摩訶僧祇律

A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE SECOND MISCELLANEOUS RECITATION CHAPTER.

25/ Government Officials.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the Kalandaka Bamboo Grove at Rajagriha, as related above in detail, a bhikkhu admitted a government official into the monastic life and conferred full ordination upon him. When a judicial officer saw this, he arrested the bhikkhu and brought him before the magistrate, saying: “This ascetic secretly admitted a government official into the monastic life.”

The magistrate said: “Take the preceptor out and break three of his ribs; [420a] bring forth the ordination teacher and pull out his tongue; drag out the ten masters and give each of them eight lashes. As for the man who received full ordination, punish him with torture.”

While the crowd was escorting the offenders out of the city, King Bimbisara happened to be on his way to visit the Blessed One. Seeing the crowd, the king asked his attendants: “Who are those people?”

The attendants then reported the entire matter to the king. Upon hearing it, the king became exceedingly angry and ordered that they be released, saying: “From now on, if anyone wishes to enter the monastic life, the teachers are permitted to admit him.”

The king then ordered the magistrate to be summoned. When he arrived, the king asked:

– Who is king of this realm?

– Your Majesty is the king.

– If I am the king, why did you punish these men without reporting the matter to me?

The king then ordered the competent officials to dismiss the magistrate from office and confiscate all his property for the royal treasury. The officials carried out the king’s command, stripped him of his office, and confiscated all his property for the royal treasury.

The bhikkhus then went and reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to the bhikkhus:

—“Would that all kings possessed such faith! From now on, I do not permit government officials to be admitted into the monastic life. There are four kinds of government officials: 1/ One who has a title but no stipend; 2/ One who has a stipend but no title; 3/ One who has both a stipend and a title; 4/ One who has neither a title nor a stipend.

Among these, one who has a title but no stipend, and one who has both a title and a stipend, must not be admitted into the monastic life either in this country or in other countries. One who has a stipend but no title must not be admitted here, but may be admitted elsewhere. One who has neither a title nor a stipend may be admitted both here and elsewhere.

In brief, government officials should not be admitted into the monastic life; (and so forth...) to do so incurs an offense of Vinaya-transgression.” This is called the case of government officials.

26/ Debtors.

When the Buddha was dwelling at Shravasti, as related above in detail, a bhikkhu admitted a debtor into the monastic life. When the creditor found him, he seized him by the collar and brought him before the magistrate, saying: “This man entered the monastic life without repaying his debt to me.”

The magistrate, who had faith in the Buddhadharma, said to the creditor: “This man has renounced his possessions and entered the monastic life. How, then, can he still be in debt?” He then released him.

The creditor complained: “This man owed me a debt and had not yet repaid it. Why did the Shakyan ascetics allow him to enter the monastic life? These are corrupt men—what spiritual conduct could they possibly possess?”

The bhikkhus then went and reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the bhikkhu be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha asked:

– Is it true that you did this?

– It is true, Blessed One.

—“From now on, debtors should not be admitted into the monastic life. If someone comes intending to request admission into the monastic life, he must first be asked: ‘Do you owe anyone a debt?’ If he says: ‘I do owe a debt, but my household has a wife and children, fields, and property; they will repay it,’ he may be admitted into the monastic life. If he says: ‘I owe no debt,’ he may be admitted into the monastic life. [420b] If, after his admission into the monastic life, a creditor comes to demand repayment, then if the debt is small, his robes and bowl should be used to repay the creditor.

If that is insufficient, one’s own robes and bowl must be used for repayment, or additional alms should be sought to help repay it. If the debt is so large that it cannot be repaid, he should be told: ‘Previously, when I asked whether you owed any debt, you said that you did not. You must now go and seek money yourself to repay your creditor.’ In brief, a debtor should not be admitted into the monastic life.

If he has already entered the monastic life, he should not be expelled. To do so... incurs an offense of Vinaya-transgression. This is called the case of a debtor.”

27/ The Sick.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the Kalandaka Bamboo Grove at Shravasti, as related above in detail, a sick man went to the physician Jivaka and said:

– Jivaka, if you cure my illness, I will give you five hundred pieces of gold and two lengths of fine silk.

