摩訶僧祇律

EXPLANATION OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE NINETY-TWO PAYATTIKA RULES

1. PRECEPT: DELIBERATELY SPEAKING FALSEHOOD.

[324b] When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related in detail above, the Sangha had assembled in one place intending to perform a karma proceeding, but the elder Siriyavabha did not come. They therefore sent a messenger to summon him: “Elder, the Sangha has assembled and intends to conduct Sangha business.”

Siriyavabha thought: “They must be performing a karma proceeding concerning me.” Fear arose in him, but since he could not escape, he had no choice but to go.

When he arrived, the bhikkhus asked: “Elder, have you committed a Sanghavasesa offense?”

He replied: “I have.”

The bhikkhus were then pleased. But he thought: “The fellow practitioners of the holy life have brought before me a matter that can be confessed and remedied, rather than one for which no disciplinary action can be taken.” He then addressed the Sangha: “Please permit me to go outside for a moment.”

The bhikkhus then discussed among themselves: “This bhikkhu is deceitful and unreliable. Now that he has gone outside, he will soon tell a lie. Therefore, we should question him three times to establish the matter with certainty.”

After Siriyavabha went outside, he thought: “Why did I admit to an offense when I had done nothing? These bhikkhus are constantly disciplining me. I should not now admit to that offense, but should tell a lie instead. At most, the Sangha will discipline me for lying, and even if they do, that penalty will still be lighter.”

The bhikkhus then summoned Siriyavabha back inside. After he entered, the Sangha asked: “Did you commit a Sanghavasesa offense?”

— I did not.

— Why, then, did you just admit that you had committed it?

— Because the Sangha had just intended to say that I had committed it, I replied that I had. Now I do not recall having committed any offense.

The bhikkhus then reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that Siriyavabha be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him about the foregoing events: “Did you truly act in this way?”

— It is true, Blessed One.

— This is an unwholesome deed. Have you not heard me condemn false speech by innumerable means and praise truthful speech? Why, then, did you knowingly tell a lie? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. It cannot serve to foster wholesome qualities.

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Sravasti to assemble. For the sake of ten benefits, he established this precept for the bhikkhus, which those who had already heard it were also to hear again:

— “If a bhikkhu [325a] knowingly speaks falsely, he commits a Payattika offense.”

Explanation:

– Knowingly: He has already conceived and known it beforehand.

– False: The matter is not as stated.

– Speech: Words uttered with the mouth.

– Payattika: The designation of an offense separately established by regulation.

There are also the following cases: the eight modes of speech of the noble ones, direct speech, falsehood, non-falsehood, doubt, absence of doubt, certainty, uncertainty, and one-sided speech.

– The eight modes of speech of the noble ones: Having seen, one says one has seen; having heard, one says one has heard; having perceived falsely, one says one has perceived falsely; knowing, one says one knows; not having seen, one says one has not seen; not having heard, one says one has not heard; not having perceived falsely, one says one has not perceived falsely; not knowing, one says one does not know. These are called the eight modes of speech of the noble ones. Speaking in this way entails no offense.

– The eight modes of speech not belonging to the noble ones: Having seen, one says one has not seen; having heard, one says one has not heard; having perceived falsely, one says one has not perceived falsely; knowing, one says one does not know; not having seen, one says one has seen; not having heard, one says one has heard; not having perceived falsely, one says one has perceived falsely; not knowing, one says one knows. These are called the eight modes of speech not belonging to the noble ones. Speaking in this way constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Direct speech: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known, one says that one has not seen, not heard, not perceived, or not known. This is called direct speech and constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Falsehood: Having seen falsely, one says it was not false; having heard falsely, one says it was not false; having perceived falsely, one says it was not false; knowing something to be false, one says it was not false; or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known it to be false or mistaken, one says it was not false. Speaking in this way constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Non-falsehood: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known something not to be false, one says it is false; or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known it not to be false, one says it is false. Speaking in this way constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Doubt: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known with doubt, one says there is no doubt; or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known with doubt, one says there is no doubt. This constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Absence of doubt: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known without doubt, one says there is doubt. Or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known without doubt, one says there is doubt. This constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Certainty: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known something with certainty, one says it is uncertain; or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known it with certainty, one says it is uncertain. This constitutes a Payattika offense.

– Uncertainty: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known something without certainty, one says it is certain; or without having seen, heard, perceived, or known it without certainty, one says it is certain. This constitutes a Payattika offense.

– One-sided speech: Having seen, heard, perceived, or known, one says that one has not seen, not heard, not perceived, or not known. This constitutes a Payattika offense.

Knowing that something exists but saying that it does not is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Knowing that something does not exist but saying that it does is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Something actually exists, but one believes it does not and then says that it does: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Something actually does not exist, but one believes it does and then says that it does not: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Something actually exists, and one believes it exists, but one nevertheless says that it does not: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Something actually does not exist, and one believes it does not, but one nevertheless says that it does: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

[325b] Something actually exists, but one believes it does not and nevertheless says that it does: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

Something actually does not exist, but one believes it does and nevertheless says that it does not: this is knowingly telling a lie and constitutes a Payattika offense.

There are five factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly telling a lie and incurs a Payattika offense. What are the five? The matter actually exists; one believes it exists; one changes one’s mind; one forms the contrary perception; and one states otherwise. These are the five factors of knowingly telling a lie, which constitutes a Payattika offense.

There are four factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly telling a lie and incurs a Payattika offense. What are the four? One believes that it exists, changes one’s mind, forms the contrary perception, and then states otherwise. These are called the four factors of knowingly telling a lie, which constitutes a Payattika offense.

There are three factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly telling a lie and incurs a Payattika offense. What are the three? One changes one’s mind, forms the contrary perception, and states otherwise. In this way, one knowingly tells a lie and commits a Payattika offense.

There are two factors whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly telling a lie and incurs a Payattika offense. What are the two? One forms the contrary perception and states otherwise. In this way, one knowingly tells a lie and commits a Payattika offense.

There is one factor whose fulfillment constitutes knowingly telling a lie and incurs a Payattika offense. What is that one factor? It is stating otherwise. In this way, one knowingly tells a lie and commits a Payattika offense. Therefore, the rule is stated as above.

