摩訶僧祇律

3. PRECEPT: KILLING LIVING BEINGS.

THE FIRST PART OF THE THIRD PRECEPT AMONG THE FOUR PARAJIKA PRECEPTS

When the Buddha was staying at Vaishali, there was a bhikshu who had been ill for a long time without recovering. The bhikshu attending him became weary and disheartened, and said to the sick bhikshu: "Venerable, I have attended you for a long time and have been unable to serve my preceptor or Dharma instructor, nor have I been able to receive and uphold the sutras, recite the sutras, contemplate, or practice the Way. You have been ill for a long time and treatment has not cured you, while I too am suffering on your account." The sick bhikshu said: "What, then, is to be done?

I too am in such pain and anguish that I can no longer bear it. It would be good if you could kill me." That bhikshu then killed him. When the other bhikshus learned of this, they reported all the circumstances in full to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "Summon that bhikshu."

When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him closely about the foregoing matter: "Bhikshu, did you actually do this?"

He replied: "I did, Blessed One."

The Buddha rebuked him: "Foolish man! Have you not heard me praise in many ways those who live the holy life with bodily loving-kindness, verbal loving-kindness, and mental loving-kindness, and commend making offerings and providing them with necessities? Why, then, have you now taken a human life with your own hand? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha's teaching. Such conduct cannot nurture wholesome qualities."

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikshus living at Vaishali to assemble. For the sake of ten benefits, he established this precept for the bhikshus, which those who had already heard it were to hear again:

– If a bhikshu takes a human life with his own hand, he commits a Parajika offense and may not live in communion with the Sangha.

Furthermore, when the Buddha was staying at Vaishali, there was a bhikshu who had been ill for a long time without recovering despite treatment. The bhikshu attending him became weary and disheartened, and said to the sick bhikshu: "Venerable, I have attended you for a long time and have been unable to serve my preceptor or Dharma instructor, receive and uphold the sutras, recite the sutras, contemplate, or practice the Way.

You have been ill for a long time and treatment has not cured you, while I too am suffering on your account." The sick bhikshu said: "What, then, is to be done? (254a) I too am weary of this suffering and can no longer bear it. It would be very good if you could kill me." That bhikshu said: "The Blessed One has established a precept forbidding us from killing a person with our own hands." The sick bhikshu said: "If you cannot kill me with your own hand, you can go and find a knife-wielding man for me and bring him here." The bhikshu attending the sick then went to Mrigadanda, a non-Buddhist ascetic, and said: "Good sir, if you can kill that certain bhikshu, I will give you his robe and bowl." Following his words, the man killed the bhikshu and took his robe and bowl.

When the bhikshus learned of this, they reported all the circumstances in full to the Blessed One.

The Buddha said: "Go and summon the bhikshu who attended the sick."

When that bhikshu arrived, the Buddha asked: "Did you actually do this?"

He replied: "Yes."

The Buddha rebuked him: "Have you not heard me praise in countless ways those who live the holy life with bodily loving-kindness, verbal loving-kindness, and mental loving-kindness, and commend making offerings and providing them with necessities? Why, then, did you find a knife-wielding man to take a human life? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and not what I have taught. Such conduct cannot nurture wholesome qualities."

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikshus living around Vaishali to assemble. For the sake of ten benefits, he established this precept for the bhikshus, which those who had already heard it were to hear again:

– If a bhikshu kills a person with his own hand or finds a knife-wielding man to kill that person, the bhikshu commits a Parajika offense and may not live in communion with the Sangha.

Furthermore, when the Buddha was staying at Vaishali, there was a bhikshu who had been ill for a long time. The bhikshu attending him said to the chronically ill bhikshu: "I am unable to receive and uphold the sutras, recite the sutras, contemplate, or practice the Way. Moreover, I must go to other people to seek food, drink, and medicines suitable for the sick, causing everyone to grow weary of me.

I too am suffering no less." The sick bhikshu said: "What, then, is to be done? I too am weary of this pain and can no longer bear it. It would be good if you killed me." That bhikshu then said: "Have you not heard that the Blessed One has established a precept forbidding us from killing a person with our own hands?" The sick bhikshu said: "If so, then go and summon a knife-wielding man for me and bring him here." That bhikshu again said: "Have you not heard that the Blessed One has established a precept forbidding us from finding a knife-wielding man to kill someone?" The sick bhikshu said: "What, then, do you say should be done?" The bhikshu attending him replied: "You seek only to live and do not wish to die.

If you wished to die, you could find a knife and kill yourself, drink poison, strangle yourself with a rope, leap into a pit, throw yourself into a fire, or clasp a stone and sink yourself in a river. The methods of suicide are indeed many." Having extolled death in this way, he left the dwelling. The sick bhikshu subsequently killed himself.

The bhikshus then reported (254b) the matter in full to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "Summon the bhikshu who attended the sick."

When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him closely about the foregoing matter: "Did you actually do this?"

He replied: "It is true."

The Buddha said: "Have you not heard me praise in countless ways those who live the holy life with bodily loving-kindness, verbal loving-kindness, and mental loving-kindness, and encourage making offerings and providing them with necessities? Why, then, did you extol death? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and not in accordance with my teaching. Such conduct cannot nurture wholesome qualities."

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikshus living around Vaishali to assemble. Those who had already heard it were to hear it again, and for the sake of ten benefits he established this precept for the bhikshus as follows:

– If a bhikshu kills a person with his own hand, finds a knife-wielding man to kill that person, tells the person to die, or extols death, that bhikshu commits a Parajika offense and may not live in communion with the Sangha.

Furthermore, when the Buddha was staying at Vaishali, it was as extensively related above... After the non-Buddhist ascetic Mrigadanda had killed the bhikshu, he became deeply distressed and thought: "Why have I now killed one who lived the holy life and committed such an evil deed? When my life ends, how can I avoid falling into an evil realm and descending into hell?"

At that time Mara Papiyan, who constantly creates conditions for evil deeds to increase, spoke from the sky to the non-Buddhist ascetic: "Do not grieve or fear that you will fall into an evil realm. Why is this? What you have done today has enabled people to escape suffering and affliction; those who had not yet been delivered have been delivered.

Your merit is truly immeasurable." The non-Buddhist ascetic then thought: "By killing bhikshus, I shall certainly gain great merit; therefore the devas rejoice in it and praise it as a good deed." Having thought this, he took a sharp knife, went to the Sangha dwellings and places for walking meditation, and loudly proclaimed to the bhikshus: "Who wishes to escape suffering? Who wishes to be delivered? I shall end his suffering; I shall deliver him."

At that time, the Blessed One taught the bhikkhus the meditation on impurity. The bhikkhus who practiced the meditation on impurity became utterly disenchanted with the suffering of the body. Among them, some hanged themselves with ropes, some drank poison, some used knives to take their own lives, some leapt into pits, and some threw themselves into fire; a great many committed suicide.

Moreover, the non-Buddhist ascetic Migalandika killed, one after another, not merely one, two, three, four, five, or ten of them, but sixty in all. Then, on the full-moon day of the month, the Blessed One was seated amid the Sangha, preparing to conduct the Uposatha ceremony. Looking around and seeing that the Sangha was sparse, he asked Ananda: "Why are there so few bhikkhus today?

Why are Bhikkhu A, Bhikkhu B, and the others not to be seen?"

Ananda then addressed the Buddha: "Blessed One! Previously, the Blessed One taught the bhikkhus the meditation on impurity and praised the merits of cultivating the meditation on impurity (254c). The bhikkhus diligently practiced the meditation on impurity....

After practicing the meditation on impurity, they became deeply disenchanted with this body. Consequently, some took knives and killed themselves. Some even asked the non-Buddhist ascetic Migalandika to kill them; within only half a month, sixty people died.

All those who have not come have passed away. I earnestly beseech the Blessed One to teach another Dharma so that the bhikkhus will not become disgusted with their bodies and commit suicide, and so that the noble sages may long remain in the world, bringing benefit to devas and human beings."

The Buddha then told Ananda: "There is another meditative concentration that enables the bhikkhus to practice gladly and diligently without becoming disgusted with their bodies. It is mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing. Ananda!

How does a bhikkhu cultivate mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing so that it is accomplished and realized, and he abides playfully in bliss? If a bhikkhu dwells in a city, town, or village, when the time comes, he puts on his robe, takes his bowl, and enters the town to seek alms. He restrains body, speech, and mind, maintains careful mindfulness of his body, does not allow his mind to wander, constantly preserves right concentration, guards his faculties, and goes for alms.

