摩訶僧祇律

A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE SAṄGHĀDISESA RULES

9. RULE: MAKING A DEFAMATORY ACCUSATION BY DISTORTING AN UNRELATED MATTER.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, as stated above, at that time Venerable Dabba Mallaputta had been appointed by the Sangha to oversee the nine duties mentioned above. Then the group of six bhikkhus received poor lodgings and inferior food, and their minds were continually distressed. They thought: “If Elder Dabba Mallaputta continues to live the holy life for a long time, we shall continue to suffer.

But the Blessed One has laid down a rule forbidding the baseless accusation of another person of a pārājika offense. We must now find evidence of an offense.” Having thought thus, they closely followed Venerable Dabba Mallaputta, staying beside him whether he was walking, standing, lying down, or sitting. Each month, on the eighth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days, the bhikkhunīs came to pay homage to the Buddha.

At those times, Venerable Dabba Mallaputta was seated facing the Buddha, not far away. After the bhikkhunīs had bowed at the Buddha’s feet, they went to bow before Venerable Dabba Mallaputta. (281b) Then, while one bhikkhunī was bowing, the wind blew up a corner of her robe, and it caught upon the venerable one’s knee. He immediately used his hand to lift it away.

The group of six bhikkhus then said: “Elder Dabba, you have committed a pārājika offense.”

Dabba said: “I did no such thing.”

The group of six bhikkhus said: “We saw it ourselves; what room is there for doubt? Has a thief ever admitted that he is a thief?”

They then spoke of this matter in secluded places, before crowds, and in the midst of the Sangha. Thereupon, Dabba reported the circumstances in full to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the group of six bhikkhus be summoned. A monk went and summoned them.

The Buddha then asked the group of six bhikkhus: “Is it true that you baselessly accused Dabba Mallaputta of committing a pārājika offense?”

They replied: “It is not baseless, Blessed One! There is actual evidence.”

The Buddha said: “What evidence is there?” The group of six bhikkhus then said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, on an observance day, the bhikkhunīs came to bow before the Blessed One and afterward went to bow before Dabba. At that time, the wind blew the corner of a bhikkhunī’s robe onto Dabba’s knee. Dabba then grasped her robe with his hand. That is the evidence.”

The Buddha said: “Foolish men, that is not evidence of a pārājika offense. It is merely a minor matter belonging to another category.” The Buddha then rebuked the group of six bhikkhus: “Have you not heard me praise in many ways the practice of showing loving-kindness and respect in body, speech, and mind toward those who cultivate the holy life? Why, then, do you now seek to destroy the purity of an innocent and pure bhikkhu, taking a minor matter belonging to another category, which is not a pārājika offense of a bhikkhu, and using it to accuse him of a pārājika offense? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. It cannot foster the growth of wholesome qualities.”

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī to assemble. For the sake of ten benefits, he laid down this rule for the bhikkhus, so that even those who had already heard it would hear it again:

— If a bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, takes a minor matter belonging to another category, which is not a pārājika offense of a bhikkhu, and uses it to accuse him of a pārājika offense, seeking to destroy his holy life; and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, he himself says: “It was merely because of anger that I took a matter belonging to another category and used it to accuse him,” he commits a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Explanation:

– A bhikkhu who is angry and displeased: As explained above.

– Belonging to another category: Apart from the four pārājika offenses, the thirteen Saṅghādisesa rules and all that follows belong to other categories.

– Minor matters: The rules of training and the forms of proper conduct.

– Accusing a bhikkhu of a pārājika offense on the basis of something that is not a pārājika offense: The matter does not fall under pārājika, yet one accuses him of having violated one of the four pārājika rules.

– Seeking to destroy that person’s holy life: Seeking to cause him no longer to be a bhikkhu, no longer to be a śramaṇa, and no longer to be a son of the Śākya clan; (281c) seeking to make him a novice, a layperson, a monastery gardener, or a follower of another path.

– Afterward, whether questioned or not questioned.

Questioned: For example, one is asked: “What did you see? Was it sexual intercourse? Was it theft? Was it the intentional killing of a human being? Was it falsely claiming the attainment of a superhuman state that had not actually been attained? Where did you see it?” This is called being questioned. If one is not questioned in this way, it is called not being questioned.

If, out of anger toward an innocent and pure bhikkhu, one takes a minor matter belonging to another category and uses it to accuse him of a pārājika offense, one commits a Saṅghādisesa offense.

(The remainder is explained in detail above.) Therefore it is said:

– “If a bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, takes a matter belonging to another category, up to ‘says it because of anger,’ he commits a Saṅghādisesa offense.”

(End of the ninth Saṅghādisesa rule.)

10. RULE: CAUSING A SCHISM IN THE HARMONIOUS SANGHA.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Rājagṛha, as explained at length above, at that time Devadatta, wishing to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, sought every possible means to undermine the affairs of the Sangha.

Regarding the twelve introductory sections of the Prātimokṣa, the four pārājikas, the thirteen Saṅghādisesas, the two aniyatas, the thirty nissaggiya pācittiyas, the ninety-two pācittiyas, the four pāṭidesanīyas, the rules of training, the seven methods for settling disputes, the rules of conformity, and so forth:

Whatever the Buddha had not prescribed, he added as a prescription; whatever the Buddha had prescribed, he relaxed. He even altered the teachings practiced by both householders and those gone forth, namely the nine divisions of scripture:

1- Sūtra; 2- Geya; 3- Vyākaraṇa; 4- Gāthā; 5- Udāna; 6- Itivṛttaka; 7- Jātaka; 8- Vaipulya; 9- Adbhutadharma.

With regard to these nine divisions of scripture, he devised different phrases, different words, and different meanings. For each, he composed different texts to recite and also taught others to recite them. The bhikkhus then said to Devadatta: “Do not seek to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha. Do not persist in seeking every possible means to undermine the affairs of the Sangha or deliberately create disputes. Elder, you should remain in harmony with the Sangha. Why? Because a harmonious Sangha dwells happily, without disputes, studying the same teaching, blending like water and milk, and clearly declaring what accords with the Dharma to be in accordance with the Dharma, so that all may dwell together in peace and happiness.”

After they admonished him for the first time in this way, he did not desist. They admonished him a second and a third time, but still he did not desist. The bhikkhus therefore reported these circumstances to the Buddha: “Blessed One! Devadatta, wishing to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, has persisted in seeking every possible means to undermine the affairs of the Sangha. From the introductory sections of the Prātimokṣa through the nine divisions of scripture, he has devised different words and different meanings; (282a) for each, he has composed different texts, which he himself recites and teaches others to recite. Yet when the bhikkhus admonished him for the first time, he did not desist; when they admonished him a second and a third time, he still did not desist.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “If this foolish Devadatta, wishing to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persists in seeking every possible means to disrupt the affairs of the Sangha, even composing different sentences, different words, different meanings, and different expressions for each of the nine divisions of the scriptures, and if, after being admonished a third time, he still does not desist, then you should go and admonish him three times in private, three times before a gathering, and afterward three times in the midst of the Sangha, so as to cause him to abandon this matter.”

When a bhikkhu admonishes him in private, he should speak as follows: “Devadatta, is it true that you wish to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, that you persist in disrupting the affairs of the Sangha, and that you have composed different sentences, different words, different meanings, and different expressions for the nine divisions of the scriptures, which you yourself recite and teach others?”

If he replies, “It is indeed true,”

then he should say to Devadatta: “Do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha or persist in seeking every possible means to disrupt the affairs of the Sangha. Venerable Devadatta! To disrupt the harmony of the Sangha is an extremely grave offense; one must fall into an evil realm, descend into hell, and undergo punishment for an eon. Devadatta, out of loving-kindness I now wish for your welfare, so you should heed my words. One admonition has passed, and two admonitions remain. Will you abandon this matter?”

If he does not abandon it, he must be admonished a second and a third time in the same way. He should likewise be admonished before a gathering. If he still does not desist, he must be brought before the Sangha, where a motion requesting permission to present the matter should be performed.

The one performing the formal act should then speak as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen. Devadatta, wishing to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persists in seeking every possible means to disrupt the affairs of the Sangha. With regard to the twelve introductory sections of the precepts as well as the nine divisions of the scriptures, he has composed different sentences, different words, different meanings, and different expressions, which he himself recites and teaches to others. The bhikkhus have admonished him three times in private and three times before a gathering, yet he still has not desisted. If the Sangha considers the time appropriate, he should now be admonished three more times in the midst of the Sangha so as to cause him to desist.”

The Sangha should then ask Devadatta: “Is it true that, with regard to the twelve introductory sections of the precepts as well as the nine divisions of the scriptures, you have composed different sentences, different words, different meanings, and different expressions, which you yourself recite and teach others to recite? And is it true that, although the bhikkhus admonished you three times in private and three times before a gathering, you still did not desist?”

If he replies, “It is indeed true!” he should be admonished in the midst of the Sangha: “Devadatta, do not, out of a wish to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persist in seeking every possible means to disrupt the affairs of the Sangha, composing different sentences, different words, different meanings, and different expressions for the nine divisions of the scriptures. Do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, for disrupting the harmony of the Sangha is a great evil and a grave offense; one must fall into an evil realm, descend into hell, and undergo painful punishment for an eon. (282b) Today, out of loving-kindness, the Sangha admonishes you and wishes for your welfare.

Therefore, heed the words of the Sangha. One admonition has passed, and two admonitions remain. Will you abandon this matter?”

Nevertheless, he did not abandon it. They continued to admonish him a second and a third time, but he still did not abandon it. Finally, the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Blessed One: “Blessed One! The Sangha has admonished Devadatta three times in private, three times before a gathering, and three times in the midst of the Sangha, yet he still has not abandoned this matter.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “This foolish Devadatta has disrupted the harmony of the Sangha and persisted in seeking every possible means to disrupt the affairs of the Sangha. Although he has been admonished three times in private, three times before a gathering, and three times in the midst of the Sangha, he still has not abandoned this matter. The Sangha should therefore perform the formal act of censuring him.”

The bhikkhus then addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One! Why does this Devadatta refuse to heed the admonitions of the bhikkhus and instead bring suffering upon himself?”