2. PRECEPT: DISPARAGING ANOTHER’S SOCIAL ORIGIN OR OCCUPATION.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related in detail above, the group of six bhikkhus used courteous words to coax the young bhikkhus into answering their questions: “What is your name? What is your clan? What are the names of your father and mother? What occupation did your family formerly practice?”

The young bhikkhus, being straightforward by nature, answered truthfully: “My family is such; my name and clan are such; and our occupation is such.”

Later, when the group of six bhikkhus had a grievance against them, they said: “You are of a most lowly lineage. You are a chandala, a barber, a weaver, a potter, or a leatherworker.”

When the young bhikshus heard these words, they felt deeply ashamed. When the other bhikshus heard of this matter, they went and reported it to the Blessed One. The Buddha then ordered that the group of six bhikshus be summoned. When they arrived, the Buddha asked them: "Is it true that you used courteous words to coax and question the young bhikshus, and afterward, when resentment arose, you called them such things as potters and leatherworkers?"

They replied: "It is true."

The Buddha rebuked them: "This is an unwholesome deed. Group of six bhikshus, why do you speak discriminatingly about the physical characteristics and social classes of your fellow practitioners of the holy life? (This is explained fully in the Nandi Jātaka Sutra)." The Buddha further said to the bhikshus: "Even animals dislike being reviled, how much more so human beings."

The Buddha then ordered all the bhikshus residing in the city of Śrāvastī to assemble and, for the sake of the ten benefits, established this precept for the bhikshus, which those who had already heard it were to hear again:

-- "If a bhikshu speaks disparagingly of another’s physical characteristics or social class, he commits a Pācittiya offense."

Explanation

– Revilement concerning class: There are seven kinds: [325c] lineage, occupation, physical appearance, illness, offense, abuse, and fetters.

1- Lineage: There are three grades: low, middle, and high.

– Low grade: For example, one says: "You are a Caṇḍāla, a barber, a weaver, a potter, or a leatherworker." If he speaks in this way to shame that person, he commits a Pācittiya offense. If he says: "Your parents are Caṇḍālas, or even leatherworkers," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. If he says: "Your preceptor or ācārya is a Caṇḍāla, or even a leatherworker," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he says: "Your friends and acquaintances are Caṇḍālas, or even leatherworkers," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called the low grade.

– Middle grade: For example, one says: "You belong to a middle-ranking lineage." If he speaks in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he says: "Your parents belong to a middle-ranking lineage," he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he says: "Your preceptor or ācārya belongs to a middle-ranking lineage," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. If he says: "Your friends and acquaintances belong to a middle-ranking lineage," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called the middle grade.

– High grade: For example, one says to another: "You are of kṣatriya or brahmin lineage," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed; he commits a Vinaya offense. If he says: "Your parents are of kṣatriya or brahmin lineage," speaking in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. If he says: "Your preceptor or ācārya is of kṣatriya or brahmin lineage," speaking in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. If he says: "Your friends and acquaintances are of kṣatriya or brahmin lineage," thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called the high grade of lineage.

2. Occupation: There are three kinds: low, middle, and high.

– Low occupation: For example, one says: "You are a butcher, a pig seller, a fisherman, a hunter, a bird trapper, a net caster, a city guard, or a seller of cured meat." If he speaks in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he says: "Your preceptor or ācārya is a butcher, or even a seller of cured meat," he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he says: "Your friends and acquaintances are butchers, or even sellers of cured meat," he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called a low occupation.

– Middle occupation: For example, one says: "You are a seller of incense, an innkeeper, a farmer, a vegetable grower, or a messenger." If he speaks in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; the same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he says: "Your preceptor or ācārya is...," he commits a Vinaya offense. If he says: "Your friends and acquaintances are..." [326a] thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called a middle occupation.

– High occupation: If one says: "You are a person from a household of gold, silver, maṇi jewels, or bronze," speaking in this way with the intention of making that person feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents, preceptor, or ācārya. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called a high occupation.

3- Physical appearance: There are low, middle, and high grades.

– Low grade: If one says: "You are blind, hunchbacked, have arms and legs like carrying poles or like the wings of a bird, have a crooked head, or protruding teeth," speaking in this way to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he speaks of that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called the low grade of physical appearance.

– Middle grade: For example, one says: "You are extremely dark, extremely pale, extremely yellow, or extremely red." If he speaks in this way to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he speaks of that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Vinaya offense. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called the middle grade of physical appearance.

– High grade: If one says: "You are endowed with the thirty-two marks, radiant and golden in color," speaking in this way to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Vinaya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents, preceptor, or ācārya. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense requiring repentance by mental acknowledgment. This is called the high grade of physical appearance.

4- Illness: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all are classified as low. For example, one says: "You suffer from scabies, jaundice, leprosy, tumors, hemorrhoids, yellowing of the skin, malaria, wasting disease, or insanity." If he names such illnesses to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he speaks of that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called illness.

5- Offense: There are no high, middle, and low grades; all offenses are classified as low. If one says: "You have committed a Pārājika, Saṅghāvaśeṣa, Pācittiya, Pratideśanīya, or Vinaya offense," speaking in this way to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he speaks of that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he speaks of that person’s friends, he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called an offense.

6- Abuse: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all abuse is classified as low. If one reviles another with malicious worldly expressions such as: "Lustful, defiled,..." thereby causing that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when abusing that person’s parents. If he abuses that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he abuses that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense. This is called abuse.

7- Fetters: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all fetters are classified as low. If one says: "You are foolish, dull-witted, and ignorant, like a clod of earth, a goat, [326b] a white goose, or an owl," speaking such words to cause that person to feel ashamed, he commits a Pācittiya offense. The same applies when speaking of that person’s parents. If he speaks of that person’s preceptor or ācārya, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he speaks of that person’s friends and acquaintances, he commits a Vinaya offense.

If a bhikkhu uses disparaging words concerning any of the seven aspects above, he commits a Payattika offense. If he disparages a bhikkhuni, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; if he disparages a siksamana, samanera, or samaneri, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If he disparages a layperson, he commits a Vinaya-transgression offense to be repented mentally. Therefore it is said (as above).

