彌沙塞部和醯五分律

THE FIVE-PART VINAYA OF THE MAHISASAKA SCHOOL — FASCICLE 24

VOLUME 24
Part 4: ON THE DHARMA FOR SETTLING DISPUTES AND KARMAVACANA

Section 2: ON THE DHARMA OF KARMAVACANA (Continued)

The Buddha was in the city of Kausambi. At that time, a bhiksu committed an offense against the precepts without knowing that he had committed it. He spoke about it to the other bhiksus. Some of the bhiksus said that he had committed an offense, while others said that he had not. Those who said that he had not committed an offense told him:

“Venerable, you have not committed an offense against the precepts.”

Upon hearing this, that bhiksu conceived the notion that he had committed no offense. Those who said that he had committed an offense told him:

“Venerable, you have committed an offense against the precepts. You should acknowledge the offense yourself and repent of it. Do not allow the pure life to be defiled, disappoint faithful donors, and undergo suffering for many lifetimes.”

That bhiksu said:

“I have committed no offense. Why should I acknowledge an offense myself and repent of it?”

The bhiksus who considered that he had committed an offense then imposed upon him the karmavacana for failure to acknowledge an offense. After being suspended, he entered the city of Kausambi to seek the support of his friends, saying:

“I have committed no offense, yet those bhiksus forcibly said that I was guilty and imposed upon me the karmavacana for failure to acknowledge an offense. Such a karmavacana is invalid. Venerable Ones, you should rescue me in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya.”

The bhiksu concerned also went outside the city to the places where other bhiksus were staying and likewise asked for their support. When those bhiksus heard this, they all joined together to support him.

At that time, the Blessed One knew that the Sangha had been divided. He rose from his seat, went to the assembly of bhiksus who supported the suspended bhiksu, and said:

“Bhiksus, you should not say, ‘That bhiksu has committed no offense.’ If that bhiksu truly has committed no offense but has been suspended, you should nevertheless tell him, ‘You should acknowledge the offense yourself and repent of it.’ He will then think, ‘If I say that I do not acknowledge an offense, the Sangha will impose upon me the karmavacana for failure to acknowledge an offense. They will not dwell with me, nor will they perform the Uposatha, the Pavarana, or other acts of the Sangha together with me.’ Moreover, if you speak as you have done, it will lead to contention, cause the Sangha to become disharmonious and divided, and give rise to defilements. You should avoid this by every means and cause the bhiksu concerned to acknowledge the offense himself and repent of it.”

Having spoken thus, the Blessed One went to the assembly of bhiksus who had suspended him and said:

“You should not forcibly suspend another person for an offense. If that person truly has committed an offense, the Sangha should say, ‘Venerable, acknowledge the offense yourself.’ If he says, ‘I have committed no offense; how can I acknowledge one?’ the Sangha should consider: ‘If we impose upon him the karmavacana for failure to acknowledge an offense, do not dwell with him, and do not perform the Uposatha, the Pavarana, or other acts of the Sangha together with him, this will consequently lead to contention and mutual abuse, cause the Sangha to become disharmonious and divided, and give rise to defilements.’ You should fear this consequence and should not suspend him for the offense and then abandon the matter.”

Although the bhiksus heard what the Buddha said, they continued disputing without cease. During the meal, they loudly reviled and struck at one another. The Buddha again said:

“You should not revile one another, nor should you raise your voices during the meal. Whoever violates this incurs a Duskrta offense. Whoever strikes another incurs a Sthulatyaya offense.”

Although the bhiksus heard the Buddha’s words, they continued disputing without cease and performed separate acts of the Sangha within the same boundary. The Buddha again told them:

“If the Sangha has already been divided, and separate karmavacanas are performed within the same boundary in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, they are nevertheless called valid karmavacanas. Why is this? The two groups hold differing views and do not dwell together. There are two kinds of not dwelling together: in one case, individuals themselves bring about their separation in dwelling; in the other, the Sangha performs a karmavacana imposing separation in dwelling.”

Although the bhiksus heard the Buddha’s words, they continued disputing.

The Buddha again told the bhiksus:

“You should not contend with one another, slander one another, or revile one another. You should live together in harmony, assemble in one place like water blended with milk, and together proclaim and transmit the Teacher’s instruction.”

The bhiksus said to the Buddha:

“Blessed One, please dwell at ease. Although the Buddha is the Lord of the Dharma, we ourselves also know what to do.”

Three times the Buddha admonished them, but the bhiksus continued to reply in the same way.

The Buddha again told the bhiksus:

“In a past age, in the kingdom of Kosala, there was a king named Long-Lived. He ruled a small country whose armed forces were few and weak. In the neighboring kingdom of Kasi, there was a king named Brahmadatta, who ruled a vast country with powerful armed forces and gradually invaded and seized the kingdom of Kosala. King Brahmadatta won over one of King Long-Lived’s chief ministers, treated him very generously, and entrusted him with affairs of state.

“At that time, King Long-Lived and his consort, stripped of their royal attire and possessions, disguised themselves as brahmins and escaped to the kingdom of Varanasi, where they lodged in the house of a potter. The consort suddenly conceived this thought: ‘I wish that, just as the sun begins to rise, the four divisions of the army would engage in combat at a crossroads, and that I might obtain and drink the water used to whet their swords.’

“Having had this thought, she said to the king, ‘If this desire of mine cannot be fulfilled, I shall die here.’

“The king said, ‘That cannot be obtained. This craving of yours is impossible to fulfill, and you will certainly die; of that there is no doubt.’

“The king further said, ‘If Brahmadatta hears and learns that I am here, he will surely have me bound, drums beaten to proclaim my capture, and then have me executed and cut into five pieces. For now, try to endure and wait. I shall secretly visit that minister and ask his counsel concerning this matter.’

“Immediately after saying this, the king found a way to meet his former minister and seek his advice. The former minister said, ‘Your servant must see the consort before offering counsel.’

“The chief minister then went to the consort. Seeing her from afar, he bared his right shoulder, bowed with his head and face at her feet, and three times proclaimed in praise: ‘The consort is now carrying a son of great merit. The kingdom of Kosala has an heir!’