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “It is not only today that he has refused to heed others and brought suffering upon himself; this also occurred in the past.”

The bhikkhus then addressed the Buddha: “Did this indeed occur in the past?” The Buddha replied: “Indeed it did! In the past, in the city of Varanasi in the kingdom of Kashi, there was a brahmin who dug a well in a desolate place as a meritorious deed, so that cowherds, woodcutters, and travelers who came there could drink and bathe. One evening, as sunset approached, a pack of jackals came there to drink water from the well.

Only the jackal king refused to drink from the well; instead, he thrust his head into a jar to drink. After drinking, he lifted the entire jar high upon his head and smashed it. The mouth of the jar, however, remained caught around his neck.

The pack of jackals then said to the jackal king: “If even a wet leaf can still be used, people will preserve it, much more so this jar, which is of great benefit to travelers.”

The jackal king said: “I do this because it pleases me. Why should I care about anything else?”

The travelers then said to the brahmin: “The jar you placed beside the well has been broken. Please put another jar in its former place.” In this way, the jackal broke not merely one jar but fourteen. Although the pack of jackals repeatedly admonished him, the jackal king would not listen. The brahmin then thought: “I dug this well as a meritorious deed, but I do not know who is creating this obstruction. Now I must go and see.”

When he arrived, he saw clearly what was happening. He placed another jar beside the well as before and then concealed himself in a hidden place to watch. He saw the travelers drink the water and depart; no one broke the jar. As the sun declined toward evening, he saw the pack of jackals come to drink water from the well. Only the jackal king drank from the jar and then smashed it. Seeing this, he thought: “It is this jackal that is causing harm to the meritorious deed of my well.”

He then made a sturdy wooden vessel that was difficult to break (282c), into which it was easy to thrust one’s head but difficult to withdraw it, and placed it beside the well. Taking up a staff, he concealed himself in a hidden place and waited. He saw the travelers drink the water and depart. In the late afternoon, the pack of jackals again gathered to drink from the well as before. Only the jackal king drank from the wooden vessel. After drinking, he struck the vessel against the ground, but he could not break it. The brahmin then ran forward with his staff and beat the jackal to death. Seeing this, a deity in the sky recited this verse:

“Friends with loving hearts admonished him,

But obstinate, he would not listen.

A fool brings calamity upon himself

And destroys his own life.

Thus did the foolish jackal

Meet suffering through the wooden vessel.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “The jackal king of that time is now Devadatta, and the pack of jackals of that time are now the bhikkhus who admonish Devadatta. Bhikkhus, you should know that in the past he refused to heed the earnest counsel of his friends and thereby destroyed his own life. Today, likewise, he refuses to heed the admonitions of the bhikkhus; consequently, he will fall into an evil realm and endure suffering for a long time.”

Then the Buddha ordered all the bhikkhus residing in the city of Sravasti to assemble, and, for the sake of ten benefits, laid down a precept for the bhikkhus. Even those who had already heard it were to hear it again:

— “If a bhikkhu seeks to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persistently employing every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha and contending with others, the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu: ‘Venerable sir, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha or persistently employ every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha and contend with others. Venerable sir, be in harmony with the Sangha. Why should this be so? Because the Sangha should be harmonious, joyful, free from disputes, studying the same teaching together, mingling like water and milk, and clearly declaring that which accords with the Dharma to accord with the Dharma, so that all may dwell together in peace and happiness. Venerable sir, abandon this intention to divide the Sangha.’

When the bhikkhus have admonished that bhikkhu in this way, but he persists and does not abandon it, they must admonish him a second and a third time so that he will abandon the matter. If, after being admonished a second and a third time, he abandons it, that is good. If he does not abandon it, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.”

Explanation

– A harmonious Sangha: A community that is not divided. Although the bhikkhus may have disputes, they still speak with one another and dwell together within a single boundary, in a single community and a single residence, performing the Uposatha and the invitation ceremony together. This is called a harmonious Sangha.

To what extent, then, is one said to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha and persistently employ every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha? It is as follows:

If, concerning the twelve matters in the introduction to the precepts, the 4 parajika rules, the 13 sanghadisesa rules, the 2 indefinite rules, the 30 naihsargika-payattika rules, the 92 payattika rules, the 4 pratidesaniya rules, the rules of training, the 7 rules for settling disputes, (283a) the rules of conformity, and so forth, a bhikkhu institutes what the Buddha did not institute or relaxes what the Buddha instituted, this is called disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.

Furthermore, regarding offenses belonging to the five classes, if he institutes what the Buddha did not institute or relaxes what the Buddha instituted, this is called disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.

Furthermore, regarding offenses belonging to the four classes, if he institutes what the Buddha did not institute or permits exceptions to what the Buddha instituted, this is called disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.

Furthermore, regarding offenses belonging to the three classes, offenses belonging to the two classes, or offenses belonging to a single class, such as the 4 parajikas, if he institutes what the Buddha did not institute or permits exceptions to what the Buddha instituted, this is called disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.

Furthermore, regarding the six disciplinary acts, namely:

1. The karma of censure; 2. The karma of not speaking to him; 3. The karma of restoring joy; 4. The karma of expulsion; 5. The karma of raising an offense; 6. The karma of separate residence.

Regarding these six disciplinary karmas, if he institutes what the Buddha did not institute or permits exceptions to what the Buddha instituted, this is called disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.

– A bhikkhu who disrupts the harmony of the Sangha: As in the case of Devadatta.

– The bhikkhus: Either one person, two people, many people, or the Sangha.

– Three admonitions: Three admonitions in private, three admonitions before a group, and three admonitions in the midst of the Sangha.

– Three admonitions in private: For example, he is asked: “Venerable sir! Is it true that you are disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, persistently employing every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha, even to the extent that, concerning the twelve sections in the introduction to the Buddha’s precept scripture, you institute what the Buddha did not institute and permit exceptions to what the Buddha instituted?” If he replies, “That is so,” the bhikkhu should admonish him: “Venerable sir, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha or persistently employ every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha. Regarding the twelve sections in the introduction to the precept scripture, do not institute what the Buddha did not institute or permit exceptions to what the Buddha instituted. Dividing the Sangha is a grave offense. You will fall into an evil destination, descend into hell, and endure suffering for a long time. I now admonish you with loving-kindness because I desire your welfare. Listen to my words. The first admonition is complete; two more remain. Will you abandon this matter?” If he does not abandon it, he should likewise be admonished a second and a third time. He should then also be admonished three times before a group in the same manner. If he still does not abandon it, he should be brought into the midst of the Sangha, where a formal motion seeking consent is made as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! This bhikkhu named so-and-so, desiring to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, has persistently employed every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha. He has been admonished three times in private and three times before a group, yet he has not ceased. If the Sangha considers the time appropriate, let him now be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha so that he may cease.”

The Sangha should then ask him: “Venerable sir, is it true that, desiring to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, you persistently employ every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha, even to the extent that you institute what the Buddha did not institute and permit exceptions to what the Buddha instituted?”

If he replies, “That is so,” he should be admonished: “Venerable sir, the Sangha now admonishes you. Do not, desiring to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persistently employ every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha, even to the extent of instituting what the Buddha did not institute and permitting exceptions to what the Buddha instituted. Dividing the Sangha is a gravely evil deed and a most serious offense, for which one must endure suffering in an evil destination for a long time. Today the Sangha reproves you with loving-kindness. Cease this matter at once.” (283b) If he does not abandon it, he must likewise be admonished a second and a third time. If, when admonished in this way, he abandons it, that is good. If he does not abandon it, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

– Sanghadisesa: As explained above.

If that bhikkhu does not abandon the matter after being admonished once in private, he commits a vinaya-transgression offense. The same applies to the second and third admonitions. If he does not cease after being admonished once before a group, he commits a vinaya-transgression offense.

The same applies to the second and third admonitions. However, when he is admonished for the first time in the midst of the Sangha, before the statement is completed, he commits a vinaya-transgression offense; when the statement is completed, he commits a sthulatyaya offense. During the second admonition, before the statement is completed, he commits a vinaya-transgression offense; when the statement is completed, he commits a sthulatyaya offense.

During the third admonition, before the statement is completed, he commits a sthulatyaya offense; when the statement is completed, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

The sanghadisesa offense develops through the admonitions in private, the admonitions before a group, and the admonitions in the midst of the Sangha. All the vinaya-transgression offenses and sthulatyaya offenses are combined into a single sanghadisesa offense. If he ceases midway, he is dealt with according to the point at which he ceased. Therefore, it is said:

“If a bhikkhu, desiring to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, persistently employs every possible means to create a schism in the Sangha and does not abandon it even after three admonitions (in the midst of the Sangha), he commits a sanghadisesa offense.”

(End of the tenth Sanghadisesa rule)

11. RULE: SIDING WITH ONE WHO DIVIDES THE SANGHA

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Rajagriha, as related in detail above, the bhikshus performed a karma proceeding to censure Devadatta. After the first proclamation of the karma was completed, no one objected; after the second proclamation was completed, again no one objected. But at the third proclamation, Devadatta looked toward the group of six bhikshus and said: "O group of six bhikshus!

You have long served me and worked together with me. Now the Sangha has proceeded as far as the second proclamation of the karma to censure me; why do you still remain silent? Today you cast me into the midst of the assembly as though smearing noodles with curds and giving them to crows, or spreading cream upon cakes and giving them to a nakula, or mixing rice with oil and giving it to jackals.

How can those who cultivate the holy life sit and watch when they see another in distress?" The group of six bhikshus immediately stood up and said to the officiant performing the karma: "So it is, so it is, Venerable One. That bhikshu speaks in accordance with the Dharma and in accordance with the Vinaya. Whatever that bhikshu says, we accept entirely; we also approve all of his views.

That bhikshu speaks because he knows, not because he does not know." Since many people then objected, the karma was invalid. The bhikshus therefore said to the group of six bhikshus: "Venerable Ones, do not assist Devadatta in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him; instead, you should cooperate with the Sangha. For the entire Sangha should be harmonious and joyful, without contention, studying the same precepts together, like water blended with milk, (283c) clearly declaring what accords with the Dharma to accord with the Dharma, so that all may dwell in peace and happiness." Though admonished in this way the first time, they did not desist.