3. PRECEPT: SPEAKING TO ALIENATE OTHERS

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as extensively related above, the group of six bhikkhus contrived to entice young bhikkhus into answering their questions: “Do you know the occupation and family lineage of the parents of such-and-such a bhikkhu?”

Those young bhikkhus were straightforward by nature and answered according to the facts. Later, when the group of six bhikkhus became angry, they would say: “You are a candala, a barber, a weaver, a potter, or a leatherworker.”

Having said this, they would add: “I did not know this before; it was such-and-such a bhikkhu who spoke of you in this way.”

When the bhikkhu heard these words, he felt deeply ashamed. The bhikkhus then brought the matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the group of six bhikkhus be summoned. When they arrived, the Buddha asked: “Is it true that you enticed the young bhikkhus into answering your questions, and so forth, causing that bhikkhu to feel ashamed?”

They replied: “It is true, Blessed One.”

– “Why did you do this?”

– We did it because we found it amusing.

– “Foolish men! This is an evil deed: using divisive speech toward a practitioner of the holy life. This is suffering, yet you call it pleasure.”

After rebuking them by innumerable means, the Buddha related the causes and conditions, as explained in detail in the Jataka concerning the three animals. The Buddha then commanded all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Sravasti to assemble and, for the ten benefits, established this precept for the bhikkhus. Even those who had heard it before were to hear it again:

-- “If a bhikkhu engages in divisive speech, he commits a Payattika offense.”

Explanation:

– Divisive speech: There are seven kinds, namely, lineage, occupation, physical appearance, illness, offense, abuse, and fetters.

1- Lineage: It is of three grades: low, middle, and high.

– Low grade: For example, one says: “You are a candala, or even a leatherworker,” and then says: “How would anyone know about you? It was that certain person who said it,” while thinking, “May this person abandon the other and become friendly with me.” Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one says: “Your parents are candalas, or even leatherworkers,” and then says: “How would anyone know about you? It was such-and-such a bhikkhu who said it,” while thinking, “May this person leave the other and become friendly with me,” then whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one says: “Your upadhyaya or acarya is a candala [326c], or even a leatherworker,” one likewise commits a Payattika offense. The same applies when speaking about friends and spiritual companions. This is called the low grade.

– Middle grade: For example, one says: “Venerable sir, you belong to a middle-ranking family, a military family, or a family of performers,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it,” while thinking, “May this person leave the other and come to me.” Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one commits a Payattika offense. This is called the middle grade.

– High grade: If one says: “Venerable sir, you are of ksatriya or brahmin lineage,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it,” while thinking, “May this person abandon the other and come to me,” then whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Payattika offense. This is called the high grade with respect to lineage.

2- Occupation: It is of three grades: low, middle, and high.

– Low grade: For example, one says: “You are a butcher, or even a seller of meat cakes,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way wishing that this person will leave the other and come to oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Payattika offense. This is called the low grade.

– Middle grade: For example, one says: “You are a seller of incense, a merchant, or even a messenger,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and come to oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one commits a Payattika offense. This is called the middle grade.

– High grade: For example, one says: “You work in a gold shop, a silver shop, or even a bronze-goods shop,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and come to oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Payattika offense. This is called the high grade with respect to occupation.

3- Physical appearance: It is of three grades: low, middle, and high.

– Low grade: If one says: “You are blind, or even have crooked teeth,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and come to oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. This is called the low grade.

– Middle grade: If one says: “You are extremely dark, extremely pale, extremely yellow, or extremely red,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and turn toward oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or acquaintances, one commits a Payattika offense. This is the middle grade.

– High grade: For example, one says: “You possess the thirty-two marks [327a] in their fullness and shine with a golden complexion,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and turn toward oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one commits a Payattika offense. This is called the high grade with respect to physical appearance.

4- Illness: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all illnesses belong to the low grade. For example, one says: “You suffer from sores, or even from insanity,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and turn toward oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Payattika offense. This is called illness.

5- Offense: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all offenses belong to the low grade. For example, one says: “You committed a Parajika offense, or even a Vinaya-transgression offense,” and then says: “I did not know this about you; it was that certain person who said it.” One speaks in this way hoping that this person will leave the other and come to oneself. Whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one speaks about the person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Payattika offense.

6- Abuse: There are no low, middle, and high grades; all abuse is called low grade. If one reviles another with malicious worldly expressions such as “lustful,” “impure,” or “vile,” then whether they separate or do not separate, one commits a Payattika offense. If one abuses that person’s parents, upadhyaya, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one commits a Payattika offense. This is called abuse.

7. Fetters: There are no lower, middle, or upper grades; rather, all fetters are called lower. For example, one might say: “You are foolish, dull-witted, and ignorant, like a lump of earth, a goat, a white goose, or an owl,” and after saying such things, add: “I do not know you myself; it was so-and-so who said this.” One speaks in this way in the hope that this person will abandon the other and turn toward oneself. Whether or not they abandon each other, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one speaks about someone’s parents, preceptor, acarya, friends, or spiritual companions, one likewise commits a Pacittiya offense. This is called a fetter.

If one engages in divisive speech concerning a bhikshu, one commits a Pacittiya offense; concerning a bhikshuni, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense; concerning a siksamana, sramanera, or sramaneri, one commits a Vinaya-transgression offense; concerning a layperson, one commits a Vinaya-transgression offense to be repented of mentally. Therefore it is stated (as above).

4. PRECEPT: REVIVING A DISPUTE

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related in detail above, the group of six bhikshus knew that the Sangha had settled a dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, yet they said:

“This matter has not been concluded; it must be adjudicated again.” As soon as the group of six bhikshus had spoken these words, the dispute arose once more, and the members of the Sangha lived in disharmony. The bhikshus then brought this matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the group of six bhikshus be summoned. When they arrived, the Buddha asked:

“Is it true that, knowing the Sangha had settled the dispute in accordance with the Dharma [327b] and the Vinaya, you caused it to arise again?”

“It is indeed true.”

“Why did you do this?”

“We created this matter because we found it amusing.”

“You foolish men! Troubling those who practice the holy life is an evil deed; why do you regard it as amusing? Have you not repeatedly heard me praise, through countless means, practitioners of the holy life who always possess compassionate minds and compassionate bodily and verbal conduct? Therefore, they should be honored. Why do you now commit such an evil deed? This is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to my teaching. It cannot serve to foster wholesome qualities.”

