摩訶僧祇律

EXPLANATION OF THE SECOND SECTION OF THE NINETY-TWO PĀTAYANTIKA DHARMAS

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, as related above in detail, there was in the city a courtesan whose household was exceedingly wealthy. She possessed abundant property, jewels of every kind, and overflowing storehouses, all securely guarded, so that thieves who watched for an opportunity could do nothing. [331a] At that time, the leader of a band of robbers devised a clever scheme and sent a messenger to tell the courtesan: “We wish to go to that lake, invite many other courtesans, lay out various kinds of food and drink, and enjoy ourselves to our hearts’ content. You should therefore adorn yourself beautifully and come to the lake. Do not dress carelessly, lest the others laugh at you.”

Women are by nature prone to jealousy and eager to excel. She therefore put on various kinds of the finest garments and adorned her body with all manner of jeweled necklaces, whose brilliance dazzled the eyes. She then went to the place to which she had been invited. The robber chief skillfully enticed her to a secluded, concealed place overgrown with dense vegetation. The courtesan asked: “Earlier, I heard that other women had also been invited. Where are they now?”

The robber chief replied: “They will arrive shortly. Let us enjoy ourselves together first.”

The courtesan then thought: “Judging from this man, he must surely be a robber chief and nothing else. How do I know? This is not the place previously arranged. Moreover, those other women certainly will not come, and the sun is already declining.” She then said: “I wish to return home.”

The robber chief said: “Let us enjoy ourselves together first. Why are you in such a hurry?”

The courtesan then thought: “He intends to rob me. He will surely bring disaster upon me. I possess sixty-four subtle arts, and now is precisely the time to employ them. If I do not use them, how can I escape this danger?” She then feigned tenderness and affection, exchanging cups of wine with the robber chief. She herself drank sparingly while urging him to drain his cup. Outwardly she appeared attentive, intimate, and affectionate, while inwardly remaining detached, causing the robber’s mind to become intoxicated with pleasure and entirely free of suspicion.

The robber chief then led the courtesan alone to a secluded place. The wine took effect, and he became so thoroughly intoxicated that he knew nothing. The courtesan slowly slipped out of his embrace, put on her garments, and made her way toward the city of Śrāvastī, but the city gates were already closed.

She then went toward the Jetavana Monastery, but the monastery gate was also closed. At that time, outside the gate, an elder bhikṣu named Kālu had spread out a rope bed and was sitting in a concealed place not far from the monastery gate. His robe hung down on all four sides of the bed.

Terrified and needing to find a safe refuge, the courtesan crawled beneath the elder’s bed. Kālu, however, was then absorbed in samādhi and did not look beneath the bed. After midnight, the robber chief awoke from his drunkenness and intended to strip the courtesan of her possessions, but he could not find her.

He asked his companions: “Have you seen that woman?” They all replied: “We have not.” They then took torches and searched for her, but had no idea where she was. They said among themselves: “If we cannot find her, let us follow her footprints.” Following her footprints, they arrived at the gate of Śrāvastī and found it closed. They continued following the footprints to the gate of Jetavana, where the tracks disappeared, and they did not know in which direction she had gone.

Although the robbers saw the bhikṣu, they harbored no suspicion. Dawn was now approaching. From within Śrāvastī came the beating of drums and the sounds of elephants, horses, chickens, and dogs.

The robber chief [331b] therefore said to his companions: “We have now lost her and do not know where she is. Daybreak is approaching, so we should not remain here any longer. We must return to our hiding place in the forest.” Having discussed the matter, they returned to the forest.

When daylight came, people, elephants, horses, and carriages emerged from the city. Some upāsikās also left the city to visit and pay homage to the Blessed One. They then went to pay homage to Bhikṣu Kālu and suddenly saw the courtesan crawl out from beneath his bed.

Seeing this, everyone reproached him, saying: “This is an araṇya dwelling! How could one who wears rag robes and lives on alms sleep with a courtesan throughout the night and release her only in the morning? He has utterly abandoned the discipline of a śramaṇa.

What kind of Way is this?”

At that time, the ill repute of the elder Bhikṣu Dābhyamallaputra Kālu spread everywhere. When the bhikṣus heard of it, they reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said: “Bhikṣus, the ill repute of Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu for engaging in conduct contrary to the holy life has spread everywhere.

You must therefore question him three times in private, three times in a gathering of people, and three times in the midst of the Sangha. When questioning him in private, you should ask as follows: ‘Elder Dābhya Kālu, your fellow practitioners of the holy life have said this about you. Are you aware of this matter?’ If he replies, ‘I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember,’ you must question him in the same way a second and a third time.

Then question him three times in a gathering of people and three times in the midst of the Sangha in the same manner.”

The bhikṣus then addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One! That Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu has been questioned three times in private, three times in a gathering of people, and three times in the midst of the Sangha. Yet he himself said: ‘I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember.’”

The Buddha then said to the bhikṣus: “That Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu is pure and without offense. The Sangha should grant him the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and allow him to dwell in purity. When performing the preliminary motion for the formal act, the officiant should speak as follows:

“May the Venerable Sangha listen! This Elder Dābhya-Kālu has himself said before his fellow practitioners of the holy life: ‘I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember.’ If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha now permits Elder Dābhya-Kālu to come before the Sangha and request the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity. Those venerable ones who consent to permit Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu to come before the Sangha and request the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity, should remain silent; anyone who does not consent should speak.

“Since the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Let this matter be carried out accordingly.”

Then the petitioner, Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu, should bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee on the ground, and speak as follows: “I, Bhikṣu Dābhya-Kālu, have said before my fellow practitioners of the holy life: ‘I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember.’ I, Dābhya-Kālu, now come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity. I humbly beseech the Sangha to grant me the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity.” He should make this request a second and a third time. The officiant should then speak as follows:

“May the Venerable Sangha listen! This Elder Dābhya-Kālu [331c] has had such things said about him by his fellow practitioners of the holy life, and he himself has said: ‘I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember.’ He now comes before the Sangha to request the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha now grants Elder Dābhya-Kālu the Vinaya procedure of settlement by mindfulness, in order to put an end to the ill repute and dwell in purity. This is the motion.”

May the venerable Sangha listen! This Elder Dabbaka-Lohita, when questioned in this manner by his fellow practitioners of the holy life, himself said: “I do not know whether I did it, nor do I remember.” He now comes before the Sangha to request the vinaya procedure of mindfulness so as to put an end to the matter and dwell in purity. Let those venerable ones who consent to grant Elder Dabbaka-Lohita the vinaya procedure of mindfulness so as to put an end to the matter and dwell in purity remain silent; whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first motion and proclamation. (The second and third are proclaimed in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to grant Elder Dabbaka-Lohita the vinaya procedure of mindfulness so as to put an end to the matter and dwell in purity, for the Sangha remains silent. Let this matter be carried out accordingly.”

The Buddha then asked the bhikkhus whether they had granted Dabbaka-Lohita the vinaya procedure of mindfulness. The bhikkhus replied: “We have granted it.”

The Buddha said: “Bhikkhus, there are five circumstances in which granting the vinaya procedure of mindfulness is contrary to the Dharma. What are the five? They are: 1. Granting it to one who is impure while perceiving him as pure. 2. Granting it to one who is pure while perceiving him as impure. 3. Failing to investigate beforehand. 4. Acting contrary to the Dharma. 5. Acting when the Sangha is not in harmony. These are called the five circumstances contrary to the Dharma when granting the vinaya procedure of mindfulness.