After completing his almsround, he returns to his dwelling and finds a secluded place where he may sit peacefully. That is, he finds an open place, a ravine, a mountain cave, or a charnel ground, sits in meditation, and abandons sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness, and doubt. Having eliminated these hindrances, his wisdom shines brightly.

He fixes mindfulness upon the breath: when breathing in, he knows that he is breathing in; when breathing out, he knows that he is breathing out.

1- When breathing in long, he knows that he is breathing in long; when breathing out long, he knows that he is breathing out long.

2- When breathing in short, he knows that he is breathing in short. When breathing out short, he knows that he is breathing out short.

3- When the in-breath pervades the whole body, he knows that the in-breath pervades the whole body. When the out-breath pervades the whole body, he knows that the out-breath pervades the whole body.

4- When breathing in while calming the bodily formation, he knows that he is breathing in while calming the bodily formation. When breathing out while calming the bodily formation, he knows that he is breathing out while calming the bodily formation.

5- When breathing in with joy, he knows that he is breathing in with joy. When breathing out with joy, he knows that he is breathing out with joy.

6- When breathing in with bliss, he knows that he is breathing in with bliss. When breathing out with bliss, he knows that he is breathing out with bliss.

7- When breathing in conscious of the mental formation, he knows that he is breathing in conscious of the mental formation. When breathing out conscious of the mental formation, he knows that he is breathing out conscious of the mental formation.

8- When breathing in while calming the mental formation, he knows that he is breathing in while calming the mental formation. When breathing out while calming the mental formation, he knows that he is breathing out while calming the mental formation.

9- When breathing in with awareness of the mind, he knows that he is breathing in with awareness of the mind. When breathing out with awareness of the mind, he knows that he is breathing out with awareness of the mind.

10- When breathing in while gladdening the mind, he knows that he is breathing in while gladdening the mind. When breathing out while gladdening the mind, he knows that he is breathing out while gladdening the mind.

11- When breathing in while concentrating the mind, he knows that he is breathing in while concentrating the mind. When breathing out while concentrating the mind, he knows that he is breathing out while concentrating the mind.

12- When breathing in while liberating the mind, he knows that he is breathing in while liberating the mind. When breathing out while liberating the mind, he knows that he is breathing out while liberating the mind.

13- When breathing in contemplating impermanence, he knows that he is breathing in (255a) contemplating impermanence. When breathing out contemplating impermanence, he knows that he is breathing out contemplating impermanence.

14- When breathing in contemplating cessation, he knows that he is breathing in contemplating cessation. When breathing out contemplating cessation, he knows that he is breathing out contemplating cessation.

15- When breathing in contemplating dispassion, he knows that he is breathing in contemplating dispassion. When breathing out contemplating dispassion, he knows that he is breathing out contemplating dispassion.

16- When breathing in contemplating quiescence, he knows that he is breathing in contemplating quiescence. When breathing out contemplating quiescence, he knows that he is breathing out contemplating quiescence.

Thus, Ananda, contemplation in this manner is called joyful and skillful training that does not produce disgust with the body and enables the noble sages to remain long in the world, benefiting devas and human beings." The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus living around Vaisali to assemble. Those who had already heard were required to hear it again. For the ten benefits, he established the following precept for the bhikkhus:

-- If a bhikkhu personally kills a human being, seeks someone wielding a knife to kill that person, urges that person to commit suicide, or praises death, saying: "Alas, good man! What use is it to live with this impure body? It is better to die than to live"; and if, employing such means, he praises death as pleasurable, having such an intention and such a thought and no other purpose, then that bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may no longer dwell together with the Sangha.

Explanation

Bhikkhu: (Explained in the first precept)

Personally: This means by one's own body, a part of one's body, or the force exerted by one's body.

One's own body: If one uses one's entire body to press upon and kill a person, one commits a parajika offense. This is called using one's own body.

A part of one's body: If one uses a hand, elbow, heel, knee, or another bodily part to kill a person, one commits a parajika offense. This is called using a part of one's body.

The force exerted by one's body: If one uses a staff, stone, or brick and throws it from a distance to kill a person, one commits a parajika offense. This is called using the force exerted by one's body.

A human being: One who belongs to the human species and possesses life.

To kill: To cause that person's four great elements to disperse so that life no longer continues. This is called killing.

To seek: To go in search of someone wielding a knife, whether male or female, adult or child, monastic or layperson.

Knife: This includes a sword, halberd, long knife, short knife, lance, iron discus, every kind of sharp iron weapon, and even a needle, and so forth.

Praising death: This means saying: "What use is it to live with this impure body? It is better to die than to live." Such an intention is an intention to kill, and such a thought is a thought of killing. One praises death as pleasurable in the hope that the person will die, with no other purpose. If that person consequently dies and for no other reason, the bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may no longer dwell together with the Sangha.

Parajika: (Explained in the first precept)

(255b) A bhikkhu kills a human being: He may kill with a knife, kill with poison, apply medicine to the body, induce vomiting, induce defecation, cause an abortion in order to kill, describe indications, or praise suicide.

Killing with a knife: This means using a sword, large knife, small knife, or even a needle, and so forth. If, with the intention to kill, his body moves, he commits a vinaya-transgression offense. When the weapon touches the person's body, he commits a sthulatyaya offense. If the person consequently dies and for no other reason, he commits a parajika offense. This is called killing with a knife.

Killing with poison: Poison is of three kinds: naturally occurring poison, compounded poison, and animal venom.

Naturally occurring poison: In certain countries and regions, poisonous plants grow, such as the shengqu poisonous plant that grows in the country of Nilusheng and the jialuo poisonous plant that grows in the country of Ujjayini. This is called naturally occurring poison.

Compounded poison: This is like the case of a hunter who combines roots, branches, flowers, and leaves to prepare a poison. This is called compounded poison.

Animal poison: Such poisons as snake venom, the poison of the nakula, the poison of cats, the poison of rats, the poison of dogs, the poison of bears, and human poison (?). Poisons such as these are called animal poison.

Applying it to the body: If a bhikshu, wishing to kill a person, takes any of the three kinds of poison in his own hand, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he applies it to that person's body, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If that person dies as a result, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by poison.

Killing by applying poison: If a bhikshu wishes to kill a person and himself takes poison in his hand, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If he applies the poison to a part of another person's body, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If that person dies as a result, he commits a Parajika offense.

Administering an emetic: If a bhikshu, wishing to kill a person, prepares an emetic and thinks: “I shall give this medicine to that person to drink so that he vomits blood, liver, and bile,” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When he gives the medicine to that person, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If that person dies from drinking the emetic, he commits a Parajika offense.

Administering a purgative: If a bhikshu, wishing to kill a person, prepares a purgative and thinks: “I shall give this medicine to that person to drink so that he evacuates blood, liver, and bile,” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he gives the medicine to that person, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If that person dies from the medicine, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of a purgative.

Killing by causing a miscarriage: If a bhikshu wishes to kill the mother and causes a miscarriage, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

Or if he wishes to cause a miscarriage but the mother dies, he also commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he wishes to kill the mother and the mother dies, he commits a Parajika offense.

If he wishes to cause a miscarriage and either part of the fetus or the entire fetus is expelled, he commits a Parajika offense.

If he causes an animal to miscarry, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. This is called killing by causing a miscarriage.

Speaking of signs: If a bhikshu says to another person: “According to what I now perceive, you will certainly die. You should kill yourself; what is the use of living in misery?” If that person dies as a result, (255c) this bhikshu commits a Parajika offense.

Or he says: “According to what I saw in a dream, you will certainly die now.”

Or he says: “I heard the cries of jackals, owls, and crows. Now I see a dark color appearing on your nose; you will certainly die. You should kill yourself; what is the use of living in misery?” If that person dies as a result, that bhikshu commits a Parajika offense.

Or he asks: “How old are you?” The person replies: “I am such-and-such an age.” He then says: “I am thoroughly versed in calculating lifespans. You will certainly die this year. It would be better for you to kill yourself; what is the use of keeping this impure body alive?” If that person dies as a result, that bhikshu commits a Parajika offense.

Or he asks: “Under which star were you born?” The person replies: “I was born under such-and-such a star.” He then says: “I understand that star clearly, and therefore know that you will certainly die this year, without any doubt. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of living in misery?”

Or he asks: “What is your name?” The person replies: “My name is A.” He then says: “I know all names and their implications. You will certainly die.”

He further asks: “What is your family name?” The person replies: “My family name is so-and-so.” He then says: “I am thoroughly versed in family lineages. You will certainly die this year.”