They were then admonished a second and a third time, but obstinately refused to desist. The bhikshus therefore reported the matter fully to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to the bhikshus: "This group of six bhikshus, together with the foolish Devadatta, seeks to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him.

Although the Sangha has admonished them once, twice, and three times, they have not desisted. You should therefore go to a secluded place and admonish them three times; then admonish them three times in the midst of a gathering; and finally admonish them three times in the midst of the Sangha, causing them to abandon this course." Having received this instruction, the bhikshus went to a secluded place and asked the group of six bhikshus: "Is it true that you have joined the foolish Devadatta in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him to form a faction, and that although the bhikshus admonished you three times, you obstinately refused to desist?"...

They replied: "It is true."

The bhikshus then admonished them: "O group of six bhikshus, do not conspire with Devadatta to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him. You must cooperate with the Sangha. For the entire Sangha should be harmonious and joyful, without contention, studying the same precepts together, like water blended with milk, clearly declaring what accords with the Dharma to accord with the Dharma; only thus can all dwell in peace and happiness.

Venerable Ones, disrupting the harmony of the Sangha is an extremely grave evil. You will fall into an evil realm, descend into hell, and endure suffering for a long time. I now admonish you out of loving-kindness, wishing to benefit you.

Therefore, heed my words. One admonition has been completed; two admonitions remain. You must abandon this course." If they did not abandon it, the same words were to be spoken a second and a third time.

They were then to be admonished three times in the midst of a gathering in the same manner. If they still did not desist, they were to go before the Sangha and perform the karma procedure requesting its consent as follows:

"May the venerable Sangha listen! This group of six bhikshus has joined Devadatta in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him. They have been admonished three times in a secluded place and three times in the midst of a gathering, yet they obstinately refuse to desist. If it is the appropriate time for the Sangha, they should be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha, causing them to abandon this course."

The officiant performing the karma then asked the group of six bhikshus: "Is it true that you have joined Devadatta in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him, and that although you have been admonished three times in a secluded place and three times in the midst of a gathering, you obstinately refuse to desist?"

They replied: "It is true." The bhikshus then admonished them: "O group of six bhikshus! Do not conspire with Devadatta to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, joining with him and agreeing with him. For disrupting the harmony of the Sangha is an extremely grave evil. You will fall into an evil realm, descend into hell, and endure suffering for a long time. The Sangha now admonishes you out of loving-kindness because it wishes to benefit you. Therefore, heed the Sangha. One admonition has been completed; two remain. Abandon this course." If they did not cease, they were to be admonished in the same way a second and a third time. Yet they still obstinately refused to desist.

The bhikshus then reported the matter fully to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the group of six bhikshus be summoned, and they were summoned.

The Buddha then asked the group of six bhikshus: "(284a) Is it true that you joined the foolish Devadatta, joining with him and agreeing with him to disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, and that although the bhikshus admonished you three times in a secluded place, three times in the midst of a gathering, and three times in the midst of the Sangha, you still did not desist?"

They replied: "It is indeed true, Blessed One!"

The Buddha then rebuked them: "Bhikshus! This is an evil deed. Have you not often heard me, through many explanations, censure obstinacy and the difficulty of being admonished, and, through many explanations, praise gentleness and readiness to accept admonition? Why, then, are you obstinate and difficult to admonish? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. Such conduct cannot foster the growth of wholesome qualities."

The bhikshus then said to the Buddha: "Blessed One! Why did the group of six bhikshus conspire with Devadatta, joining with him and agreeing with him, only to suffer hardship in vain?"

The Buddha said to the bhikshus: "It is not only today that this group of six bhikshus has joined with another and agreed with him, only to suffer hardship in vain. They did so in a past life as well."

The bhikshus asked the Buddha: "Did this truly happen before? May the Blessed One tell us about it."

The Buddha told the bhikshus: "In the past, in the city of Varanasi in the country of Kashi, five hundred apes lived in a forest in a wilderness. While roaming, they came to a nyagrodha tree. Beneath this tree was a well, and within the well appeared the reflection of the moon. When the king of the apes saw the moon's reflection, he said to his companions: "Today the moon has died and fallen into the well. We must work together to draw it out, lest the world remain forever in darkness."

They then deliberated together: "How shall we draw it out?"

The ape king said: "I know how to bring it up. I shall grasp a tree branch, and each of you shall grasp the tail of the one before you. By linking ourselves together, we shall be able to draw it out."

The apes then followed the ape king's words and grasped one another in succession. Before they could reach the water, however, the cluster of apes became too heavy and the tree branch, being weak, suddenly snapped. Thus the entire cluster of apes plunged into the well. At that time, the tree deity recited this verse:

"A witless herd of beasts

Fools grasp one another’s tails,

Bringing suffering upon themselves;

How could they save the world?"

At that time, the Buddha immediately said to the bhikkhus: "The king of the gorillas at that time is now Devadatta, while that troop of gorillas is now this group of six bhikkhus. In the past, they followed one another and thereby brought suffering upon themselves; today, they do the same once again."

Then the Buddha ordered all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Rajagriha to assemble and, for the sake of ten benefits, established this precept for the bhikkhus. Even those who had heard it before were to hear it again:

-- "If bhikkhus agree to support one another—whether one, two, or many persons—speaking in concert and sharing the same view, with the intention of disrupting the harmony of the Sangha (284b); and when the bhikkhus admonish such a bhikkhu, his associates say: ‘Venerable ones, do not speak of what is good or bad about that bhikkhu. Why? Because that bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma and in accordance with the Vinaya. We accept all that bhikkhu says, and we accept all his views and actions. That bhikkhu speaks because he knows; he does not speak without knowing.’

The bhikkhus should admonish these consenting bhikkhus as follows: ‘Venerable ones, you should not say: “That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma and in accordance with the Vinaya.” Why? Because that bhikkhu speaks contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. Venerable ones, you should not assist in causing a schism in the Sangha, but should joyfully support the harmony of the Sangha. Why? Because when the Sangha is harmonious, joyful, free from disputes, and trains together under one precept—blending like water and milk—and clearly declares what accords with the Dharma to accord with the Dharma, it dwells in peace and happiness. Venerable ones, you should abandon this undertaking to cause a schism in the Sangha.’

If, after being admonished by the bhikkhus, those associated bhikkhus persist and refuse to abandon the matter, the bhikkhus should admonish them a second and a third time so that they will abandon it. If they abandon it after the second or third admonition, that is good. If they do not abandon it, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense."

Explanation

– Bhikkhu: Here this refers to Devadatta.

– Bhikkhus speaking in concert and sharing the same view: This refers to the group of six bhikkhus.

– Whether one, two, or many persons speaking in concert and sharing the same view: Sometimes they speak in concert but do not share the same view; sometimes they share the same view but do not speak in concert; sometimes they both speak in concert and share the same view; and sometimes they neither speak in concert nor share the same view.

– Speaking in concert but not sharing the same view: They use their words to support that person but do not share his view. This is called speaking in concert but not sharing the same view.

– Sharing the same view but not speaking in concert: They share that person’s view but do not speak in his support. This is called sharing the same view but not speaking in concert.

– Speaking in concert and sharing the same view: They support that person’s statements and also share his view. This is called speaking in concert and sharing the same view.

– Neither speaking in concert nor sharing the same view: They do not support that person’s statements and do not share his view. This is called neither speaking in concert nor sharing the same view.

Among the cases above, speaking in concert without sharing the same view, and speaking in concert while sharing the same view, are blameworthy.

– Speaking in concert and sharing the same view: With regard to the twelve dharmas—the twelve sections of the introduction to the Precept Sutra—they establish what the Buddha did not establish and permit what the Buddha had established. This is called speaking in concert and sharing the same view. Furthermore, with regard to the five classes of offenses, they establish what the Buddha did not establish and permit what the Buddha had established. The same applies to the four classes, three classes, two classes, and one class of offenses: they establish what the Buddha did not establish and permit what the Buddha had established. Furthermore, with regard to the six dharmas of "acting and relinquishing," they establish what the Buddha did not establish and permit what the Buddha had established. This is called speaking in concert and sharing the same view. In this case, the bhikkhus should admonish that bhikkhu, saying: "Venerable one, do not participate in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha and then devise all manner of means to speak in concert and share the same view."

– While the bhikkhus are admonishing them (284c), those bhikkhus persist obstinately in the matter: This refers to the group of six bhikkhus.

– The bhikkhus: This may mean the Sangha, several persons, or one person.

– Admonishing three times: Admonishing three times in private, admonishing three times in the midst of several persons, and admonishing three times before the Sangha.

– Admonishing in private: For example, one says: "Venerable ones, is it true that you are participating in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha, devising means, and speaking in concert and sharing the same view with that person?"

They answer: "It is indeed so!"

One then says: "Venerable one! Do not participate in disrupting the harmony of the Sangha and then devise means to speak in concert and share the same view with that person. Causing a schism in the Sangha is an exceedingly grave evil; you will fall into an evil realm and undergo suffering for a long time. I now admonish you with a mind of loving-kindness. You should therefore abandon this matter. The first admonition is concluded; two admonitions remain." If he abandons it, that is good. If he does not abandon it, the same words are spoken a second and a third time. The procedure for admonishing him in the midst of several persons is likewise. Then, if three formal acts of admonition are performed before the Sangha and he still does not desist, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

– Sanghadisesa: As explained above. If that bhikkhu is admonished once in private and does not desist, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. The same applies to the second and third occasions. The same applies when he is admonished three times in the presence of several persons. However, if the first formal act of admonition before the Sangha has not yet been completed and he does not desist, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If the declaration of the first formal act is completed, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the second formal act has not yet been completed and he does not desist, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If its declaration is completed, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the third formal act has not yet been completed and he does not desist, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If its declaration is completed, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Sanghadisesa offense arises through the three admonitions in private, each entailing a Vinaya-transgression offense; the three admonitions in the presence of several persons, likewise each entailing a Vinaya-transgression offense; and the Sthulatyaya offense incurred before the Sangha. All these offenses are combined into a single Sanghadisesa offense. If he desists midway, he is dealt with according to the offense incurred at the point where he desisted. Therefore, the Blessed One said:

"If bhikkhus agree to support one another—whether one, two, or many persons—speaking in concert and sharing the same view, and after being admonished three times by the Sangha still do not abandon the matter, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense."