“Conversely, there are five circumstances in which granting the vinaya procedure of mindfulness accords with the Dharma. What are the five? They are: 1. Granting it to one who is pure while perceiving him as pure. 2. Granting it to one who is impure while perceiving him as impure. 3. Investigating beforehand. 4. Acting in accordance with the Dharma. 5. Acting when the Sangha is in harmony. These are called the five circumstances in accordance with the Dharma when granting the vinaya procedure of mindfulness.”

The bhikkhus then addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One! Why was that courtesan pursued by the bandits?”

The Buddha said: “It is not only today that she has been pursued by bandits; in the past she was also pursued by them, as is explained in detail in the Jātaka of the Enemy.”

At that time, Venerable Ānanda went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, stood to one side, and addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One! What is called the vinaya procedure of mindfulness?”

The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If a bhikkhu accuses another bhikkhu of committing a pārājika, a saṅghāvaśeṣa, a pāyattika, a pratideśanīya, or a vinaya transgression, the Sangha must be assembled without delay. Once the Sangha has assembled, it should ask that bhikkhu’s preceptor, ācārya, friends, and acquaintances: ‘Elder, do you know what this particular bhikkhu’s moral conduct has been like until now? With whom does he associate?

Are those associates wholesome or unwholesome?’ If they say: ‘Until now he has maintained pure moral conduct, but together with his friends and associates he has committed a few minor faults; feeling [332a] ashamed at heart, he immediately confessed them so that they might be removed,’ the Sangha should grant such a person the vinaya procedure of mindfulness. If they say: ‘I know that this bhikkhu’s moral conduct has been impure until now, that he associates with wicked persons, and that after committing offenses he refuses to confess them in accordance with the Dharma,’ then, Ānanda, the Sangha should not grant such a bhikkhu the vinaya procedure of mindfulness to put an end to the matter.

Thus, Ānanda, after the vinaya procedure of mindfulness has been granted in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya to put an end to a dispute caused by slander, there may be a visiting bhikkhu, a bhikkhu who is departing, a bhikkhu who has conveyed his consent, a bhikkhu who has not conveyed his consent, a bhikkhu who sits dozing in the assembly hall, or a newly ordained bhikkhu. If any among these bhikkhus says: ‘A motion and proclamation performed in this way is invalid and contrary to the Dharma; it is foolish, devoid of understanding, opposed to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and like the conduct of cattle and goats; this motion and proclamation is unwholesome and invalid,’ and by saying this causes the dispute to arise again, he commits a pāyattika offense.

This is called putting an end, by means of the vinaya procedure of mindfulness, to a dispute caused by slander.

3—Putting an End, by Means of the Vinaya Procedure for One No Longer Insane, to a Dispute Caused by Slander

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the account was given in detail as above. Venerable Kappina had two attendant disciples, one named Nandī and the other named Pañcanandī. These two bhikkhus had previously suffered from insanity.

While ill, they committed many acts contrary to the Dharma. Now they had recovered, yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life continued to bring up the deeds the two had committed while insane. On hearing such words, the two bhikkhus felt deeply ashamed.

They therefore reported the matter to the other bhikkhus. The bhikkhus then reported the entire matter to the Blessed One: “Blessed One! While Nandī and Pañcanandī were suffering from insanity, they committed many acts contrary to the Dharma.

They have now recovered, yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life continue to bring up the deeds they committed while insane.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “Question them three times in private, three times before a number of people, and three times in the midst of the Sangha. When questioning them in private, say: ‘Elders, your fellow practitioners of the holy life have spoken in this manner; do you know of it?’ If they reply: ‘We do not know whether we did it, nor do we remember,’ question them a second and a third time. Then question them three times before a number of people and three times in the midst of the Sangha in the same way.”

(After completing the questioning,) the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Blessed One: “Blessed One! We questioned them three times in private, three times before a number of people, and three times in the midst of the Sangha, but they themselves said: ‘We do not know whether we did it, nor do we remember.’”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “These two bhikkhus were formerly insane and have now recovered, yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life continue to bring up the deeds they committed while insane. Since they themselves say: ‘We do not know whether we did it, nor do we remember,’ the Sangha should grant them the vinaya procedure for one no longer insane to put an end to the matter. The officiating bhikkhu should perform the motion and proclamation requesting the Sangha’s attention, saying:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! Elders Nandī and Pañcanandī were formerly insane and have now recovered, yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life continue to bring up the deeds they committed while insane, [332b] and they themselves say: ‘We do not know whether we did them, nor do we remember.’ If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha now permits the two bhikkhus Nandī and Pañcanandī to come before the Sangha and request the vinaya procedure for one no longer insane so as to put an end to the matter. ...

The venerable ones have consented to allow Nandī and Pañcanandī to come before the Sangha and request the vinaya procedure for one no longer insane so as to put an end to the matter. Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Let this matter be carried out accordingly.”

Then Nandī and Pañcanandī should enter the midst of the Sangha, bare their right shoulders, kneel, join their palms, and make the following request:

‘I, so-and-so, was formerly insane and have now recovered, yet my fellow practitioners of the holy life continue to bring up the former deeds of my insanity, though I do not know whether I committed them, nor do I remember. I now come before the Sangha to request the vinaya procedure for one no longer insane so as to put an end to the matter. May the Sangha grant me the vinaya procedure for one no longer insane so as to put an end to the matter.’ (They should make this request a second and a third time.)

The Sangha should then say to those bhikkhus: ‘The Sangha does not speak about your deeds. If anyone speaks about your deeds, go and tell him not to speak of them any further.’

Then each of these bhikkhus (who had been insane) should go to the other bhikkhu (the fellow practitioner of the holy life) and say: ‘Venerable sir, as for the deeds I formerly committed while insane, I now do not know whether I committed them, nor do I remember. Venerable sir, please do not again bring up the deeds I committed while insane.’

If that bhikkhu desists, that is good. If he does not desist, one should speak to his preceptor, ācārya, and familiar friends as follows: “Venerable sir, your disciple and acquaintance speaks of deeds I committed previously while insane. I do not know whether I committed them, nor do I remember. Venerable sir, please rebuke him and tell him not to mention them again.”

That bhikkhu’s preceptor and ācārya should rebuke him, saying: “You unwholesome man, ignorant of the precepts and Vinaya! Have you not heard the Blessed One say that deeds committed while insane and mentally deranged entail no offense?”

If that talkative man accepts the rebuke, that is good. The Sangha should then perform a karman. The one performing the karman should make the following proclamation:

“May the Venerable Sangha listen! The elders Nandi and Upanandi were formerly insane but have now recovered from insanity. Yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life repeatedly mention the deeds they committed while insane, and the venerable ones themselves say: ‘We do not know whether we committed them, nor do we remember.’ They have now come before the Sangha to request the Amūḷha-vinaya, the Vinaya procedure of Non-Insanity, in order to settle this matter. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha shall now grant Nandi and Upanandi the Amūḷha-vinaya in order to settle this matter. This is the motion.

“May the Venerable Sangha listen! Nandi and Upanandi were formerly insane but have now recovered from insanity. Yet their fellow practitioners of the holy life repeatedly mention the deeds they committed while insane, and they themselves say: ‘We do not know whether we committed them, nor do we remember.’ They have now come before the Sangha to request the Amūḷha-vinaya in order to settle this matter. The Sangha now grants them the Amūḷha-vinaya in order to settle this matter. Let those venerable ones who consent to granting Nandi and Upanandi the Amūḷha-vinaya in order to settle this matter remain silent; whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the karman. (The second and third proclamations are likewise.)