“The chief minister reported to the king, ‘Tomorrow morning, the consort’s wish will be fulfilled.’

“Having said this, the chief minister immediately returned to Brahmadatta and reported, ‘Does Your Majesty know? A certain astrological sign has appeared. Early tomorrow morning, the four divisions of the army must be assembled at a crossroads, where the two sides must conduct a mock battle. Afterward, all must whet their swords, and the resulting water must be used to avert that calamity. If this is not done, Your Majesty will certainly face great danger.’

“King Brahmadatta immediately said, ‘It must be done at once.’

“The chief minister then ordered the four divisions of the army to make solemn preparations for combat. Early the following morning, after the two sides had engaged in combat at the crossroads, they all whetted their swords. Having received secret instructions, the consort stood at a certain place and obtained the sword-whetting water from the chief minister. Upon receiving the water, she immediately drank it, and the child in her womb was nourished.

“When her term was complete, the child was born. He possessed a wondrously handsome appearance and was named Long-Life. When he reached ten years of age, his father told him:

“‘Brahmadatta invaded and seized our kingdom, and your mother and I escaped here. You have grown up swiftly during these long days of hardship endured by your parents. Brahmadatta may discover where your father and mother are dwelling and kill us both. You should go far away and not remain attached to your parents.’

“Long-Life wept sorrowfully, reverently bowed at his parents’ feet, circumambulated them three times, and departed. Long-Life studied crafts, mathematics, writing, archery, horsemanship, the training of elephants and horses, and music; there was no field of learning in which he did not surpass others. Long-Life devotedly served an elephant trainer so that he might master every art of handling elephants.

“The man who had formerly been King Long-Lived’s barber later became Brahmadatta’s barber. When summoned to cut the king’s hair, he went to the king. Because he knew clearly where King Long-Lived was staying, he did not dare conceal it. When Brahmadatta questioned him, he disclosed exactly where King Long-Lived was hiding. Upon hearing this, Brahmadatta immediately ordered that both husband and wife be bound, that drums be beaten and their capture proclaimed throughout every lane and alley, and that they then be taken to a crossroads and cut into five pieces.”

They were arrested and sentenced by royal command.

When Trường-sinh heard this news, he hurried to the scene. Standing by the roadside and witnessing it, his heart and liver were torn apart. Bitterly resentful, he thought: “The enmity arising from the wrong done to my parents does not permit me to live beneath the same sky as this man. How can I possibly endure this now? Even the sincerity of an ordinary man is sufficient to bring about a response.” Trường-sinh wished to sacrifice his life to avenge this humiliation and hatred.

Seeing their son from afar and knowing that thoughts of revenge had arisen in his heart, his parents cried out loudly to themselves as though insane: “My son, do not look too far ahead, nor look only at what is near. If enmity is repaid with enmity, enmity can never cease; only when enmity is repaid with virtue will it come to an end. To follow your parents’ wishes is to be called a filial son; to act according to your own will is not the way taught by your father.”

At that time, all those who had come to watch said, “King Trường-thọ is speaking madly out of fear.” Only Trường-sinh understood his father’s profound meaning. He restrained himself and temporarily calmed his mind. Although his heart was shattered, he did not reveal it outwardly. Having subdued his mind and regained his composure, Trường-sinh returned to the elephant trainer who was his teacher. Nevertheless, he still could not forget his hatred and sought a way to take revenge.

Later, at midnight in the elephant stable, the sound of the lute arose again. Its exquisite notes spread through the stillness and reached the ears of Phạm-đạt. The King immediately asked, “Who in the elephant stable is able to play the lute with such surpassing skill?”

A close attendant replied, “The elephant trainer named... has a disciple, and it is he who possesses this ability.”

Summoned by royal command, Trường-sinh hastened there and played a melody on the lute for the King. After listening, the King thought, “Since becoming King, I have never heard such wondrous music.” Phạm-đạt immediately placed his trust in Trường-sinh and permitted him to remain at his side.

After some time, the King commanded that the four divisions of the army be fully prepared, and he led the women of the palace, his ministers, and the crown prince on an excursion to hunt. While the troops scattered in pursuit of deer, Trường-sinh remained to protect the King. The vanguard was three yojanas away from the royal carriage, and no one knew where the King was.

At that time, the weary King said to Trường-sinh, “I wish to lie down and rest for a while. Can you guard me?”

Trường-sinh replied, “Your Majesty may rest in peace. I am able to guard you.”

The King then lay beneath a tree, resting his head upon Trường-sinh’s knees, and fell asleep. The King’s sword, which he carried for protection, slipped out of its sheath before Trường-sinh. Trường-sinh then thought, “This King bears such a great blood-debt toward me. Today this opportunity has arisen; how could I let it pass?” He immediately rose, seized the sword, and prepared to cut off the King’s head.

Suddenly, this thought occurred to him: “The profound kindness of one’s parents is greater than heaven and earth. Before drawing his final breath, my father instructed me: ‘My son, do not look too far ahead, nor look only at what is near. If enmity is repaid with enmity, enmity can never cease....’ How could I act contrary to that instruction?” Having thought this, he put the sword back and continued guarding the sleeping King.

The King then awoke in alarm. Trường-sinh asked, “Why does Your Majesty appear so frightened?”

The King replied, “I dreamed that the son of King Trường-thọ held a sword and sought to take my life.”

Trường-sinh said, “This is a desolate wilderness. How could the son of King Trường-thọ suddenly be here? Perhaps a mountain spirit has frightened Your Majesty! Please rest peacefully and do not be concerned.”

This happened three times. During the King’s final sleep, Trường-sinh again thought: “Before my parents died, they earnestly instructed me: ‘Only when enmity is repaid with virtue will it come to an end.’ Why, then, have I sought three times just now to transgress their instruction?! From this day onward, I shall master myself, resolving to serve the King as I would my own kinsman and never again allow even the slightest thought of killing him to arise.”