The Buddha then instructed all the bhikshus dwelling in the city of Sravasti to assemble and, for the sake of ten benefits, established this precept for the bhikshus. Even those who had heard it before were to hear it again:

— “If a bhikshu knows that the Sangha has already settled a dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, yet causes it to arise again, saying, ‘That Karman proceeding has not been completed; it must be performed again,’ solely for such a reason and no other, he commits a Pacittiya offense.”

Explanation:

(Some terms have already been explained above.)

Disputes: There are four kinds: 1. disputes concerning statements; 2. disputes arising from accusations; 3. disputes concerning offenses; 4. disputes concerning customary matters.

Settling a dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya: If, among the seven methods of settling disputes, a dispute has in every respect been settled in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, and one then causes it to arise again without any valid reason, one commits a Pacittiya offense.

Pacittiya: As explained above.

The four kinds of disputes are: 1. disputes concerning statements; 2. disputes arising from accusations; 3. disputes concerning offenses; 4. disputes concerning customary matters.

Disputes concerning statements are each settled by three Vinaya principles. What are the three? They are: settlement by Sammukha-vinaya, the Vinaya principle of settlement in the presence of the parties; settlement by Yebhuyyasika-vinaya, the Vinaya principle of decision by the majority; and settlement by Tinavattharaka-vinaya, the Vinaya principle of covering over with grass.

1. Sammukha-vinaya: When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, the bhikshus at Kausambi were engaged in conflict and those dwelling together lived in disharmony. What was Dharma they declared to be non-Dharma; what was Vinaya they declared to be non-Vinaya; what was an offense they declared not to be an offense. They disputed over grave offenses and light offenses; what could be remedied and what could not be remedied; Karman proceedings in accordance with the Dharma and Karman proceedings contrary to the Dharma; harmonious Karman proceedings and disharmonious Karman proceedings; and what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. At that time, a bhikshu seated among them said:

“Venerable Ones, this matter is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya. It does not accord with the sutras, the Vinaya, or the Upadesa treatises. It contradicts the sutras, the Vinaya, and the treatises, and gives rise to defilements and outflows. What I have said is truly the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. It accords with the sutras, the Vinaya, and the treatises and does not give rise to defilements or outflows. Venerable Ones, I am unable to settle this dispute. I must go to the city of Sravasti, to the Blessed One, and ask how this dispute may be settled.”

Thereupon, this bhikshu went to the Blessed One, bowed his head in homage [327c] at the Buddha’s feet, stood to one side, and addressed the Buddha:

“Blessed One, the bhikshus at Kausambi are engaged in conflict, and though they dwell together, they live in disharmony. What accords with the Dharma they declare to be contrary to the Dharma, and so forth. I am unable to settle that conflict, and therefore I have come to the Blessed One to ask about the method for settling it. May the Blessed One settle this conflict for the sake of the bhikshus.”

The Blessed One then said to Upali:

“Go to the country of Kausambi and settle that conflict in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, following the principle of Sammukha-vinaya. Upali, a conflict may arise from three sources: from one person, from many persons, or from the Sangha. Accordingly, it must also be relinquished in three places, taken up in three places, and settled in three places. Upali, go to the bhikshus at Kausambi and settle that conflict in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, following the principle of Sammukha-vinaya.”

The Venerable Upali then addressed the Buddha:

“Blessed One, how many qualities must a bhikshu possess to be capable of settling a conflict?”

The Buddha said to Upali:

“A bhikshu who possesses five qualities is capable of settling a conflict. What are the five? He knows that the matter is factual and not unfounded; he acts for benefit and not for harm; he has everyone’s approval rather than their disapproval; he acts impartially and not unfairly; and he acts at the proper time rather than at an improper time.

“Upali, if a matter is resolved at an improper time, the Sangha may be divided, the Sangha may fall into dispute, or the Sangha may become dispersed. Conversely, if a conflict is settled at the proper time, the Sangha will not be divided, will not dispute, and will not become dispersed. This is called a bhikshu who possesses the five qualities, is capable of settling conflicts, and causes his fellow practitioners of the holy life to remember him with affection and praise him. Now go to the bhikshus at Kausambi and resolve that matter in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, following the principle of Sammukha-vinaya.”

The Venerable Upali then paid homage at the Blessed One’s feet, went to the bhikshu who had come as a messenger from Kausambi, and said:

“Elder, return to the place where the dispute arose and settle it there; do not resolve the matter here. Why? Because the Sangha here is harmonious and joyful, free from disputes, and dwelling together in unity; they should not be disturbed.”

The bhikshu who had come as a messenger from Kausambi then said to the Venerable Upali:

“Venerable One, if I had been able to settle the dispute there, I would not have come here. I beseech you, Venerable One, to go there for my sake and settle that dispute.”

Upali said:

– If I go there, whatever matter warrants a Yết-ma, I shall perform the Yết-ma; whatever matter warrants punishment, I shall punish. Whether it warrants a Yết-ma of censure, a Yết-ma of silence, a Yết-ma of Ma-na-đỏa, or a Yết-ma of A-phù-ha-na—if there are such and such offenses, I shall perform the corresponding Yết-ma to impose punishment. At that time, you should not give rise to displeasure.

That messenger bhikkhu then said to [328a] the Venerable Ưu Ba Li:

– If we have such offenses, we shall accept such punishments, and there will be no displeasure in our hearts.

The Venerable Ưu Ba Li then returned to the Buddha and said to him:

– Blessed One! With what state of mind should one extinguish the dispute among those bhikkhus?

