhus heard this, and among them those who were of few desires, contented, practiced austerities, delighted in learning the precepts, and had a sense of shame reproached Hastiyavala, saying: 'How can you debate with non-Buddhists, and when pressed with questions let your later words contradict your earlier words?

When questioned in the Sangha, it is the same—your later words contradict your earlier words?' The bhikkhus went to the place of the Buddha, paid homage at his feet, and on account of this matter assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked Hastiyavala:

"You have acted wrongly; this is not in accord with proper deportment, not in accord with the Dharma of ascetics, not in accord with pure conduct, not in accord with proper practice—you have done what should not be done. How could you debate with non-Buddhists, and when pressed with questions let your later words contradict your earlier words? When questioned in the Sangha, it was the same: your later words contradicted your earlier words, and you deliberately spoke falsehood?"

After the Blessed One had rebuked Hastiyavala by numerous skillful means, he said to the bhikkhus:

"The karmavācanā of assignment of culpability should be conferred upon that bhikkhu, by means of the formal act of proclamation with a motion and three readings."

The procedure is as follows: Assemble the Sangha. Having assembled the Sangha, make the formal charge. Having made the formal charge, make the reminder of acknowledgment. Having made the reminder of acknowledgment, determine the offense. In the assembly, one who is capable of performing the karmavācanā should be appointed, and based on the matter above should make the proclamation:

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Hastiyavala delights in debating with non-Buddhists; when pressed with questions, his later words contradict his earlier words. When questioned in the Sangha, it is the same: his later words contradict his earlier words, and he deliberately speaks falsehood. If the time is right for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent; the Sangha now confers upon Hastiyavala the karmavācanā of assignment of culpability, saying: 'Hastiyavala, it is of no benefit and no good to you that when trapped in argument you speak in a way that contradicts itself, before and after. When questioned in the assembly as well, you speak in a way that contradicts itself, before and after, and deliberately speak falsehood.' This is the proclamation.

"Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Hastiyavala delights in debating with non-Buddhists; when pressed with questions, his later words contradict his earlier words. When questioned in the Sangha, it is the same: his later words contradict his earlier words, and he deliberately speaks falsehood.

The Sangha now confers upon Hastiyavala the karmavācanā of assignment of culpability, saying: 'Hastiyavala, it is of no benefit and no good to you that when trapped in argument you speak in a way that contradicts itself, before and after. When questioned in the assembly as well, you speak in a way that contradicts itself, before and after, and deliberately speak falsehood.' Those Elders who agree that the Sangha should confer upon Hastiyavala the karmavācanā of assignment of culpability, please remain silent.

Those who do not agree, please speak. This is the first karmavācanā."

The second and third times are spoken in the same way.

"The Sangha has consented to confer upon Hastiyavala the karmavācanā of assignment of culpability. The Sangha consents and therefore is silent. This matter is recorded as such."

From this day forward, for the bhikkhus this is established as a method of resolving disputes by assignment of culpability. It should be spoken thus, establishing assignment of culpability.

7. Resolution Like Covering with Grass

The Blessed One was dwelling in the land of Śrāvastī. At that time, the monks of Śrāvastī were quarreling among themselves. The majority of the monks were transgressing the precepts, acting contrary to the ways of śramaṇas; everyone was acting as he pleased, everyone was speaking as he pleased, coming and going without restraint.

Afterward, the monks reflected among themselves: "We have for the most part transgressed the precepts, acting contrary to the ways of śramaṇas; everyone acts as he pleases, everyone speaks as he pleases, coming and going without limit. If we do not skillfully inquire into this matter ourselves, perhaps this dispute will deepen and grow more serious. Months and years may pass without our being able, in accordance with the Dharma and Vinaya and the Buddha's teaching, to dispel the dispute, causing the Saṅgha to find no peace." The monks reported this to the Buddha.

The Blessed One instructed:

"This dispute should be extinguished by the method of covering the ground with grass.

"Henceforth, for the monks, the rule for extinguishing disputes by the method of covering the ground with grass is established. It should be spoken thus: covering the ground with grass."

2. THE FOUR DISPUTES

The Blessed One was dwelling in Kauśāmbī. The monks of Kauśāmbī were quarreling among themselves. Monks quarreled with monks. Monks quarreled with nuns. Nuns quarreled with monks. Nuns quarreled with nuns. The monk Chanda abandoned the monks, gave support to the nuns, and sided with the nuns. The monks who heard of this—among them those of few desires and contentment, who practiced austerities, delighted in the training of the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and remorse—rebuked those monks and then went to the Blessed One, paid homage at his feet, sat to one side, and reported the matter to the Blessed One in full.

The Blessed One, on account of this matter, assembled the community of monks and rebuked those monks by means of countless expedient teachings:

"What you have done is wrong; it is not in accord with proper conduct, not in accord with the ways of śramaṇas, not in accord with pure conduct, not in accord with proper behavior—you have done what ought not to be done. Monks of Kauśāmbī, how is it that monks quarrel with monks, monks quarrel with nuns, nuns quarrel with monks, nuns quarrel with nuns, and the monk Chanda abandons the monks, gives support to the nuns, and sides with the nuns?"

Having rebuked them by means of countless expedient teachings, the Buddha addressed the monks:

"There are four disputes: disputes of speech, disputes of accusation, disputes of offense, and disputes of affair.

What is a dispute of speech?

When a monk quarrels with a monk, giving rise to eighteen matters of dispute—Dharma or non-Dharma, Vinaya or non-Vinaya, and so forth, teaching or non-teaching—if, by such characteristics as these, they quarrel with one another in words leading to conflict between the two sides, this is called a dispute of speech.

What is called a dispute of accusation?

When a monk seeks out faults in another monk, citing the three bases of formal censure—seen, heard, and suspected—charging breach of precepts, breach of views, or breach of proper conduct; seeking out faults in one another in such a manner, without falsely seeking partisan support or flattering the other's mind; or performing the act of censure or the act of formal admonition, either settling the matter or not settling it, without delusion and not escaping—this is called a dispute of accusation.

What is called a dispute of offense?

Transgressing the seven categories of offenses—pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, and so forth down to ill-speaking—this is called a dispute of offense.

What is called a dispute of affair?

The matters to be dealt with in a dispute of speech, the matters to be dealt with in a dispute of accusation, the matters to be dealt with in a dispute of offense—these are called disputes of affair.

What are the roots of a dispute of speech?

Greed, hatred, and delusion are the roots. Non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion are the roots. The Saṅgha is the root. The precepts are the root. Conditions are the root. The six disputes are the root. The eighteen matters of Saṅgha schism are the root. These are called the roots of a dispute of speech.

What are the roots of a dispute of accusation?

Greed, hatred, and delusion are the roots. Non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion are the roots. The Saṅgha's actions are the root. The precepts are the root. Conditions are the root. The three acts of formal censure are the root. These are called the roots of a dispute of accusation.

What are the roots of a dispute of offense?

Greed, hatred, and delusion are the roots. The Saṅgha is the root. The precepts are the root. Conditions are the root. The three acts of formal censure are the root. The origins of the six offenses are the root. These are called the roots of a dispute of offense.

What are the roots of a dispute of affair?

Greed, hatred, and delusion are the roots. Non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion are the roots. The Saṅgha's actions are the root. The precepts are the root. Conditions are the root. These are the roots of a dispute of affair.

Is a dispute of speech wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? A dispute of speech may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

Why is a dispute of speech called wholesome?