“The Sangha has completed granting such-and-such persons the Amūḷha-vinaya in order to settle this matter. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

The Buddha then asked the bhikkhus: “Have you [332c] granted Nandi and Upanandi the Amūḷha-vinaya?”

They replied: “We have granted it, Blessed One.”

The Buddha said: “If five conditions are present, the granting of the Amūḷha-vinaya is contrary to the Dharma. What are the five? They are: 1—He is not insane, but he is regarded as insane and it is granted to him; 2—He does not entreat the person who raised the matter so as to make that person’s mind receptive; 3—He does not come before the Sangha to request the Amūḷha-vinaya; 4—The procedure is performed contrary to the Dharma; 5—The Sangha is not in harmony.

“This is called the presence of five conditions contrary to the Dharma when granting the Amūḷha-vinaya.

“Furthermore, there are five conditions in accordance with the Dharma whose fulfillment makes the granting of the Amūḷha-vinaya valid. What are the five? They are: 1—He is not insane and is regarded as not insane; 2—He entreats the person who raised the matter so as to make that person’s mind receptive; 3—He comes before the Sangha to request the Amūḷha-vinaya; 4—The procedure is performed in accordance with the Dharma; 5—The Sangha is in harmony.

“These are called the five conditions in accordance with the Dharma whose fulfillment makes the granting of the Amūḷha-vinaya valid.”

At that time, the Venerable Ānanda went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and asked: “Blessed One, what is called the Amūḷha-vinaya?”

The Buddha said to Ānanda: “There may be a bhikkhu who was formerly insane but has now recovered from insanity, while his fellow practitioners of the holy life repeatedly mention the deeds he committed while insane. At that time, the Sangha must be assembled promptly. Once the Sangha has assembled, it should grant that bhikkhu the Amūḷha-vinaya according to the sutras, according to the Vinaya, and in accordance with the facts of his case.

Thus, Ānanda, the Amūḷha-vinaya is granted in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Blessed One’s teaching, in order to terminate the accusations that have given rise to the dispute. After the matter has been settled, if a visiting bhikkhu, or even a foolish and ignorant person like an ox or a goat, revives the dispute, he commits a pācittiya offense. This is called using the Amūḷha-vinaya to settle an accusation that has given rise to a dispute.”

– A dispute concerning an offense: If bhikkhus dispute with one another concerning the commission of an offense, from a pārājika offense down to a vinayātikrama offense, then in such a case two kinds of Vinaya procedure should be used to settle it. They are: the Vinaya procedure based on one’s own admission and the Vinaya procedure of establishing the character of the offense.

4—The Vinaya Procedure Based on One’s Own Admission:

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, at the time for almsround the Venerable Rāhula donned his robe, took his bowl, entered the city of Śrāvastī, and went sequentially on almsround. Having completed his almsround, he returned to the monastery. After eating, he put his robe and bowl back in their proper place, took his sitting cloth, and set out for the Forest of the Attainment of Vision to meditate.

Along the way, he saw a bhikkhu engaging in conduct contrary to the holy life with a woman. After being seen, that wicked bhikkhu thought: “The Buddha’s son Rāhula has seen me engaging in conduct contrary to the holy life. He will certainly tell the Blessed One.

Before he speaks, I should go to the Blessed One and accuse him first of wrongdoing.” That wicked bhikkhu then went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and said: “Blessed One, I saw the Venerable Rāhula engaging in an unlawful act with a woman beside the road while he was on his way to the Forest of the Attainment of Vision.” At that time, the Blessed One remained silent and gave no reply. As for the Venerable Rāhula, after meditating beneath a tree, he emerged from meditation and went to the Blessed One.

Having forgotten the matter concerning the wicked bhikkhu, he bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet as usual and stood to one side in attendance. [333a] At that time, wishing to cause Rāhula to recall the recent event, the Blessed One conjured an image of the wicked bhikkhu standing directly before him. Upon seeing it, Rāhula remembered and said to the Blessed One: “Blessed One, just now, while I was entering the forest, I saw this bhikkhu engaging in conduct contrary to the holy life with a woman.”

The Buddha said: “Rāhula, if that bhikkhu were likewise to say, ‘I saw Rāhula engaging in conduct contrary to the holy life in the middle of the road,’ what should be done?”

The Venerable Rāhula said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, I did no such thing.”

“If the other bhikkhu also said, ‘I did no such thing,’ what should be done?”

“Blessed One, if that were so, only the Blessed One would understand me.”

“If the other bhikkhu also said, ‘Only the Blessed One would understand this matter of mine,’ what should be done?”

“I respectfully request that the Blessed One grant me the procedure of adjudication based on one’s own admission.”

“If the other bhikkhu also said, ‘I respectfully request that the Blessed One grant me the procedure of adjudication based on my own admission,’ what should be done?”

“If that were so, I respectfully request that the Blessed One grant both of us the procedure of adjudication based on our own admissions.”

At that time, the Blessed One went to where the many bhikkhus were, spread out his sitting cloth, sat down, and explained the foregoing matter clearly to them. Having spoken, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Grant this bhikkhu the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure to settle this matter. Why is this?

Suppose that in a future age an evil bhikkhu slanders a pure bhikkhu, and the pure bhikkhu is not granted the Self-Admission procedure; he would then be expelled.” The Buddha then told the bhikkhus: “There are eight unlawful ways of granting the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure. What are the eight? They are: 1.

When questioned about a grave offense, one answers with a minor offense, but that minor offense is not true; this is called unlawfully granting the Self-Admission procedure; 2. When questioned about a minor offense, one answers with a grave offense; 3. When questioned about an offense entailing a remainder, one answers that it entails no remainder; 4.

When questioned about an offense entailing no remainder, one answers that it entails a remainder; 5. When questioned about a minor offense, one answers with a minor offense; 6. When questioned about a grave offense, one answers with a grave offense; 7.

When questioned about an offense entailing a remainder, one answers that it entails a remainder; 8. When questioned about an offense entailing no remainder, one answers that it entails no remainder. Yet in every case one does not truthfully state the offense.

This is called unlawfully granting the Self-Admission procedure.

“Conversely, there are eight lawful ways of granting the Self-Admission procedure. What are the eight? They are: 1.

When questioned about a grave offense, one answers with a minor offense, and because one has in fact committed a minor offense, one answers with that minor offense; this is called lawfully granting the Self-Admission procedure; 2. When questioned about a minor offense, one answers with a grave offense; 3. When questioned about an offense entailing a remainder, one answers with an offense entailing no remainder; 4.

When questioned about an offense entailing no remainder, one answers with an offense entailing a remainder; 5. When questioned about a grave offense, one answers with a grave offense; 6. When questioned about a minor offense, one answers with a minor offense; 7.

When questioned about an offense entailing a remainder, one answers that it entails a remainder; 8. When questioned about an offense entailing no remainder, one answers that it entails no remainder. In all these cases, the truth is spoken.

“These are called the eight lawful ways of granting the Self-Admission procedure.”

At that time, the Venerable Ananda went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and said to him: “Blessed One! The Vinaya speaks of settling a dispute through the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure. What, then, is the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure for settling a dispute?”

