Lzh Mg Bu Vb Pc 1Lying

– MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

– PĀCITTIYA RULES

– CLEARLY EXPLAINING THE FIRST SECTION OF THE NINETY-TWO SINGLE EXPIATION RULES

1. RULE: DELIBERATE FALSE SPEECH.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Sāvatthī, as described in detail above. At that time the Sangha had assembled in one place intending to perform a Kammavācā, but the elder Śrīlābha had not come, so they sent a messenger to summon him: "Elder, the Sangha is assembled and intends to conduct Sangha business."

Śrīlābha thought: "Surely they are performing a Kammavācā on account of me," and immediately became fearful, but being unable to flee, he had no choice but to come.

When he arrived, the bhikkhus asked: "Elder, have you committed a Saṃghādisesa offense?"

He replied: "I have."

The bhikkhus were immediately pleased. But he then thought: "The fellow practitioners who are before me are raising a matter that can be confessed—it is not a matter that is beyond remedy," and so he addressed the Sangha: "Please allow me to step outside for a moment."

After he had gone out, the bhikkhus discussed among themselves: "This bhikkhu is devious and unstable; now that he has gone outside, he will shortly speak falsely. We should therefore question him again three times to establish the matter definitively."

Once outside, Śrīlābha reflected: "Why have I admitted guilt when I have done nothing? These bhikkhus habitually punish me. Now I should not admit that offense; rather, I should speak falsely. At worst the Sangha will impose a penalty for false speech, and even if they do, it will be lighter."

The bhikkhus then called Śrīlābha back inside. When he had entered, the Sangha asked: "Did you commit a Saṃghādisesa offense?"

—I did not.

—Just now, why did you admit that you had committed one?

—Because just now the Sangha wished to say that I had committed an offense, so I answered that I had. At this moment I do not recall having any such offense.

The bhikkhus then reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. The Buddha immediately ordered Śrīlābha to be summoned. When he had come, the Buddha questioned him again about all the foregoing: "Is it truly as has been said?"

—It is truly so, Blessed One.

—That is a bad thing. Have you not heard me, by means of countless skillful approaches, reproach false speech and praise truthful speech? Now why, knowing this, have you spoken falsely? That is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, contrary to my teaching; it cannot be used to nurture wholesome Dharma.

Thereupon the Buddha commanded all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Sāvatthī to assemble together, and for the sake of ten benefits he established the following rule for the bhikkhus—even those who have already heard it must hear it again:

"If a bhikkhu knowingly speaks falsely, he commits a Pācittiya offense."

Explanation

—Knowingly: having previously thought and understood.

—False: the matter is not as stated.

—Speech: uttered through the mouth.

—Pācittiya: the name of the offense as distinctly formulated.

There are furthermore the following cases: the eight modes of speech of the noble ones, direct speech, false speech, non-false speech, doubt, non-doubt, certainty, non-certainty, and one-sided speech.

—The eight modes of speech of the noble ones: what is seen, one says is seen; what is heard, one says is heard; what is sensed by smell or taste or touch, one says is sensed; what is known, one says is known; what is not seen, one says is not seen; what is not heard, one says is not heard; what is not sensed, one says is not sensed; what is not known, one says is not known. These are called the eight modes of speech of the noble ones. Speaking thus, there is no offense.

—The eight modes of speech that are not of the noble ones: what is seen, one says is not seen; what is heard, one says is not heard; what is sensed, one says is not sensed; what is known, one says is not known; what is not seen, one says is seen; what is not heard, one says is heard; what is not sensed, one says is sensed; what is not known, one says is known. These are called the eight modes of speech that are not of the noble ones. Speaking thus, one commits a Pācittiya offense.

—Direct speech: having seen, heard, or known, one says one has not seen, not heard, not sensed, not known. That is called direct speech; it constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—False: having perceived what is erroneous as erroneous yet saying it is not erroneous; having heard what is erroneous as erroneous yet saying it is not erroneous; having sensed what is erroneous as erroneous yet saying it is not erroneous; having known what is erroneous as erroneous yet saying it is not erroneous; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known the error, yet saying there is no error. Speaking thus constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—Non-false: having seen, heard, sensed, or known that something is not erroneous, yet saying it is erroneous; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known that something is not erroneous, yet saying it is erroneous. Speaking thus constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—Doubt: having seen, heard, sensed, or known doubt, yet saying there is no doubt; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known doubt, yet saying there is no doubt—this constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—Non-doubt: having seen, heard, sensed, or known that there is no doubt, yet saying there is doubt; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known that there is no doubt, yet saying there is doubt—this constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—Certainty: having seen, heard, sensed, or known certainty, yet saying there is no certainty; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known certainty, yet saying there is no certainty—this constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—Non-certainty: having seen, heard, sensed, or known non-certainty, yet saying there is certainty; not having seen, heard, sensed, or known non-certainty, yet saying there is certainty—this constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

—One-sided speech: having seen, heard, sensed, or known, yet saying one has not seen, not heard, not sensed, not known—this constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

Knowing that something exists yet saying it does not—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Knowing that something does not exist yet saying it does—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly existing, yet taking it to be nonexistent and then saying it exists—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly nonexistent, yet taking it to be existent and then saying it does not exist—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly existing, then perceiving it as existing, yet saying it does not exist—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly nonexistent, then perceiving it as nonexistent, yet saying it exists—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly existing, then perceiving it as nonexistent, yet saying it exists—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

Something truly nonexistent, then perceiving it as existent, yet saying it does not exist—that is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

There are five factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. What are those five factors? They are: the thing truly exists; one perceives it as existing; one then changes one's mind; one thinks the contrary; one speaks otherwise. These are the five factors of knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

There are four factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. What are those four factors? They are: one perceives it as existing; one changes one's mind; one thinks the contrary; one speaks otherwise. These are called the four factors of knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

There are three factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. What are those three factors? They are: one changes one's mind; one thinks the contrary; one speaks otherwise. Thus, it is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

There are two factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. What are those two factors? They are: one thinks the contrary; one speaks otherwise. Thus, it is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense.

There is one factor whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. What is that one factor? It is: one speaks otherwise. Thus, it is knowingly speaking falsely, a Pācittiya offense. Therefore it is said (as above).

Vietnamese translation: Thích Phước Sơn. MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

Chinese translation: TRIPIṬAKA BUDDHĀBHADRA OF INDIA

TOGETHER WITH ŚRAMAṆA FǍXIǍN, TRANSLATED DURING THE EASTERN JIN DYNASTY

DOCTRINAL VERIFICATION: THÍCH ĐỖNG MINH