When a monk quarrels with a monk with a wholesome mind, speaking about Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth, teaching or non-teaching—when both quarrel with one another in such a manner, both disputing with a wholesome mind—therefore a dispute of speech is called wholesome.

Why is a dispute of speech called unwholesome?

When a monk quarrels with a monk with an unwholesome mind, speaking about Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth, teaching or non-teaching—quarreling with one another in words by such characteristics, leading to conflict—this is a dispute of speech that is unwholesome.

Why is a dispute of speech called indeterminate?

When a monk quarrels with a monk with an indeterminate mind, bringing up the eighteen matters—Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth, teaching or non-teaching—quarreling with one another in words about such matters—this is a dispute of speech that is indeterminate.

Is a dispute of accusation wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? A dispute of accusation may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

Why is a dispute of accusation called wholesome?

Here, a monk with a wholesome mind seeks out faults from another monk concerning breach of precepts, breach of views, or breach of proper conduct, relying on the three bases of formal censure—seen, heard, and suspected; internally possessing the five qualities that enable the accused to be freed from the offense, becoming free of transgression, pure and without defilement, not causing an ill reputation to spread concerning that person.

Seeking out faults by such characteristics, discussing the matter together, not falsely seeking partisan support; but comforting the mind of that other person, when performing the act of censure and the act of formal admonition, settling the matter or not settling it, without delusion, causing the person to be freed from the offense. This is called a wholesome dispute of accusation.

Why is a dispute of accusation called unwholesome?

When a monk seeks out faults from another monk with an unwholesome mind concerning breach of precepts, breach of views, or breach of proper conduct, relying on the three bases of formal censure—seen, heard, and suspected; inwardly lacking the five qualities, not wishing to enable this person to be freed from the offense, but rather wishing to cause this person to be guilty of offense, defiled and impure, wishing to cause an ill reputation to spread concerning this person.

Seeking out faults by such characteristics, discussing the matter together, not falsely seeking partisan support, not bringing peace to the mind of the other, when the act of censure is performed, when the act of formal admonition is performed, settling the matter or not settling it, with delusion and not escaping the offense. This is called an unwholesome dispute of accusation.

What is called an indeterminate dispute of accusation?

When a monk seeks out faults from another monk with an indeterminate mind concerning breach of precepts, breach of views, or breach of proper conduct, relying on the three bases of formal censure—seen, heard, and suspected. Seeking out faults by such characteristics, discussing the matter together, not falsely seeking partisan support; but comforting the mind of that other person, when performing the act of censure and the act of formal admonition, settling the matter or not settling it, without delusion, causing the person to be freed from the offense. This is called a wholesome dispute of accusation. This is called an indeterminate dispute of accusation.

Is a dispute of offense wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? A dispute of offense may be either unwholesome or indeterminate.

Why is a dispute of offense called unwholesome?

The intentional commission of an offense by an ordinary person or a person still in training. This is called a dispute of offense that is unwholesome.

Why is a dispute of offense called indeterminate? The unintentional commission of an offense by an ordinary person or a person still in training; and the unintentional commission of an offense by one who is without defilements. This is called a dispute of offense that is indeterminate.

Is a dispute of affair wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? A dispute of affair may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

Why is a dispute of affair called wholesome?

When a monk with a wholesome mind conducts affairs in a dispute of speech, conducts affairs in a dispute of accusation, conducts affairs in a dispute of offense. This is called a wholesome dispute of affair.

Why is a dispute of affair called unwholesome? When one conducts affairs in a dispute of speech, conducts affairs in a dispute of accusation, conducts affairs in a dispute of offense with an unwholesome mind. This is called an unwholesome dispute of affair. The same applies to the indeterminate. If one acts with an indeterminate mind, it is an indeterminate dispute of affair.

Speech, dispute of speech, dispute of speech and speech, dispute of speech and speech-dispute.

There are cases where speech is itself a dispute of speech; there are cases where speech is not a dispute of speech; there are cases where a dispute of speech is itself speech; there are cases where speech is itself dispute; there are cases where speech is not dispute; there are cases where dispute is itself speech; there are cases where dispute is not speech.

What is the case where speech is itself a dispute of speech?

When a monk quarrels with a monk, involving the eighteen matters—Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth, teaching or non-teaching—quarreling with one another in words by such characteristics, leading to conflict, with the two sides failing to reconcile. This is called the case where speech is itself a dispute of speech.

What is the case where speech is not a dispute of speech?

Father quarrels with son, son quarrels with father; son quarrels with mother, mother quarrels with son; elder brother quarrels with younger brother, younger brother quarrels with elder brother; elder sister quarrels with younger sister, younger sister quarrels with elder sister, or others quarrel with one another. This is called dispute that is speech but not a諍 (strife).

What is meant by speech-strife that is indeed strife?

When a bhikkhu disputes with a bhikkhu concerning the eighteen matters — whether something is Dharma or non-Dharma, and so on down to whether it is to be proclaimed or not to be proclaimed — and by such characteristics they contend with one another in words, leading to conflict, with neither side in harmony. This is called speech-strife that is indeed strife.

What is meant by speech that is strife?

When a bhikkhu disputes with a bhikkhu concerning the eighteen matters — whether something is Dharma or non-Dharma, and so on down to whether it is to be proclaimed or not to be proclaimed — and by such characteristics they contend with one another in words, leading to conflict, with neither side in harmony. This is called speech that is strife.

What is meant by speech that is not strife?

Father quarrels with son, son quarrels with father; son quarrels with mother, mother quarrels with son; elder brother quarrels with younger brother, younger brother quarrels with elder brother; elder sister quarrels with younger sister, younger sister quarrels with elder sister, or others quarrel with one another. This is called speech that is not strife.

What is meant by strife that is indeed speech?

When a bhikkhu disputes with a bhikkhu concerning the eighteen matters — whether something is Dharma or non-Dharma, and so on down to whether it is to be proclaimed or not to be proclaimed — and by such characteristics they contend with one another in words, leading to conflict, with neither side in harmony. This is called strife that is indeed speech.

What is meant by strife that is not speech?

Setting aside speech-strife, the other kinds of strife — reproach-strife, offense-strife, and affair-strife — are called strife that is not speech.

Reproach and reproach-strife, reproach-strife and reproach, reproach-strife and strife-reproach.

(These four aspects are explained by cross-reference in the same manner as the four aspects of speech-strife above, and need not be written out again. That is to say: reproach is reproach-strife. Offense-strife and affair-strife are likewise explained by cross-reference in the same manner.)

3. SETTLEMENT OF STRIFE

1. The Principle of Presence

If a bhikkhu, face to face with another bhikkhu, speaks fine and pleasing words to admonish or to expel, but these are contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha's teaching, yet that other bhikkhu says: "This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; you should comply with it." If strife is settled in such a manner, this is the settling of strife by unlawful means — unlawful face-to-face Vinaya.

One bhikkhu before two bhikkhus, before three bhikkhus, or before the Sangha — it is likewise.

Two bhikkhus before one bhikkhu, before two bhikkhus, before three bhikkhus, before the Sangha — likewise.

Three bhikkhus before one bhikkhu, before two bhikkhus, before three bhikkhus, before the Sangha — likewise.

Or the Sangha acting on behalf of one bhikkhu, of two bhikkhus, of three bhikkhus, of the Sangha — it must also be so.