The Buddha said to Ananda: “If bhikkhus expose one another’s offenses, whether [333b] a parajika or any offense down to a vinaya-transgression, then, Ananda, the Sangha should be convened without delay. Once the Sangha has assembled, it must act in accordance with the sutras, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teachings, and grant this bhikkhu the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure according to the facts, thereby settling the dispute. Thus, Ananda, after a dispute has been settled through the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Blessed One’s teachings, if a visiting bhikkhu or anyone else causes the dispute to arise again, he commits a payattika offense. This is called settling a dispute through the Self-Admission Vinaya procedure.

5. The Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya Procedure:

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, the elder Silīyavabba frequently committed sanghavasesa offenses. The Sangha therefore assembled intending to perform a karma procedure, but Silīyavabba did not come. The Sangha then sent a messenger to summon him. The messenger went and said: “Elder, the Sangha has assembled and intends to perform a karma procedure.”

Silīyavabba thought: “They must be performing this karma procedure because of me.” Fear arose in his mind, and he had no choice but to go.

The bhikkhus asked: “Elder, did you commit a sanghavasesa offense?”

He replied: “I did.”

His mind then became joyful, and he thought: “When my fellow practitioners of the holy life charge me with an offense, I can confess and repent; it is not something that cannot be remedied.” Having thought thus, he addressed the Sangha: “Please allow me to go outside for a moment.”

The bhikkhus then discussed the matter among themselves: “This bhikkhu is rash and irresolute. After going outside, he will surely lie when he returns. We must question him three times to establish the matter with certainty before performing the karma procedure.”

After Silīyavabba went outside, he thought: “Why did I admit this offense? The bhikkhus are always disciplining me. Now I should not admit the offense.”

The bhikkhus then summoned Silīyavabba back inside. After he entered, they asked him: “Is it true that you committed a sanghavasesa offense?”

He replied: “I did not commit it.”

The bhikkhus asked: “Why did you admit the offense just now in the midst of the Sangha, but now say that you did not commit it?”

Silīyavabba said: “I do not remember that matter.”

The bhikkhus then went and reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha ordered that Silīyavabba be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him closely about the matter: “Did you truly do this?”

He replied: “It is indeed true.”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “In the midst of the Sangha, this Silīyavabba saw an offense yet said that he did not see it, and then declared: ‘I do not remember.’ The Sangha must therefore grant him the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure to settle this matter. The person performing the karma procedure should speak as follows:

“‘May the venerable Sangha listen! In the midst of the Sangha, the bhikkhu Silīyavabba says that he did not see an offense when he saw it, and says that he saw one when he did not see it; he then himself declares: “I do not remember.” If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha should grant the bhikkhu Silīyavabba the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure to settle this matter. This is the motion.

“‘[333c] May the venerable Sangha listen! In the midst of the Sangha, the bhikkhu Silīyavabba says that he did not see an offense when he saw it, and says that he saw one when he did not see it; he then himself declares: “I do not remember.” The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu Silīyavabba the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure to settle this matter. Let those venerable ones who consent to granting the bhikkhu Silīyavabba the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure to settle this matter remain silent; let anyone who does not consent speak. This is the first proclamation of the karma procedure.’ The second and third proclamations are to be spoken in the same way.

“‘The Sangha has consented to grant the bhikkhu Silīyavabba the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure to settle this matter, because the Sangha remains silent. Thus shall this matter be carried out.’”

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “Once the Sangha has performed the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya karma procedure for that bhikkhu, he must observe eight rules for the rest of his life. What are the eight? They are: 1.

He may not ordain anyone as a renunciant; 2. He may not confer full ordination upon anyone; 3. He may not accept anyone as a dependent pupil; 4.

He may not accept an invitation offered to the Sangha according to seniority; 5. He may not serve as a messenger for the Sangha; 6. He may not serve as a Dharma preacher for the Sangha; 7.

He may not recite the precepts for the Sangha; 8. He may not perform the uposatha karma procedure for the Sangha. Once the Sangha has performed this karma procedure, that bhikkhu may not relinquish it for the rest of his life.

These are called the eight rules.”

At that time, the Venerable Ananda went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and said to him: “Blessed One! The Vinaya speaks of the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure. What, then, is called the Finding-the-Characteristic-of-the-Offense Vinaya procedure?”

The Buddha said to Ananda: "If any bhikkhu, in the midst of the Sangha, has seen an offense but says that he has not seen it, or has not seen it but says that he has seen it, and then says, 'I do not remember,' displaying a contemptuous attitude, the Sangha must be convened at once. After the Sangha has assembled, it should, in accordance with the sutras and the Vinaya and according to the truth of that bhikkhu's case, impose upon him the Vinaya procedure of Mích-tội-tướng to settle the matter.

When the proceeding has been completed, the Sangha should say to that bhikkhu: 'Venerable sir, you have gained no benefit! Why, in the midst of the Sangha, did you say that you had not seen an offense when you had seen it, or say that you had seen it when you had not, and then declare, "I do not remember"? Because you spoke those words in the midst of the Sangha, the Sangha has imposed upon you the Mích-tội-tướng karman.' Thus, Ananda, it is in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Blessed One's teaching that the Vinaya procedure of Mích-tội-tướng is imposed to settle the dispute.

Thereafter, if a visiting bhikkhu or anyone else causes the dispute to arise again, he commits a Payattika offense. This is called using the Vinaya procedure of Mích-tội-tướng to settle a dispute concerning an offense."

A dispute concerning statements must be settled by three Vinaya procedures; the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties has already been explained.

6—The Vinaya Procedure of Ða-mích for Settling a Dispute Concerning Statements

When the Buddha was residing at Kosambi, in the city of Sravasti, there were two communities, each of which had a teacher as its leader. The leader of the first community was named Thanh Luận, and the leader of the second community was named Thiện Thích. Thanh Luận had an attendant disciple named Bạc Khẩu.

Thiện Thích had an attendant disciple named Ðiếm Bạch. The first leader [334a] had a dependent disciple named Ðầu Ðầu Già. The second leader had a dependent disciple named Trá Già.

The first had an upasaka disciple named Ðầu-ma. The second had an upasaka disciple named Vô Yên. The first had as his donor Ưu-đà-già.

The second had as his donor the householder Cừ Sư La. The first had an upasika disciple, Lady Xá-di. The second had an upasika disciple, Ma-kiền-đề-nữ, whose name was A-nậu-ba-ma.

The first had a lay disciple in the inner palace named Tần-đầu-ma-ra. The second had a lay disciple in the inner palace named Ba-đà-ma-ra. Each had five hundred bhikkhus, five hundred bhikkhunis, five hundred upasakas, and five hundred upasikas.

After the first leader had finished relieving himself and was about to pour water, he saw living creatures in the water, so he placed a blade of grass on the water jar as a sign. Later, the dependent disciple of the second leader entered the latrine, saw the grass on the water jar, and said: "What shameless person put grass on the water jar!"

When the attendant disciple of the first leader heard these words, he said to that person: "How dare you publicly malign my preceptor by calling him shameless?"

Because of this incident, the fourfold assemblies of disciples belonging to the two communities became embroiled in a fierce dispute. At that time, the sound of their quarrel was heard throughout the city of Kosambi; both inside and outside the city, it resounded so tumultuously that it was like the king of the golden-winged birds entering the sea to seize a dragon, causing the waters to surge in rolling waves. The noisy dispute arose solely over whether it was grass or was not grass.