The Buddha said to Ưu Ba Li:

– One who wishes to extinguish a dispute must first assess his own abilities: the power of merit, the power of eloquence, the power of fearlessness, and the ability to understand clearly the causes and conditions from which the matter arose. The bhikkhu must first reflect upon whether he possesses such abilities. If he sees that the dispute arose only recently, that the person's mind is gentle and amenable, and that the dispute can easily be extinguished, only then should that bhikkhu extinguish the dispute. Conversely, if upon reflection he sees that he lacks the abilities described above, that the dispute arose long ago, and that the person is obstinate and cannot quickly be subdued, he should seek a bhikkhu of virtue and prestige to extinguish the matter together with him. If there is no bhikkhu of virtue and prestige, he should seek a learned bhikkhu. If there is no learned bhikkhu, he should seek a bhikkhu who dwells in A Luyện Nhã. If there is no bhikkhu who dwells in A Luyện Nhã, he should seek a powerful upasaka. When the disputing bhikkhu sees the upasaka, shame will arise in his mind, and the dispute will be easier to extinguish. If there is no such upasaka, he should seek the aid of the king or a powerful minister. When the disputing bhikkhu sees such a powerful and eminent person, reverential fear will arise in his mind, and the dispute will thereby be easier to extinguish. If the dispute is to be extinguished in winter, they should be taken to a warm, secluded place free from cold. When visiting bhikkhus arrive, braziers should be provided. If it is spring, they should be taken to a cool place; beds and seats should be arranged beneath the trees, cold water and beverages should be provided, and fans should be used to fan them. If it is summer, they should be taken to a high, cool place and provided with the requisites appropriate to the season. At that time, a capable and wise bhikkhu should be appointed—one who clearly understands the causes and conditions of the matter, is not afraid, does not seek out others' faults, and does not fear the multitude. If an upasaka comes, one should praise the merit of bringing harmony to the Sangha and say to the upasaka: "As the Blessed One has said, when one thing appears in the world, it causes suffering to devas and humans and brings them no benefit. That one thing is the disruption and disturbance of the Sangha. When those who do this undergo the breakup of the body and the end of life, they will fall directly into hell."

Furthermore, upasaka, as the Blessed One has said: "When one thing appears in the world, it brings happiness to devas and humans and brings them benefit. That one thing is bringing harmony to the Sangha. After the breakup of the body and the end of life, those who do this will be reborn in a good realm, in the heavens or among humans. Therefore, upasaka, if you wish to obtain great merit, you should bring harmony to the Sangha."

When the two groups present their cases, this bhikkhu—the adjudicator—must examine the matter thoroughly and remember every statement, every sentence, every word, and every meaning. Suppose that, within the assembly, there is a bhikkhu who is not a Thất-lại-tra (?) but pretends to be a Thát-lại-tra and says:

– I previously heard the Venerable Ones say [328b] such and such words, but now they say something different; the two statements do not accord with one another.

If this person is gentle by nature and can be subdued, one should speak thus before the Sangha in order to make him ashamed: "You are an unwholesome man who has caused discord and made the Sangha disharmonious. It is because of this matter that we have had to assemble here today." Conversely, if he is evil-natured, obstinate, and stubborn, and might cause the contention to increase, one should speak gently to him in these words: "Elder, the Sangha has assembled today to extinguish this contention. Therefore, Elder, you should cooperate with me in extinguishing it." If the bhikkhu's mind has become gentle and amenable, the bhikkhu appointed to adjudicate the matter should then say to the bhikkhu concerned: "Now present that matter."

The bhikkhu should then say: "I now present this matter and ask the Sangha to settle it for me in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya."

At that time, the adjudicating bhikkhu should rebuke this person in the following words, to make him ashamed: "You are an unwholesome man! What Sangha would ever settle a matter by what is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya?" If the bhikkhu says: "I did not intend to speak to the Sangha in that way. May the Sangha instruct me in the proper form."

The adjudicator should then teach him to say: "I now present the cause of this dispute. Whatever the Sangha instructs, I shall respectfully carry out."

If that bhikkhu does not follow the Sangha's instructions, one should say to him: "If you do not obey the Sangha's instructions, I shall take a vote within the Sangha and expel you from the assembly."

If the bhikkhu still refuses to obey, an upasaka should then be told to ask him: "Will you obey the Sangha's instructions? If you refuse to obey, I shall apply the laws of the laity to you and expel you from the town and village."

If it is known that the bhikkhu's dispute concerns a minor matter, the Sangha may extinguish the dispute in the presence of the upasaka. If the matter is base and shameful, the upasaka should be asked to leave the assembly. The Sangha should then, in accordance with the truth, apply the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties and extinguish the matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the teachings of the sutras.

At that time, the Venerable A Nan went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha's feet, and said: "Blessed One! What is meant by using the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties to extinguish a dispute?"

The Buddha said to A Nan: "A Nan, the matters disputed by bhikkhus include: what is in accordance with the Dharma and what is contrary to the Dharma; what is in accordance with the Vinaya and what is contrary to the Vinaya; an offense and what is not an offense; a light offense and a grave offense; an offense that can be punished and an offense that cannot be punished; a lawful Yết-ma and an unlawful Yết-ma; a harmonious Yết-ma and a disharmonious Yết-ma; a Yết-ma that should be performed and a Yết-ma that should not be performed.

A Nan, if such matters arise, the Sangha should quickly be assembled. After the Sangha has assembled, the matter should be examined, and the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties should be applied according to the truth, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the teachings of the sutras, to extinguish it. If the following five unlawful conditions are present, the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties is invalid.

What are the five? They are: deciding the matter in the absence of the party concerned; [328c] failing to question the party; failure to acknowledge the offense; acting contrary to the Dharma; and settling the matter without harmony. These are called the five unlawful conditions under which the application of the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties is invalid.

If five lawful conditions are fulfilled, the application of the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties is valid. Those five conditions are: the presence of the party concerned; questioning; acknowledgment of the offense; accordance with the Dharma; and settlement of the matter in harmony.

These are called the five accomplished factors for applying sammukha-vinaya. Thus, Ananda, it is in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.

After sammukha-vinaya has been applied to settle the dispute, if a visiting bhikkhu, a departing bhikkhu, a bhikkhu who has conveyed his consent, a bhikkhu who has not conveyed his consent, a newly ordained bhikkhu, or a bhikkhu who was sitting asleep says: “Such a karma proceeding was not properly performed. It was contrary to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, which was like a herd of cattle or goats. It was an unwholesome karma proceeding, an invalid karma proceeding,” then, Ananda, if the dispute arises again because of such words, he commits a Payattika offense. This is called a dispute arising from contentious speech.