If a bhikkhu, face to face with another bhikkhu, speaks fine and pleasing words to admonish, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, and that other bhikkhu says: "This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; you, Venerable, should receive and accept it." If strife is thereby settled, this is the settling of strife by lawful means — lawful face-to-face Vinaya.

Here, what is meant by "face to face"? It refers to Dharma, Vinaya, and persons.

What is Dharma face to face? It is the Dharma that is received and upheld in order to settle strife.

What is Vinaya face to face? It is the Vinaya that is received and upheld in order to settle strife.

What is persons face to face? These are the persons engaged in discussion and deliberation.

If strife has already been settled and any bhikkhu stirs it up again, he commits a pācittiya offense.

If a bhikkhu who arrives afterward, or one who has newly received the precepts, treats it as initial strife and stirs it up again, he commits a pācittiya offense.

One bhikkhu acting on behalf of two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise. Two bhikkhus acting on behalf of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise. Three bhikkhus acting on behalf of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise.

The Sangha, speaking fine and pleasing words to admonish one bhikkhu, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, and that bhikkhu says: "This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; you, Venerable, should receive and accept it." If strife is thereby settled, this is the settling of strife by lawful means — lawful face-to-face Vinaya.

What is meant by "face to face"? It refers to Dharma, persons, the Sangha, and the boundary.

What is Dharma face to face? It is the Dharma that is received and upheld in order to settle strife.

What is Vinaya face to face? It is the Vinaya that is received and upheld in order to settle strife.

What is persons face to face? These are the persons engaged in discussion and deliberation.

What is Sangha face to face? It is when those of the same Vinaya act together, assembled harmoniously in one place; those unable to attend have sent their consent, and those present who are qualified to object do not object.

What is the boundary face to face? It is the karmavācā performed within the designated boundary.

If strife has already been ended and any bhikkhu stirs it up again, he commits a pācittiya offense. If a bhikkhu who arrives afterward or one who has newly received the precepts treats it as initial strife and stirs it up again, he commits a pācittiya offense. Whoever has given consent and afterward regrets it commits a pācittiya offense.

The Sangha acting on behalf of two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise.

2. Settlement of Speech-Strife

i. Face-to-Face Vinaya

1. At that time the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and said:

"Blessed One, how many principles are there for settling speech-strife?"

The Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda:

"Speech-strife is settled by two principles: settlement by face-to-face Vinaya and by the rule of the majority."

The Venerable Ānanda asked further:

"Is there any case in which speech-strife is settled by a single principle — face-to-face Vinaya — without using the rule of the majority?"

The Buddha said to Ānanda:

"There is."

Ānanda asked:

"What case is that?"

The Buddha taught:

"If a bhikkhu, face to face with another bhikkhu, speaks fine and pleasing words to admonish, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, and that other bhikkhu says: 'This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; you, Venerable, should receive and accept it.' In this way strife is settled. Ānanda, this is called speech-strife being settled by a single principle — face-to-face Vinaya — without using the rule of the majority."

Face to face: the meaning is as explained above.

One bhikkhu acting on behalf of two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise.

Two bhikkhus acting on behalf of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise. Three bhikkhus acting on behalf of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise. The Sangha, speaking fine and pleasing words to admonish one bhikkhu, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, and that bhikkhu says: "This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; you, Venerable, should receive and accept it." Ānanda, strife is thereby brought to an end. This is speech-strife being settled by a single principle — face-to-face Vinaya — without using the rule of the majority.

Face to face: the meaning is as explained above.

The Sangha acting on behalf of two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha — likewise.

The Buddha further said to Ānanda:

"That quarreling bhikkhu, unable to accept the Sangha's karmavācā performed in this manner to settle strife, hears that in a certain residence there is a capable Sangha, capable elders, and persons of wisdom. That quarreling bhikkhu, on account of this strife, goes to that residence. Or perhaps while traveling along the road he encounters a person who can bring strife to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching. Ānanda, this is called speech-strife being settled by a single principle — face-to-face Vinaya — without using the rule of the majority. The word 'face to face' here has the same meaning as explained above."

2. If the quarreling bhikkhu, while traveling along the road, does not encounter anyone who can bring strife to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then that quarreling bhikkhu should go to that Sangha and, before the wise elder, speak thus: "This strife of mine arose in this manner, and the true cause was as follows. The Sangha performed such a karmavācā to settle it.

I was unable to accept it, and therefore I have come to the Elder. May it please the Elder to bring this strife to an end for me in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching. If the Elder is able to bring this strife to an end for us in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, we shall relinquish this strife before the Elder.

If the Elder is unable to bring this strife to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, we shall dispute freely, causing the offense to become ever deeper and more grave. If this strife is not brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, the bhikkhus will not live in peace and ease." That quarreling bhikkhu should thus relinquish the strife before the Sangha.

The Sangha should then say to that quarreling bhikkhu:

«Venerable Elder, if a dispute arose in such a manner, arising from such a true cause, and the Sangha there has brought that dispute to an end in such a way — if this can be stated truthfully, then we shall judge for ourselves whether we are able to bring this dispute to an end. If this dispute of the Venerable Elder arose in such a manner, arising from such a true cause, and the Sangha there extinguished the dispute in such a way, yet it was not explained truthfully — then, Venerable Elder, this dispute will grow ever deeper and more serious, contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, contrary to the Buddha's teaching. If this dispute is not brought to an end, the bhikkhus will not be able to live in peace and ease.

«The Sangha should take up the dispute in such a case. Having taken it up, a judgment should be rendered. If the disputing bhikkhu is of lower seat, one should say: "Please step outside for a moment so that we may deliberate together on this matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching." If the disputing bhikkhu is of high seat, then the Sangha should itself withdraw to another place in order to deliberate together on this matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching.

The Sangha should reflect thus: "If we deliberate on this matter within the assembly, we fear that other matters may arise, causing both sides to exchange good words and harsh words without end. Let us gather separately with those of wisdom to deliberate together on this matter."»

The Buddha then said to the Venerable Ānanda:

At that time, the Sangha should make a formal announcement to deliberate on this matter as follows:

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha now gathers those of wisdom to deliberate separately on this matter. This is the announcement.»

«Having made this announcement in such a way, they should then deliberate together.»

A bhikkhu who possesses ten qualities should be appointed to deliberate separately on this matter. The ten qualities are: 1. Complete observance of the precepts; 2.

Great learning; 3. Recitation of both sections of the Vinaya by heart; 4. Broad understanding of the meaning of the Vinaya; 5.

Skilled in the use of language and clear in debate, with the ability to question and answer in a manner that brings satisfaction to the other party; 6. When a dispute arises, possessing the ability to bring it to an end; 7. Impartiality; 8.

Freedom from anger; 9. Freedom from timidity; 10. Freedom from delusion.

One who possesses these ten qualities should be appointed to gather separately and deliberate on the dispute. Among the bhikkhus deliberating on the dispute, if there is one who cannot recite the Pātimokkha and does not know the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, and who therefore does not speak according to the correct meaning but speaks contrary to the Dharma — the Sangha should make a formal announcement to send this bhikkhu out.

The text of the announcement is as follows:

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named … cannot recite the Pātimokkha, does not know the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, has abandoned the correct meaning, and speaks contrary to the Dharma. If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha now sends this bhikkhu out. This is the announcement.»