Because the bhikkhus contended with one another, they dwelt together in the same residence without harmony. They spoke of what was in accordance with the Dharma and what was contrary to the Dharma; what was in accordance with the Vinaya and what was contrary to the Vinaya; grave offenses and minor offenses; offenses that could be remedied and offenses that could not be remedied; karmans in accordance with the Dharma and karmans contrary to the Dharma; karmans performed in harmony and karmans performed without harmony; what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, and so forth.

At that time, a bhikkhu at the residence said: "Venerable ones, this is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It does not accord with the sutras, does not accord with the Vinaya, and does not accord with the treatises; it contradicts the sutras, Vinaya, and treatises and gives rise only to defilements and afflictions. What I understand is in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha's teaching; it accords with the sutras, Vinaya, and treatises and will not give rise to defilements or afflictions." He continued: "Venerable ones, I am unable to settle this dispute.

I shall go to the city of Sravasti, approach the Blessed One, and ask how this dispute should be settled." He then went to the Buddha, bowed his head in homage at the Buddha's feet, stood to one side, and said to the Buddha: "Blessed One! The bhikkhus at Kosambi are contending and quarreling with one another; though dwelling together in the same residence, they are not in harmony, ... (and so forth, up to) I was unable to settle the dispute, and therefore I have come to report to the Blessed One concerning its settlement.

May the [334b] Blessed One settle this dispute for the bhikkhus."

The Buddha then said to Upali: "Go to the bhikkhus at Kosambi and, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha's teaching, apply the Vinaya procedure of Mích-tội to settle their dispute, in the same manner as the Sakyans and the Licchavis resolved their affair. If the matter cannot be resolved swiftly, the Vinaya procedure of Ða-mích must also be applied to settle it. Upali, a dispute arises from three sources: one person, many persons, or the Sangha.

Therefore, it must also be relinquished in three places, taken up in three places, and settled in three places. Upali, go to the bhikkhus at Kosambi and, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, settle their dispute according to the principle of the Vinaya procedure of Ða-mích, just as was clearly explained above in the case of the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties, (and so forth, up to) if that bhikkhu's mind is gentle and compliant, the Sangha should decide by majority vote.

If a bhikkhu possesses five qualities, the Sangha should perform a karman appointing him as the adjudicator. What are the five qualities? They are:

1—He is not biased; 2—He is not angry; 3—He is not afraid; 4—He is not deluded; 5—He knows who has drawn a voting stick and who has not yet drawn one.

The one performing the karman should speak as follows:

"May the Venerable Sangha listen! Bhikkhu so-and-so possesses the five qualities and is able to distribute voting sticks on behalf of the Sangha. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha appoint Bhikkhu so-and-so as the distributor of voting sticks. This is the motion.

May the Venerable Sangha listen! Bhikkhu so-and-so possesses the five qualities. The Sangha now appoints Bhikkhu so-and-so as the distributor of voting sticks. Let those venerable ones who approve the appointment of Bhikkhu so-and-so as the distributor of voting sticks remain silent; whoever does not approve should speak.

The Sangha has approved the appointment of Bhikkhu so-and-so as the distributor of voting sticks. Because the Sangha approves, it remains silent. Thus is this matter to be carried out."

After the karman has been completed, this bhikkhu must prepare two kinds of voting sticks: one kind black and one kind white. He must not announce: "Those who uphold what is contrary to the Dharma should take a black stick; those who uphold what is in accordance with the Dharma should take a white stick." Instead, he should announce: "Those who say this should take a black stick; those who say that should take a white stick."

When distributing the voting sticks, the distributor must concentrate his mind upon the five qualities mentioned above before distributing them. He should not befriend those who do not act in accordance with the Dharma but should befriend those who act in accordance with the Dharma. After distributing and counting the voting sticks, if he sees that the faction contrary to the Dharma has a majority of even a single stick, he should not announce: "Those contrary to the Dharma are many; those in accordance with the Dharma are few." Instead, he should devise a means to dismiss the assembly.

If the time for the morning meal has arrived, he should announce: "It is time for the morning meal." If the time for the later meal has arrived, he should announce: "It is time for the later meal." If the time for bathing has arrived, he should announce: "It is time to bathe." If the time for teaching the Dharma has arrived, he should announce: "The time for teaching the Dharma has arrived." If the time for reciting the Vinaya has arrived, he should announce: "The time for reciting the Vinaya has arrived."

If the faction upholding what is contrary to the Dharma learns of the situation and says, “We have prevailed, so why should we disperse? We shall not rise now; this matter must be settled decisively right here where we are seated,” then, if there is a small insect-free building beside the monastery, a lay attendant should be instructed to set it on fire, and someone should cry out, “Fire! Fire!” They will then rise and run to extinguish the fire.

Or, if it is known that there are bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma at a nearby residence, someone should go and appeal to them: “The voting tokens have just been distributed, but those who uphold what is contrary to the Dharma are many, while those who uphold the Dharma are few. Venerable Ones, for the sake of the Buddha-Dharma, please come there so that those who take the tokens in accordance with the Dharma will be the majority, thereby enabling the Buddha-Dharma to flourish.

The Venerable Ones themselves will also gain benefit and merit.”

If those persons hear this request but do not come, they commit a Vinaya-transgression. If, however, they come, the voting tokens must be distributed again. After the tokens have been distributed and counted, if the white tokens exceed the others by one, it should not be announced, “They exceed the others by one.” Instead, it should be announced, “Those who hold this view are many; those who hold the other view are few.” Having made this announcement, the decision of the majority should be followed.

If the following five conditions are present, the distribution of voting tokens is contrary to the Dharma. What are the five? They are:

1. Those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are few, while those who speak contrary to the Dharma are many; 2. Those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are not united, while those who speak contrary to the Dharma are united; 3. What is contrary to the Dharma is declared to be in accordance with the Dharma, and what is in accordance with the Dharma is declared to be contrary to the Dharma; 4. This distribution of voting tokens causes a schism in the Sangha; 5. The Sangha becomes divided.

These are called the five conditions contrary to the proper procedure. The opposites of these five conditions constitute a distribution of voting tokens in accordance with the Dharma.

At that time, Venerable A-nan went to the Buddha, bowed his head in homage at the Buddha’s feet, and said: “Blessed One, in the Vinaya, disputes are settled by means of the Da-mich Vinaya. What is meant by settling disputes by means of the Da-mich Vinaya?”

The Buddha said to A-nan: “If bhikkhus, concerning the sutras, the Vinaya, and the rules of conduct, say, ‘This is an offense; this is not an offense. This is a light offense; this is a grave offense. This is an offense subject to disciplinary action; this is an offense not subject to disciplinary action.

This is an offense with a remainder; this is an offense without a remainder,’ and consequently quarrel among themselves, the Sangha must immediately be assembled, and the matter must at once be settled in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, the Buddha’s teachings, and the truth of the matter. If they cannot settle it, but hear that at some residence there is an elder bhikkhu who recites the sutras, the Vinaya, and the treatises, or a young bhikkhu who recites the sutras, the Vinaya, and the treatises, they must quickly go there to seek counsel, or invite that bhikkhu to come.

Then, following that bhikkhu’s instructions, they should confer the Da-mich Vinaya procedure to settle the dispute. A-nan, if, after the matter has been settled, a visiting bhikkhu ..., up to and including a newly ordained bhikkhu, reopens the dispute, he commits a Payattika offense. This is called settling a dispute over assertions by means of the Da-mich Vinaya.