Sammukha-vinaya is used to settle a dispute arising from an accusation: If a bhikkhu has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that another bhikkhu committed an offense belonging to any of the five classes—Parajika, Sanghavasesa, Payattika, Patidesaniya, or Vinaya-transgression—yet accuses him of an offense belonging to one of those five classes, this is called a dispute arising from an accusation. In such a case, two Vinaya procedures should be used to settle it: sati-vinaya, the verdict of mindfulness, and amulha-vinaya, the verdict of no longer being insane.

2. Sati-vinaya, the verdict of mindfulness: When the Buddha was dwelling in Rajagriha, the bhikkhuni Mettiya engaged in sexual misconduct and became pregnant. She then went to the group of six bhikkhus and said: “I engaged in sexual misconduct and am now pregnant. If there is anyone against whom the Venerable Ones harbor resentment, I will make a false accusation against him for you.”

The group of six bhikkhus said: “Excellent, sister! You now wish to do something beneficial for us. Sister, Dabba Mallaputta has been our lifelong enemy. He assigned us dilapidated lodgings, provided us with poor blankets and pillows, and gave us coarse food and drink. If this man continues long in the holy life, we shall continue to suffer for a long time. Wait until an observance day, when the great assembly is hearing the Dharma. Then go before the assembly and accuse that bhikkhu of having engaged in sexual misconduct—of having had intercourse—with you.”

She replied: “I shall do as the Venerable Ones instruct.”

Then, on the eighth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days of the month, when the great assembly was hearing the Dharma, that bhikkhuni came before the Sangha and said: “Venerable Dabba, procure such foods and provisions as milk, oil, glutinous rice, and so forth; repair a room and find a midwife for me, for the time of my delivery is approaching.”

The elder Dabba replied: “Sister, you yourself know the truth. I had nothing to do with this.”

The bhikkhuni Mettiya again said: “How strange! How extraordinary! You are the man who was my lover, leaving in the morning and returning in the evening, sharing my bed, yet now you say: ‘I had nothing to do with this.’ Say no more. Procure milk, oil, and the other necessities for me, for the time of my delivery has arrived.”

[329a] The elder again said: “You yourself know the truth. I had nothing to do with this.” After saying this three times, he departed.

At that time, among the people, those who had no faith in the Three Jewels immediately thought: “These two are both young; surely such a thing occurred.” Those of little faith became doubtful, not knowing whether it had happened or not. Those of steadfast faith, however, said: “This Venerable One has extinguished the three poisons, and evil qualities have been forever eradicated in him. Such a thing could not have occurred.”

Thereupon, the evil report that the Venerable Dabba Mallaputta had engaged in sexual misconduct spread everywhere. It was heard in private places, heard in public places, and heard amid the Sangha. The bhikkhus then reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said:

“Bhikkhus, the evil report that Dabba Mallaputta engaged in sexual misconduct has spread everywhere. You must therefore question him three times in private, three times in public, and three times amid the Sangha. In private, you should ask him: ‘Elder Dabba Mallaputta, the bhikkhuni Mettiya has made such a statement.

Are you aware of this?’ If the elder then says: ‘I do not know whether I did it or not, nor do I remember,’ you must question him in this way a second and a third time. Then question him three times in public in the same manner. Afterward, question him amid the Sangha: ‘Elder Dabba Mallaputta, the bhikkhuni Mettiya has made such a statement.

Are you aware of this matter?’ If he replies: ‘I do not know whether I did it or not, nor do I remember,’ question him in the same way a second and a third time.”

After carrying out the Buddha’s instructions, the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Blessed One: “Blessed One, the Elder Dabba Mallaputta was questioned three times in private, three times in public, and three times amid the Sangha. Each time he said: ‘I do not know whether I did it or not, nor do I remember.’”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “This Dabba Mallaputta is pure and without offense. The bhikkhuni Mettiya, however, has herself admitted that she committed an offense and must therefore be expelled.”

At that time, the bhikkhunis residing in Rajagriha criticized the Blessed One, saying: “It appears that this judgment is unjust. Both of them committed an offense, so why retain the bhikkhu and expel the bhikkhuni? If both are guilty, both should be expelled; if neither is guilty, both should be retained. Why did the Blessed One expel one and retain the other?”

The bhikkhus then reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to Ananda: “Go and summon here all the bhikkhunis of the Sangha residing in Rajagriha.”

Ananda obeyed the Blessed One and went to the bhikkhuni Sangha, saying: “Sisters, the Blessed One summons you!”

The bhikkhunis said to the Venerable Ananda: “We have no business with the Blessed One, so why does he summon us? If we had business with him, we would go even without being summoned. Venerable One, please return. Since we have no business with him, we cannot go.”

Ananda then thought: “This is truly extraordinary! It was through the grace of the Blessed One that they were able to go forth [329b] and practice the Way, yet why do they show no reverence toward the Buddha and refuse to obey his command?” Ananda then returned to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and reported the entire matter to him. The Buddha said to Ananda: “Go and tell the bhikkhunis of Rajagriha: ‘You are at fault. The Blessed One orders you to leave; you may not remain here.’”

Ananda obeyed the instruction and went to the bhikkhunis, saying: “Sisters, you are at fault. The Blessed One orders you to leave; you may no longer remain here.”

The bhikkhunis replied to the Venerable Ananda: “We have no business outside the city, so we will not go anywhere. If we had business there, we would leave of our own accord without needing to be ordered.”

Ananda then thought: “This is truly extraordinary! Through the grace of the Blessed One they were able to go forth and cultivate the Way, yet why do they have no reverence toward the Buddha? When told to come, they do not come; when ordered to leave, they do not leave!”

Ananda then returned to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to Ananda: “If the Tathagata, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One, tells the bhikkhu Sangha or the bhikkhuni Sangha in any town or village to come and they do not come, or orders them to leave and they do not leave, then the Tathagata himself must depart to avoid the trouble. Ananda, bring me my sanghati robe.”

At that time, Venerable Ananda handed the sanghati robe to the Blessed One. Then, at midday, without informing the Sangha of bhikkhus, the Blessed One took only Ananda with him and traveled through the village of the layman Five-Powers toward the city of Sravasti. At that time, King Ajatasatru, son of Lady Vaidehi, after having slain his royal father, was overwhelmed by extreme sorrow and regularly went to the Blessed One three times each day to confess his offense: at dawn, at midday, and in the evening. Having confessed early that morning, he returned at midday but did not see the Blessed One. He therefore asked the bhikkhus, “Where is the Blessed One?”