After Trường-sinh had formed this resolve, the King awoke with an exceedingly joyful expression. Trường-sinh asked why His Majesty was so delighted.

The King said, “I dreamed that the son of King Trường-thọ wished to serve me as his own kinsman and no longer harbored thoughts of hatred or harm. Therefore, I am joyful.”

At that time, Trường-sinh immediately said to the King, “I am the son of King Trường-thọ. Your Majesty killed my parents, and I cherished the resolve to kill you. Three times I recalled my father’s final injunction, and thus Your Majesty escaped death. Even so, it is difficult to guarantee that such a thought will not arise again in the future. I ask Your Majesty to provide me with a way to resolve this matter so that no cause for anxiety will remain afterward.”

The King said, “I committed an unrighteous deed, whereas you and your father have shown profound benevolence. Why should I now live surrounded by anxiety?! You have granted me my life, and I vow that we shall never betray one another.”

King Phạm-đạt then ordered the army to turn back. He assembled his ministers and asked them to discuss this question: “If the son of King Trường-thọ were captured, how should he be punished?”

Some said that his hands and feet should be cut off. Some said that his nose and ears should be sliced away. Some said that he should be split apart with an axe. Others said that he should be impaled upon a stake and roasted.

The King then pointed and said, “This man is the son of King Trường-thọ. He granted me my life, and now I shall repay him with life. None among you may harbor any evil intent toward him.”

After settling the matter and returning to the palace, the King gave his daughter in marriage to Trường-sinh. Holding a golden tray in his left hand and, in his right, a golden vessel filled with water, the King poured the water over Trường-sinh’s hand when Trường-sinh was sent back to his native country to assume the kingship of Câu-tát-la. The neighboring kingdoms likewise established harmonious and friendly relations, together with many other such benefits.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Even worldly people—even the king of a country—were able to bring about reconciliation in the face of such great enmity. By allowing not a single evil thought to arise, they transformed hostility into intimate friendship. You have gone forth from the household life to seek the unconditioned Way. Why, then, do you contend with one another over a trifling matter and thereby lose the greater benefit? You should abandon such thoughts and live together in harmony, like milk mingling with water. Together, propagate the Teacher’s instruction and dwell with one another in peace and happiness.”

The bhikkhus again addressed the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! We ask that you dwell at ease. Although the Buddha occupies the throne of the Dharma King, we ourselves know what should be done.” Thus, they deliberately refused to relinquish their dispute.

The Buddha then rose into the air and spoke these verses:

People’s lives are lost; kindred are torn apart;
Cattle, horses, and wealth are plundered.
Enmity destroys kingdoms and exterminates lineages,
Yet harmony may still be restored.

After speaking these verses, the World-Honored One used his spiritual powers to fly to the village of Ba-la, where he stayed beneath a Bạt-đà-bà-la tree without an attendant.

At that time, there was a great elephant there that was troubled by the young elephants. Whenever it wished to drink water, the young elephants would go ahead and muddy the water. Whenever it wished to eat grass, the young elephants would first eat it and then trample upon it, making it filthy. That elephant thought, “I am now being sorely troubled by this herd of young elephants. It would be better for me to leave.” Having thought this, it departed. The great elephant

Every day, after obtaining clear water and fine grass, the elephant gradually made his way to the Baddhabala Grove. Upon seeing the Buddha, he was exceedingly joyful. For the Buddha, the elephant fetched water and cleared the grass on both sides of the place where the Buddha dwelt. The Buddha, like that elephant, had escaped the disturbances of his own kind and therefore dwelt happily in tranquility. The Buddha spoke this verse:

After speaking this verse, the Buddha departed from the Baddhabala Grove, went to the city of Shravasti, and stayed at the Jeta Grove Monastery. At that time, laymen, laywomen, kings, great ministers, elders, householders, non-Buddhist practitioners, and brahmins made offerings to him, revered, honored, and praised him; thus, he received abundant food, drink, and robes. Yet the Blessed One was never attached to them, just as a lotus remains unstained.

Meanwhile, in the city of Kaushambi, all the laymen shared this thought: “We have now lost a great benefit. Because the bhikshus delighted in disputes, the Blessed One no longer dwells here. We must devise a means to make them leave this place.” They therefore agreed among themselves neither to associate with those bhikshus nor to offer them food. Those bhikshus also thought: “Because of the offenses we committed, the Blessed One abandoned this place and departed. We should now go together to the Buddha and earnestly repent.”

Those bhikshus then put on their robes, took up their bowls, and went to the Blessed One. At that time, Venerable Shariputra heard that the disputing bhikshus were coming. Together with five hundred bhikshus, he went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and said:

“The disputing bhikshus from Kaushambi are about to arrive here. How should we treat them?”

The Buddha told Venerable Shariputra:

“You should allow both parties to state their views. If their words accord with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, treat them well and impartially, as friends.”

The Venerable asked again:

“Blessed One, by how many matters may we know that what they say accords with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching? By how many matters may we know that what they say is contrary to the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching?”

The Buddha said:

“If they formulate the fourteen propositions, saying that Dharma is non-Dharma, and so forth, up to saying that what was prescribed by the Buddha was not prescribed by the Buddha, this is called being contrary to the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. If the reverse of the foregoing is maintained, then it accords with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.”

At that time, the bhikshuni Mahaprajapati heard that the disputing bhikshus were coming. Together with five hundred bhikshunis, she went to the Buddha, bowed her head at the Buddha’s feet, and said:

“Blessed One, the disputing bhikshus from Kaushambi are about to arrive here. How should we treat them?”

The Buddha said:

“You should allow them to state the views of both parties. If their words accord with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, treat them well. You should diligently seek five things from bhikshus who accord with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

Every half-month, the bhikshunis must approach bhikshus who accord with the Dharma to request an instructor. The bhikshunis must undertake the rains retreat in a place where bhikshus who accord with the Dharma reside. After completing the retreat, they must approach bhikshus who accord with the Dharma and invite admonition concerning offenses seen, heard, or suspected.