7. Settling a dispute over assertions by means of the Like Spreading Grass on the Ground Vinaya:

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Sravasti, the bhikkhus at Kausambi were quarreling and, though living together at one residence, were not in harmony. They argued about what was Dharma and what was contrary to the Dharma, what was Vinaya and what was contrary to the Vinaya ... until Venerable Upa-li said to that bhikkhu, the messenger: “Venerable Sir, when I go there, I shall perform the karma procedures [335a] to discipline and expel you. When that happens, do not be distressed.”

The messenger bhikkhu then said, “I wish to step outside for a moment.” After going outside, he thought: “If I return with Venerable Upa-li, he may discipline us. It would be better for me to return alone to Kausambi now, so that we may settle the dispute among ourselves.” Having thought thus, he returned to Kausambi, but in the end he was still unable to settle the dispute. He therefore said to the elder at the residence: “Venerable Sir, I myself cannot settle this dispute. I must now return to the city of Sravasti to seek assistance in settling it.” Having said this, he went to the city of Sravasti, approached Venerable Upa-li, and said: “It would be good, Venerable Sir, if you would settle the dispute among the bhikkhus at Kausambi.”

Upa-li then said to that bhikkhu: “As I told you before, I shall perform the karma procedures appropriate to the circumstances there in order to discipline you. When that happens, do not be distressed. I shall go with you.”

That bhikkhu replied, “I no longer dare disobey your instruction.”

Upa-li said, “Return there and settle it; do not disturb the Sangha here.”

The messenger bhikkhu from Kausambi then went to the Buddha, bowed his head in homage at the Buddha’s feet, and said: “Blessed One, the bhikkhus at Kausambi live together at one residence but are not in harmony; they quarrel among themselves. I beseech the Blessed One to settle this dispute.”

The Buddha then said to that bhikkhu from Kausambi: “You should not contend and quarrel with one another, living together at one residence without harmony. Why is this? In the distant past, there was a city named Kapila, whose king was named Brahmadatta, and so forth, as related in detail in the Jataka Sutra of King Dirghayu.

Though their kingdom was lost and their family destroyed, Prince Dirghajivita did not avenge his father. Instead, he reconciled with his enemy and gave rise to no malicious thought. Why, then, do you, who have faith and have gone forth in the true Dharma, still become angry and quarrel, living together at one residence in discord?” The Buddha then told Upa-li: “Go to the bhikkhus at Kausambi and, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teachings, confer upon them the Like Spreading Grass on the Ground Vinaya procedure to settle this dispute.

Upa-li, a dispute arises from three grounds, is taken up on three grounds, is relinquished on three grounds, and is settled on three grounds. If the dispute is of a minor nature, it may be settled together with the upasakas. If, however, the dispute is serious, the upasakas should be advised to leave the boundary of the assembly.

Then, in accordance with the truth concerning those bhikkhus and on the basis of the Dharma and the Vinaya, the Like Spreading Grass on the Ground Vinaya procedure should be performed to settle it.”

The Buddha further said to Upa-li: “If a junior has committed a fault, he should approach the elder, bow his head in homage at the elder’s feet, and say: ‘Venerable Sir, I acted contrary to the Dharma, offended the Venerable One, and was at fault. I now confess and repent, and I dare not do so again.’ The elder should then stroke his head with his hand, extend a hand to help him rise, embrace him, and say: ‘Long-lived one, I too was at fault. Please forgive me.’

[335b] Conversely, if the elder has committed a fault, he should approach the junior, take him by the hand, and say: ‘I acted contrary to the Dharma and was at fault. I now confess and repent before you, and I shall not act in that way again.’ The junior should then rise, bow in homage at the elder’s feet, and likewise confess and repent as described above.

At that time, Venerable A-nan went to the Buddha, bowed his head in homage at the Buddha’s feet, and said: “Blessed One, the Vinaya speaks of the Spreading Grass Vinaya. What is the Spreading Grass Vinaya?”

The Buddha said to Ananda: “If a dispute arises among the bhikkhus, causing those dwelling in the same residence to live in discord, and the two groups refuse to yield to one another, harbor ill will, and quarrel, each side speaking words not in accord with the Buddha-Dharma, then, Ananda, the Sangha must immediately be assembled and proceed in accordance with the Dharma and Vinaya. A virtuous member of one group, who knows the matter, clearly understands its causes and conditions, is eloquent, comprehends the Dharma, and is not timid, should praise the merit of restoring harmony within the Sangha. He should then rise from his seat, bare his right shoulder, kneel, join his palms, face the second group, and say:

‘Venerable Ones, why is it that we, having faith, having gone forth, and living together under one true Dharma, quarrel with one another, causing those who dwell together to live in discord? The two groups will not yield to one another; everyone harbors ill will, exchanges contentious words, and acts contrary to the Dharma, so that this unfortunate affair has arisen. All this has come about through unwise reflection, causing us to live miserably in this present life and to fall into an evil destiny in the next. Venerable Ones, each of us should set aside this dispute, as though covering the ground with grass. I now confess before the elders. Let everyone relinquish anger, restore harmony, and dwell together.’

Ananda, if everyone in the second group remains silent, thereby expressing consent, then a virtuous, intelligent, and eloquent member of that group should immediately rise and make a confession. The manner of confession is as stated above. Ananda, if such a dispute arises within the Sangha, the Sangha must immediately be assembled and, in accordance with the Dharma and Vinaya, settle the dispute by the procedure of covering it over as with grass.

Ananda, all disputes involving such things as fighting, slapping one another, dragging someone out of a room, and similar acts, or divisive speech, baseless accusations, and so forth—all such offenses should be settled by the principle of covering the ground with grass. After they have been settled by the procedure of covering the ground with grass, if a visiting bhikkhu, or even a newly ordained bhikkhu, causes them to arise again, he commits a Payattika offense.

In summary, all acts of the Sangha are to be performed in accordance with the Dharma: assembling in accordance with the Dharma, resolving matters in accordance with the Dharma, relinquishing matters in accordance with the Dharma, and making grants in accordance with the Dharma. In general, the bhikkhu disciples of the Blessed One have immeasurable skillful means for conducting their affairs, and they should apply the seven methods for settling disputes to bring every contention to an end. These are called the regular duties. Therefore, it is said as above.

5. PRECEPT: TEACHING THE DHARMA TO WOMEN BEYOND THE PERMITTED LIMIT.

While the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related fully above, at the time for almsround the Venerable Udayin donned his robe, took his bowl, and entered the city to collect alms from house to house. Upon reaching a certain household, [335c] he taught the Dharma to many women. At that time, the Venerable Ananda was likewise going from house to house on almsround. When he arrived at that household and saw this, he asked, “Elder, what are you doing?”

Udayin replied, “I am teaching the Dharma to these women.”

The Venerable Ananda then said to Udayin, “How can you, who bear the designation of a bhikkhu, teach the Dharma alone to women when no knowledgeable man is present?”

After Ananda had returned from almsround and finished his meal, he went to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that Udayin be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha asked, “Did you indeed do this?”

He replied, “It is true, Blessed One.”