– I cannot treat you. I treat only two classes of patients: first, the Buddha and the Bhikkhu Sangha; second, the king and the ladies of his inner palace.

The sick man then went to the quarters of Nanda and Upananda. When he arrived, Nanda asked:

– Elder, are your four great elements in harmony?

– I am ill; they are not in harmony. I went to Jivaka and offered him five hundred pieces of gold and two lengths of fine silk to treat my illness, but he refused. He said: “I treat only two classes of patients: the Buddha and the Bhikkhu Sangha, and the king and the ladies of his inner palace.”

– Why waste five hundred pieces of gold and two lengths of fine silk? You need only relinquish two things: first, your hair; second, your lay clothing.

– Venerable sir, do you want me to enter the monastic life?

– Of course.

Nanda then admitted the man into the monastic life and conferred full ordination upon him. Early the next morning, Nanda put on his customary robe and went to Jivaka’s house, saying:

– Young master, I have a fellow disciple who is ill. Please treat him for me.

– Very well. I will bring the medicine there.

Jivaka brought medicine to the monastery. When he saw the sick man, he recognized him at once and asked:

– Venerable sir, have you entered the monastic life?

– Yes.

– Excellent. I shall now treat your illness.

Jivaka then treated him with medicine. After curing him, he also offered him two lengths of fine silk and expressed this aspiration: “May the venerable one remain within the Buddhadharma and cultivate the holy life in purity.”

After receiving the offering, the man immediately abandoned the path, took off his kasaya robe, put on the two lengths of fine silk, and went into an alley, where he uttered this veiled insult: “The physician Jivaka has very many sons. I offered him five hundred pieces of gold and two lengths of fine silk to treat my illness, but he refused. Yet as soon as he saw that I had entered the monastic life, he treated me and even gave me an offering besides.”

When Jivaka heard this, he became deeply resentful. He went to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, stood to one side, and said: “Blessed One, that sick man survived because of me, yet in return he reviled me. Blessed One, I am an upasaka who wishes the Buddhadharma to flourish. I earnestly beseech the Blessed One, from now on, not to allow the bhikkhus [420c] to admit sick people into the monastic life.”

The Blessed One then taught the Dharma to the young master Jivaka according to his needs, instructing him in what was beneficial and causing him to rejoice. Jivaka bowed at the Buddha’s feet and departed. The Blessed One then went to where a large assembly of bhikkhus was gathered, spread out his sitting cloth, sat down, and recounted the entire matter above to the bhikkhus. The Buddha then said:

--“From now on, those who are ill should not be admitted into the monastic life. ‘Ill’ means suffering from scabies, sores and ulcers, leprosy, tumors, hemorrhoids, urinary disorders, jaundice, malaria, asthma, emaciation, insanity, fever, wind-swelling, edema, abdominal distension, and so forth. In general, if one has taken medicine but has not yet recovered, one should not be admitted into the monastic life. If one has had no recurrence of malaria for a period of one to four days, one may be admitted into the monastic life.

In brief, an ill person should not be admitted into the monastic life. If such a person has already gone forth, he should not be expelled. Whoever admits such a person into the monastic life and confers full ordination upon him commits a Yue-pi-ni offense.” This is what is meant by illness.

28/ Adherents of Other Traditions.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, as related above in full, at that time a bhikshu admitted an adherent of another tradition into the monastic life. After going forth, whenever anyone spoke of the faults of adherents of other traditions, saying, “Adherents of other traditions have no faith, hold wrong views, violate the precepts, and possess neither shame nor moral dread,” then, on hearing such criticism of their faults, he would defend them, saying: “Venerable sir, do not speak so. Among them there are also virtuous and good people, and there are also those who observe the precepts. All of them attain the fruits of stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arhat.”

The bhikshus then brought this matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha instructed them to summon that bhikshu. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him fully concerning the foregoing matter:

– Did you indeed do this?

– It is true, Blessed One.