Having made this announcement in such a way, that person is sent out. The Buddha then said to the Venerable Ānanda:

Among the bhikkhus sitting in deliberation on the dispute, if there is one who recites the Pātimokkha but does not recite the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, and who therefore abandons the correct meaning and is able to speak only a little of the text — the Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda that the Sangha should make a formal announcement to send this deliberating bhikkhu away. The text of the announcement is as follows:

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named … recites the Pātimokkha but does not recite the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, and therefore abandons the correct meaning and is able to speak only a little of the text. If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha now sends this bhikkhu out. This is the announcement.»

Having made this announcement in such a way, that person is sent out. If among the bhikkhus deliberating on the dispute there is a Dhamma teacher sitting in attendance who abandons the correct meaning and uses the force of eloquence to overpower others in speech — the Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda:

The Sangha should make a formal announcement to send this bhikkhu out. The text of the announcement is as follows:

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Dhamma teacher bhikkhu named … has abandoned the correct meaning and uses the force of eloquence to overpower others in speech. If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha now sends this bhikkhu out. This is the announcement.»

Having made this announcement in such a way, that person is sent out.

If among the bhikkhus sitting in deliberation on the dispute there is one who recites the Pātimokkha, recites the Vinaya, accords with the correct meaning, and speaks in accordance with the Dharma — the Buddha said to Ānanda that the Sangha should support this bhikkhu in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching. If that dispute was extinguished by the Sangha there not in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then the Sangha here should now extinguish that dispute in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching.

If the Sangha there has already extinguished that dispute in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then the Sangha here should also ratify this matter. Thereupon, the Sangha here should say to the disputing bhikkhu: "If the Sangha there has already brought this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then we here also consent to and approve this matter as the proper extinguishing of the dispute.

Now we too will perform the act of extinguishing the dispute in exactly the same manner."

If, by doing so, the dispute is brought to an end — then, Ānanda, this verbal dispute has been extinguished by means of one principle, namely face-to-face Vinaya, without resort to the verdict of the majority.

As for the meaning of face-to-face: the principles up to and including the precepts are as stated above.

If a dispute has been lawfully extinguished and someone thereafter stirs it up again, that person commits a pācittiya offence, as stated above.

3. If the disputing bhikkhu does not comply with the second Sangha performing the procedure in such a way to extinguish the dispute, and hears that in a certain residence there are many bhikkhus who hold the Dhamma, hold the Vinaya, and hold the Mātikā — the disputing bhikkhu should go to those bhikkhus who hold the Dhamma, hold the Vinaya, and hold the Mātikā. If, while that bhikkhu is on the way there, the dispute can be brought to an end — then, Ānanda, this is called a verbal dispute extinguished by means of one principle, face-to-face Vinaya, without resort to the verdict of the majority.

Here it speaks of face-to-face Vinaya. What is meant by face-to-face? That is: the Dharma, the Vinaya, the person, the Sangha, and the precepts. The meaning is as stated above.

If the dispute has been brought to an end lawfully, and someone thereafter stirs it up again, that person commits a pācittiya offence, as stated above.

In the case where the disputing bhikkhu, while on the way, is unable to bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching — that disputing bhikkhu should go to the assembly of the many bhikkhus who hold the Dhamma, hold the Vinaya, and hold the Mātikā, and speak thus: «Venerable Elders, this dispute of mine arose from such a cause, arising in such a manner. In truth, it arose on account of that.

The Sangha performed the procedure in such a way to extinguish the dispute. The second Sangha also performed the procedure in such a way to extinguish the dispute. I did not comply, and so I have come to the Venerable Elders.

May the Venerable Elders be so good as to bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching. I shall relinquish this dispute before the Venerable Elders. If the Venerable Elders are unable to bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then we shall continue to dispute, causing the offence to grow ever deeper and more serious.

If this dispute is not extinguished in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, the bhikkhus will not be able to live in peace and ease.»

The disputing bhikkhu should come before the assembly of many bhikkhus in order to relinquish this dispute.

Those many bhikkhus should say to this disputing bhikkhu: «If the Venerable Elder will explain truthfully this dispute just as it arose, with its true cause exactly as it arose, and as the second Sangha extinguished the dispute and brought the contention to an end — having explained it, relinquish the dispute. We shall then judge for ourselves whether we are able to extinguish this dispute. If the Venerable Elder does not speak truthfully, the dispute will continue, causing the offence to grow ever deeper and more serious. If it is not brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, the bhikkhus will not be able to live in peace and ease.»

«Ānanda, that great multitude of bhikkhus should handle the dispute by this procedure. Having handled the dispute, they should render a judgment. If the disputing bhikkhu is of lower standing, they should say to him: 'Please wait outside for a moment.

We need to deliberate on this matter.' If he is a senior elder, the assembly should withdraw to another place together to deliberate on the matter. If that first Sangha did not bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, and the second Sangha also did not bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, then the great multitude of bhikkhus should bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching.

If that first Sangha brought the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, and the second Sangha also brought the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, then the great multitude of bhikkhus should also accept this, and should say to the disputing bhikkhu: 'Just as that second Sangha brought the dispute to an end, so too do we accept it.'

«Ānanda, this is how a dispute of words is brought to an end by one procedure, namely présence-Vinaya, without the use of the voice of the many.»

In this context, présence refers to the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the persons; the meaning is as above. After the dispute has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, should any one subsequently revive it, he commits a pācittiya, as stated above.

The same applies when going to a place where two bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Mātikā reside. The same also applies when going to a place where one bhikkhu who upholds the Dharma, up to one who upholds the Mātikā, resides.

ii. The Voice of the Many

At that time, bhikkhus in the land of Śrāvastī fell into dispute. The Sangha at Śrāvastī brought the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma. The disputing bhikkhus did not accept the Sangha's settlement of the dispute. They heard that at another residence, as stated above. The great multitude of bhikkhus, also as above. The case of two bhikkhus and one bhikkhu is also as above.

Those disputing bhikkhus did not accept the Sangha at Śrāvastī's settlement of the dispute, until one bhikkhu went before the Buddha, paid homage at his feet, sat to one side, and reported this matter in full to the Buddha. The Buddha then convened the assembly of bhikkhus and, using countless skillful means, rebuked those disputing bhikkhus, saying:

«You have done wrong. This is not proper conduct, not the behavior of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not conforming behavior — it is acting in a way that should not be done. You fools, the Sangha at Śrāvastī brought the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma — why did you not accept it? Even when one single bhikkhu brought the dispute to an end, you did not accept it?»

a. Conducting the Vote by Lot

1. Having rebuked them with countless skillful means, the Blessed One instructed the bhikkhus that this dispute should be brought to an end by the voice of the many, by the procedure of conducting the vote by lot. The person appointed to conduct the vote by lot should be appointed by the procedure of a motion with a single recitation.

A person possessing the following five qualities should not be appointed to conduct the vote by lot: he is partial, he is prone to anger, he is prone to fear, he is deluded, and he does not know whether the vote has been conducted or not. A person possessing these five qualities should not be appointed to conduct the vote by lot. One who is not partial, not prone to anger, not prone to fear, not deluded, and who knows whether the vote has been conducted or not — a person possessing these five qualities should be appointed to conduct the vote by lot.

Within the assembly, one who is capable of performing the karmavācanā should be appointed. Based on the matter at hand, the motion should be proclaimed as follows:

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha appoints the bhikkhu named … to conduct the vote by lot. This is the motion.

«Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints the bhikkhu named … to conduct the vote by lot. Those elders who agree that the Sangha appoints the bhikkhu named … to conduct the vote by lot should remain silent. Those who do not agree should speak.

«The Sangha has consented to appoint the bhikkhu named … to conduct the vote by lot. The Sangha agrees and therefore remains silent. This matter is recorded accordingly.»

2. There are three ways of conducting the vote by lot: first, openly; second, in secret; third, by whispering in the ear.

a. What is meant by conducting the vote openly?

Those bhikkhus think: 'In the assembly, there are many bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma, yet their preceptors and teachers all act in accordance with the Dharma.' Therefore the vote by lot should be conducted openly. Those bhikkhus think: 'In the assembly, the majority act contrary to the Dharma, yet the elder is a person of wisdom who upholds the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, and upholds the Mātikā, and who speaks in accordance with the Dharma.' Therefore the vote by lot should be conducted openly.

Those bhikkhus think: 'It is not known in this dispute whether those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous or those who speak contrary to the Dharma are more numerous. Yet their preceptors and teachers all act in accordance with the Dharma.' That bhikkhu should conduct the vote openly. Those bhikkhus think: 'It is not known in this dispute whether those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous or those who speak contrary to the Dharma are more numerous.

Yet the elder is a person of wisdom who upholds the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, and upholds the Mātikā, and speaks in accordance with the Dharma.' That bhikkhu should conduct the vote openly. Those bhikkhus think: 'In this dispute, those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous.' The vote should be conducted openly.

The procedure for conducting it is as follows: two kinds of lots should be made, one split and one whole. After making the lots, the announcement should be made: 'Those who speak thus should draw a whole lot. Those who speak thus should draw a split lot.' After the vote has been conducted, the lots should be examined elsewhere.

If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, the presiding officer announces the result to bring the dispute to an end. If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are fewer, he should bow and then rise and depart. After that, a trusted person should be sent to the assembly at another residence of bhikkhus to announce: 'At that residence, those who act contrary to the Dharma are more numerous.

It would be good, venerable elders, if you were to go there. If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, the dispute will be brought to an end, and great merit will be gained.' Upon hearing this, those bhikkhus should go. If they do not go, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma.

«Ānanda, if by performing this procedure the dispute is brought to an end, this is called a dispute of words brought to an end by two procedures: présence-Vinaya and the use of the voice of the many.»

In this context, présence refers to the Dharma, the Vinaya, the persons, the precepts, and the Sangha. The meaning is as above. In this context, what is meant by the use of the voice of the many? It relies upon the words of the many — those who uphold the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā.

If a dispute has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma and someone subsequently revives it, he commits a pācittiya, as stated above.

b. What is meant by conducting the vote in secret?

Those bhikkhus think: 'In this dispute, the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, yet their preceptors and teachers do not act in accordance with the Dharma. If we conduct the vote openly, we fear those bhikkhus will follow their preceptors and teachers in drawing their lots.' Therefore those bhikkhus conduct the vote in secret. Some think: 'In this dispute, the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous.

Yet in that assembly there is an elder who is regarded as a person of wisdom, who upholds the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā, but who in fact adheres to what is contrary to the Dharma. If we conduct the vote openly, the bhikkhus in the assembly will follow that elder, who is regarded as a person of wisdom but adheres to what is contrary to the Dharma, in drawing their lots.' Therefore the bhikkhus should conduct the vote in secret.

The two cases where it is uncertain are also as above. The vote should be conducted in this manner.

From these two cases, up to the point where the dispute has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, if anyone subsequently revives it, he commits a pācittiya, as stated above in the section on conducting the vote openly.

c. What is meant by conducting the vote by whispering in the ear?

Those bhikkhus think: the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, but their preceptors and teachers speak contrary to the Dharma; therefore that bhikkhu should conduct the vote by whispering. That bhikkhu thinks: in this dispute the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, yet the elder in the assembly, who is regarded as a person of wisdom, adheres to what is contrary to the Dharma, upholding the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā — therefore that bhikkhu should conduct the vote by whispering in the ear. The two cases where it is uncertain are also as above.

Two kinds of lots should be made, one split and one whole, and the announcement made: 'Those who speak thus should draw a whole lot. Those who speak thus should draw a split lot.' When conducting the vote, the bhikkhus should be seated with space between them, such that one person may walk between and screen one from another, and whisper in the ear, saying: 'Your preceptor, your fellow under the same preceptor, your teacher, your fellow under the same teacher, your close friend and associate has drawn lot …

It would be good if you too would draw lot … Out of compassion! If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous and the dispute is brought to an end, great merit will be gained.' After the vote has been conducted, they should go aside to examine the lots.

From this point up to where the dispute has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, if anyone subsequently revives it, he commits a pācittiya, as stated above.

b. Unlawful Drawing of Lots

There are ten ways of drawing lots that are not in accordance with the Dharma: 1. Drawing lots without a clear understanding; 2. Drawing lots without following a good companion; 3. Drawing lots with the intention of causing those contrary to the Dharma to be more numerous; 4. Drawing lots while knowing that those contrary to the Dharma are more numerous; 5. Drawing lots with the intention of causing the Sangha to be broken; 6. Drawing lots while knowing that the Sangha will be broken; 7. Drawing lots in a manner contrary to the Dharma; 8. Drawing lots as a separate group; 9. Drawing lots on account of a minor offense; 10. Drawing lots without standing by one's own view.

What is meant by drawing lots without clear understanding?

One does not have a firm grasp of this dispute, does not understand it clearly, does not know whether it is in accordance with the Dharma or not, down to whether it is a proper statement or not. This is what is meant by drawing lots without clear understanding.

What is meant by drawing lots without a good companion?

One does not associate with a bhikkhu who is learned, who holds the Dharma, holds the Vinaya, holds the Matika, and who knows what is in accordance with the Dharma or not, down to what is a proper statement or not. This is what is meant by drawing lots without a good companion.

What is meant by drawing lots so as to increase the number of bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma?

That bhikkhu thinks: "In this dispute there are many bhikkhus acting in accordance with the Dharma. Now I should draw lots on the side of those acting contrary to the Dharma, so as to increase their number." This is what is meant by drawing lots to increase the number of bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma.

What is meant by drawing lots knowing that the bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma are in the majority?

That bhikkhu thinks: "In this dispute, the bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma are the majority. I will draw lots in association with those acting contrary to the Dharma." This is what is meant by drawing lots knowing that the bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma are the majority.

What is meant by drawing lots with the intention of causing a schism in the Sangha?

That person conceives the thought: "In this dispute, the bhikkhus acting in accordance with the Dharma are the majority. Now I will draw lots on the side of those acting contrary to the Dharma, so as to cause a split in the Sangha." This is what is meant by drawing lots with the intention of causing a schism in the Sangha.

What is meant by drawing lots knowing that it will cause a schism in the Sangha?

That bhikkhu knows that the bhikkhus acting contrary to the Dharma are in the majority, and draws lots in association with those acting contrary to the Dharma. This is what is meant by drawing lots knowing that it will cause a schism in the Sangha.

What is meant by drawing lots in a manner contrary to the Dharma?

A single-announcement or four-announcement formal act is performed with an announcement that is different from what it should be, or a formal act that is different from what it should be. This is what is meant by drawing lots in a manner contrary to the Dharma.

What is meant by drawing lots with an incomplete assembly?