He further asks: “What did you eat?” The person replies: “I ate such-and-such food.” He then tells the person to vomit it up. After the person has vomited, he says: “Having eaten such food, you will certainly die, without any doubt.”

He further asks: “Where did you eat?” The person replies: “I ate at such-and-such a place.” He then tells the person to vomit it up. After the person has vomited, he says: “There is poison at that place. Now you will certainly die. Why not simply kill yourself? What is the use of living in misery?” If that person dies as a result, that bhikshu commits a Parajika offense.

In summary, if a bhikshu, wishing to kill a person, deliberately speaks of such signs, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If, upon hearing his words, that person undertakes a method and resolves to kill himself, the bhikshu commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the person has killed himself, the bhikshu commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by speaking of signs.

Praising suicide: If a bhikshu asks a person whose generosity or observance of the precepts bears fruit: “Do you practice giving?” The person replies: “I do practice giving.” The bhikshu says: “You have created merit and will surely be reborn in a wholesome realm. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of living in misery?” This is the case concerning generosity.

Or a bhikshu asks a person who observes the precepts: “Do you keep the precepts?” The person replies: “I do keep the precepts.”

He then says: “The Blessed One taught that one who observes the precepts will be reborn in one of two places: either in heaven or among human beings. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of continuing to live in misery?” This is called praising the fruit of observing the precepts. The bhikshu further says: “You have attained the fruit of stream-entry and will no longer fall into an evil destiny. At most, you will be reborn seven more times among devas and human beings, after which you will bring suffering to an end and close the gates to the evil destinies. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of continuing to live in misery?”

Or he says: “You have attained the fruit of once-returning. You will be reborn in this world only once more and then bring suffering to an end. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of living in misery?”

Or he says: “You have attained the fruit of non-returning and will never return to this world again (256a). All your suffering has ended. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of continuing to live in misery?”

Or he says: “You have attained the fruit of arhatship. You are entirely free from lust, anger, and delusion, are unbound by afflictions, and have attained mastery of mind. Why do you not kill yourself? What is the use of continuing to live in misery?”

In summary, if a bhikshu, wishing to kill a person, praises the fruits of generosity or observing the precepts, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

When that person seeks a method of killing himself, the bhikshu commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If the person has killed himself, the bhikshu commits a Parajika offense.

There are also other cases of killing a person: while traveling, by setting a trap, by using a Vidala mantra, by means of powdered medicine, by oman-tho, by means of a pit, by aba-kham-man, by pointing out a road, by pointing out a river, by means of a great minister, a Sangha dwelling, a tiger, or a non-Buddhist practitioner...

Killing while traveling: Suppose ten or twenty people are traveling together on a road. If a bhikshu, because of a former enmity, wishes to harm the person walking in front but mistakenly harms the person walking in the middle, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

Or if he wishes to harm the person walking in the middle but mistakenly harms the person walking at the rear, he also commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

Or if he wishes to harm the person walking at the rear but mistakenly harms the person walking in the middle, he also commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

Or if he wishes to harm the person walking in the middle but mistakenly harms the person walking in front, he also commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

But if he wishes to harm the person walking in front and does harm that very person, he commits a Parajika offense.

Or if he wishes to harm the person walking in the middle and does harm that very person, he also commits a Parajika offense.

Or if he intends to kill them all, he commits a Parajika offense for each person who is killed. This is called killing while traveling.

Killing by setting a trap: If a bhikshu, with the intention to kill, makes a trap, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense when he places the trap in the middle of the road. When that person suffers injury, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If that person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by setting a trap.

Killing by means of a Vidala spell: If a bhikkhu, wishing to kill a person, performs a Vidala spell, then while performing the spell he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When that person becomes frightened, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. When that person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of a Vidala spell.

Killing by means of powdered medicine: If a bhikkhu, wishing to kill a person, prepares powdered medicine, and while preparing it thinks, “I shall take this medicine and kill that person,” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If that medicine comes into contact with the person, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If that person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of powdered medicine.

Killing by means of o-man-tho: If a bhikkhu, wishing to kill a person, makes an o-man-tho (?) in the middle of the road, then as soon as he makes it, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If that person suffers pain because of it, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of o-man-tho.

Killing by means of a concealed pit: If a bhikkhu, wishing to kill a person, digs a pit in the middle of the road, places various sharp and deadly weapons in it, and covers it with grass and earth so that the person will fall into it and die, then as soon as he does this, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When that person suffers pain (256b), he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of a concealed pit.

Killing by means of a-ba-kham-man: If a bhikkhu, wishing to kill a person, makes an a-ba-kham-man (?) in the middle of the road, then as soon as he makes it, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When that person suffers pain, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by means of a-ba-kham-man.

Killing by giving directions: If a bhikkhu is walking in meditation beside a road and someone comes and asks, “Venerable sir! I wish to go to such-and-such a village. Which road should I take?” Because the bhikkhu has borne a grudge against that person from before, he thinks, “Now that I have encountered this man, I should direct him onto a dangerous road so that he will surely die.” He then points out dangerous roads where there are perils from the king, lions, tigers, leopards, venomous snakes, and so forth. When he points out such dangerous roads, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If the person undergoes suffering, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. This is called killing by giving directions.

Killing by showing a river crossing: If a bhikkhu is walking in meditation beside a river and someone comes and asks, “Venerable sir! I wish to go to such-and-such a place. Which way should I take?” This bhikkhu has borne a grudge against that person from before and thinks, “Now that I have encountered this man, I should direct him through a dangerous place so that he cannot possibly escape death.” He then points out dangerous passages such as whirlpools, submerged rocks, collapsing ground, deep hollows, and so forth; or a stretch of riverbank forbidden by the king; or a place with river bandits; or dangers from lions, tigers, leopards, venomous creatures, and so forth.

When he shows that person a dangerous passage, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When that person undergoes suffering, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. When the person dies, he commits a Parajika offense.

This is called killing by showing a river crossing.

The minister: Suppose there is a tyrannical and lawless high minister who greedily seizes other people’s property for himself, fears no punishment, and behaves wantonly and without restraint, thinking, “Better to be a crow today than a peacock tomorrow.” When the king hears these words, he has the minister arrested and imprisoned for punishment. Fearing death, the minister intends to use all his wealth to ransom his life.

At that time, a bhikkhu who regularly visits that household comes to console the family and asks about their joys and sorrows. The wife says, “My husband has just met with trouble and is being held in prison. How could we possibly be happy?

Do you not know? He now fears that he will be condemned to death, so he intends to use all our possessions to ransom his life. If all our wealth is exhausted, we shall become destitute and have nothing left on which to live.” The bhikkhu says, “Do not grieve!

I shall tell your husband not to use his wealth.” He then goes to the prison and consoles the minister, saying, “Good sir! Are you well?” Seeing the bhikkhu arrive, the minister is very pleased (256c) and says, “Venerable sir, have you heard anything outside?” The bhikkhu replies, “I have heard that you are about to die and therefore intend to use your entire fortune to ransom your life. If you do so, your wife and children will later suffer hunger and hardship and be forced to beg, while your family’s ill repute will continue to be spoken of.” The minister asks, “What, then, should I do?” The bhikkhu says, “This king is lawless.

Even if he confiscates all your property, he will not let you live. Be careful—do not hand your wealth over to him, but consider the matter thoroughly.” If the minister follows this advice, the bhikkhu commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If the minister undergoes suffering, the bhikkhu commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If he dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense. But suppose the minister, on hearing the bhikkhu’s words, replies, “You are my intimate friend, yet you begrudge my wealth and do not want me to live. If I die, even if the sun and moon should never rise again, that would not be my concern, much less anything else.

Go back and reflect upon the Buddha’s teachings; whether things turn out auspicious or inauspicious, good or bad, has nothing to do with you.” The bhikkhu then commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If afterward the minister thinks, “It is just as the bhikkhu said. This king is lawless; even if I give him all my wealth, in the end he will still kill me.

My death would then be to no purpose, while my wife and children would suffer hunger and have nothing on which to live, and my family would be disgraced. Alas, death is truly painful! I shall now bear it alone and shall not hand over my wealth.” He is then put to death.

Although he did not immediately follow the bhikkhu’s advice, because the bhikkhu had previously devised that plan for him, the bhikkhu commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

A man violates the law of the realm, and an officer arrests and binds him and brings him before the king. The king orders that he be taken away for examination and punished according to his offense. The judicial officer then adorns the criminal’s head with jia-pi-la flowers, tightly binds his hands, beats a drum, blows a conch, and publicly proclaims the royal decree everywhere.