After a shikshamana has trained in the precepts for two years, she should receive full ordination before both Sanghas. A bhikshuni who has committed a grave offense must perform the half-month manatta observance before both Sanghas. After performing the manatta observance, she should appear before both Sanghas, each consisting of twenty members, and request the rite of rehabilitation.

If the Bhikshuni Sangha has any other matters, it should earnestly seek instruction from bhikshus who accord with the Dharma.”

At that time, the Elder Anathapindika heard that the disputing bhikshus were about to arrive. Together with five hundred laymen, he went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and said:

“Blessed One, the disputing bhikshus from Kaushambi are about to arrive here. How should we respectfully treat them?”

The Buddha said:

“You should allow each party to state its views. If their words accord with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, accept their admonitions. Even in showing reverence and making offerings, you must treat them equally. Why is this? It is like a genuine bar of gold: even if it is cut into two pieces, each piece is still gold.”

The mother of Vishakha, together with five hundred laywomen, went to the Buddha and addressed him as above. The Buddha also replied as above.

At that time, Venerable Ananda saw those bhikshus enter the city of Shravasti. He then went and said to the Buddha:

“The disputing bhikshus have arrived here. How should I arrange lodging for them?”

The Buddha said:

“They should be assigned adjacent rooms. If there is insufficient space, assign them rooms in between. You must not leave those senior monks without a place to stay.”

Venerable Ananda obeyed the Buddha’s instruction and arranged their accommodations.

At this time, in a secluded place, the bhikshu against whom the act of suspension had been carried out reflected: “I am one who has committed an offense, not one who has committed no offense. Did the suspension take effect or did it not take effect? Was the Sanghakarma in accordance with the Dharma or not? I should now carefully reflect in accordance with the Sutras and the Vinaya.” After reflecting, he knew that he had committed an offense and that the Sanghakarma of suspension had been validly carried out. He then went to his fellow bhikshus and said: “I have now recognized my offense. May the venerable ones request reconciliation on my behalf and rescind the previous Sanghakarma.”

The bhikshus then brought him before the bhikshus who had imposed upon him the Sanghakarma for failing to recognize an offense and said: “This bhikshu has now recognized his offense. We ask that you rescind the previous Sanghakarma on his behalf.” Thereupon, the two groups of the Sangha brought the suspended bhikshu before the Buddha, bowed their heads at his feet, and reported the matter to him.

On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikshu Sangha and told the bhikshus:

“This bhikshu committed an offense; it is not that he committed no offense. His suspension took effect; it is not that it failed to take effect. The Sanghakarma was validly accomplished; it is not that it was not accomplished.

The Sangha should now perform the rite rescinding the previous Sanghakarma. It should further perform a motion followed by one proclamation to effect reconciliation. That bhikshu should approach the Sangha, bow his head at their feet, and say: ‘I, the bhikshu named…, was subjected by the Sangha to a Sanghakarma for failing to recognize an offense.

I have now submitted to the Sangha and repented. I humbly ask the Sangha to rescind the Sanghakarma for failing to recognize an offense. May the Sangha compassionately rescind it for me.’ He should make this request three times.

One bhikshu should proclaim:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikshus formerly disputed and reviled one another. Some said an offense had been committed; others said no offense had been committed.

Some said the suspension had taken effect; others said the suspension had not taken effect. Some said the Sanghakarma had been validly accomplished; others said the Sanghakarma had not been validly accomplished. These bhikshus now recognize that an offense was committed, not that no offense was committed; that the suspension took effect, not that it failed to take effect; and that the Sanghakarma was validly accomplished, not that it was not accomplished.

The Sangha will now rescind for them the Sanghakarma for failing to recognize an offense and restore harmony. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent. This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikshus formerly disputed with one another… up to: the Sangha will restore harmony. Those elders who consent should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.

“‘The Sangha has now rescinded the Sanghakarma for these bhikshus and restored harmony. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter resolved; thus should it be upheld.’”

The Buddha said:

“After the Sanghakarma has been completed, they must gather together in harmony to conduct the uposatha.”

At that time, Venerable Upali asked the Buddha:

“Blessed One, endowed with how many qualities may a bhikshu raise a formal matter?”

The Buddha said:

“As was explained in the procedure for the invitation at the end of the rains retreat.”

The Buddha was in the country of Campā, dwelling beside the Ganges River, not far from the city of Rājagṛha. At one dwelling place there was a bhikshu of the Kāśyapa clan who served as steward and had made this vow: “May bhikshus from the four directions assemble here in great numbers, thereby enabling the upāsakas and upāsikās to take this opportunity to acquire abundant merit.” That dwelling place was spacious, and his vow later bore fruit.

At that time, a great many bhikshus acquainted with him came to that dwelling place. Bhikshu Kāśyapa went out to welcome them, bowed and exchanged greetings with them, received their robes and bowls, brought water for washing their feet, and offered them various beverages after midday. The next morning, he provided both the earlier and later meals and also offered them robes. He continued doing so for many days.

The visiting bhikshus discussed the matter among themselves: “This bhikshu possesses a sense of shame and practices the holy life. If he wishes us to remain here for a long time, we can spend the rains retreat here.” Having discussed it thus, they remained together.

Bhikshu Kāśyapa subsequently thought: “These visiting bhikshus have now recovered from their weariness and become familiar with the village. I cannot solicit offerings of the earlier and later meals every day.” Having thought this, he discontinued the offerings.

The visiting bhikshus became angry and discussed the matter among themselves: “That bhikshu wants us to leave this place quickly. He must certainly be an evil bhikshu, without a sense of shame and not practicing the holy life. We should jointly perform upon him a karman of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense.” After discussing it, they jointly suspended him.

Bhikshu Kāśyapa then wondered: “Have I committed an offense or not? Have I validly become one who is suspended or not? Was the karman validly accomplished or not? The Blessed One is now beside the Ganges River. I should go and ask him. Whatever instruction he gives, I shall respectfully follow.” Having thought this, he put on his robe, took up his bowl, and went to the Buddha. He bowed with his head at the Buddha’s feet and then withdrew to stand to one side.