(End of the Eleventh Sanghadisesa Precept)

12. PRECEPT: OBSTINACY.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Kausambi, as related fully above, the elder Chanda was ill-tempered and difficult to admonish. When the bhikshus admonished him in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, he obstinately said: “Elders, do not tell me whether I am good or bad, and I shall not tell you whether you are good or bad. Why is this?

You all come from a mixture of clans, whereas I am the son of an official. It is as though various birds and crows, each holding a different kind of bone in its beak, were to perch together in one place. How, then, could you admonish me concerning matters of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha?

From the time I followed the bodhisattva into the homeless life, I have constantly attended upon him until this very day. Only when the Buddha instructs me will I obey.” The bhikshus then said to Chanda: “Elder, the bhikshus have properly spoken about transgressions falling within the sphere of the Vinaya. (285a) Do not make yourself one who cannot be spoken to; you should make yourself amenable to admonition. Elder, you should admonish the bhikshus in accordance with the spirit of the Vinaya, and the bhikshus should likewise admonish you in accordance with the spirit of the Vinaya.

Why is this? By speaking together, deliberating together, and admonishing one another, and by mutually confessing whenever anyone has committed an offense, the community of the Tathagata’s disciples will flourish. Elder, abandon this habit of making yourself one who cannot be spoken to.”

Although he was admonished in this way for the first time, he did not desist. He was then admonished a second and a third time, but still did not desist. The bhikshus therefore reported the matter to the Blessed One: “Blessed One, the elder Chanda has made himself one who cannot be spoken to, and even after being admonished three times, he has not desisted.” The Buddha said to the bhikshus: “This Chanda has made himself one who cannot be spoken to, and even after being admonished three times, he has not desisted. You must therefore go to a secluded place and admonish him three times. If he does not desist, admonish him three times in the presence of several people. If he still does not cease, then, in the midst of the Sangha, perform a formal act of requesting consent, saying:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This elder Chanda is ill-tempered and difficult to admonish. Although the bhikshus have properly spoken in accordance with the Dharma concerning transgressions falling within the sphere of the Vinaya, he has made himself one who cannot be spoken to.

“‘He has already been admonished three times in a secluded place and three times in the presence of several people, yet he has not ceased. If it is appropriate for the Sangha, he should now be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha so that he may cease this conduct.’

“Then admonish him in the midst of the Sangha: ‘Elder Chanda, is it true that you are ill-tempered and difficult to admonish, and that when the bhikshus admonish you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, you make yourself one who cannot be spoken to, so that even after being admonished three times in a secluded place and three times in the presence of several people, you still have not ceased?’ If he replies, ‘It is indeed so,’ the Sangha should admonish him: ‘Elder, you should not be ill-tempered and difficult to admonish.

Now that the bhikshus have properly spoken in accordance with the Dharma concerning transgressions falling within the sphere of the Vinaya, do not make yourself one who cannot be spoken to,’ continuing through: ‘For by speaking together, deliberating together, and admonishing one another, and by mutually absolving offenses whenever anyone has committed one, the community of the Tathagata’s disciples will flourish. The Sangha now admonishes you out of loving-kindness and for your benefit.

The first admonition is complete; two admonitions remain. You should cease this conduct.’ If he does not desist, admonish him in the same manner a second and a third time.”

Nevertheless, he stubbornly refused to cease. The bhikshus therefore reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said: “Summon Chanda here.”

They went and summoned him. The Buddha then asked Chanda: “Is it true that you are ill-tempered and difficult to admonish, and that even after being admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha, you still did not cease?” He replied: “It is indeed true.” The Buddha then reproached him: “Chanda, this is an evil thing. Have you not often heard me, for many reasons, censure obstinacy and praise freedom from obstinacy? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. Such conduct cannot be used (285b) to foster wholesome qualities.”

The bhikshus then said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, why does this bhikshu Chanda arrogantly say, ‘Only when the Buddha instructs me will I obey’?” The Buddha said to the bhikshus: “It is not only today that this bhikshu Chanda refuses to obey others and trusts only my words. In the past he behaved in the same way.”

The bhikshus again said to the Buddha: “Did such a thing happen in the past? We wish to hear of it. May the Blessed One relate it.”

The Buddha said: “Indeed it did. In the past, in the city of Varanasi in the country of Kasi, there was a householder who had a servant named A Ma Do, whose disposition was fierce and cruel. At that time, the householder was amusing himself in a pleasure grove with the sons of several brahmins, while all their attendants remained outside the garden gate.

A Ma Do, who was outside the garden gate, began beating the other attendants. They all reported this to their respective masters. The sons of the brahmins then came out and rebuked him.

But A Ma Do would not listen to them and replied to the sons of the brahmins: ‘I will not listen to you. Only when my master comes and rebukes me will I obey.’ He then continued beating them without stopping. They therefore went and reported the matter to A Ma Do’s master.

A Ma Do’s master possessed the divine eye. Upon observing the place, he saw a treasury of gold and silver beneath the spot where they were fighting. It was the malign influence of that gold and silver that had caused them to fight.

He therefore went there and rebuked his servant, whereupon the servant stopped.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikshus: “The householder of that time was none other than I myself, and A Ma Do of that time is now the bhikshu Chanda.” The bhikshus then said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, why does this Chanda rely upon the Blessed One’s authority to insult others?”

The Buddha said: “Bhikshus, it is not only today that the bhikshu Chanda relies upon my authority to treat others with contempt. In the past, too, he relied upon my authority to treat others with contempt.”

The bhikshus then said to the Buddha: “Did such a thing happen in the past?”

The Buddha said: “It is just so. In the distant past, in the city of Varanasi in the kingdom of Kasi, there was a learned brahmin named Phat Lo E who served as the king’s counselor. He regularly instructed five hundred youths in their studies.

At that time, one of his household servants had recently given birth to a son named Ca La Ha. The master ordered him to attend upon the youths. According to brahminical custom, members of other castes were not permitted to hear their teachings; but because this servant remained close to the youths and attended upon them, he was allowed to stay near them.

Consequently, whenever the brahmin taught the youths, this intelligent servant remembered everything he taught. Then, one day, after a minor quarrel with the youths, he fled to another kingdom, falsely claimed to be the son of the brahmin Phat Lo E, (285c) assumed the name Da Nha Dat Da, and said to the brahmin who served as that kingdom’s royal counselor: ‘I am the son of Phat Lo E, counselor to the king of Varanasi. I have just arrived here and wish to study the brahminical teachings under the great master.’

The teacher replied: ‘You may do so!’ This servant was naturally intelligent; having heard the teachings before, when he now heard them again, he remembered everything at once. The teacher was therefore greatly pleased and said to him: ‘I have business requiring me to visit the king. In my place, instruct my five hundred youthful disciples.’

This brahmin teacher had no son, but only one daughter, so he thought: ‘I can now give my daughter in marriage to Da Nha Dat Da, for he dwells in my house just like my own son.’

Having thought thus, he said: ‘Da Nha Dat Da, listen to what I have to say!’

He replied: ‘Yes, I shall obey!’

The teacher then said: ‘Do not return to Varanasi, but remain in this kingdom. I shall now give my daughter to you in marriage.’ He replied: ‘Yes, I shall obey.’

The brahmin accordingly gave him his daughter. She lived with her husband in her own family home, and the household gradually became wealthy. But Da Nha Dat Da was by nature exceedingly difficult to please. Whether his wife prepared food sour or sweet, salty or bland, raw or cooked, nothing ever suited his taste, and he constantly harbored anger. Seeing this, his wife often thought: ‘If only someone were to come from Varanasi, I could learn from that person how to prepare food and then use those methods to cook and serve my husband.’

When the brahmin Phat Lo E heard what had happened, he thought: ‘My servant Ca La Ha has fled to another kingdom. I must go there and seize him, in the hope that I may recover him.’ He then traveled to that kingdom. At the time, Da Nha Dat Da and his pupils were on their way to stroll in a park. On the road, he suddenly saw his former master in the distance. Alarmed, he quietly said to his disciples: ‘Young men! Return home, and each of you attend to your lessons.’

After the pupils had departed, he went before his master, bowed his head, paid homage at his feet, and said: ‘I came to this kingdom and told the people here that my lord was my father. I then honored the learned brahmin who serves as royal preceptor as my teacher and studied the advanced scriptures under him. That brahmin teacher gave me his daughter as my wife. I now beg my lord not to disclose the truth about me. I shall serve my lord as a servant serves his master.’

This brahmin was a man well versed in worldly affairs. He replied: ‘You truly are my son; there is no need for so many words. But you must arrange for me to return home soon.’ The servant then brought him home and introduced him to everyone in the household, saying: ‘My father has just arrived.’

His wife was overjoyed and prepared various foods and drinks to offer him at a feast. After he had eaten, she waited for a quiet moment, secretly paid homage at the brahmin’s feet, and asked: ‘I attend upon my husband, Da Nha Dat Da, and regularly offer him food and drink, but he is never satisfied. (286a) I beg my lord to instruct me. What kinds of food did my husband usually eat while living at home, so that I may prepare meals like those he had before?’

The visiting brahmin became angry, but restrained himself and thought: ‘That wretched fellow has made another man’s daughter suffer so terribly!’ He then said to her: ‘Arrange for me to return home soon. When I am about to leave, I shall teach you a verse. When you recite it, your husband will be unable to say anything more.’

She then said to her husband: ‘The elderly brahmin has come from afar; you should therefore send him home soon.’

Her husband thought: ‘What my wife says is correct. I must send him home soon. If he remains too long, he may carelessly say something that will cause me no small harm.’