The bhikkhus replied, “The Blessed One has departed.”

The king said, “Whenever the Blessed One goes away for a month or half a month, he always informs me. For what reason has he now departed in silence?”

The bhikkhus, having heard what the Buddha had said, replied, “Great King, the bhikkhunis in Rajagriha did not obey the Blessed One’s command. When summoned, they did not come; when told to depart, they did not go. Great King, you should know that if the Tathagata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, tells the Sangha of bhikkhus or bhikkhunis dwelling in cities, towns, or villages to come and they do not come, or tells them to depart and they do not go, the Tathagata himself withdraws and goes elsewhere. Today, the Bhikkhuni Sangha in Rajagriha did not obey the Buddha’s instruction; therefore, the Blessed One departed in silence.”

When the king heard this account, he became exceedingly angry and ordered his officials, “Drive out every member of the Bhikkhuni Sangha now living within my realm.”

At that time, a wise official remonstrated with the king, “Not all the bhikkhunis within the realm are at fault. Only the bhikkhunis in Rajagriha disobeyed the Blessed One’s instruction.”

The king accepted the [329c] minister’s remonstrance and ordered the responsible officials to expel the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha. The soldiers then took up sticks, clods of earth, stones, tiles, and bricks, striking and pelting the bhikkhunis and driving them out of the capital. They rebuked them with these words: “You are wicked and contemptible! Through the Blessed One’s beneficence, you were able to renounce the household life and cultivate the path, yet you showed no reverence and disobeyed the Buddha’s instruction. Leave here at once, you wicked old women! Because of you, we cannot see the Blessed One or hear the true Dharma. Go quickly; you may no longer remain here.”

At that time, when the people in the villages saw what was happening, they too reviled them from afar, saying, “(And so forth) You have caused us to be unable to see the Blessed One or hear the true Dharma. Go away quickly; you may no longer remain here.”

At that time, Udayin also took up a staff and drove the bhikkhunis away, rebuking them with the same words as above. The king then ordered his officials, “If you see any bhikkhunis following the Blessed One, you must find a way to protect them and ensure their safety. If they travel in another direction, let them do as they wish; there is no need to protect them.”

After the bhikkhunis had left the city, they all said, “If we go to other regions, we will be driven away wherever we go and will have nowhere to stay. Therefore, we should now follow behind the Blessed One.”

Thus, wherever the Blessed One arrived in the morning, the bhikkhunis arrived that evening. In this way, throughout the journey they remained one day apart.

At that time, wishing to teach and transform beings, the Blessed One traveled through the village of the layman Five-Powers toward the city of Sravasti. It was the layman Five-Powers’ customary practice, whenever he heard that bhikkhus or bhikkhunis were coming, to travel one yojana to welcome them and offer them various gifts. When he heard that those bhikkhunis were about to arrive, he entered meditative concentration and contemplated the circumstances that had brought them there.

Having examined the matter, he saw that all those bhikkhunis were at fault, had been disciplined and expelled, had not yet been absolved of their offenses, were not pure vessels, and had no share in the noble Dharma. Seeing this, he did not go to welcome them or present them with offerings. The bhikkhunis made inquiries along the way and eventually reached his house, where they said, “The bhikkhunis from Rajagriha are now outside the gate.

Please inform the layman.”

The layman ordered his attendants to give the bhikkhunis a leaking dwelling and torn blankets and pillows. He did not provide hot water, water for washing their feet, or oil with which to anoint their feet. Nor did he give them beverages at an improper time, inquire after them, or console them. At night he lit no lamps for them, and early the next morning he did not provide tooth-sticks or clean water. He gave them only coarse food and drink. After they had eaten, he told them to depart quickly.

After leaving his house, the bhikkhunis said to one another, “I heard that this layman was always faithful and reverently made offerings to the Sangha, but judging by his conduct today, he has neither reverence nor faith.”

One of the bhikkhunis among them said to the others, “Be silent, sisters! [330a] Examine yourselves. We disobeyed the Blessed One’s instruction; receiving even such offerings is already more than enough.”

The bhikkhunis then gradually continued onward until they reached the city of Sravasti. They went to Ananda, bowed their heads at his feet, and stood to one side. They said to Ananda, “We wish to behold the Blessed One, pay homage to him, and inquire after him. We hope that the Venerable One will speak to the Blessed One on behalf of the Bhikkhuni Sangha and ask him, out of compassion, to grant us permission.”

Ananda replied, “Very well, sisters!” He immediately went to the Blessed One, bowed his head at his feet, and stood to one side. He said to the Buddha, “Blessed One, the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha wish to come and attend upon the Blessed One. If the Blessed One permits it, I shall summon them.”

The Buddha said to Ananda, “Do not tell the Bhikkhuni Sangha from Rajagriha to come and see me.”

Ananda said, “Very well.”

He then paid homage to the Buddha, returned to the bhikkhunis, and said, “Sisters, the Blessed One has instructed that you are not permitted to come.”

He petitioned a second and a third time, but each time the response was the same.

The Buddha then said to Ananda, “Why are you so solicitous toward the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha?”

Ananda replied to the Buddha, “Blessed One, I am not being solicitous toward them because they are the bhikkhunis who did not come when the Blessed One summoned them and did not depart when he told them to go. Rather, the Blessed One referred to the Bhikkhuni Sangha of Rajagriha for another reason. It is for the sake of the Sangha that I am so solicitous.”

The Buddha said, “I permit the Bhikkhuni Sangha from Rajagriha to come here.”

Ananda immediately returned to the bhikkhunis and said, “Sisters, you have gained a great benefit! The Blessed One has permitted you to come and attend upon him.”