The Buddha kindly asked him:

“From where have you come? Have you lacked alms food? Were you wearied along the road?”

Venerable Kāśyapa replied:

“I have not lacked alms food and was not wearied along the road. However, not far from the city of Rājagṛha there is a dwelling place where I serve as steward, and I have come from there...”

He then related all the foregoing circumstances fully to the Buddha.

The Buddha said:

“You have committed no offense whatsoever. Return and dwell there with your mind at ease.”

Venerable Kāśyapa received the teaching, bowed with his head at the Buddha’s feet, circumambulated him to the right, and departed.

When the visiting bhikshus did not see Kāśyapa return, they discussed the matter among themselves: “We have acted unskillfully. Why did we suspend a pure and innocent bhikshu? We should go together to the Buddha and confess in order to remove our offense.” After completing the rains retreat and the Invitation ceremony, they went to the Buddha, bowed with their heads at his feet, and then withdrew to stand to one side.

The Buddha kindly asked them:

“Did you lack alms food? Were you greatly wearied along the road? At what dwelling place did you spend the rains retreat?”

The visiting bhikshus replied:

“We did not lack alms food and were not wearied along the road. Not far from the city of Rājagṛha there is a dwelling place, and we spent the rains retreat there.”

The Buddha asked:

“While staying at that dwelling place, did you impose upon that bhikshu a karman of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense?”

“Yes, Blessed One, we did.”

The Buddha asked:

“For what reason did you suspend him in this way?”

“Blessed One, there was no cause whatsoever.”

The Buddha rebuked them in every way:

“You acted contrary to the Dharma. You should not create such evil karma. Why did you impose a karman of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense upon a pure and innocent bhikshu?”

The bhikshus said to the Buddha:

“Blessed One, in our ignorance we acted in this way. We have all given rise to remorse and have now come to confess. We humbly ask you, out of compassion, to accept our confession.”

On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikshu Sangha and told the bhikshus: “If a formal karman is performed without any cause, that karman is in every case invalid.”

Some bhikshus performed a karman of censure, a karman of banishment, a karman of dependence, a karman of suspension, or a karman requiring an act of reconciliation while the person concerned was absent. They likewise carried out the procedures of separate residence, resumption from the beginning, mānatta, and abbhāna while that person was absent. They established or dissolved a boundary while the person concerned was absent. They also discharged someone appointed by the Sangha while that person was absent, and appointed someone not yet appointed by the Sangha while that person was absent; again, they appointed someone not yet appointed by the Sangha while that person was absent.

The bhikshus reported this to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikshu Sangha and told the bhikshus: “If, while the person concerned is absent, a karman of censure is performed... up to and including the statement: ‘While that person is absent, a karman appointing someone not yet appointed by the Sangha is performed,’ all such karmans are contrary to the Dharma and are invalid.”

At that time, the group of six bhikshus, while outside the boundary, improperly performed a karman of censure... up to and including a karman requiring an act of reconciliation. Afterward, they entered the boundary and said to the bhikshus: “Outside the boundary, we jointly imposed upon Bhikshu so-and-so a karman of censure... up to and including a karman requiring an act of reconciliation. May the venerable ones give their consent so that it may become a karman in accordance with the Dharma.”

The bhikshus reported this matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the bhikshus and said: “If bhikshus outside the boundary improperly perform any of the five kinds of karman... up to and including a karman appointing someone not yet appointed by the Sangha, then even if they return and tell the bhikshus within the boundary and ask them to consent so that it may become a valid karman, none of them is valid.”

At that time, one bhikshu performed a karman together with one bhikshu, and so on up to performing it together with a great many bhikshus. The same was done by two bhikshus, and so on up to a great many bhikshus. The bhikshus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “Karmans performed in this way are all invalid, and those who perform them also incur a duṣkṛta offense.”

The Buddha further said: “When performing a karman, if the motion is not made before the formal resolution, the karman is invalid. If, when performing a karman, what should be said first is instead said afterward, or what should be said afterward is instead said first, it is likewise invalid. If, during a karman, a person entitled to object does not consent, the karman is also invalid, and those who perform it incur a duṣkṛta offense.”

At that time, the bhikshus performed karmans by means of a different Dharma and a different Vinaya. The bhikshus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “Such karmans are invalid.”

The bhikshus also performed an unlawful karman by an incomplete assembly, an unlawful karman by a harmonious assembly, a lawful karman by an incomplete assembly, and a lawful karman by a harmonious assembly. The bhikshus reported this to the Buddha.

On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the bhikshus and told them: “I do not permit the first three kinds of karman. I permit only a lawful karman performed by a harmonious assembly. There are five kinds of karman: an unlawful karman, a karman by an incomplete assembly, a semblance-of-Dharma karman by an incomplete assembly, a semblance-of-Dharma karman by a harmonious assembly, and a lawful karman.

“What is called an unlawful karman? Those who should come do not come; those who should send their consent do not send it; a person entitled to object does not consent, yet the karman is forcibly performed. When a karman requiring one motion and one resolution should be performed, only the motion is made without the resolution, or only the resolution is made without the motion; the motion is repeated without the resolution, or the resolution is repeated without the motion. When a karman requiring one motion and three resolutions should be performed, only the motion is made without the three resolutions, or only the three resolutions are made without the motion. This is called an unlawful karman.

“What is called a karman by an incomplete assembly? Those who should come do not come; those who should send their consent do not send it; and when the karman is performed, a person entitled to object does not consent, yet the karman is forcibly performed. This is called a karman by an incomplete assembly.

“What is called a semblance-of-Dharma karman by an incomplete assembly? Those who should come do not come; those who should send their consent do not send it. In performing a karman requiring one motion and one resolution or one motion and three resolutions, the resolution is performed before the motion. When the karman is performed, a person entitled to object does not consent, yet the karman is forcibly performed. This is called a semblance-of-Dharma karman by an incomplete assembly.”