After proclaiming the decree, he takes the man out through the city gate to the execution ground. At that time, there is a Mahallaka bhikkhu, one who ordained late in life and is not yet well versed in the precepts. Feeling compassion for the suffering criminal, he says to the executioner, “This man is truly pitiable.

Do not make him suffer. You should kill him with a single stroke.” If the executioner then replies, “I shall do as you say,” takes up a sharp blade, and cuts the man down with one stroke, the Mahallaka bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense. If the executioner replies to the bhikkhu, “You should attend to what you yourself must do.

I shall act according to the king’s command (257a). Go back and reflect upon the Buddha’s teachings,” the bhikkhu commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If the executioner later reflects upon the matter and only then follows the bhikkhu’s words, killing the criminal with a single stroke rather than doing so immediately, the Mahallaka bhikkhu commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

This is called the minister.

The Sangha dwelling: A visiting bhikkhu comes to a monastery and receives lodging according to the established order. Because the guest-master bhikkhu has borne a grudge against him from before, he thinks, “Now that I have encountered you, I shall assign you a dilapidated room so that you will lose your life and die.” He then gives him a damaged room whose walls and pillars are ruined and crumbling, near a frightening place of pi-da-la (?), near evil Putana spirits, or near snakes and centipedes. When he assigns that room to the other bhikkhu, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. When the other bhikkhu undergoes suffering, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If that bhikkhu dies, he commits a Parajika offense.

In the morning, a visiting bhikshu arose early and asked a resident bhikshu where the water for washing his hands was kept. The resident bhikshu took a jar filled with venomous bees, hornets, and poisonous snakes, covered it with a lid, and said to the visiting bhikshu: “This jar contains water for washing your hands. Venerable, please use it as you wish.” When the visitor takes hold of that jar, the resident bhikshu commits a vinayātikrama offense; if the visitor suffers pain, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense; if the visitor dies, he commits a pārājika offense. This is called killing by means of the Sangha’s dwelling.

Tiger: In wilderness places, there were often tigers that harmed people. At that time, the Sangha assembled and discussed the matter: “Venerable elders! There is a tiger in this wilderness, and we fear that it may harm people. Who can get rid of this tiger?” At that time, among the assembly was Bhikshu A, who bore a grudge against Bhikshu B. He said to everyone: “I can get rid of the tiger.” Then, at dusk, Bhikshu A set out carrying a bow and arrows. At that time, Bhikshu B, wearing a yellow robe and with black hair, went toward the latrine. If Bhikshu A intends to kill Bhikshu B but mistakenly kills the tiger, he commits a vinayātikrama offense.

Or, if he intends to kill the tiger but mistakenly kills Bhikshu B, he also commits a vinayātikrama offense. But if he wishes to kill Bhikshu B and actually kills Bhikshu B, he commits a pārājika offense. If he wishes to kill the tiger and actually kills the tiger, he commits a pācittiya offense. If he intends to kill both, then the offense is determined according to whichever one he kills: killing the bhikshu constitutes a pārājika offense, while killing the tiger constitutes a pācittiya offense. This is called the case of the tiger.

Non-Buddhist Ascetics: There were non-Buddhist ascetics who worshiped the sun and moon. Therefore, whenever there was a solar or lunar eclipse, these Brahmins assembled their followers, took weapons in their hands, and loudly called upon one another to go and rescue the sun or moon. Consequently, as they passed near the monastery and saw the bhikshus, they became angry and reviled them, saying: “Those Shakyan ascetics are allies of the asuras; now we must kill them.” When the bhikshus heard these harsh words, they struck the gaṇḍī (257b) and assembled the Sangha.

Then one bhikshu said: “Today we must together make a solemn vow to punish these wicked non-Buddhist ascetics and not leave a single one of them alive.” Because this vow was contrary to the Dharma, every member of the Sangha committed a vinayātikrama offense.

If those people suffered pain, every member of the Sangha committed a sthūlātyaya offense.

If those people died, every member of the Sangha committed a pārājika offense.

If they made a joint vow, saying: “We should not cause them to die, but only make them suffer so that they will abandon evil and practice good,” every member of the Sangha committed a vinayātikrama offense.

If those people suffered pain, every member of the Sangha committed a sthūlātyaya offense.

If, at that time, the bhikshus said to one another: “Venerable elders! We should neither harm them nor cause them pain, for the Blessed One has taught: ‘If a bhikshu is attacked by violent bandits who sever his body with saws and knives, he should not then allow an evil thought to arise in his mind, nor should he speak malicious words to them. Instead, he must arouse a mind of loving-kindness, a mind intent on their welfare, and a mind of patient endurance.’” The bhikshus then reflected together: “In the Sutra of the Parable of the Saw, the Blessed One skillfully taught us to practice patience.” Thereupon, if they firmly closed all the gates and shouted loudly to frighten the non-Buddhist ascetics, there was no offense.

If every member of the Sangha made such a vow together, no member of the Sangha committed an offense.

A bhikshu beat the son of a Brahmin nearly to death and then thought to himself: “If this man dies, the Dharma of the Shakyan ascetics will be stained. I must now go and find medicine to save his life.” Another bhikshu then asked him: “What are you doing?” He replied: “I beat this Brahmin nearly to death, and then I thought: ‘If this man truly dies, the Dharma of the Shakyan ascetics will be stained. I must now go and find medicine to save his life.’” If the other bhikshu said: “Go and look for medicine;

I will watch him for you,” and then, after the bhikshu who had beaten the man had gone out of sight, that other bhikshu ended the man’s life, then in this case the first bhikshu, who beat the man, committed a sthūlātyaya offense, while the second bhikshu, who killed him, committed a pārājika offense.

This is called the case of the non-Buddhist ascetic. If a bhikshu takes up a knife with the intention of killing a person, he commits a vinayātikrama offense.

If the knife touches that person’s body, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If that person dies, he commits a pārājika offense.

If two, three, or even many people take up knives with the intention of killing someone, they commit a vinayātikrama offense. If that person dies, they commit a pārājika offense. If one bhikshu is instructed by another to kill someone and, in turn, instructs another bhikshu to take up a knife, he commits a vinayātikrama offense... if the person dies, he commits a pārājika offense.

Likewise, if he instructs a second (257c), a third, or even many bhikshus to take up knives, he commits a vinayātikrama offense. If the person dies, he commits a pārājika offense.

In summary, the same applies to killing by poison, killing by applying medicine to the body, killing by inducing vomiting or diarrhea, killing by causing a miscarriage, killing by describing signs, and killing by praising death. Killing a human being constitutes a pārājika offense when the following five conditions are fulfilled:

1- The being is actually a human being.

2- One perceives the being as human.

3- One devises the means.

4- One has the intention to kill.

5- The person’s life is ended.

These are called the five conditions.

Whether one orders a servant to kill, orders a hired laborer, orders a friend, acts merely as an experiment, has never done it before, is ignorant, is shameless, or thinks that there is no harm in doing it, one nevertheless commits the offense. Conversely, if one kills a person while insane or mentally deranged, one does not commit the offense. Therefore, it is said:

If a bhikshu kills a human being with his own hand, seeks out someone who will take up a knife and kill that person, urges that person to die, praises death, or says: “O good man! What use is there in keeping this impure body alive? Death is better than life”; if, having such an intention and such a thought, he employs some means to extol death as delightful and thereby causes that person to die, and there is no other reason for the death, then that bhikshu commits a pārājika offense and may no longer dwell in communion.

At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling in the city of Vaishali. Before the meal, he sat facing north; the sun’s shadow extended one and a half human lengths. It was the ninth day of the third fortnight of winter, in the sixth year after his enlightenment. Because the bhikshus who were caring for the sick had asked the non-Buddhist ascetic Deer-Staff to kill other bhikshus, the Blessed One established this precept.

Whatever the Buddha has laid down must be followed and observed accordingly; this is called the Dharma of conformity.

(End of the Third Precept)

4. PRECEPT: GREAT FALSE SPEECH.

FIRST PART OF THE FOURTH PRECEPT AMONG THE FOUR PĀRĀJIKA PRECEPTS.

The Buddha was staying in the city of Shravasti; the account should be related in full as above. At that time, two groups of the Sangha observed the rains retreat in a certain village. When the retreat was over, one group returned to the city of Shravasti to visit the Blessed One. They bowed at the Buddha’s feet and then sat to one side. Although the Blessed One already knew, he nevertheless asked: “Bhikshus, where did you observe the rains retreat before coming here?”

They replied: “We observed the retreat in that village.”

The Buddha further asked: “Was your rains retreat pleasant? Was it easy to obtain alms? Did you practice the path in accordance with the Dharma? After the retreat ended, did you receive robes for the retreat? Did the upasakas visit you frequently?”