When, within a single boundary, the formal act is performed without assembling all those who should be present, when those who should give consent do not give consent, and when those who are present and should object do object. This is what is meant by drawing lots with an incomplete assembly.

What is meant by drawing lots on account of a single minor offense?

Either thinking one has committed an offense, or not having committed an offense intentionally, or having formed the intention to act in such a way and then drawing lots—this is what is meant by drawing lots on account of a single minor offense.

What is meant by drawing lots not in accordance with one's own view?

Having one view and one acceptance, yet drawing lots differently. This is what is meant by drawing lots not in accordance with one's own view.

These are called the ten ways of drawing lots contrary to the Dharma. There are also ten ways of drawing lots in accordance with the Dharma. (These are simply the opposites of the ten ways of drawing lots contrary to the Dharma stated above.)

c. Settlement by a Majority Vote

There are five types of persons for settlement by majority vote: there is one whose body does not act but whose mouth acts; there is one whose mouth does not act but whose body acts; there is one whose body does not act and whose mouth does not act; there is one whose body acts and whose mouth acts; there is one who is free from partiality, free from ill-will, free from fear, and free from delusion.

What is meant by a person whose body does not act but whose mouth acts? This refers to one who does not make bodily gestures but who speaks and instructs verbally; this is a person whose body does not act but whose mouth acts.

What is meant by a person whose mouth does not act but whose body acts?

This refers to one who makes bodily gestures but does not speak or instruct verbally; this is a person whose mouth does not act but whose body acts.

What is meant by a person whose body does not act and whose mouth does not act?

This refers to one who makes no bodily gestures and does not speak or instruct verbally; this is a person whose body does not act and whose mouth does not act.

What is meant by a person whose mouth acts and whose body acts?

This refers to one who makes bodily gestures and speaks and instructs verbally; this is a person whose body acts and whose mouth acts.

Among these, the person free from partiality, free from ill-will, free from fear, and free from delusion is the foremost, supremely venerable. Just as milk yields cream, cream yields butter, and butter yields ghee—which is the finest of all, beyond compare—so too, the person free from partiality, free from ill-will, free from fear, and free from delusion is supremely venerable and excellent, beyond compare. These are the five types of persons for settlement by majority vote.

3. The Settling of Disputes Concerning Offenses

1. At that time, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, uncovered his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and said:

"Blessed One, by how many principles is a dispute concerning offenses settled?"

The Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda:

"A dispute concerning offenses is settled by four principles: namely, face-to-face Vinaya, recollection Vinaya, non-insanity Vinaya, and verdict by confession."

2. The Venerable Ānanda further asked:

"Is there a case in which a dispute concerning offenses is settled without two of the principles—that is, without non-insanity Vinaya and verdict-by-confession Vinaya?"

The Buddha replied:

"There is."

The Venerable Ānanda asked again:

"What is that case?"

The Buddha taught:

"Ānanda, a bhikkhu who has not committed a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya offense, and yet other bhikkhus say to him: 'Do you recall having committed a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya offense?' Since he does not recall having committed one, he replies: 'I do not recall having committed a pārājika, down to a sthūlātyaya offense. Elders, please do not keep questioning me.' Yet those bhikkhus persist in questioning him without cease. Ānanda, in such a case the Sangha should confer upon this bhikkhu recollection Vinaya, by means of the formal act of a single announcement with three repetitions, as stated above."

There are three cases in which conferring recollection Vinaya is contrary to the Dharma. If a bhikkhu has committed a grave offense—a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya—and other bhikkhus say he has committed a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, and ask: "Do you recall having committed a grave pārājika, down to a sthūlātyaya offense?" The offender replies: "I do not recall having committed such an offense. Elders, please do not question me." But those bhikkhus persist in questioning him without cease. The offender then comes before the Sangha and requests recollection Vinaya. If the Sangha performs the act of recollection Vinaya for him, this is contrary to the Dharma.

A bhikkhu has committed a grave offense—a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya—and other bhikkhus also say he has committed a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, and ask: "Do you recall having committed a grave pārājika, down to a sthūlātyaya offense?" The offender replies: "I do not recall having committed a grave pārājika, down to a sthūlātyaya offense. I recall having committed a minor offense, for which I will confess in accordance with the Dharma. Elders, please do not keep questioning me." Those bhikkhus persist in questioning him without cease. That bhikkhu then comes before the Sangha and requests recollection Vinaya. If the Sangha confers recollection Vinaya upon him, this is contrary to the Dharma.

If a bhikkhu has committed a grave offense—a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya—and other bhikkhus also say he has committed a pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, and ask: "Do you recall having committed a grave offense?" That person says: "I do not recall having committed a grave pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya offense. I recall having committed a minor offense, for which I have already confessed in accordance with the Dharma. Elders, please do not keep coming to question me." Those bhikkhus persist in challenging and questioning him without cease. That person then comes before the Sangha and requests recollection Vinaya. If the Sangha confers recollection Vinaya upon him, this is contrary to the Dharma.

These are the three ways of conferring recollection Vinaya that are contrary to the Dharma. There are three ways of conferring recollection Vinaya that are in accordance with the Dharma (which are simply the opposites of the three cases above).

There are five circumstances in which conferring recollection Vinaya is not in accordance with the Dharma: not face-to-face, without self-declaration, not pure, contrary to the Dharma, and with an incomplete assembly. These are the five ways of conferring recollection Vinaya that are contrary to the Dharma.

There are five ways of conferring recollection Vinaya that are in accordance with the Dharma: face-to-face, by self-declaration, pure, in accordance with the Dharma, and in a united assembly. These are the five ways of conferring recollection Vinaya that are in accordance with the Dharma.

Ānanda, if a dispute is brought to an end in this way, the dispute concerning offenses is settled by two principles—face-to-face Vinaya and recollection Vinaya—and not by non-insanity Vinaya or verdict by confession.

Herein, what is face-to-face? It refers to the Dharma, the Vinaya, the person, the Sangha, and the boundary. The meaning is as stated above.

Herein, what is recollection Vinaya?

That offense of the bhikkhu may not be raised again; recollection Vinaya may not be performed. If a bhikkhu has already brought a dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, and afterwards some other person revives it, that person commits a pācittiya offense, as stated above.

3. The Venerable Ānanda asked again:

"Is there a case in which a dispute concerning offenses is settled by two principles—face-to-face Vinaya and non-insanity Vinaya—without using recollection Vinaya or verdict by confession?"

The Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda:

"There is."

The Venerable Ānanda said:

"What is that case?"

The Buddha taught:

"In a case where a bhikkhu, being insane and of deranged mind, has repeatedly committed various offenses, and afterwards recovers. Other bhikkhus say that he has committed grave offenses—pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, sthūlātyaya—and ask: 'Do you recall having committed grave offenses—pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, sthūlātyaya?' That bhikkhu, not recalling having committed grave offenses, replies: 'I have not committed grave pārājika offenses, down to sthūlātyaya. At that time I was insane and of deranged mind, and repeatedly committed various offenses. These were not done intentionally; they were done because I was insane. Elders, please do not keep questioning me.' Yet those bhikkhus persist in questioning him without cease."

That bhikkhu thinks: "What should I do?" He then informs the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus inform the Buddha.