What is called a harmonious formal act resembling the Dharma? Those who ought to come have come, and those who ought to send their consent have sent it and had it received. In the case of a motion followed by one proclamation or a motion followed by three proclamations, the formal act is performed before the motion and afterward. When the formal act is performed, those entitled to object do not object. This is called a harmonious formal act resembling the Dharma.
What is called a formal act in accordance with the Dharma? Those who ought to come have come, and those who ought to send their consent have sent it and had it received. When the formal act is performed, those entitled to object do not object. In both a motion followed by one proclamation and a motion followed by three proclamations, the motion is made first, and only afterward is the formal act performed. This is called a formal act in accordance with the Dharma.
If, when an unlawful formal act of censure is performed against a bhikkhu, seven persons in the Sangha dispute it: one says, “This formal act is unlawful”; one says, “This is a formal act performed by a faction”; one says, “This is a factional formal act resembling the Dharma”; one says, “This is a harmonious formal act resembling the Dharma”; one says, “This is a harmonious formal act in accordance with the Dharma”; one says, “The formal act has been validly performed”; and one says, “The formal act has not been validly performed.” Of these seven persons, two speak in accordance with the Dharma: the one who calls it an unlawful formal act and the one who says that the formal act has not been validly performed.

If a factional formal act of censure, a factional formal act of censure resembling the Dharma, or a harmonious formal act of censure resembling the Dharma is performed against a bhikkhu, the same applies. If a lawful formal act of censure is performed against a bhikkhu and seven persons make these statements, two speak in accordance with the Dharma: the one who calls it a harmonious formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the one who says that the formal act has been validly performed.

The same applies to a formal act of banishment, a formal act of dependence, a formal act of suspension, and a formal act requiring conciliation.
There was a contentious bhikkhu, and the bhikkhus deliberated: “This bhikkhu delights in contention and constantly causes disputes. We may harmoniously perform against him a lawful formal act of censure.” They then assembled in harmony, intending to perform a lawful formal act of censure against him, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of censure; the formal act was invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a harmonious formal act of censure resembling the Dharma.

That bhikkhu then moved to another residence. The bhikkhus at the other place deliberated: “This bhikkhu delights in contention. Those bhikkhus performed against him a harmonious formal act of censure resembling the Dharma, but that formal act was invalid.

We may together perform a harmonious formal act of censure in accordance with the Dharma.” They intended to perform together a harmonious formal act of censure in accordance with the Dharma, but instead performed one that was not in accordance with the Dharma. As for the formal act of banishment, through their instead performing a lawful formal act of banishment, all such formal acts were invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a formal act requiring conciliation.
There was a bhikkhu whose evil conduct corrupted lay households. The bhikkhus deliberated: “This bhikkhu engages in evil conduct and corrupts lay households. We may harmoniously perform against him a lawful formal act of banishment.” They intended to perform together a lawful formal act of banishment, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of banishment; the formal act was invalid.

The same applies through their instead performing a harmonious formal act of banishment resembling the Dharma. That bhikkhu then moved to another place. The bhikkhus at the other place likewise deliberated: “This bhikkhu engages in evil conduct and corrupts lay households.

The bhikkhus performed against him a harmonious formal act resembling the Dharma, but that formal act was invalid. We may impose upon him a lawful formal act of banishment.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act of banishment, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of dependence; the formal act was invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a lawful formal act of dependence: none of those formal acts was valid.

The same applies through their instead performing a formal act of censure.
There was a foolish, ignorant bhikkhu who constantly committed offenses. The bhikkhus deliberated: “This bhikkhu is foolish and ignorant and constantly commits offenses. We may harmoniously impose a formal act upon him.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act of dependence, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of dependence; the formal act was invalid.

The same applies through their instead performing a harmonious formal act of dependence resembling the Dharma. That bhikkhu moved to another place. The bhikkhus at the other place deliberated: “This bhikkhu is foolish and ignorant and constantly commits offenses.

Those bhikkhus performed against him a harmonious formal act of dependence resembling the Dharma, but that formal act was invalid. We may perform a lawful formal act of dependence against him.” They then imposed upon him a lawful formal act of dependence, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of suspension; the formal act was invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a lawful formal act of suspension: none of those formal acts was valid.

The same applies through their instead performing a formal act of banishment.
There was a bhikkhu who had committed an offense but did not recognize the offense, did not confess and repent, and would not relinquish his evil wrong view. The bhikkhus deliberated: “This bhikkhu has committed an offense but does not recognize the offense, does not confess and repent, and will not abandon his evil wrong view. We may harmoniously impose upon him a lawful formal act of suspension.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act of suspension, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of suspension; the formal act was invalid.

The same applies through their instead performing a harmonious formal act of suspension resembling the Dharma. That bhikkhu moved to another residence. The bhikkhus at the other place deliberated: “This bhikkhu committed an offense, does not recognize the offense, does not confess and repent, and will not relinquish his evil wrong view.

Those bhikkhus performed against him a harmonious formal act of suspension resembling the Dharma, but that formal act was invalid. We may perform against him a lawful formal act of suspension.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act of suspension, but instead performed an unlawful formal act requiring conciliation; the formal act was invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a lawful formal act requiring conciliation: none of those formal acts was valid.

The same applies through their instead performing a formal act of dependence.
There was a bhikkhu who spoke harsh and abusive words to laypeople. The bhikkhus deliberated: “This bhikkhu speaks harsh and abusive words to laypeople. We may harmoniously impose upon him a lawful formal act requiring conciliation.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act requiring conciliation, but instead performed an unlawful formal act requiring conciliation; the formal act was invalid.

The same applies through their instead performing a harmonious formal act requiring conciliation resembling the Dharma. That bhikkhu moved to another residence. The bhikkhus at the other place deliberated: “This bhikkhu speaks harsh and abusive words to laypeople.

Those bhikkhus performed against him a harmonious formal act requiring conciliation resembling the Dharma, but that formal act was invalid. We may perform against the person concerned a lawful formal act requiring conciliation.” They then intended together to perform a lawful formal act requiring conciliation, but instead performed an unlawful formal act of censure; the formal act was invalid. The same applies through their instead performing a lawful formal act of censure: none of those formal acts was valid.