The bhikshus said to the Buddha: “Blessed One! The rains retreat was pleasant, and we practiced the path in accordance with the Dharma, but alms were difficult to obtain, robes and other requisites were insufficient, and the upasakas did not visit us frequently.”

The Buddha told the bhikshus: “How could those who have gone forth expect always to receive worldly offerings! Bhikshus, you should know that there are eight worldly conditions (258a) that constantly pursue people, and people in the world also constantly pursue these eight conditions. These eight are:

1. Gain.

2. Loss.

3. Praise.

4. Lack of praise.

5. Acclaim.

6. Slander.

7. Pleasure.

8. Pain.

“Those bhikshus who are foolish, ordinary people, of little learning and little knowledge, whose minds are not disciplined in the true Dharma and whose wisdom has not unfolded in the Dharma of the noble ones, fail to contemplate properly when worldly gain arises: ‘Though worldly gain has arisen, it is an impermanent phenomenon subject to decay and cessation. Therefore, although it has arisen, it will soon perish and cannot endure forever.’ If one does not contemplate the meaning of the Dharma in this way, one is an ordinary person, devoid of true wisdom, who follows the ways of the world.

It is likewise with loss, and so on through pleasure and pain: one does not contemplate, ‘Though pleasure has arisen, it is an impermanent phenomenon subject to decay and cessation; and because it is impermanent and subject to decay and cessation, it will soon fade and cannot endure forever.’

“If someone does not know how to contemplate the true meaning in this way, that person is an ordinary person, devoid of true wisdom, who follows the ways of the world. Bhikshus, you should know that because such people do not contemplate these worldly conditions, when worldly gain arises, they become attached to it; when it does not arise, they become anxious. It is likewise with pleasure and pain.

“Bhikshus, in this way the three feelings increase. When the three feelings have increased, the four kinds of clinging blaze forth. When the four kinds of clinging blaze forth, the conditions for becoming arise.

Consequently, the accumulation of the aggregate of suffering increases powerfully, giving rise to birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, mental confusion, and madness. Bhikshus, you should know that noble disciples who are learned and wise have minds well disciplined in the true Dharma and minds opened and developed in the Dharma of the noble ones. When worldly gain arises, they contemplate properly: ‘Though worldly gain has arisen, it is an impermanent phenomenon subject to decay and cessation; and because it is impermanent and subject to decay and cessation, it will soon fade and cannot endure forever.’ It is likewise with pleasure and pain.

“Bhikshus, you should know that when one contemplates in this way, one does not become attached when worldly gain arises, nor does one’s mind grieve when worldly gain does not arise. It is likewise with pleasure and pain. Thus, love and hatred do not arise; one experiences things as appropriate and is freed from every sorrow and suffering. Ultimately, the aggregates associated with pleasure and pain are entirely extinguished, and one immediately attains nirvana.”

After the Blessed One had taught this Dharma, he repeated it in verse:

“Gain and loss, defamation and fame,

Praise and ridicule, pain and pleasure—

These eight conditions constantly intermingle,

Coming and going, forever changing.

These eight conditions undergo transformation;

They dissolve and perish—how could they endure?

Therefore, the noble disciple

Holds up the mirror of impermanence and looks.

(258b) Carefully contemplating those eight conditions,

Which do not remain still for even a moment,

Amid the four forms of benefit and happiness,

The disciple is never shaken.

When encountering one who slanders him,

His heart feels no pain.

One who is free from these eight conditions

Is truly a person of wisdom,

Who has emerged from the river of sensual craving

And crossed the ocean of birth and death.”

When the bhikshus heard the Buddha teach thus, they were filled with joy and immediately said to him: “Excellent, Blessed One! You have used skillful means to explain the eight worldly conditions. This is truly unprecedented.”

The Buddha told the bhikshus: “What is remarkable about the Tathagata, the Arhat, the Perfectly Enlightened One, who possesses the unhindered power and wisdom of the threefold knowledge, radiant as the full moon, teaching the eight worldly conditions? Long ago, when I was a parrot among animals, I taught these eight conditions for the sake of other birds. That was truly remarkable.”

The bhikshus then asked the Buddha: “Did such a thing once occur?”

The Buddha replied:

“Yes. In the distant past, a king kept two parrots. One was named La Dai and the other Ba La. Both could understand human speech, so the king loved them dearly, kept them in a golden cage, and fed them delicious food. At that time, a great minister presented the king with a young monkey. People naturally favor what is new, so the king was extremely fond of it and fed and cared for it even more attentively than he did the parrots. Ba La then addressed La Dai in verse:

“‘Formerly we ate with the king

The finest delicacies in the world.

Now the monkey has taken them away,

And we must endure deprivation.’

“At that time, La Dai said: ‘This too is impermanent. Before long, this young monkey will also lose its share of provisions.’ He then replied to Ba La in verse:

“‘Gain and loss, defamation and fame,

Praise and ridicule, pain and pleasure—

All are impermanent phenomena.

Why should they cause sorrow or joy?’

“Ba La again recited this verse:

“‘Whatever I encounter brings no joy;

There is nothing here to delight in.

I hear only voices of reproach

And receive praise from no one.

Now that I have been born a bird,

Why must I endure this suffering?’

“When the young monkey was small, its fur was sleek and it leaped about playfully, so everyone enjoyed playing with it. When it grew up, however, its fur became coarse and disheveled, and everyone who saw it became disgusted. It would also prick up its ears, purse its lips, and frighten the children. The parrot La Dai then addressed Ba La (258c) in this verse:

“‘Pricking up its ears and contorting its face,

Pursing its lips to frighten children,

It brings wrongdoing upon itself;

Before long, its gain will end.’

“When the monkey grew up, the king’s affection for it ceased. The king therefore ordered his attendants to bind it to a post outside the horse stable. At that time, the young prince approached the monkey with food in his hand. The monkey demanded the food, but the prince would not give it. The monkey then became enraged and scratched his face, wounding him and tearing his clothes. Terrified, the prince cried out loudly. The king asked his attendants why his son was crying. The attendants reported the incident to the king. The king became furious and ordered someone to beat the monkey to death and cast it beside the moat for the jackals to eat. The parrot Ba La then addressed La Dai in verse:

“‘You are a wise one,

Foreseeing events before they come.

Before we brothers have died,

The monkey has already perished.’

The Buddha then told the bhikshus:

“The parrot La Dai at that time was none other than I myself, while the parrot Ba La was Ananda. Even when I was a parrot, I taught him that the eight worldly conditions are impermanent and ever-changing and cannot endure forever. How much less remarkable is it that, now that I have attained perfect enlightenment, I teach these eight conditions!”

At that time, after the second community had completed the rains retreat, they also came to visit the Blessed One. They bowed at his feet and sat to one side. Although the Blessed One already knew, he nevertheless asked: “Bhikshus, where did you spend the rains retreat before coming here?”

They replied: “Blessed One, we spent the rains retreat at that place.”

The Buddha then asked the bhikshus: “Was your rains retreat pleasant? Was practicing the path arduous? Was it easy to obtain alms? After completing the rains retreat, did you receive robes for the retreat? Did the upasakas visit you frequently?”

The bhikshus said to the Buddha: “Our rains retreat was pleasant, practicing the path was not arduous, it was easy to obtain alms, we received many robes for the retreat, and the upasakas visited us in great numbers.”

The Buddha asked further: “Why did two communities spend the rains retreat in the same village, yet only one community received abundant offerings while the other did not?”

The bhikshus said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, through countless skillful means, we extolled the Three Jewels. We also frequently praised the Buddha’s great disciples, such as Venerable Shariputra, Maudgalyayana, and others, and we praised the merits of our own practice.”

The Buddha asked the bhikshus: “Are the qualities you praised truly as you described them?”

They replied, “Venerable Blessed One! The Three Jewels and Venerable Sariputra, whom we praised, truly possess those qualities; but the praises we gave ourselves were untrue.”

The Buddha rebuked them: “Bhikkhus! This is an evil deed (259a). Why, merely for personal gain and support, did you praise yourselves for qualities you did not truly possess? It would be better to eat ashes and dust, swallow excrement and earth, or cut open your bellies with a sharp knife than to praise yourselves falsely as possessing superhuman attainments in order to receive offerings.” The Buddha then emphasized: “I constantly praise having few desires and knowing contentment. Why, then, are you so covetous and insatiable, seeking ever more without knowing satisfaction? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and not what I have taught. Such conduct cannot be used to foster wholesome qualities.”