He then brought out a large sum of money and gave it to his wife, telling her to purchase food and personally attend upon the visitor so as to win his master’s favor. After offering the food, his wife paid her respects and bade farewell to the old man, then asked him for the verse he had previously promised. He recited this verse to teach her:

‘Alone you came to foreign lands,

Deceiving all beneath the heavens.

Once you ate the coarsest fare—

How could you complain whether food is fine or poor?’

He then said: ‘I have now taught you this verse. Whenever he becomes angry and complains that the food is poor, stand near him, turn your back to him, and recite it softly for him to hear.’

Having given these instructions, he returned to his own kingdom. After Da Nha Dat Da had seen his master off, he again became angry at every meal. His wife then stood beside him and recited that verse. When he heard it, he was displeased and thought: ‘Ah! That malicious old man has exposed my shameful secret.’

Therefore, from that time onward, he always spoke courteously, fearing that his wife might reveal his hidden secret to others.

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: ‘The brahmin Phat Lo E of Varanasi at that time was none other than I myself, while the servant Ca La Ha of that time is now the bhikkhu Chan Da. At that time, relying on my power, he insulted others; now, once again relying on my power, he treats others with contempt.’

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus residing at Kausambi to assemble. Even those who had already heard were required to hear it again, and he established this precept:

—‘If a bhikkhu speaks harsh words and, when admonished by the bhikkhus in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, stubbornly says: “Do not say anything to me, whether good or bad, and I shall say nothing to you, whether good or bad,” then the bhikkhus must admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable one! When the bhikkhus admonish you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, do not be stubborn, but accept their counsel. You too should admonish the bhikkhus in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. Why is this? Because the disciples of the Tathagata instruct one another and admonish one another. When anyone has committed an offense, they disclose it together; only then can wholesome qualities increase.”

When the bhikkhus admonish that bhikkhu to abandon such conduct, if he does not abandon it, they must admonish him a second and a third time. If he abandons it, that is good; if he does not abandon it, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’

Explanation

– A bhikkhu who uses stubborn words: This refers to the bhikkhu Chan Da.

– The bhikkhus admonish one another in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya: That is, by means of the Introduction to the Precepts, the four Parajika rules, the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules, the two Aniyata rules, the thirty Nissaggiya Pacittiya rules, the ninety-two Pacittiya rules, the four Patidesaniya rules, the Sekhiya rules, the seven rules for settling disputes, and the rules of conformity; with these Dharmas and Vinaya rules, they admonish one another. They also admonish one another by means of the five classes of offenses, four classes of offenses, three classes of offenses, two classes of offenses, one class of offenses, and the six procedures for relinquishment. Furthermore, regarding offenses of Parajika, Sanghadisesa, Pacittiya, down to offenses of transgressing the Vinaya, they admonish one another concerning what is factual and not unfactual, at the proper time and not at an improper time, beneficially and not without benefit, with gentle speech and not harsh speech, out of loving-kindness and not with the deliberate intention of exposing faults. This is called admonishing one another in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya.

– That bhikkhu: Namely, Chanda.

– The bhikkhus: This means one person, several persons, or the Sangha.

– Three admonitions: Three admonitions in private, three admonitions before several persons, and three admonitions in the midst of the Sangha.

– In private: The person admonishing him in private should ask as follows: “Venerable sir! Is it true that you uttered obstinate words and, when the bhikkhus admonished you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, you remained defiant?” If he replies, “It is indeed so,” he should immediately be admonished: “Venerable sir! Do not utter obstinate words. When the bhikkhus admonish you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, you should heed them; do not remain defiant..., up to, ‘when you admonish one another, wholesome qualities increase.’ I now admonish you out of loving-kindness; you should abandon this conduct. The first admonition is completed; two admonitions remain.” If he does not abandon it, he should likewise be admonished a second and a third time. He should then be admonished in the same way before several persons. If he still does not desist, he must be brought before the Sangha, where a motion requesting permission to proceed with the karman should be made as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! This bhikkhu, so-and-so, uttered obstinate words and would not heed the bhikkhus when they admonished him in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. He has been admonished three times in private and three times before several persons, yet he still has not desisted. If it is the appropriate time for the Sangha, he should now be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha so that he may desist from this conduct.”

The Sangha should then ask: “Venerable sir, is it true that you uttered obstinate words and would not heed the bhikkhus when they admonished you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, and that, although you were admonished three times in private and three times before several persons, you stubbornly refused to heed them?” (286c) If he replies, “It is indeed so,” the Sangha should admonish him: “Venerable sir, do not remain defiant.

The bhikkhus have admonished you in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, up to, ‘when you admonish one another, wholesome qualities increase.’ The Sangha now admonishes you out of loving-kindness and wishes for your benefit. You should therefore heed the Sangha and abandon this conduct. The Sangha’s first admonition is completed; two admonitions remain.” If he does not desist, he must be admonished a second and a third time.

If he abandons the conduct, that is good; if he does not abandon it, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

– Sanghadisesa: As explained above. If that bhikkhu has been admonished three times in private and three times before several persons but does not desist, he commits an offense of transgressing the Vinaya with each admonition. Before the first admonition in the midst of the Sangha is completed, he commits an offense of transgressing the Vinaya; when the first karman is completed, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. Before the second karman is completed, he likewise commits an offense of transgressing the Vinaya, and when it is completed, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. Before the third karman is completed, however, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense, and when its proclamation is completed, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Sanghadisesa offense begins with the admonition in private and continues through the admonition in the midst of the Sangha. All the offenses of transgressing the Vinaya and Sthulatyaya incurred during this process are combined into a single Sanghadisesa offense.

If the procedure is halted midway, he is dealt with for the offense reached at the point where it was halted. Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“If a bhikkhu himself utters obstinate words and, after being admonished three times, does not abandon them, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.”

(End of the Twelfth Sanghadisesa Rule)

13. RULE: CAUSING THE FAITHFUL TO LOSE FAITH.

When the Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti, as related in detail above, the group of six bhikkhus were residing in the village of Kasi at Black Mountain and engaged in conduct contrary to proper deportment: bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and bodily and verbal misconduct.

– Bodily misconduct: Running to and fro; leaping about; wandering in circles; walking backward; walking in a crouching manner; striking basins and laughing in play; carrying one another on their backs; and using their bodies for such amusements are called bodily misconduct.

– Verbal misconduct: Imitating the cries of elephants and camels, the bellowing of cattle, and the bleating of goats; making short sounds and long sounds; or pricking up their ears to listen—making such sounds in jest is called verbal misconduct.

– Bodily and verbal misconduct: Painting their bodies in mottled colors, making one side white, blackening their faces, dyeing their hair white, beating drums, playing musical instruments, keeping time, dancing, and so forth.

At that time, the upasakas approached the bhikkhus, wishing to pay homage and hear the Dharma. Seeing such behavior, they were displeased and said: “Venerable sirs! The Dharma of the sramanas is to perform wholesome deeds, causing those without faith to develop faith and those who already have faith to increase their faith. Yet what you are now doing is contrary to the Dharma; it only causes those without faith to become still more faithless and harms the faith of those who already believe.”

The group of six bhikkhus became angry and said: “Are you perhaps our teacher or our preceptor? (287a) This is contrary to reason. We should be instructing you, yet you presume to instruct us!” Their anger grew even fiercer, and they inflicted bodily harm and bodily and verbal harm.

– Bodily harm: They entered the upasakas’ homes, dragged out the children, slapped and struck them, smashed household utensils, broke the legs of calves, and pierced the eyes of goats. They then entered the upasakas’ shops in the marketplace and mixed everything together indiscriminately: unhusked rice, husked rice, wheat, barley, salt, noodles, milk, oil, and curds, until none could be distinguished from another. They then went out to the fields. In the young rice fields that needed water, they drained the water away and left them dry; into fields that did not need water, they released water and flooded them. They cut down the young rice plants and burned the ripened grain. This is called bodily harm.

– Verbal harm: They went to the king and slandered good people, making false accusations against the virtuous. This is called verbal harm.

– Bodily and verbal harm: They hid in concealed places to frighten others and implicated innocent people. This is called bodily and verbal harm.

Consequently, the upasakas became angry and said: “These sramanas, sons of the Sakyan clan, engage in conduct contrary to the Dharma. From now on, let us no longer make offerings to them.”

At that time, the bhikkhu took his bowl and went on almsround. When that household saw him, they gave him food as before, so he did not suffer too much hardship. Seeing this, the upasakas made an agreement among themselves: “The Sakyan ascetics have committed such violent and evil deeds. From now on, we shall no longer allow them through our doors.”

The bhikkhu then went to seek alms from households without faith. At first they still gave him food, but afterward, when they heard that the upasakas had cut them off and no longer gave them food, they thought: “He must certainly be an evil man; why should we give him food?” Consequently, they too no longer allowed him through their doors.

Therefore, those bhikkhus resorted to wrong livelihood by bodily action, wrong livelihood by speech, and wrong livelihood by both bodily action and speech.

– Wrong livelihood by bodily action: Making water vessels, making wooden utensils for sale, making milk containers, making leather bags, spinning thread, weaving nets, sewing robes, learning to make cakes and then selling them, learning to sell medicines, acting as messengers for others, and doing such things to earn a living—this is called wrong livelihood by bodily action.

– Wrong livelihood by speech: Reciting various spells, such as snake spells, dragon spells, spirit spells, illness spells, water spells, fire spells, and so forth, and doing such things to earn a living—this is called wrong livelihood by speech.

– Wrong livelihood by bodily action and speech: Causing fire to arise spontaneously in one’s hand while reciting spells with one’s mouth, sprinkling milk and oil with one’s hands, scattering mustard seeds, and doing such things to earn a living—this is called wrong livelihood by bodily action and speech.

At that time, the upasakas of Black Mountain Village went to the city of Sravasti to settle official matters. When their business was finished, they went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, stood to one side, and addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One, we are upasakas from Black Mountain Village. The group of six bhikkhus residing in that village have committed unlawful acts, as explained in detail above. We respectfully beseech the Blessed One to restrain them. It would be well if they no longer remained in that village.”