When the bhikkhunis heard this, they praised him, saying, “Excellent, excellent, Ananda!” They then went to the Buddha, bowed their heads at his feet, and stood to one side. They said to the Buddha, “Blessed One, we were unwholesome and foolish like children. We did not recognize the field of merit, nor did we understand our debt of gratitude, and we failed to obey the Blessed One’s instruction. We have now seen and recognized our offense. We respectfully beseech the Blessed One to accept our confession and repentance.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha, “You were unwholesome and foolish like children. You did not recognize the field of merit, nor did you understand your debt of gratitude. When the Blessed One summoned you, you did not come; when he told you to depart, you did not go. Now that you have seen your own fault, I permit you to confess and repent. In the teaching of the noble ones, the wholesome roots of those who can repent of their faults increase. From this time onward, do not commit such an offense again.”

If the Sangha of bhikkhus summons the Sangha of bhikkhunis in accordance with the Dharma, the Sangha of bhikkhunis must come immediately in accordance with the Dharma. If they do not come, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. Therefore, the Sangha of bhikkhus is permitted to bar this Sangha of bhikkhunis from the Uposatha and the invitation ceremony, or, when they come, to deny them entry at the gate.

If the Sangha of bhikkhus summons many bhikkhunis or one bhikkhuni in accordance with the Dharma, the same applies.

If many bhikkhus summon the Sangha of bhikkhunis in accordance with the Dharma, the Sangha of bhikkhunis must come in accordance with the Dharma. If they do not come, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. Therefore, those bhikkhunis must be barred [330b] from the Uposatha and the invitation ceremony, or, when they come, denied entry at the gate.

If many bhikkhus summon many bhikkhunis or one bhikkhuni in accordance with the Dharma, the same applies.

If one bhikkhu summons the Sangha of bhikkhunis, many bhikkhunis, or one bhikkhuni in accordance with the Dharma, the bhikkhuni or bhikkhunis must come in accordance with the Dharma. If they do not come, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. Therefore, that bhikkhuni or those bhikkhunis must be barred from the Uposatha and the invitation ceremony, or, when they come, denied entry at the gate.

If the Sangha of bhikkhunis, many bhikkhunis, or one bhikkhuni confesses a fault before the Sangha of bhikkhus, before many bhikkhus, or before one bhikkhu, the procedure is likewise as fully explained previously in the rule concerning the confession of a fault before the Buddha.

At that time, the Blessed One gave the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha a discourse on the Dharma suited to them, instructing them and bringing them benefit and joy. Thereby, one bhikkhuni attained the pure Dharma eye. The Buddha then said to the bhikkhunis: “Return by the same road on which you came. If the lay devotee Five Superknowledges gives you any instructions, you should receive and uphold them.”

The bhikkhunis from Rajagriha then returned, passing through the village of Five Superknowledges. At that time, the lay devotee Five Superknowledges entered meditative concentration and, on examining the matter, saw that these bhikkhunis had confessed before the Buddha and had all become purified, fit vessels for the Dharma. Therefore, as was his custom, he rode a carriage drawn by white horses for one yojana to welcome them. Seeing the Sangha of bhikkhunis from afar, he descended from the carriage and proceeded on foot. Baring his right shoulder, he knelt with his right knee upon the ground, joined his palms, and said: “Excellent, venerable bhikkhunis! Was your journey free from hardship?”

He then invited the bhikkhunis to walk ahead while he followed behind them on the way back. When they reached his home, he provided them with lodgings and fine new beds and bedding. He also provided hot water, water for washing their feet, oil for anointing their feet, and refreshments. In the evening, he lit lamps and comfortingly inquired after them, saying: “May the venerable bhikkhunis rest peacefully and at ease.”

Early the following morning, he provided tooth-sticks, water for washing their faces, and morning gruel. At mealtime, he again offered them suitable food and drink. After they had finished eating, he bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee upon the ground, joined his palms, and said: “I now invite the venerable bhikkhunis to spend the rains retreat here. I shall provide all necessities, including robes, food and drink, beds, and medicines for illness. I shall also instruct you in reading and reciting the sutras and verses, except in matters concerning the Uposatha and the invitation ceremony.”

The bhikkhunis then thought: “It is now the twelfth day of the fourth month, and the time for entering the rains retreat is pressing. Moreover, the Blessed One instructed us to receive the teachings of the lay devotee Five Superknowledges.” Having reflected thus, they accepted the invitation to spend the rains retreat there. Each day, the lay devotee taught the bhikkhunis the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.

After hearing that Dharma, the bhikkhunis diligently practiced without indolence during the first and last watches of the night, cultivated the noble path, and attained realization. After completing the invitation ceremony, the bhikkhunis thought: “Let us [330c] go to the Blessed One, bow before him, inquire after him, and report our attainments.” Having thought thus, the bhikkhunis set out for Shravasti and went to Ananda.

They bowed their heads at his feet, stood to one side, and said to the Venerable Ananda: “The Tathagata, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One, taught the Four Foundations of Mindfulness to the shravakas. During the first and last watches of the night, we practiced diligently without indolence, cultivated the noble path, and attained realization.” Having spoken thus, they returned to their dwelling place.

Not long after the bhikkhunis had departed, the Venerable Ananda went to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Blessed One’s feet, and stood respectfully to one side. He then fully reported to the Blessed One everything the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha had said, including their cultivation of the path and attainment of its fruits. After completing his report, he said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, how should this matter be understood? May the Blessed One explain it clearly.”

The Buddha said to Ananda: “It is exactly as the bhikkhunis said; their words are true and not otherwise. Why is this? If any bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, upasaka, or upasika is able to cultivate the Four Foundations of Mindfulness diligently, they will all attain accomplishment and realize the fruits, as fully explained in the Sutra on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.”

The bhikkhus then said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, for what reason did the bhikkhunis from Rajagriha fail to acknowledge their gratitude toward the Blessed One? When they arrived in Shravasti, why did they go directly to Ananda instead of attending upon and visiting the Blessed One, causing Udayin to take up a staff and drive them away, whereupon the Venerable Ananda earnestly intervened to rescue them? May the Blessed One explain this matter clearly.”

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “It is not only today that these bhikkhunis have failed to acknowledge their gratitude toward me, causing Udayin to take up a staff and drive them away, whereupon Ananda earnestly pleaded with me to rescue them. The same thing also occurred in a past life, as fully explained in the Jataka of the Elephant King.”

THE MAHASANGHIKA VINAYA

End of fascicle twelve.