After the Blessed One had rebuked those bhikkhus in various ways, when the bhikkhus who had spent the rains retreat in that village entered it for alms, those who praised themselves obtained alms easily, while those who did not praise themselves had great difficulty obtaining any. At that time, an elder bhikkhu thought to himself: “Why should I sustain my life by falsely praising myself as having attained superhuman states?

From now on, I must no longer use false words to praise myself.” Then, early the next morning, he put on his robe, took his bowl, and entered the village for alms. Someone asked him, “Elder, have you attained any of the fruits of the noble path?” Because this bhikkhu did not praise himself, he went begging here and there but received nothing. The sun was about to decline, and he was sorely afflicted by hunger and thirst.

He then praised himself and immediately obtained alms.

Another bhikkhu heard that elder sometimes speak truthfully and sometimes falsely, and went to report to the Buddha: “Venerable Blessed One! Why is that elder bhikkhu so weak-willed, unable to remain steadfast, and so heedless?”

The Buddha said to that bhikkhu: “It is not only today that this elder has been weak-willed, heedless, and unable to remain steadfast; he was also so in a past life.”

The bhikkhus again addressed the Buddha: “Venerable Blessed One! Did such a thing really happen before?”

The Buddha replied: “Indeed it did! In the past, an unseasonable rain fell continuously for seven days without ceasing. The cowherds did not leave their homes throughout those seven days. At that time, there was a hungry jackal that wandered miserably through the villages in search of food. It went through seven villages but found nothing at all. It then said to itself, ‘It would be better for me to observe a fast and abide peacefully today.’ It returned to the mountain forest, concealed itself in a cave, and made this vow: ‘May all sentient beings dwell in peace and security.’ It then composed its body, sat upright, closed its eyes, and contemplated.

“It was Sakra’s custom, on each monthly fast day—the eighth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days—to ride down upon his white dragon Airavata and survey the world, observing which sentient beings were filial toward their parents, made offerings to sramanas and brahmins, practiced generosity, observed the precepts, cultivated the holy life, and undertook the eight fasting precepts. As Sakra, Lord of the Devas, surveyed every place, he came to that mountain cave and saw the jackal sitting with its eyes closed in contemplation. He thought, ‘Oh, this jackal is a wild beast, yet it is truly extraordinary. Even human beings do not possess such a mind; how much more remarkable, then, that a jackal (259b) should be like this!’ He decided to test it to discover whether its resolve was genuine or false.

“Sakra immediately transformed himself into a goat, stood before the cave, and loudly called to the herd. When the jackal saw the goat, it thought, ‘How wonderful! The karmic reward of fasting has suddenly arrived.

I scoured seven villages in search of food and found nothing, but now, after observing the fast for only a short while, delicious food has come of itself. The kitchen has delivered my meal; now I must eat it, and after eating I shall resume my fast.’ The jackal then left the cave and rushed toward the goat. Seeing the jackal approach, the goat became frightened and fled.

The jackal immediately gave chase, while the goat ran without stopping. After it had pursued the goat for some distance, the goat suddenly transformed into a dog with a square muzzle and large ears. It turned back, chased the jackal, and barked deafeningly.

Seeing the dog pursuing it, the jackal fled in terror. The dog chased closely behind. The jackal managed to escape and returned to its cave, where it thought, ‘I wanted to eat it, but instead it wanted to devour me.’

“Sakra then disguised himself as a lame goat and bleated before the jackal. The jackal thought, ‘Earlier it was a dog, but because hunger had dimmed my sight, I mistakenly thought it was a goat. Now I see clearly; this one truly is a goat.’ The jackal composed itself and examined the creature carefully. Its horns, ears, hair, and tail were entirely those of a real goat. The jackal then left the cave and pursued it, and the frightened goat fled. Just as the jackal was about to seize it, the goat again transformed into a dog and turned back to pursue the jackal, just as before. The jackal thought, ‘I wanted to eat it, but then it wanted to devour me.’

“At that time, Sakra transformed himself into a young kid. Standing before the jackal, he cried for his mother and called to the herd. The jackal angrily said, ‘Even if you transformed yourself into a lump of meat, I would not leave this cave, much less when you transform yourself into a young kid in the hope of deceiving me!’ The jackal then resumed its fast and calmly gathered its thoughts. Sakra knew that the jackal had resolved to observe its fast again, so he remained in the form of a young kid and stood before the jackal’s cave. The jackal then recited this verse:

“Even if you truly are a goat,

I still will not come out.

How much less when you are disguised,

To frighten me as you did before.

Seeing that I observe the fasting precepts,

You have come again to test me.

Even if you were a lump of meat,

I still could not believe you.

How much less when disguised as a young kid,

Pretending to bleat, ‘Baa, baa.’”

The Blessed One then recited this verse:

“If one has gone forth into homelessness,

Yet observes the precepts only superficially,

And cannot relinquish gain and support,

One is like the jackal observing the fasting precepts.”

The Blessed One then said to the bhikkhus: “The jackal at that time was none other than this very bhikkhu. In the past, when he was a jackal, his resolve was not steadfast; and today, though he has gone forth (259c), he remains heedless.”

The Blessed One then ordered all the bhikkhus living in the city of Sravasti to assemble. Those who had already heard were to hear it again, and for the sake of the ten benefits, he established this precept for the bhikkhus:

-- If a bhikkhu, not knowing and not having realized, claims to have attained a superhuman state, the noble ones’ supreme knowledge and vision, saying, “Thus I know; thus I see,” that bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may not remain in communion.

On another occasion, when the Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti, the circumstances were explained fully as above. At that time, two bhikkhus were dwelling in a remote mountain forest. One bhikkhu temporarily attained the faculties and powers, the factors of awakening, and the noble path, so that greed and anger did not arise. He said to the second bhikkhu, “Elder, you are my good spiritual friend and someone whom I revere. I now wish to tell you something in confidence.” The other asked, “What do you wish to say?”

He replied, “Elder! I have attained arhatship.”

The other said, “Elder! The Blessed One is still in the world, and we have personally received his teachings. It is only natural that, by striving diligently in cultivation, we should attain the fruit of the path.”

Later, that bhikkhu journeyed through various villages, allowed his sense faculties to become unrestrained, and abandoned the cultivation of samatha and vipasyana. His afflictions consequently arose, and delusion and craving appeared. He then said to his companion, “Previously, I thought I had attained realization, but it turns out that I had not. How do I know this? Because I myself see that afflictions still remain in my mind.” The other bhikkhu said, “Elder, you falsely claimed to have attained a superhuman state and have therefore committed a parajika offense.” This bhikkhu replied, “It was not that I knowingly spoke falsely; rather, I believed that I had truly attained realization.”

The bhikkhus reported the entire matter to the Blessed One: “Venerable Blessed One! A certain bhikkhu falsely claimed to have attained a superhuman state.”

The Buddha summoned that monk. When he arrived, the Buddha asked, “Bhikkhu, is it true that you falsely claimed to have attained a superhuman state?”

He replied, “Blessed One, I did not claim to have attained a superhuman state knowing it to be false. Rather, I thought that I had truly realized it, and therefore I spoke as I did.”

The Buddha then asked him, “For what reason did you speak in this way?”

The bhikkhu said to the Buddha, “Blessed One, while I was dwelling in a secluded forest and cultivating the faculties, powers, factors of enlightenment, and Noble Path, the afflictions did not arise. I therefore thought that I had attained the fruit of arhatship and told a companion that I had realized it. Later, however, as I traveled through the villages without guarding my sense faculties, the afflictions arose. Doubt then arose in me, and I disclosed the matter to that bhikkhu. I did not deliberately speak falsely.”

The Blessed One then told the bhikkhus, “That bhikkhu did not deliberately utter a falsehood by claiming to have attained a superhuman state. You should know, however, that he is one possessed of overweening pride.”

The Buddha then told that bhikkhu:

– Why, after gaining faith in the true Dharma, leaving the household life for homelessness, and going forth, did you still give rise to overweening pride? You must skillfully eliminate overweening pride before you can attain arhatship.

At that time, the bhikkhu was deeply ashamed. There, in the Buddha’s presence, (260a) he applied the power of diligent effort, cultivated tranquility and insight, eliminated overweening pride, and attained the fruit of arhatship.

The bhikkhus then said to the Buddha, “How extraordinary, Blessed One! Relying upon the Buddha’s compassion, this bhikkhu diligently cultivated tranquility and insight, eliminated overweening pride, and attained the fruit of arhatship.”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus, “It is not only today that this bhikkhu, relying upon my kindness, has applied diligent effort, cultivated tranquility and insight, eliminated overweening pride, and attained the fruit of arhatship. In a past life as well, through my help, he practiced diligently without indolence and obtained a great reward.”