The Buddha rebuked him: “This is an improper deed. Why did you teach the Dharma to women when no knowledgeable man was present? From now on, I do not permit a bhikkhu to teach the Dharma to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

On another occasion, while the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related fully above, at the time for almsround the Venerable Udayin donned his robe, took his bowl, and entered the city to collect alms from house to house. Upon reaching a certain household, he taught the Dharma to many women. At that time, the Venerable Ananda was likewise going from house to house on almsround. When he arrived at that very household and saw this, he asked:

—Elder, what are you doing?

—Teaching the Dharma to the women.

—Elder, have you not heard the Blessed One say that one may not teach the Dharma to women when no man is present?

—Ananda, do you not see this stone man, this wooden man, this grass man, and this painted man? Even one man is sufficient, much more so when there are many.

After the Venerable Ananda had returned from almsround and finished his meal, he reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that Udayin be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha asked, “Is this indeed true?”

He replied, “It is indeed true.”

The Buddha said, “Udayin, why did you regard yourself as a man without defilement, pure in mind, and teach the Dharma to women? From now on, I do not permit a bhikkhu to regard himself as a man without defilement, pure in mind, and teach the Dharma to women.”

On another occasion, while the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related fully above, at the time for almsround Udayin donned his robe, took his bowl, and entered the city of Sravasti… up to the point where he replied to the Venerable Ananda: “Do you not see that child being carried in someone’s arms, that nursing infant, and that child lying down? Even one person is sufficient, much more so when there are many.”

After the Venerable Ananda had returned from almsround and finished his meal, he reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that Udayin be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha asked, “Did you indeed do this?”

He replied, “It is indeed true.”

The Buddha said, “Udayin, why did you compare your own purity to that of a little child and teach the Dharma to women? From now on, bhikkhus may not regard themselves as nursing infants and teach the Dharma to women.”

[336a] On another occasion, while the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, as related fully above, Visakha, Migara’s Mother, fell ill. Therefore, early in the morning the Venerable Ananda donned his robe and went to visit her. He asked, “Laywoman, how is your illness? Is your suffering severe?”

She replied, “The illness has not abated and is unbearable. Venerable One, please teach me the Dharma.”

Ananda replied, “The Blessed One does not permit a bhikkhu to teach the Dharma to women when no suitable male attendant is present.”

—If you may not say much, could you speak perhaps five or six words to me?

—I do not know whether that is permitted, so I dare not speak on my own authority.

—Thank you, Venerable One.

—May your illness swiftly come to an end.

Having spoken, the Venerable Ananda took his leave, returned to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and stood respectfully to one side. Although the Buddha knew, he nevertheless asked, “Ananda, from where have you returned?”

Ananda then reported the entire matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said to Ananda, “Visakha, Migara’s Mother, is a wise person. If you had spoken five or six words to her, her illness would immediately have abated and she would have dwelt at ease. From now on, I permit a bhikkhu, when no man is present, to teach a woman five or six words of Dharma.”

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

—“If a bhikkhu, when no suitable male attendant is present, teaches a woman more than five or six words of Dharma, he commits a Payattika offense, except when a knowledgeable man is present.”

Explanation:

– No discerning man is present: If that person is blind or deaf, it is likewise regarded as though no suitable layman were present. If two persons are present, one blind and the other deaf, they are regarded together as one suitable layman. But if a suitable layman is lying asleep, it is likewise regarded as though no man were present.

– Women: Such persons may be mothers or sisters, older or younger, laywomen or renunciants.

– Dharma: That which the Buddha spoke or that which the Buddha confirmed. “That which the Buddha spoke” means that which the Buddha himself uttered. “That which the Buddha confirmed” means teachings spoken by the Buddha’s disciples or by others and subsequently approved by the Buddha.

– Speaking: Instructing, reciting, or explaining.

– Five or six phrases: These comprise two kinds of sentences, long and short. A long sentence is such as, “Refrain from all evil deeds.” A short sentence is such as, “The eye is impermanent.”

– Except when a discerning man is present: If a child under seven years of age cannot understand the meaning of wholesome and unwholesome speech, he cannot be called a discerning man. Even if he is over seven years old, if he cannot understand the meaning of wholesome and unwholesome speech, he is still called an ignorant man. Conversely, if he is seven years old or older and understands the meaning of wholesome and unwholesome speech, he is called a discerning man.

Furthermore, suppose a woman comes early in the morning to pay homage at a stupa and then goes to bow before a bhikkhu, [336b] saying, “Venerable sir, I wish to hear the Dharma. Please teach the Dharma to me.” At that time, the bhikkhu may speak one and a half verses. Later, if that bhikkhu enters the village and again speaks five or six phrases to that woman, he commits a Pacittiya offense. The reason the Blessed One established the rule concerning five or six phrases was to set the number of phrases that may be spoken in a single day.

If a bhikkhu dwelling in an aranya is approached by a woman who has come to pay homage at a stupa and then bows before him, saying, “Venerable sir, please teach the Dharma to me,” the bhikkhu should say to her, “The Blessed One has established a rule that, when no suitable layman is present, the Dharma may not be taught to a woman.” If the woman then says to the bhikkhu, “I know the Buddha-Dharma; please teach me within the limit permitted by the Blessed One,” the bhikkhu may then speak one and a half verses to her. If there are two women, he may speak three verses, without offense.

If a bhikkhu enters a village to teach and convert people, and many women come wishing to hear the Dharma, he may speak six phrases to each one. First, he should say to the first woman, “I shall speak six phrases to you,” and then say to the second woman, “I shall speak six phrases to you.” In this way, even if he speaks to many people, there is no offense. Then, when the bhikkhu takes his leave, the women bow at his feet to bid him farewell. If at that time the bhikkhu gives this benediction, “May you swiftly bring suffering to an end,” he commits a Pacittiya offense. But if he says, “May you be free from illness and dwell in well-being,” there is no offense.

The bhikkhu leaves that house and immediately goes to another house to teach the Dharma. The former woman follows him and stands outside listening. Seeing her, the bhikkhu asks, “Have you followed me to listen as well?” She replies, “Yes.” If the bhikkhu says, “Since you have such profound faith and delight in the Dharma, you may listen,” he commits a Pacittiya offense. Conversely, if he sees that woman but does not question her and simply teaches the Dharma to the other women, then even if she listens to the Dharma, the bhikkhu commits no offense.

If a bhikkhu teaches the Dharma to women when no suitable layman is seated in the room listening to the Dharma, but a servant is passing back and forth, entering and leaving, or someone outside, upstairs, or downstairs is within mutual hearing, there is no offense.

If a layperson’s house faces a road and a bhikkhu inside teaches the Dharma to women, then even though no suitable layman is present, if travelers on the road pass by continuously and can all hear him, there is no offense. Conversely, if the stream of travelers is interrupted and they cannot hear him, he should not teach.

If a woman comes to pay homage at a stupa and then approaches a bhikkhu and says, “Venerable sir, what stupa is this? Please tell me the name of this place,” the bhikkhu is permitted to say, “That is the stupa at the place where the Buddha was born; the stupa at the place where the Buddha attained enlightenment; the stupa at the place where the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel; the stupa at the place where the Buddha entered nirvana.” Whatever she asks about, he is permitted to answer, without offense.

– There are four kinds of suitable laymen: One who sees but does not hear; one who hears but does not see; one who both sees and hears; and one who neither sees nor hears.