The same applies through their instead performing a formal act of suspension.
There are five kinds of Sangha: a Sangha of four bhikkhus, a Sangha of five bhikkhus, a Sangha of ten bhikkhus, a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus, and a Sangha of an unlimited number of bhikkhus. A Sangha of four bhikkhus may perform all formal acts except the formal act of ordination and the formal act of rehabilitation from an offense. A Sangha of five bhikkhus, in the central countries where the Sangha is numerous, may perform all formal acts except ordination and rehabilitation from an offense; in border countries where the Sangha is sparse, it may perform all formal acts except rehabilitation from an offense.

A Sangha of ten may perform all formal acts except rehabilitation from an offense. A Sangha of twenty may perform every formal act. If a formal act requires a Sangha of four bhikkhus, but the fourth person is not in accordance with the Dharma and not in accordance with the Vinaya—that is, he does not possess the full qualifications of a bhikkhu—the formal act is invalid, and the Sangha incurs a fault.
Venerable Upali asked the Buddha:
“Blessed One! When the Sangha is performing a formal act and someone objects to prevent it, whose objection constitutes a valid objection, and whose objection does not constitute a valid objection?”
The Buddha said:
“The person against whom the formal act of censure is being performed does not thereby constitute a valid objector,”

A bhikkhu who reproves from the other side of a partition does not effect a valid reproof. A bhikkhuni, a sikshamana, a novice, or a female novice who reproves does not effect a valid reproof. When a bhikkhu within the same boundary reproves... up to and including causing the seated bhikkhu to hear it, the reproof is valid.

There are three kinds of persons for whom a Sangha act of rehabilitation should not be performed; if it is performed for them, the rehabilitation is invalid. These three are: a bhikkhu who has committed an offense but does not acknowledge the offense; a bhikkhu who ought to confess but refuses to confess; and a bhikkhu who ought to relinquish an evil wrong view but refuses to relinquish it. Such are the three kinds.

If the Sangha act imposing the disciplinary measure has not yet been performed for them, it should be performed; if it has already been performed, it is a properly performed Sangha act. Conversely, if a Sangha act of rehabilitation has not yet been performed for them, it should be performed; if it has already been performed, it is called a proper rehabilitation.

The Buddha was staying in the city of Shravasti. At that time there were two bhikkhus, one named Pannya and the other named Lohe, who delighted in quarreling with one another and also stirred up disputes that troubled others. Disputes that had not yet arisen were caused to arise, and disputes that had already arisen were made to spread more widely. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked those two bhikkhus, “Is it true that you have acted in this way?”

They replied, “Yes, Blessed One, it is true.”

The Buddha reproved them in various ways: “You are foolish men. What you have done is contrary to the Dharma. You should not commit such evil deeds.” After reproving them, the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “From now on, if any bhikkhu behaves in this way, the Sangha should impose upon him a Sangha act of reproof. If he does not desist, then, according to the circumstances, the Sangha should add a further penalty through a motion and three proclamations. There are three grounds for imposing a Sangha act of reproof: he himself engages in disputes; he also causes others to engage in disputes; and his earlier and later statements are inconsistent.

“There are also three grounds: he associates closely with evil companions, befriends evil people, and personally delights in doing evil. A Sangha act of reproof should also be imposed upon him.

“There are also three grounds: he violates the Sangha’s higher precepts, undermines the Sangha’s higher views, and associates with and complies with laypeople. A Sangha act of reproof should also be imposed upon him.

“There are three kinds of invalid Sangha acts of reproof: reproving in his absence one who should be present when reproved; failing to ask the Sangha whether a Sangha act of reproof should be imposed; and failing to have the person being reproved state his own offense when he should be required to do so.

“There are also three kinds of invalid Sangha acts: failing to perform in the person’s presence a Sangha act that should be performed in his presence; acting contrary to the Dharma with an incomplete assembly; and failing to have him state his own offense when he should be required to do so.

“A bhikkhu upon whom a Sangha act of reproof has been imposed should conduct himself properly and comply with the Sangha. That is, he should observe the following: he should not ordain anyone; he should not confer full ordination upon anyone; he should not grant anyone dependence; he should not maintain a novice; he should not serve as the distributor of voting tickets, and even if appointed by the Sangha, he should not accept; he should not instruct bhikkhunis, and even if appointed by the Sangha, he should not accept; he should not accept any duty assigned by the Sangha; when Sangha business is being conducted, he may not voice an opinion; he may not revile other bhikkhus; he may not rely upon the power of the royal household; he may not rely upon his own influence;

he may not rely upon the influence of his relatives; he should rely only upon the spiritual power of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; he should repent and reproach himself; he should not act contrary to the Sangha’s wishes; and he should seek rehabilitation from the Sangha act.”

Thereafter, those two bhikkhus complied with the Sangha, repented and reproached themselves, and diligently sought rehabilitation from the Sangha act of reproof. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha taught: “The Sangha should rehabilitate them through a motion and three proclamations. Those bhikkhus should enter the midst of the Sangha, respectfully bow with their heads at the Sangha’s feet, and three times request rehabilitation from the Sangha act of reproof. The Sangha should appoint a bhikkhu to proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... delighted in quarreling with others and also stirred up disputes that troubled this person and that person. Thus, disputes that had not yet arisen were caused to arise, and disputes that had already arisen spread more widely. The Sangha formerly imposed upon him a Sangha act of reproof, but he did not desist, and so a further penalty was added. The bhikkhu concerned has now complied with the Sangha, repented and reproached himself, and diligently sought rehabilitation from the Sangha act. The Sangha will now perform the Sangha act of rehabilitation. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha should consent. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named... delighted in quarreling with others... up to the words: The Sangha now rehabilitates him from the Sangha act. Those elders who consent should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. The second and third proclamations should be made in the same way.