The bhikkhus again asked the Buddha, “Did such a thing happen in the past?”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus, “Indeed it did. In the distant past, there was a kingdom named Kashi, whose capital was Varanasi. At that time, the people of the kingdom were wealthy, but the three poisons raged fiercely among them.

There was a poor brahmin who came into the city from a village outside it. As it was a festival day, some of the city’s inhabitants rode elephants, some rode horses, some traveled in carriages, and some were carried in palanquins. They had bathed and cleansed themselves, anointed their bodies with fragrant perfumes, and put on new garments.

They freely indulged in the five kinds of sensual pleasure and various entertainments. Craving arose in the brahmin’s mind, and he asked another man, ‘What causes and conditions did these people create that enable them to enjoy such pleasures?’ The man replied, ‘Brahmin, do you not know?’ He answered, ‘I do not.’ The man then said to the brahmin, ‘In their former lives, these people cultivated merit, and in this life they have also diligently established their livelihoods.

Therefore they enjoy such pleasures.’ The brahmin then thought, ‘These people’s bodies, hands, and feet are no different from mine. If I now strive and exert myself, I shall acquire wealth and freely enjoy myself, just as they do.’ He returned home and said to his wife, ‘I wish to travel far away and exert myself in search of wealth.’ His wife replied, ‘You can find food and drink for your wife and children nearby. Why must you travel far away?’ The brahmin said, ‘Because that cannot be accomplished here, I must travel far away.’ His wife thought, ‘He is determined to go.

What can be done?’ She then said to the brahmin, ‘Whether you go or remain is up to you, but you must take good care of yourself.’ The brahmin then instructed his wife, ‘You must carefully look after the boy.’

“The brahmin departed and came to a seaside village, where he saw merchants assembled in a public hall. They issued this announcement: ‘Is there anyone who wishes to go out to sea in search of precious treasures?’ The brahmin replied, ‘I wish to go out to sea.’ The merchants asked, ‘Do you have any money or goods?’ He answered, ‘I have neither money nor goods. I only wish to accompany you, receive food from you, and offer invocations on your behalf.’ Because the merchants sought merit, they allowed him to board their ship.

With favorable winds, the ship sailed to a village on a distant seacoast. The brahmin entered the settlement to beg for food and (260b) applied himself with all his strength to acquiring wealth. He obtained thirty-two yi of pure gold and fourteen mani jewels, then returned with his companions to Jambudvipa.

“When the ship reached port, the brahmin boasted to the merchants, ‘What is so remarkable about departing with merchandise and returning with wealth? I formerly departed empty-handed, yet now I have obtained jewels such as these. That alone is truly remarkable.’ Overwhelmed with joy, he held the jewels in his hands and leaped about without cease. Unexpectedly, the jewels slipped from his hands and plunged into the sea. The brahmin became deeply distressed and lamented, ‘Only after enduring great hardship did I obtain these jewels. How could they all suddenly fall into the water? I must use a pole to drag the water and recover them.’

“He went ashore and found a piece of wood. Taking it to a carpenter, he said, ‘Please make a ladle for me.’ When the carpenter had finished it, he took it to a turner and asked him to shape it on a lathe. He then took it to a blacksmith and asked him to reinforce it with iron. When everything was finished, he returned to the sea, rolled up his sleeves, and began scooping out the seawater with the ladle.

“At that time, a sea deity saw him and thought, ‘What does this brahmin intend to do? I shall ask him.’ The deity transformed himself into the appearance of a brahmin, approached the man, and asked in verse:

‘You have rolled your sleeves up to your shoulders,

Hurrying as though the matter were urgent.

Therefore I have come to ask you:

What deed do you intend to perform?’

“The brahmin replied in verse:

‘This water of the vast ocean,

Deep and broad, lord of a hundred rivers—

I shall now employ skillful means,

Wishing only to scoop it completely dry.’

“The sea deity then recited another verse:

‘The great ocean contains a hundred rivers;

What wrong has it done to you

That you employ such means,

Hoping to scoop it completely dry?’

“The brahmin again recited a verse:

‘I endured great hardships,

Crossing the sea in search of jewels.

I obtained thirty-two yi of gold

And fourteen mani gems.

As I was about to leave the ship and go ashore,

My bundle fell into the sea.

To recover those precious treasures,

I wish to scoop this ocean dry.’

“The sea deity then recited another verse:

‘The great ocean is exceedingly broad and deep,

The sovereign of all the hundred rivers.

Even if you scooped for a hundred thousand years,

You would still never empty it.’

“(260c) The brahmin replied in verse:

‘The sun and moon shine without end;

A wooden ladle with an iron handle is difficult to destroy.

If I labor diligently without ever ceasing,

Why should I fear that the great ocean will not be drained?’

“When the brahmin had finished reciting this verse, he scooped up seawater and poured it onto the shore, but the water flowed back into the sea. The sea deity then examined the brahmin’s resolve to see whether he was indolent or steadfast, and saw that he was exceedingly diligent and never grew discouraged. The sea deity thought, ‘Even if he scooped out this seawater for a hundred years, it would not diminish by more than the amount of water that clings to a hair. Yet I am moved by this brahmin’s diligent perseverance.’ The sea deity therefore returned the jewels to him and recited this verse:

‘This valiant man is truly diligent;

His resolve never rests.

Moved by the virtue of his perseverance,

I restore what he had lost.’

“The Buddha told the bhikkhus, ‘The sea deity of that time was none other than I myself, and the brahmin was this very bhikkhu. In a past life, with my help, he exerted himself diligently and obtained a great reward. Today as well, relying upon me, he has earnestly applied himself, cultivated tranquility and insight, eliminated overweening pride, and attained arhatship.’

“The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Shravasti to assemble. Those who had already heard were to hear it again, and for the sake of ten benefits he established the following precept for the bhikkhus:

– If a bhikkhu, not knowing and not having realized, should claim for himself a superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying that he knows thus and sees thus; and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, fearing that he has committed an offense and wishing to become pure, should say: “Venerable sir! Not knowing, I said that I knew; not seeing, I said that I saw. What I said was false and untrue.” Except in the case of overestimation, this bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion with the Sangha.

Explanation

Bhikkhu: (As explained under the first precept.)

Not knowing: Because he lacks knowledge.

Not having fully realized: Because he has not yet eliminated the taints.

Claim for himself: Speaking about himself.

Human states: These are: the five sensual pleasures, the five lower fetters, the six destinies, the six bases of contention, the seven underlying tendencies, the eight worldly perversities, the eight worldly conditions, the nine kinds of conceit, the nine causes of vexation, the ten courses of wholesome conduct, and the ten courses of unwholesome conduct.

Human states also include what was expressed when devas questioned the Buddha in verse:

“Who is born in a fortunate realm?

Who gains birth in a heavenly realm?

Who, throughout both day and night,

Continually increases merit?”

(261a) At that time, the Blessed One answered the devas in verse:

“Those who dig wells beside the road,

And plant trees, giving fruit away;

Who grow groves that offer shade,

And build bridges and ferries for people to cross;

Who practice giving and cultivate pure precepts,

And through wisdom abandon stinginess and greed—

Their merit increases day and night,

And they are always born among devas and humans.”

These are human states.

Furthermore, being filial and obedient to one’s parents and making offerings to samanas, brahmins, and venerable practitioners of the holy life are human states.

Superhuman states: The ten knowledges: knowledge of the Dharma, knowledge of what is not yet known, conventional knowledge, knowledge of others’ minds, knowledge of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path, knowledge of exhaustion, and knowledge of non-arising; liberation through the attainment of cessation; the higher wholesome mind; maturity of wholesome roots; liberation through contemplation of purity and impurity; clear understanding of the fruit of stream-entry and the associated states of meditative concentration; proficiency in entering, emerging from, abiding in, and personally experiencing the meditative states called calm and insight, the three samadhis, and the three knowledges;

the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of spiritual power, the four dhyanas, the four immeasurable states of mind, the four formless attainments, the four noble paths, the four noble lineages, the Four Noble Truths, and the four fruits of the samana; the five factors of concentration, the five faculties, the five powers, and the five bases of liberation; the six unsurpassed qualities, the six noble qualities, the six elements conducive to escape, the six recollections, and the six higher knowledges; the seven treasures, the seven states of non-attachment, the seven samadhis, the seven powers relating to the exhaustion of the taints, and the seven factors of awakening;

the Noble Eightfold Path, the eight spheres of mastery, the eight liberations, and the eight stages of progress on the path; the nine contemplations, the nine qualities of joy, the nine fulfillments of pure conduct, and the nine successive attainments; the ten abodes of noble sages, the ten totality spheres, the ten qualities of freedom from the burning defilements, the ten qualities of one beyond training, and the ten kinds of power relating to the exhaustion of the taints.