(287b) The Blessed One then taught the Dharma to the upasakas in accordance with their capacities, bringing them benefit and joy. They bowed and departed. The Blessed One then told Ananda: “Go to Black Mountain Village and perform the formal act of banishment against the group of six bhikkhus.”

Ananda immediately said to the Buddha: “I dare not go.”

The Buddha asked: “Why not?”

Ananda replied: “Blessed One, the group of six bhikkhus are coarse and violent by nature. If I went there, it would be like farmers who grow sugarcane transporting their sugarcane home from the fields, when suddenly children come out from the village, rush upon them, seize the sugarcane, and find a secluded place in which to eat it. This group of six bhikkhus is just the same. If they hear that I am coming, they will surely intercept me on the road and subject me to unlawful acts, or they may perform a formal act of banishment against me. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to go.”

The Buddha then told Ananda: “In that case, go together with thirty others; then you will be able to subdue them.”

Ananda then set out for Black Mountain Village with thirty others, walking one behind another in order. Another thirty bhikkhus heard that the Venerable Ananda was going to Black Mountain Village and said to one another: “I have never heard the formal act of banishment. We should follow Ananda to that village to hear the formal act of banishment.” Thus they joined the first thirty, making sixty bhikkhus in all, and the entire joyful company traveled together.

When the group of six bhikkhus heard that the Venerable Ananda and sixty others had formed a company and were coming to perform the formal act of banishment against them, they became frightened. Therefore, Tam Van Da Dat Da and Ma E Sa Dat Da fled to Royal Road Village, while the elders Chanda and Kaludayin went out one yojana to welcome the Venerable Ananda and confess, saying: “Venerable sir, our deeds were unwholesome, and we committed offenses.

From now on, we shall not dare to commit them again.” At that time, the Sangha accepted their confession, and the Venerable Ananda continued onward to the village. Of those present there, apart from the two who had already confessed and the two who had fled, the venerable performed the formal act of banishment against the others. For the Blessed One did not permit one Sangha to perform a formal act against another Sangha, but permitted the Sangha to perform a formal act only against two or three persons.

When performing the formal act, the officiant was to speak as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! These bhikkhus, so-and-so, residing in this village continually engage in conduct contrary to proper deportment and do not cease. Both monastics and laypeople know of it. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha should perform the formal act of banishment against these bhikkhus, so-and-so, who engage in conduct contrary to proper deportment.”

Then the motion should be proclaimed as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! Those elder bhikkhus, so-and-so, continually engage in conduct contrary to proper deportment and do not cease. Both monastics and laypeople know of it. The Sangha will now perform the formal act of banishment against those bhikkhus, so-and-so. Those venerable ones who consent should remain silent (287c); whoever does not consent should speak.”

After the formal act has been proclaimed the first time, it should be proclaimed a second and a third time in the same manner. Finally, it should conclude:

“The Sangha has completed the formal act of banishment against the bhikkhus, so-and-so, who engage in conduct contrary to proper deportment. Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus is this matter upheld.”

The formal act concerning speech contrary to proper deportment is to be performed in the same way. Likewise, the formal acts concerning harm by bodily action, harm by speech, and harm by both bodily action and speech are to be performed in the same way. Wrong livelihood by bodily action, wrong livelihood by speech, and wrong livelihood by both bodily action and speech are treated likewise.

After the formal act had been proclaimed three times, the bhikkhus from the group of six who had been banished said to the other bhikkhus: “Bhikkhu Chanda and Bhikkhu Kaludayin also committed unlawful acts. Why have you banished only us and not them?”

The Sangha said to them: “Those two bhikkhus went out one yojana to welcome the Sangha and confessed, and the Sangha accepted their confession. Tam Van Da Dat Da and Ma E Sa Dat Da fled to Royal Road Village and escaped. But although you were present here, you neither welcomed the Sangha and confessed nor fled. Therefore, the formal act of banishment had to be performed against you.”

They said again: “Venerable sirs, the Sangha now acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion. Though all are guilty of the same offense, some are banished while others are not.”

The bhikkhus admonished them: “Venerable sirs, do not slander the Sangha with unreasonable accusations. The Sangha does not act according to affection, anger, fear, or delusion, nor does it banish some and not others among those guilty of the same offense.”

Although the bhikkhus admonished them in this way, they stubbornly refused to cease. They therefore had to be admonished a second and a third time, yet they still persisted and would not cease. The Venerable Ananda then taught the Dharma to the upasakas in accordance with their capacities, causing them to rejoice and to resume making offerings to the Sangha as before. The venerable and the assembly then prepared to return to Sravasti.

The bhikkhus said to the Venerable Ananda: “Now that the entire Sangha is returning, to whom shall this monastery be entrusted for its care?”

Ananda asked: “Then whom should we leave behind to care for it?”

The bhikkhus said: “The elder Chanda should be left behind.”

Ananda replied: “Chanda previously committed faults that caused people to lose faith. How could he be left behind?”

The venerable therefore appointed another bhikkhu and then returned to the city of Sravasti. He bowed at the Blessed One’s feet and stood in attendance to one side. Although the Blessed One already knew, he nevertheless asked: “Ananda, have you completed the formal act of banishment at Black Mountain Village?”

They replied: “It has been done, Blessed One! The bhikkhus Chanda and Kalodayin traveled a full yojana to meet the Sangha and confess their offenses, while Samavandadatta and Mahesadatta fled to the village of the Royal Road. The other bhikkhus neither came to confess their offenses nor fled, so the Sangha performed a karmavacana to expel them. However, when they saw that Chanda and Kalodayin had not been (288a) expelled, they groundlessly slandered the Sangha, saying: ‘The Sangha acts out of favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion. Though all committed the same offense, some were expelled while others were not.’”

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “If the group of six bhikkhus groundlessly slanders the Sangha, saying: ‘The Sangha acts out of favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion. Though all committed the same offense, some were expelled while others were not,’ you should admonish them three times in private, three times in the presence of several people, and then three times in the midst of the Sangha, so that they abandon this conduct.

“In private, you should ask: ‘Is it true that, because you resent the fact that the bhikkhus Chanda and Kalodayin were treated differently, you have groundlessly slandered the Sangha, saying: “The Sangha acts out of favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion. Though all committed the same offense, some were expelled while others were not”?’

“If they reply, ‘It is indeed true,’ they should be admonished in private: ‘Venerable ones! Do not groundlessly slander the Sangha. Why is this?

The Sangha does not act out of favoritism, anger, fear, or delusion; nor is it the case that, among those who committed the same offense, some were expelled and others were not. Do not say that the Sangha acts out of favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion. Venerable ones!

I now admonish you out of loving-kindness and for your benefit. Therefore, abandon this conduct. The first admonition has been given; two admonitions remain.’ If they do not abandon it, admonish them likewise a second and a third time.

Then admonish them three times in the presence of several people. If they still do not desist, you should go into the midst of the Sangha and perform a motion requesting its consent.

“The officiant of the karmavacana should speak as follows:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This group of six bhikkhus has groundlessly slandered the Sangha. They have been admonished three times in private and three times in the presence of several people, yet they have not desisted. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, they should now be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha so that they may desist from this conduct.’

“Then, in the midst of the Sangha, ask those bhikkhus: ‘Is it true that you groundlessly slandered the Sangha and, although admonished three times in private and three times in the presence of several people, still did not desist?’

“If they reply, ‘It is indeed true,’ the Sangha should admonish them: ‘Venerable ones! Do not groundlessly slander the Sangha. Why is this?

The Sangha does not act out of favoritism, anger, fear, or delusion; nor is it the case that, among those who committed the same offense, some were expelled and others were not. The Sangha now admonishes you out of loving-kindness and for your benefit. Therefore, you should abandon this conduct.

The first admonition has been given; two admonitions remain.’ If they do not desist, admonish them likewise a second and a third time.” Yet they remained obstinate and did not desist. The bhikkhus therefore reported the entire matter to the Blessed One: “The group of six bhikkhus has been admonished three times in private and, furthermore, three times in the midst of the Sangha, yet they remain obstinate and refuse to abandon their conduct.”

The Buddha said: “Summon the group of six bhikkhus.”

When they arrived, the Buddha asked the group of six bhikkhus: “Is it true that you groundlessly slandered the Sangha and, although admonished three times in private and then three times in the midst of the Sangha, still obstinately refused to desist?”

They replied: “It is indeed true, Blessed One!”

(288b) The Buddha then said to the group of six bhikkhus: “This is an evil deed. Have you not heard that I constantly praise those who are easy to admonish and censure those who are difficult to admonish? Why are you now so difficult to admonish, stubbornly persisting and refusing to abandon your conduct? Group of six bhikkhus! This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. Such conduct cannot foster the growth of wholesome qualities.”

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha: “Blessed One! Why did this group of six bhikkhus groundlessly slander the Sangha merely because Chanda and Kalodayin had not been expelled?”

The Buddha said: “It is not only today that this group of six bhikkhus has groundlessly slandered the Sangha. In the past, they also groundlessly slandered others.”

The bhikkhus asked: “Did such a thing happen before?”

The Buddha replied: “Indeed, it did!”

The bhikkhus said: “May the Blessed One relate it; we wish to hear.”

The Buddha said: “In the past, there was a city named Varanasi in a country named Kasi. At that time, two dogs were kept in the king’s palace. The king had them tethered with leashes of gold and silver and fed them from jeweled vessels. At night, they were untied and released to guard the gateways. At that time, the king suffered from headaches. Although he had undergone treatment for twelve years, the pain had not diminished, but afterward it temporarily subsided. Then, while asleep, the king heard dogs barking and awoke in terror, causing his headache to grow increasingly severe. The king immediately asked his attendants: ‘What was that sound just now?’

“They replied: ‘It was the barking of dogs.’

“The king became angry and ordered his attendants to expel all the dogs then present in the city. Following his command, they drove all the dogs away. At that time, one dog asked the man driving it away: ‘Why are you expelling me?’

“The man replied: ‘The king’s illness had only just improved slightly when, in his sleep, he heard a dog barking and awoke in terror. His illness therefore worsened again, and that is why you are being expelled.’