“The Sangha has rehabilitated the bhikkhu named... from the Sangha act of reproof. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

At that time, not far from the city of Shravasti, there was an amalaka grove. Near that grove lived a householder named Chittala, who had faith in and reverence for the Buddha’s Dharma and regularly provided for the bhikkhus. In the amalaka grove there was a bhikkhu named Good Dharma, a long-standing resident who served as steward. Whenever the householder Chittala wished to invite the Sangha and offer robes and food, or to give something to anyone, he always faithfully informed the bhikkhu Good Dharma beforehand.

At that time, the two Venerables Shariputra and Maudgalyayana, together with five hundred bhikkhus, journeyed to that grove. When the householder heard of their arrival, he personally went out to welcome them. Upon arriving, he bowed with his head at their feet and then withdrew to one side. After hearing the sublime Dharma and receiving beneficial instruction, the householder rejoiced and said, “May you all accept tomorrow’s meal at my home.” They accepted his invitation by remaining silent.

Knowing that they had accepted, the householder returned home. He then went to the bhikkhu Good Dharma and said, “I have invited the two Venerables Shariputra and Maudgalyayana... to accept tomorrow’s meal. Venerable sir, please come and dine with them.”

The bhikkhu Good Dharma thought, “This evil householder’s mind has become corrupted. For a long time, whenever he needed to invite the Sangha, he always informed me beforehand. Why, then, did he now invite the two Venerables Shariputra and Maudgalyayana, together with five hundred bhikkhus, without informing me?” Having thought this, he said, “I will come tomorrow morning.”

The householder returned home and spent the entire night preparing delicious and nourishing foods. Nothing among the most precious foods in the world was lacking. The next morning, he arranged the seats. When the bhikkhu Good Dharma arrived and saw the preparations, with no delicacy lacking, he remarked—because the householder’s family pressed oil—“All kinds of food are complete; only sesame-oil cakes are lacking.”

When the householder heard this, he became angry and said, “Venerable sir, you are deeply learned in the teachings, yet you utter such harsh words!” The householder then gave an analogy: “Long ago, a merchant traveling from the north brought a hen to the country of Bajuna. There were no roosters in Bajuna, so he mated the hen with a crow. It laid an egg, which hatched into a young crow. When it grew up, it could not properly utter the cry of a chicken, nor could it properly utter the cry of a crow. Venerable sir, you are just like that: deeply learned in the teachings, yet uttering harsh words.”

When the bhikkhu Good Dharma heard this, he became angry and said, “Householder, you have insulted me excessively. How can I remain here? I shall depart for a distant land.”

The householder said again, “Venerable sir, do not be angry. Please remain here, and I shall continue to provide you with robes and food as usual.” He said this three times, but the bhikkhu Good Dharma still refused to remain.

The householder asked, “Where does the venerable sir intend to go?”

The bhikkhu replied, “I intend to go to the Buddha.”

The householder said, “If you go to the Buddha, please respectfully convey my greetings to the Blessed One and present the matter exactly as it happened, without adding or omitting anything.”

The bhikkhu Good Dharma said, “Very well!”

At that time, after the householder had prepared the seats, he came and announced: “The meal is ready; the time for the meal has arrived. I respectfully invite you to partake.” The two Venerable Ones, Sariputra and Maudgalyayana, surrounded by the great assembly, went to the householder’s home. The householder personally served them food. After they had eaten, he offered water for washing, then took a small seat and sat before them. The two Venerable Ones expounded the sublime Dharma to the householder, instructing him concerning its benefits and bringing him joy; then they rose from their seats and departed.

After the meal, Bhiksu Good Dharma returned to the forest, put on his robe, took up his alms bowl, and went to the Blessed One. He bowed his head at the Blessed One’s feet and then withdrew to sit at one side. He reported in full to the Blessed One what had occurred with the householder Cittala. The Buddha immediately rebuked him: “You foolish man! Why did you disparage that householder with demeaning words?”

Because of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhiksu Sangha and told the bhiksus: “From now on, bhiksus who act in this way should be given the act of humbling themselves by a motion and three proclamations, and should apologize to that layman.” One bhiksu should proclaim aloud:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhiksu named... disparaged the layman named... with demeaning words. The Sangha now gives him the karma act of humbling himself and requires him to apologize to that layman. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhiksu named... disparaged the layman named... with demeaning words. The Sangha now gives him the karma act of humbling himself and requires him to apologize to that layman. Those Elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.” The same should be proclaimed a second and a third time.

“The Sangha has now given Bhiksu... the karma act of humbling himself. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter decided; thus should it be upheld.”

The Sangha should further appoint, by a motion and one proclamation, a bhiksu who is a companion of that bhiksu to accompany him in apologizing to the layman. One bhiksu should proclaim aloud:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints Bhiksu..., a companion of Bhiksu..., to go with him and verbally apologize to the layman. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints Bhiksu..., a companion of Bhiksu..., to go with him and verbally apologize to the layman. Those Elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.

“The Sangha has appointed Bhiksu..., a companion of Bhiksu..., to go with him and verbally apologize to the layman. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter decided; thus should it be upheld.”

The appointed bhiksu should lead the other bhiksu there. The latter should take the layman’s hand and apologize, saying: “Previously, I disparaged you with demeaning words. I now repent; please accept my repentance.” If the layman accepts, that is well. If he does not, the bhiksu appointed by the Sangha should lead the other bhiksu to a place within the layman’s sight but beyond his hearing and instruct him to perform the act of confessing a duskrta offense. He should say:

“I, Bhiksu named..., disparaged the layman named... with harsh and abusive words and thereby committed a duskrta offense. I now repent before the Elder.” He should repeat this a second and a third time.

Thereafter, the bhiksu appointed by the Sangha should of course return alone to the layman and say: “The Sangha has disciplined that bhiksu, and just now I too disciplined him strictly. You should accept his repentance.” After this, the bhiksu should again come and acknowledge his fault as described above.

He should comply with the Sangha, as explained in the karma act of censure. After he has complied with the Sangha, repented, reproached himself, and requested release from the karma act, the Sangha should grant him the act of release. The karma act of release is as previously explained.

THE VINAYA IN FIVE PARTS OF THE MAHISASAKA SCHOOL