These are called superhuman states.

Noble knowledge and vision: The knowledge and vision of the Buddha and the Buddha’s disciples. One may claim to know but not see, claim to see but not know, claim both to know and to see, or neither know nor see.

Knowing but not seeing: For example, one says: “I know suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path,” but does not say: “I possess the purified divine eye and see beings dying here and being reborn there in fortunate or unfortunate realms, as noble or lowly.” Nor does one say: “I have attained the superhuman divine ear and hear the sounds of humans and nonhuman beings, whether near or far.” Nor does one say: “I know the minds of others, possess spiritual powers by which I fly through the sky, and personally recollect former lives,” and so forth. This is called knowing but not seeing.

Seeing but not knowing: One claims: “I possess the purified divine eye,” and so forth, up to personally recollecting former lives, but does not say: “I know the Four Noble Truths.” This is called seeing but not knowing.

Both knowing and seeing: For example, one says: “I know the Four Noble Truths,” and so forth, up to personally recollecting former lives. This is called both knowing and seeing.

Neither knowing nor seeing: (261b) One does not say: “I know the Four Noble Truths,” and so forth, up to personally recollecting former lives. This is called neither knowing nor seeing.

Attaining a distinction: Knowing thus and seeing thus, although in truth one does not know but says that one knows, and does not see but says that one sees. Afterward, one may be questioned or may not be questioned.

Questioned: Someone asks: “Venerable sir! Have you attained a noble fruit? Under which Dharma teacher did you train and attain that fruit? Where did you attain it? How did you attain it?” This is called being questioned.

Not questioned: No one asks. If one has not truly attained a superhuman state but says that one has, then whether questioned or not questioned, one commits a Parajika offense.

Seeking purity: Wishing to become pure, one says: “Not knowing, I said that I knew; not seeing, I said that I saw.”

False: Empty.

Deceptive: Contrary to the truth.

False speech: Speaking falsely about oneself.

Except in the case of overestimation: The Blessed One made this allowance.

Parajika: (As explained above.)

There is also a Parajika that is so called not because of false speech, but because one has fallen away and become degraded. This is called Parajika.

There is also a Parajika in which the offense committed cannot be disclosed and absolved through confession. This is called Parajika.

If a bhikkhu says of himself: “Might I be one who possesses knowledge of the Dharma?” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he says: “I am one who possesses knowledge of the Dharma,” he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If he says: “I have attained knowledge of the Dharma,” he commits a Parajika offense.

If a bhikkhu says: “I have eliminated in such a way, cultivated in such a way, realized in such a way,” and so forth, up to saying: “Might I be one who possesses the power relating to the exhaustion of the taints?” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he says: “I am one who possesses the power relating to the exhaustion of the taints,” he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If he says: “I have attained the power relating to the exhaustion of the taints,” he commits a Parajika offense. The same applies if he says: “I have eliminated thus, cultivated thus, realized thus,” and so forth.

If a bhikkhu who devotes himself to teaching travels to a donor’s house and says to a woman: “Upasika, the bhikkhus who observed the rains retreat at that place are none of them ordinary persons,” he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If he says: “I too am among them,” he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If they ask: “Venerable sir, have you attained that state?”

And he replies: “I have attained it,” he commits a Parajika offense.

If a bhikkhu says: “Upasika! The bhikkhus who observed the rains retreat at that place have all attained the fruit of arhatship,” and proceeds as far as saying: “I too have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense.

Or if a bhikkhu says: “The bhikkhus who observed the rains retreat at that place have all attained a distinguished state,” and proceeds as far as saying: “I have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense.

Or if he says: “The bhikkhus who observed the rains retreat at that place have completed the task...” the same applies.

If a bhikkhu says to an upasaka or upasika: “The bhikkhus who held the invitation ceremony at that place are none of them ordinary persons; they are all arhats and have all attained distinguished states,” and proceeds as far as saying: “I have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense.

If a bhikkhu says to an upasika: “(261c) The bhikkhus residing at that monastery are none of them ordinary persons; they are all arhats and have all attained distinguished states,” and proceeds as far as saying: “I have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense.

If a bhikkhu says to an upasika: “The senior bhikkhus staying at that place are none of them ordinary persons; they are all arhats and have all attained distinguished states,” and that person then asks: “Venerable sir, have you attained that state?” and he replies: “I too have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense. The same applies in the royal palace, the house of a minister, the house of an elder, the house of a householder, within a city, or within a monastery.

If a bhikkhu says: “The bhikkhus staying in your house, the bhikkhus receiving a meal at your house, and the bhikkhus teaching the sutras to your relatives are none of them ordinary persons; they are arhats and have attained distinguished states,” and proceeds as far as saying: “I have attained that state,” he commits a Parajika offense.

If one says, “A bhikshu who carries his bowl in such a manner, wears his robe in such a manner, eats such food, walks in such a manner, stands in such a manner, and lies down in such a manner is no ordinary person, but an arhat who has attained a superior Dharma,” and goes so far as to say, “I have attained that Dharma,” one commits a Parajika offense.

If one says, “All the bhikshus mentioned above have attained knowledge of the Dharma; have I too attained knowledge of the Dharma?” one commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If one says, “I am one who possesses knowledge of the Dharma,” one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If one says, “I have realized knowledge of the Dharma,” when one has not truly realized it, one commits a Parajika offense.

Or if one says, “I know thus, I have abandoned thus, I cultivate thus,” speaking in this way up to saying, “I have attained the power of destroying the taints; I have realized it,” the same applies.

If a bhikshu uses the language of the capital when speaking to a person from the borderlands, or the language of the borderlands when speaking to a person from the capital, or the language of the capital when speaking to a person from the capital, or the language of the borderlands when speaking to a person from the borderlands, and states only the explicit meaning without stating the implied meaning, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If he states the implied meaning without stating the explicit meaning, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If he states both the implied and explicit meanings, he commits a Parajika offense. If he states neither the explicit nor the implied meaning but displays a sign, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

Stating the explicit meaning without the implied meaning means referring to oneself (“I”) without claiming to be an arhat.

Stating the implied meaning without the explicit meaning means speaking of an arhat without referring to oneself.

Stating both the explicit and implied meanings means declaring, “I am an arhat.”

Stating neither the explicit nor the implied meaning means displaying the signs of an arhat—for example, closing one’s eyes, pointing to oneself with one’s hand, and saying to an upasika, “You are a foolish person who does not recognize one worthy of veneration. It is like the udumbara flower, which appears only once after a very long time, yet you do not know how to cherish it.” If one makes such a display, one commits a Vinaya-transgression offense.

If a bhikshu communicates through written characters, symbols, or hand gestures, indicating the explicit meaning without indicating the implied meaning, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If he indicates the implied meaning without indicating the explicit meaning, he likewise commits a Vinaya-transgression offense that is to be confessed mentally. If he indicates both the explicit and implied meanings, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If he indicates neither the explicit nor the implied meaning, there is no offense. Apart from the faculties, powers, factors of enlightenment, Noble Path, and spiritual lineage, one should not praise other kinds of wholesome worldly qualities (262a) or minor forms of deportment. There is no offense, however, in praising the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and great disciples such as Shariputra and Maudgalyayana. One should not praise oneself. Only when someone asks and agrees to hear it may one speak truthfully, in which case there is no offense. Therefore, it is said:

– If a bhikshu, without knowing or realizing, claims to have attained a superhuman state and superior noble knowledge and vision, saying, “I know thus; I see thus,” and later, whether examined or not examined, recognizes that he has committed an offense and wishes to seek purity, he should say: “Venerable sir! Though I did not know, I said that I knew; though I did not see, I said that I saw. My words were empty, false, and untrue.” Except in a case of overweening conceit, that bhikshu commits a Parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion with the Sangha.

At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling in the city of Shravasti. After the midday meal, he sat facing east. The sun’s shadow had declined by three and a half persons’ lengths. It was the thirteenth day of the fourth fortnight of winter, six years after his attainment of enlightenment. On account of the bhikshus dwelling in villages and the bhikshus afflicted by overweening conceit, he established this precept. Whatever the Buddha has established must be followed and observed accordingly.

This is called the principle of accordance.

(End of the precept concerning false speech.)

MAHASANGHIKA VINAYA

End of the fourth fascicle.