“The dog asked: ‘Are all the dogs being expelled?’

“He replied: ‘They are all being expelled.’

“The dog asked again: ‘Are the two dogs in the king’s palace also being expelled?’

“He replied: ‘The two dogs in the king’s palace are not being expelled.’

“The dog angrily said: ‘This king is unrighteous; he acts out of favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion.’

“Then it recited this verse:

“‘If dogs are deemed a menace,

Then all of them should be expelled.

Yet now they are not all expelled;

Thus the king is unrighteous.

The two dogs reared in his own house

He does not expel, but he expels us.

From this we know this wicked king

Acts from favoritism, anger, fear, and delusion.’

“The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “The king’s two dogs at that time are now the bhikkhus Chanda and Kalodayin, while the other dogs are now the remaining bhikkhus of the group of six. At that time, seeing that the other two dogs were not expelled while they themselves were expelled, they uttered groundless slander. Now, when expelled once again, they have behaved in the same way.”

Because the two bhikkhus Chanda and Kalodayin had not been expelled, the other bhikkhus groundlessly slandered the Sangha (288c). The bhikkhus therefore asked the Buddha: “Blessed One! Why, when everyone wished to appoint the bhikkhu Chanda as steward, did Ananda not consent?”

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “It is not only today that the bhikkhu Chanda wished to become steward and Ananda did not consent. In the past, he also wished to be appointed king, and Ananda did not consent.”

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha: “Blessed One! Did such a thing happen before?”

The Buddha said: “Indeed, it did!”

The bhikkhus said: “We wish to hear it. May the Blessed One relate it.”

The Buddha said: “In the distant past, on a hill at the foot of the Snow Mountains, there was a warm, sunny place where many kinds of birds gathered and discussed among themselves: ‘Today, let us appoint one bird as king, so that the birds, fearing its authority, will not dare to act unlawfully.’

The birds said: “Good! But who should be king?”

One bird said: “We should appoint the crane.”

Another bird said: “That will not do! Why? Because it has long legs and a long neck. If we were to commit an offense, it would peck us on the head.”

The entire flock agreed that this was so. Another bird then said: “We should appoint the swan as king. Because its plumage is immaculately white, all the birds respect it.” The birds again said: “This bird will not do. Although its appearance is white, its long neck is crooked. Since its own neck is not straight, how could it set others straight?”

Then another said: “Only the peacock, with all its colors, delights the eyes of everyone who sees it; therefore, it can be king.”

Another bird said: “That will not do! Why? Although its plumage is beautiful, it has no sense of shame. Whenever it dances, it exposes its unsightly parts; therefore, it will not do.”

Another bird said: “We should appoint the bald-headed owl as king. Why? Because it sleeps peacefully during the day and is diligent and active at night, protecting us; therefore, it can be king.”

The entire flock said: “Good!”

At that time, a wise parrot perched nearby thought: “It is the custom of birds to sleep at night, but it is the nature of this bald-headed owl not to sleep at night. It will compel all the birds to gather around and attend upon it, keeping watch day and night without being allowed to sleep. This would be exceedingly painful. Yet if I speak out, it will become angry and pluck out all my feathers; but if I do not speak, all the birds will suffer hardship for a long time. I would rather have my feathers plucked out than allow what is right to be trampled upon.” It then went before the multitude of birds, spread its wings, and respectfully said to the flock: “Please listen while I recite a verse.” The flock of birds then replied in verse:

“One who is wise understands profound meaning;

Why need we consider age?

Although you are still young,

You possess wisdom—speak!”

When the parrot heard the flock recite this verse, it spoke in verse:

“If you will heed my counsel,

Do not make the owl your king.

(289a) Even when its face looks pleased,

It is still a terrifying sight;

How much more so when it is enraged—

Its face would be unbearable to behold.”

The flock of birds then said: “It is just as the parrot says.” They discussed the matter among themselves: “This parrot is intelligent and wise; we should appoint it king.” They therefore acclaimed the parrot as king.

The Buddha then told the bhiksus: “The bald-headed owl of that time is now the bhiksu Chanda, and the parrot is now Ananda. At that time, the one prevented the other from becoming king; now he once again prevents him from becoming an administrator.”

The Buddha then ordered all the bhiksus residing in the city of Sravasti to assemble. Even those who had already heard the matter were required to hear it again. He then established this precept:

— “If there are bhiksus living in a city or village who engage in evil conduct that is both seen and heard by everyone, and who corrupt the faith of others in a manner both seen and heard by everyone, the bhiksus should say to them: ‘Venerable Ones! You have engaged in evil conduct that is both seen and heard by everyone, and you have corrupted the faith of others in a manner both seen and heard by everyone. Venerable Ones! You must leave this place and may no longer remain here.’

“Those bhiksus may then say to the other bhiksus: ‘The venerable Sangha acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion. Why? Among bhiksus who have committed the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.’

“The bhiksus should say to those bhiksus: ‘Venerable Ones! Do not say: “The Sangha acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion. Among bhiksus who have committed the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.” Why? Because the Sangha does not act according to affection, anger, fear, or delusion. Venerable Ones! You have engaged in evil conduct that is both seen and heard by everyone, and you have corrupted the faith of others in a manner both seen and heard by everyone. You must leave this place and may no longer remain here.’

“If, after being admonished by the bhiksus, those bhiksus persist and refuse to desist, the bhiksus should admonish them a second and a third time so that they will abandon this conduct. If they abandon it after the second or third admonition, that is good; if they do not abandon it, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense.

Explanation

– The bhiksus: This may refer to the Sangha, to several persons, or to one person who lives in dependence upon a city or village.

What does it mean to live in dependence upon a village? If a bhiksu receives robes, food and drink, beds, medicine for illness, and so forth from that village, this is called living in dependence upon it. If he does not receive robes, food and drink, beds, medicine for illness, and so forth, but depends upon the village only for protection from dangers, this is also called living in dependence upon it. If a bhiksu does not depend upon the village for protection from dangers but depends only upon the boundaries of the village, this too is called living in dependence upon it.

– (289b) Others: Members of the ksatriya, brahmana, vaisya, and sudra households are called others.

– Corrupting: If bhiksus engage in conduct contrary to the holy life in villages, such as drinking intoxicants or eating at improper times, this does not yet constitute corrupting the faith of others.

– Corrupting the faith of others: If people in a village formerly possessed faith, made offerings to the Sangha, and built monasteries and stupas, but a bhiksu causes them to lose their aspiration for the Path, this is called corrupting the faith of others.

– Engaging in evil conduct: Bodily conduct contrary to proper deportment, verbal conduct contrary to proper deportment, and bodily and verbal conduct contrary to proper deportment; harmful bodily conduct, harmful verbal conduct, and harmful bodily and verbal conduct; wrong livelihood by body, wrong livelihood by speech, and wrong livelihood by body and speech—these are called engaging in evil conduct.

– Engaging in evil conduct that corrupts the faith of others and is both seen and heard by everyone: They engage in evil conduct in a village that is both seen and heard by everyone. The bhiksus then say to those bhiksus: ‘Venerable Ones! You have engaged in evil conduct that is both seen and heard by everyone, and you have corrupted the faith of others in a manner both seen and heard by everyone. You must no longer remain here.’

Those bhiksus then reply: ‘Venerable Ones! The Sangha acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion. Among bhiksus who have committed the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.’

The bhiksus then say to those bhiksus: ‘Venerable Ones! Do not speak in this way, for the Sangha does not act according to affection, anger, fear, or delusion. You must abandon this conduct.’

– Those bhiksus persist and refuse to desist, and moreover slander the Sangha without reason: This refers to the group of six bhiksus.

– The bhiksus: This may refer to the Sangha, to several persons, or to one person.

– Three admonitions: They are admonished three times in private, three times in the presence of several persons, and three times in the midst of the Sangha.

– Admonition in private: In private, they should ask: “Venerable ones! Is it true that you have groundlessly slandered the Sangha, saying: ‘The Sangha acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion. There are bhikkhus who have committed the same offense, yet some are expelled while others are not expelled’? Is this so?” If they answer, “It is indeed so,” they should be reproved: “Venerable ones, do not use such groundless words to slander the Sangha. Why is this? Because the Sangha does not act according to affection, anger, fear, or delusion; nor, in the case of persons who have committed the same offense, does it expel some while not expelling others. I now admonish you out of loving-kindness, wishing for your welfare. Therefore, cease this conduct. The first admonition is complete; two more admonitions remain.” If they do not desist, they must be admonished a second and a third time, and then admonished three times before a group of people. But if they remain obstinate and do not desist, one must go before the Sangha and perform the karma of requesting permission, saying as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhus so-and-so have groundlessly slandered the Sangha and have been admonished three times in private and three times before a group of people, yet they obstinately refuse to desist. If it is appropriate for the Sangha, they should now be admonished three times in the midst of the Sangha so that they may cease this conduct.”

The Sangha should ask: “Venerable ones! Is it true that you have groundlessly slandered the Sangha, saying: ‘The Sangha acts according to affection, anger, fear, and delusion’ (289c), and so forth, and that although you have been admonished three times in private and three times before a group of people, you still obstinately refuse to desist?” If they answer, “It is indeed so,” the Sangha should admonish them: “Venerable ones!

Do not groundlessly slander the Sangha. Why is this? Because the Sangha does not act according to affection, anger, fear, or delusion; nor, in the case of persons who have committed the same offense, does it expel some while not expelling others.

The Sangha now admonishes you out of loving-kindness, wishing for your welfare. The first admonition is complete; two more admonitions remain. You should abandon this conduct.” If they do not desist, they should be admonished a second and a third time.

But if they still do not desist, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense.

– Sanghadisesa: As stated above. If those bhikkhus are admonished three times in private and do not desist, at each admonition they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. The same applies when they are admonished three times before a group of people. When they are admonished in the midst of the Sangha, if the first admonition has not yet been completed, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya; when it is completed, they commit a Sthulatyaya offense. During the second admonition, if the statement has not yet been completed, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya; when it is completed, they commit a Sthulatyaya offense. During the third admonition, if the statement has not yet been completed, they commit a Sthulatyaya offense; when it is completed, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense.