The Buddha taught:

"The Sangha is permitted to confer upon this bhikkhu non-insanity Vinaya, by means of the formal act of a single announcement with three repetitions, as stated above. There are three ways of conferring non-insanity Vinaya that are contrary to the Dharma:

«A monk who is not mad feigns madness and repeatedly commits offenses that are not the conduct of a recluse. The monks say he has committed the grave offenses of pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya. The monks ask: 'Do you recall committing the grave offenses of pārājika down to sthūlātyaya?' He replies: 'At that time I was mad and deranged, and I repeatedly committed offenses that are not the conduct of a recluse.

I did not do so deliberately, but did so because of madness and derangement. Elders, please do not question me further.' Yet the monks continue to press him with questions. That monk then goes before the Saṃgha to request the vinaya of non-madness.

If the Saṃgha grants him the vinaya of non-madness, it is not in accordance with the Dharma. (This is the first clause. The second clause follows in the same manner. The person himself says: 'I recall having repeatedly committed offenses as one acting in a dream.' The third clause also follows in the same manner.

The person himself says: 'I recall having repeatedly committed offenses, like one who falls from a high mountain and can only grasp at something small—I was just like that.') These are the three unlawful conferrals of the vinaya of non-madness. There are three lawful conferrals of the vinaya of non-madness (the reverse of the three clauses above constitutes what is lawful).

There are five unlawful conferrals of the vinaya of non-madness. There are five lawful conferrals of the vinaya of non-madness, as above.

«Ānanda, if a dispute is settled in this way, then this strife-dispute has been extinguished by two principles: the face-to-face vinaya and the vinaya of non-madness, without employing the vinaya of recollection or the assignment of an offense to its source. Here, the meaning of 'face-to-face' is as above.

What is called the vinaya of non-madness?

This monk's offense is not to be raised again, and thus recollection cannot be applied to it. That monk has lawfully settled the dispute; if afterward anyone raises it again, he commits a pācittiya, as above.

4. The Venerable Ānanda again asked:

«Is there a case in which a strife-dispute is extinguished by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and the assignment of an offense to its source—without employing the vinaya of recollection or the vinaya of non-madness?»

The Buddha said:

«There is.»

Ānanda asked:

«What is that case?»

If a monk is fond of debating with outsiders, and when pressed with questions his earlier words contradict his later words; and when questioned in the midst of the assembly, his earlier words likewise contradict his later words, and he deliberately speaks falsehoods—Ānanda, the Saṃgha should assign to this monk the offense to its source by means of the formal act of a motion and three announcements, as above.

There are three unlawful conferrals of the vinaya of assigning an offense to its source: no formal charge is made, no recollection is applied, and no self-declaration is made. These are called the three.

Again there are three: no offense was committed; the offense committed cannot be repented; and the offense was committed but has already been repented.

Again there are (groups of) three: no charge made, unlawful, separate assembly. No recollection applied, unlawful, separate assembly. No self-declaration made, unlawful, separate assembly. No offense committed, unlawful, separate assembly. Offense committed but cannot be repented, unlawful, separate assembly. Offense committed but already repented, unlawful, separate assembly. Not face-to-face, unlawful, separate assembly. These are called (the groups of) three unlawful conferrals of the assignment of an offense to its source.

Again there are three lawful conferrals of the assignment of an offense to its source (the reverse of the above, not otherwise; since it is the same, it is not written out here as being lawful).

There are three lawful conferrals of the assignment of an offense to its source.

There are five unlawful conferrals of the assignment of an offense to its source: not face-to-face, no self-declaration made, not pure, unlawful and separate assembly. These are the five unlawful conferrals of the assignment of an offense to its source.

(Again there are five lawful clauses, which are the reverse of the above, not otherwise, and so they are not written out here.)

If the dispute is settled, then the strife-dispute has been extinguished by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and the assignment of an offense to its source—without employing the vinaya of recollection or the vinaya of non-madness. The meaning of 'face-to-face' is as above.

What is the assignment of an offense to its source?

By means of this offense, that monk has been formally charged and recollection has been applied to him.

That monk, if the dispute has been lawfully settled, and afterward someone raises it again, commits a pācittiya, as above.

4. Settling Offence-Disputes

1. The Venerable Ānanda again asked:

«By how many principles is an offence-dispute settled?»

The Buddha instructed the Venerable Ānanda:

«An offence-dispute is settled by three: the face-to-face vinaya, self-declaration, and covering over with grass.»

The Venerable Ānanda again asked:

«Is there a case in which an offence-dispute is settled by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and self-declaration—without employing covering over with grass?»

The Buddha said:

«There is.»

Ānanda again asked:

«What is that case?»

The Buddha instructed the Venerable Ānanda:

A monk who has committed an offense, if he wishes to go before a single monk to confess, should go to the place of a pure monk, bare the right shoulder, and if that monk is a senior elder, bow respectfully with the head to his feet; then place the right knee on the ground, join the palms, and state the name of the offense and its category, as follows:

«Elder, please hold this in mind with one-pointed attention. I, the monk named…, have committed the offense of…; I now come before the Elder to confess, and dare not conceal it. Through confession there is ease; without confession there is no ease. Recalling that I have committed this offense, I disclose it, and knowing it, I dare not conceal it. Elder, please bear in mind that I am pure, complete in the body of precepts, and pure for the Poṣadha.»

The second and third times he addresses the elder in the same way. The monk receiving the confession should say:

«You should reproach your own mind and give rise to a mind of aversion.»

The reply is:

«Yes.»

«Ānanda, if this is done and the dispute is thereby settled, then this offence-dispute has been extinguished by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and self-declaration—without employing covering over with grass.»

Here, the meaning of 'face-to-face,' 'Dharma,' and 'vinaya' is as above. The person present face-to-face is the one receiving the confession.

What is called stating one's own name for the offense and stating the category of the offense?

That is precisely confession.

What is called treatment?

It is: 'Reproach your own mind; give rise to aversion.' If the dispute is settled and afterward anyone raises it again, he commits a pācittiya. Except for one who has given assent in advance; otherwise it is as above.

If one wishes to confess before two monks, one should go to the place of two pure monks and bare the right shoulder. If they are senior elders, bow respectfully with the head to their feet; then place the right knee on the ground, join the palms, state the name of the offense and its category, and perform the act of confession as above.

The monk receiving the confession should first ask the second monk: 'If the Elder permits me to receive the confession of monk…, then I will receive it.'

The second monk should say:

«Agreed.»

If one wishes to confess before three monks, the procedure is the same. Or if one wishes to confess before the Saṃgha, one should go into the midst of the Saṃgha, bare the right shoulder, remove one's sandals, bow respectfully with the head to the feet of the Saṃgha, place the right knee on the ground, join the palms, and address them:

«Most Venerable Saṃgha, please listen! I, the monk named…, have committed the offense of…; I now come before the Saṃgha to confess.»

This request is made three times in this way. The monk receiving the confession should make a formal motion before accepting the confession of that monk. The text of the formal motion is as follows:

«Most Venerable Saṃgha, please listen! That monk named… has committed the offense of…; he has now come before the Saṃgha to confess. If the time is suitable for the Saṃgha, may the Saṃgha consent, and I will receive the confession of monk… This is the motion.»

Having made the motion in this way, he then receives the confession. The monk receiving the confession should say:

«You should reproach your own mind; give rise to a mind of aversion.»

The monk confessing should reply:

«Yes.»

«Ānanda, if this procedure is carried out and the dispute is thereby settled, then this offence-dispute has been extinguished by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and self-declaration—without employing covering over with grass.»

Here, 'face-to-face' means the Dharma, the vinaya, down to the precepts, as above.