[336c] - One who sees but does not hear: His eyes see the bhikkhu and the woman, but he does not hear their speech. (The other three cases are to be understood in the same way.) In this case, the bhikkhu commits a Vinayatikrama offense. The case of hearing but not seeing is likewise. If he neither sees nor hears, the bhikkhu commits a Pacittiya offense. If he both sees and hears, there is no offense. Therefore, it is stated as above.

6. RULE: TEACHING ONE WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED FULL ORDINATION TO RECITE.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Khoang Da, as described in detail above, at that time a bhikkhu serving as an administrator was teaching many young boys to recite the Parayana (?) sentence by sentence. On hearing this, a brahmin thought, “What place possesses such supremely excellent and wholly wholesome Dharma! I should go there and request ordination.” Having thought thus, he went to the Khoang Da monastery intending to request ordination.

But when he saw the bhikkhu teaching the young boys to recite, sounding like schoolchildren reciting in their schools, he thought, “I have come seeking the supreme Dharma and wish to renounce the household life under them, yet the droning sounds of recitation I hear here resemble those of schoolchildren in their schools. Moreover, one cannot distinguish who is the teacher and who is the pupil.”

Seeing this, he lost his reverence and faith. Consequently, he did not go to see the Buddha but returned home and no longer sought ordination.

The bhikkhus then reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the administrator bhikkhu be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha asked, “Did you indeed do this?”

He replied, “It is true, Blessed One.”

The Buddha then rebuked him: “This is an improper deed. Why did you teach one who has not received full ordination to recite phrases of the Dharma? From now onward, I do not permit bhikkhus to teach those who have not received full ordination to recite phrases of the Dharma.” The Buddha then ordered all the bhikkhus dwelling in the city of Khoang Da to assemble and, for the sake of ten benefits, established this rule for the sons of Darvyamalla; even those who had already heard it were required to hear it again:

-- “If a bhikkhu teaches one who has not received full ordination to recite phrases of the Dharma, he commits a Pacittiya offense.”

Explanation:

– One who has not received full ordination: One who has not become a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni. Although a bhikkhuni has received full ordination, a bhikkhu is nevertheless not permitted to teach her in this manner.

– Phrase: Reciting together, phrase by phrase and word by word.

– Dharma: That which was spoken by the Buddha or confirmed by the Buddha. “That which was spoken by the Buddha” means that which the Buddha himself uttered. “That which was confirmed by the Buddha” means teachings spoken by shravaka disciples and others and subsequently approved by the Buddha, such as the wholesome dharmas up to and including nirvana. This is called Dharma.

– Teaching: Speaking for their sake and giving them verbal instruction.

If a bhikkhu teaches one who has not received full ordination to recite the sentence, “The eye is impermanent,” and they recite it once, repeat it once, and pause once, with teacher and pupil reciting together pleasantly, fluently, and without interruption, he commits a Pacittiya offense. The same applies with regard to the ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, the eighteen dhatus, the five skandhas, the six dhatus, and all teachings concerning suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self.

[337a] If a bhikshu teaches a disciple who accompanies him, and the disciple relies on such scriptures as the Pārāyana Sūtra, the Discourse on Difficult Questions, the Anavatapta Sūtra, the Pratyekabuddha Sūtra, and so forth, but the disciple recites together with him, repeats together with him, or interrupts him, then the teacher should tell the disciple: “Wait until I have finished reciting the sentence before you recite it.” If, after being instructed in this way, the disciple does not obey, he should no longer be taught.

If the disciple says, “I beseech the teacher to teach me another scripture,” the teacher should then say, “If you do not recite after me, I will not continue teaching you.” Such disciples should not be taught under these circumstances; the same applies even to upasakas and upasikas.

If bhikshus recite scriptures together, the senior should recite while the junior remains silent and follows attentively. If the senior cannot recite fluently, the junior should recite while the senior silently follows along with attentive concentration. The same applies even to an upasika.

When verses are chanted together within the Sangha, everyone must not recite the same verse together; rather, each person should then recite a different verse (?). Therefore, it is stated as above.

7. PRECEPT: TRUTHFULLY DECLARING THAT ONE HAS ATTAINED THE PATH

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, the circumstances were related in detail as above. The causes and circumstances of the events were the same as those explained in the fourth precept concerning false speech. The difference here is that the statement was true.

This continues up to the point where the Buddha said to the bhikshus: “This is an evil deed. It is like a courtesan who sells her beauty to sustain herself. You are the same: when you speak of the subtle and true Dharma to others, you are no different from a courtesan who sells her beauty to sustain her life for the sake of her mouth and belly.” The Buddha then ordered all the bhikshus dwelling in the city of Shravasti to assemble.

For the sake of ten benefits, he established this precept for the bhikshus; whoever has heard it must hear it again:

— “If a bhikshu claims for himself a superhuman attainment, saying, ‘I know thus; I see thus,’ even if his statement is true, he commits a Payattika offense.”

Explanation:

– Claiming for oneself a superhuman attainment: A superhuman attainment is as previously explained. If one says of oneself, “Might I have attained knowledge of the Dharma?”, one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. If one says, “I have attained knowledge of the Dharma,” one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense. If one says, “I have realized knowledge of the Dharma,” one commits a Payattika offense. This applies to each and every statement, as explained above, even to truthfully claiming the ten qualities of one beyond training, in which case one commits a Payattika offense.

If a bhikshu says to a woman, “The bhikshus who spent the rains retreat at that place are none of them ordinary persons,” he commits a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. If she asks, “Did the Venerable also stay among them?”, and he replies, “I also stayed among them,” he commits a Việt-tì-ni offense. If the upasika asks, “Did the Venerable also attain that Dharma?”, and he replies, “I did,” then even if the statement is true, he commits a Payattika offense.

If a bhikshu says to an upasika, “The bhikshus who performed the invitation ceremony at that place were not ordinary persons; they were all arhats,” he commits a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. If the upasika asks, “[337b] Did the Venerable also perform the invitation ceremony there?”, and he replies, “Yes,” he commits a Việt-tì-ni offense. If she further asks, “Did the Venerable also attain the fruit of arhatship?”, and he replies, “I attained it,” then even if the statement is true, he commits a Payattika offense.

If a bhikshu says, “Bhikshu Thắng-lí, who resides at that place, often visits the king’s household, the households of great ministers, the households of guildmasters, the households of laypeople, your household, and the households of your relatives to teach the scriptures. That teacher walks, stands, lies down, and sits in such a manner, and eats such food (having attained the fruit of arhatship),” the same applies—that is, he commits a Payattika offense.

Whether one uses the speech of the central country when speaking to a person from the border regions, the speech of the border regions when speaking to a person from the central country, the speech of the central country when speaking to a person from the central country, or the speech of the border regions when speaking to a person from the border regions: if one expresses the literal meaning but not the implied meaning, one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense.

If one expresses the implied meaning but not the literal meaning, one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. If one expresses both the literal and implied meanings, one commits a Payattika offense. If one expresses neither the literal nor the implied meaning, there is no offense.

If one writes characters or makes signs with one’s hand and conveys the literal meaning but not the implied meaning, one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense. If one conveys the implied meaning but not the literal meaning, one commits a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. If one conveys both the literal and implied meanings, one commits a Thâu-lan-giá offense.

If one conveys neither the literal nor the implied meaning, there is no offense. Finally, even displaying the characteristics of an arhat constitutes a Việt-tì-ni offense requiring confession by mental acknowledgment. Therefore, it is stated as above.

THE MAHASANGHIKA VINAYA

End of the thirteenth fascicle.