Beginning with the Sanghadisesa offense—apart from the three Sthulatyaya offenses arising from groundlessly slandering the Sangha—all the offenses of transgressing the Vinaya and all the Sthulatyaya offenses incurred during the three admonitions in private, the three admonitions before a group of people, and the three admonitions in the midst of the Sangha are combined into a single Sanghadisesa offense.

If they desist midway, they are dealt with for the offense incurred up to the point at which they desisted. Therefore, it is said:

“There are bhikkhus who live in dependence upon a city or village..., continuing until, if they desist after the second or third admonition, it is good; if they do not desist, they commit a Sanghadisesa offense.”

(End of the thirteenth Sanghadisesa rule)

TWO INDEFINITE RULES

1. RULE: SITTING IN A CONCEALED PLACE WITH A WOMAN.

2. RULE: SITTING IN AN OPEN PLACE WITH A WOMAN.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related in detail above, there was at that time a brahmin who was from the same region as and an old friend of the elder Udayin. His daughter had recently gone to live in her husband’s home and was sorrowful and unhappy. She therefore sent word asking her father to visit her, or, if he could not go, to ask the elder Udayin to visit her. Upon receiving the message, her father went to Udayin and said: “My daughter has only recently gone to live in her husband’s home and is sorrowful and unhappy. She therefore sent someone to convey a message to me and also sent a message to you, asking you to visit. As I am now a layman with many affairs, I cannot go. Please visit her from time to time.”

Udayin said: “Certainly! Even if you had not asked me, I would still have had to visit her; how much more so now that you have asked.” Then, early the following morning, the elder Udayin put on his robe and went to that house. At the time, the woman was sitting behind a closed door. From outside, Udayin called: “Is Lady Tuyet at home?”

She asked: “Who is it?”

He replied: “It is I, Udayin!”

She said: “Master! Please come in. Master, (290a) please come in.”

He then entered and sat with her inside the room, conversing about former times. At that time, her mother-in-law was Visakha, the Mother of Migara. She had thirty-two sons and thirty-two daughters, and all her daughters-in-law possessed merit and were endowed with excellent physical marks.

She regularly instructed her sons, daughters, and daughters-in-law, admonishing them on how to treat their parents and relatives. She then came to the front of that woman’s room. Knowing well what was appropriate to the occasion, she did not immediately enter but stood hesitating outside the door.

She then looked through a crack in the door and saw inside the room a shaven-headed person wearing robes, exchanging glances and whispering with her daughter-in-law. She knew that the person was a renunciant, but she did not know whether it was a bhikkhu or a bhikkhuni, so she called to her daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law answered, asking: “Who is it?”

She replied: “It is I.”

The woman said: “Mother, please come in.”

She asked: “Who is the person beside you?”

The woman replied: “It is Master Udayin.”

Udayin said: “Why does the upasika not come in?”

The Mother of Migara then entered and asked: “Master Udayin! Are you sitting here?”

He replied: “Yes.”

She said: “Venerable sir, this sitting place is not visible to others. If something improper were to occur, who could know of it? I shall report this matter to the bhikkhus.”

Udayin retorted: “What will you say?”

Visakha, the Mother of Migara, said: “I saw Udayin sitting together with a woman.”

Udayin immediately countered: “I too shall go to the Buddha and report you!”

She then asked: “What do you intend to say?”

Udayin said: “I saw Visakha, the Mother of Migara, sitting together with a man.”

She asked at once: “What man?”

Udayin said: “Am I not a man?”

She then said: “Venerable sir! The Buddha has not forbidden me from sitting together with a man, but as a renunciant, should you not observe the discipline of a sramana?”

Udayin angrily exclaimed: “Alas! You have caused me no small amount of distress!” Then he rose and departed.

Thereupon, he went elsewhere and sat together with a woman in an open place. Meanwhile, after Visakha Migaramata had finished instructing her daughters and daughters-in-law, she went out and again saw Udayin sitting and conversing with a woman in an open place. She approached Udayin and said: “This is unwholesome and not in accordance with the conduct of a śramana.

Why are you sitting with a woman in an open place? I shall report this matter to the bhikkhus.” Udayin asked: “What matter will you report?” Visakha Migaramata said: “I saw Udayin sitting alone and conversing with a woman in an open place.” Udayin retorted: “I too shall go to the Buddha and report your conduct.” Visakha Migaramata asked: “What will you report?” Udayin said: “I saw Migaramata sitting and conversing with a man in an open place.” Visakha Migaramata asked: “Which man?” He replied: “Am I not (290b) a man?” Visakha Migaramata said: “I am a layperson, and the Buddha permits me to sit with men.

But you are a śramana and must observe the proper rules of conduct. How could you act in this way?” Udayin said: “You harass me everywhere.” Having spoken thus, he rose and departed.

At that time, Visakha Migaramata reported the matter to the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus then reported it fully to the Blessed One. The Buddha said: “Summon Udayin!” They immediately summoned him.

The Buddha then asked Udayin: “Is this true?” He replied: “It is true, Blessed One!” The Buddha then rebuked Udayin: “You foolish man! This is a wrongful deed. Even laypeople know the rules of conduct for those who have gone forth—what should and should not be done.

Yet you, one who has gone forth, do not know the proper rules for sitting, standing, and speaking, nor what should and should not be done. Have you not often heard Me, by many means, censure compliance with sensual desire and praise freedom from desire? Why, then, have you now committed such a wrongful deed?

This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to My teaching. It cannot foster the growth of wholesome qualities.” The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus residing in the city of Sravasti to assemble. When they had assembled, the Blessed One took this occasion to explain extensively to the bhikkhus the causes from which faults arise, rebuked the faults that had arisen, and then taught the Dharma to the bhikkhus in accordance with the circumstances.

For ten beneficial purposes, the Tathagata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, established a precept for His disciples and instituted the Pratimoksha rule.

These ten purposes are:

1- To restrain the Sangha.

2- To restrain the Sangha thoroughly.

3- To enable the Sangha to dwell in peace and happiness.

4- To subdue those who are shameless.

5- To enable those with conscience and moral dread to dwell in peace and happiness.

6- To inspire faith in those who have no faith.

7- To increase the faith of those who already have faith.

8- To bring an end to the taints in the present life.

9- To prevent taints that have not yet arisen from arising.

10- To ensure that the true Dharma may long endure, opening the gate of ambrosia for devas and human beings.

These are called the ten beneficial purposes for which the Tathagata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, established a precept for His disciples. Those who have not heard it should hear it, and those who have heard it should hear it again:

— “If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in a secluded, concealed place where sexual intercourse could take place, and a trustworthy upasika accuses that bhikkhu of having committed one of three offenses—either Parajika, Sanghavasesa, or Payattika—and that bhikkhu himself says: ‘I sat in that place,’ then, according to whichever of those three offenses he committed, he is to be dealt with under the rule for that offense: either Parajika, Sanghavasesa, or Payattika. He must be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma, following the accusation made by the trustworthy upasika. That bhikkhu is one who has committed the first Indeterminate offense.

If a bhikkhu sits alone (290c) with a woman in an open place where sexual intercourse could not take place, and a trustworthy upasika accuses that bhikkhu of having committed one of two offenses—either Sanghavasesa or Payattika—and that bhikkhu himself says: ‘I sat in that place,’ then, on the basis of the accusation made by the trustworthy upasika, that bhikkhu must be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma: either under Sanghavasesa or Payattika.”

Explanation

(See again certain terms explained previously.)

– A concealed place: Either a dark place or a place screened from view.

– A place where sexual intercourse could take place: A place where a man and a woman could engage in sexual intercourse without fear or shame.

– Alone: There is only one man and one woman, with no other person present. Even if another person is present but is asleep, insane, a child, a nonhuman being, or an animal, it is still called being alone.

– Sitting together: Sitting near one another.

– A trustworthy upasika: One who fulfills the following sixteen qualities is called a trustworthy upasika:

1- She takes refuge in the Buddha.

2- She takes refuge in the Dharma.

3- She takes refuge in the Sangha.

4- She does not impair her pure faith in the Buddha.

5- She does not impair her pure faith in the Dharma.

6- She does not impair her pure faith in the Sangha.

7- When the Sangha has not yet obtained benefit, she is able to bring it benefit.

8- When the Sangha has already obtained benefit, she is able to increase it.

9- When the Sangha has not yet obtained honor, she is able to cause its honorable reputation to spread far and wide.

10- When the Sangha has acquired a bad reputation, she is able to dispel it quickly.

11- She does not act out of partiality.

12- She does not act out of anger.

13- She does not act out of fear.

14- She does not act out of delusion.

15- She inclines toward freedom from sensual desire.

16- She is accomplished in the noble precepts.

Those who fulfill these sixteen qualities are called trustworthy persons.

If that bhikkhu says that he knows what occurred but does not know whether or not he was sitting there, he should be dealt with concerning the act. If he says that he knows he was sitting there but does not know what occurred, he should be dealt with for the fault of having sat there. If he says that he knows both what occurred and that he sat there, he should be dealt with for both. If he says that he does not know what occurred and also does not know whether or not he sat there, then, on the basis of the accusation made by the trustworthy upasika, the Sangha should perform a formal act of investigating the signs of the offense.

(Certain terms have been explained previously.)

– An open place: A bright, open place with nothing screening it from view; this is called an open place.

– A place where sexual intercourse could not take place: A place where, if a man and a woman engaged in sexual intercourse, it would cause public scandal among religious practitioners.

(291a) Therefore, it is said:

“If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in a concealed, secluded place where sexual intercourse could take place..., up to the point of being accused by a trustworthy upasika, the Sangha must deal with that bhikkhu in accordance with the Dharma. This is called the first Indeterminate offense.

If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in an open place where sexual intercourse could not take place..., up to the point of being accused by a trustworthy upasika, the Sangha must deal with that bhikkhu in accordance with the Dharma. This is called the second Indeterminate offense.

(End of the Two Indeterminate Rules)

MAHASANGHIKA VINAYA

End of the seventh fascicle.