What is stating one's own name for the offense and stating the category of the offense? That is precisely confession.

What is self-treatment? It is: 'Reproach your own mind; give rise to a mind of aversion.' Once the dispute has been lawfully settled, if afterward anyone raises it again, it is as above.

2. The Venerable Ānanda again asked:

«Most Venerable One, is there a case in which an offence-dispute is settled by two principles—the face-to-face vinaya and covering over with grass—without employing self-declaration?»

The Buddha said:

«There is.»

The Venerable One asked:

«What is that case?»

The Buddha said:

«In this dispute, the majority of monks have committed offenses that are not the conduct of recluses, have spoken without restraint, and have come and gone without accordance with proper deportment. The monks reflect: 'In this dispute, the majority of us have committed offenses that are not the conduct of recluses, have spoken without restraint, and have come and gone without accordance with proper deportment. If we investigate this dispute among ourselves, we fear it will only deepen the offenses and make it impossible to settle the matter lawfully, in accordance with the vinaya and the Buddha's teaching, and will cause the monks to live without ease.' Ānanda, among that assembly there should be a monk of wisdom and capability who rises from his seat, bares the right shoulder,

places the right knee on the ground, joins the palms, and addresses them:

"Venerable Elders, in this dispute, the majority of us have committed offenses—conduct unbecoming of recluses, speaking without restraint, coming and going without proper deportment. If we ourselves were to investigate this dispute, we fear that the offenses would become deeper and more grave, making it impossible to bring it to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, and causing the bhikkhus to live without peace and happiness. If the Venerable Elders consent, I shall perform the grass-covering-the-earth confession on behalf of the Venerable Elders for these offenses."

The second assembly spoke likewise.

"Ānanda, those bhikkhus should perform the grass-covering-the-earth confession by means of a formal motion, as follows:

"'May the Venerable Sangha listen. If it is the right time for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent; the Sangha shall perform the grass-covering-the-earth confession on account of this dispute. This is the motion.'

"Having made the motion thus, the grass-covering-the-earth confession should be performed.

"Ānanda, in one of those assemblies, a wise and capable bhikkhu should rise from his seat, bare his right shoulder, touch his right knee to the ground, join his palms, and say:

"'Venerable Elders, in this dispute, if the Venerable Elders consent, I shall perform the grass-covering-the-earth confession on behalf of the Venerable Elders for the offenses that have been committed, excepting grave offenses and the formal act of suspension from visiting the homes of laypeople.'

"The second assembly likewise spoke in the same way.

"Ānanda, if the dispute is thereby brought to an end, it means this dispute has been extinguished by two methods: resolution in the presence and the grass-covering-the-earth, and not by resolution through confession of one's own words." In the presence has the meaning as stated above.

What is called grass-covering-the-earth? It means confessing without naming the offense or its category.

If a dispute has been settled and someone raises it again afterward, the procedure is also as stated above.

5. The Settlement of Disputes

The Venerable Ānanda then asked:

"By how many methods can a dispute be settled?"

The Buddha taught:

"According to the offense committed, all methods may be used to bring it to an end."

6. Upāli's Questions

1. At that time, the Elder Upāli rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, touched his right knee to the ground, and addressed the Buddha:

"Is every resolution through confession of one's own words in accordance with the Dharma?"

The Buddha taught:

"Upāli, resolution through confession of one's own words is not all in accordance with the Dharma.

"In this case, a bhikkhu has not committed a pārājika offense. He has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. He himself says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus thereupon impose pārājika as the resolution. Upāli, this is a resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma.

"Upāli, in this case, a bhikkhu has not committed a pārājika offense. He has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. He himself says he has committed a saṅghādisesa. The bhikkhus thereupon impose a saṅghādisesa offense as the resolution. Upāli, this is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma."

And so on down to saying one has committed an offense of evil speech—likewise.

"Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a saṅghādisesa. He has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. That bhikkhu says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus impose the pārājika as the resolution. This is called resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma.

"Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a saṅghādisesa. The bhikkhus have not formally accused him, nor made a reminder. That bhikkhu says he has committed a saṅghādisesa. The bhikkhus impose the saṅghādisesa as the resolution. This is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma."

In the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a saṅghādisesa, and says he has committed a pācittiya, down to evil speech—likewise.

In the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a pācittiya and says he has committed a pārājika, down to evil speech—likewise.

In the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a pāṭidesanīya and says he has committed a pārājika, down to evil speech—likewise. Thullaccaya down to evil speech—likewise. Dukkaṭa down to evil speech—likewise. Evil speech, and saying one has committed a pārājika, back down to evil speech—likewise.

2. "Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has not committed a pārājika. He has been formally accused and a reminder has been made, and he himself says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the pārājika as the resolution. This is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma."

Down to saying one has committed a wrongful act—the seven categories interchanged as the basis likewise.

"Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. He has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. He himself says he has committed a saṅghādisesa. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the saṅghādisesa offense as the resolution. This is resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma."

Down to saying one has committed evil speech—likewise. In the case where a bhikkhu has committed a saṅghādisesa, and that bhikkhu has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made, and he himself says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the pārājika offense as the resolution. This is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words not in accordance with the Dharma. In the case where a bhikkhu has committed a saṅghādisesa. That bhikkhu has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. He himself says he has committed a pācittiya. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the pācittiya offense as the resolution. This is resolution through confession of one's own words not in accordance with the Dharma.

Down to saying one has committed evil speech, interchanged as the basis—likewise.

"Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. That bhikkhu has been formally accused and a reminder has been made, and he then says he has committed a saṅghādisesa. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the saṅghādisesa offense as the resolution." Down to evil speech interchanged to form the categories—likewise.

"Upāli, this is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words that is not in accordance with the Dharma."

3. Upāli then asked:

"What then is resolution through confession of one's own words in accordance with the Dharma?"

The Buddha taught:

"If a bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. He has not been formally accused, nor has a reminder been made. He himself says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the pārājika offense as the resolution for him. This is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words in accordance with the Dharma."

Down to evil speech—likewise.

"Upāli, in the case where a bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. That bhikkhu has been formally accused and a reminder has been made. He himself says he has committed a pārājika. The bhikkhus thereupon impose the pārājika offense as the resolution. This is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words in accordance with the Dharma."

Down to evil speech—likewise.

"Upāli, this is the imposition of resolution through confession of one's own words in accordance with the Dharma."

5. At that time, a certain bhikkhu said to the other bhikkhus:

"I have committed an act of impurity; I wish to disrobe."

That bhikkhu said:

"You should know the right time."

That bhikkhu departed. Upāli, who was walking in meditation not far away, heard this, went to that bhikkhu, and asked:

"What were you all just discussing?"

"That one said: I have committed an act of impurity; I wish to disrobe."

Upāli asked:

"With whom did you commit it?"

"I committed it with my former wife."

Upāli asked:

"Where is your former wife?"

"My former wife is in the country of Ujjenī."

Upāli asked:

"Did you go there?"

"I did not go there."

Upāli asked:

"Did she come here?"

"She did not come here."

Upāli asked:

"Then in what manner did you commit it?"

"I committed it in a dream."

Upāli said:

"Enough! Not even a dukkaṭa offense have you committed."

---

Vietnamese translation: Bhikkhu Thích Đỗng Minh and Thích Đức Thắng. Four-Part 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, fascicles 1–2)

Buddhist Studies Publication Committee, 2002