-- Why did you admit an adherent of another tradition into the monastic life before he had undergone probation? From now on, an adherent of another tradition who has not undergone probation should not be admitted into the monastic life. If an adherent of another tradition comes seeking to go forth, he must be allowed to live together with the Sangha for four months on probation. The bhikshu who receives him must announce the matter to the Sangha. After the announcement has been made, the Sangha should first grant him, through a karman, permission to make his request, and only afterward allow him to petition. The officiant conducting the karman should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. The adherent of another tradition named so-and-so wishes to go forth in the teaching of the Tathagata. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha now permits the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so to request to live within the Sangha for four months on probation.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The adherent of another tradition named so-and-so wishes to request to live within the Sangha for four months on probation.

Since the Sangha has consented, it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

Then this person must make the following request before the Sangha:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. I, the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so, wish to go forth and receive full ordination in the teaching of the Tathagata. I, named so-and-so, request the Sangha to allow me to live on probation for four months. I respectfully ask the venerable Sangha, out of compassion, to permit me to live here for four months. (He should make this request three times.)

Then the officiant conducting the karman should say:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. [421a] The adherent of another tradition named so-and-so wishes to go forth and receive full ordination in the teaching of the Tathagata and has requested four months of probation from the Sangha. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha now permits the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so to live on probation for four months. This is the formal motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The adherent of another tradition named so-and-so wishes to go forth and receive full ordination in the teaching of the Tathagata and has requested four months of probation from the Sangha. The Sangha now permits the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so to live on probation for four months. Any venerable who approves of the Sangha permitting the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so to live on probation for four months should remain silent; anyone who does not approve should speak.

The Sangha has completed its act of permitting the adherent of another tradition named so-and-so to live on probation for four months, for the Sangha has remained silent. Thus do I record this matter.

After the karman has been performed, if this person is able to carry out duties for the Sangha as a shramanera does, he should be placed after the shramaneras in the order for receiving food. If he is unable to perform duties, he should be told: “You must obtain your own food.” Then each day, in his presence, the adherents of other traditions should be criticized as follows: “Adherents of other traditions have no faith, hold wrong views, violate the precepts, do not know shame,” and so forth.

If, when such faults are criticized, he says: “Venerable sir, do not speak so. Among them there are also virtuous and good people, and there are also those who observe the precepts. All of them attain the fruits of stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arhat,” then he should be told: “Return there and seek arhatship.” If he says: “It is just as the venerable says.

Adherents of other traditions hold wrong views, (and so on through) do not know shame, and create karma leading to hell. Venerable sir, please save me,” and throughout the four months of probation his mind remains steadfast and does not change, then he should be admitted into the monastic life. If he attains the noble Dharma during that period, his probation should be ended.

If a person abandons the outward appearance of an adherent of another tradition, puts on the clothing of a layperson, and comes seeking to go forth, he should be admitted into the monastic life. If he comes wearing the garb of an adherent of another tradition and, without being given four months of probation, is immediately admitted into the monastic life and given full ordination, those responsible commit a Yue-pi-ni offense.

This is what is meant by an adherent of another tradition.

29/ Children.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the monastery of the Shakya clan beside the nyagrodha tree in the land of Kapilavastu, as related above in full, at that time the bhikshus admitted a young Shakya boy into the monastic life without his parents’ permission. Afterward, whenever the parents instructed their remaining children, the children became angry and said: “When the Blessed One was about to become a wheel-turning holy king, he still left home to go forth. What attachment remains for me that I should not go forth?”

The Shakyas then went to King Shuddhodana and said: “Your Majesty, although we did not give permission for our son, the bhikshus admitted him into the monastic life. Consequently, our remaining children can no longer be instructed. If we instruct them, they become resentful and say: ‘When the Blessed One was about to become a wheel-turning holy king, he still left home to go forth. What attachment remains for me that I should not go forth?’ We respectfully ask Your Majesty to go to the Blessed One and request this concession: ‘If the parents do not give permission, their child should not be admitted into the monastic life.’”

King Shuddhodana then went with the Shakyas to the Blessed One [421b], bowed his head in homage at his feet, and sat to one side. The king then said to the Buddha: “Blessed One, although the parents of certain young Shakya boys did not give permission, the bhikshus admitted them into the monastic life. Consequently, whenever their remaining children are instructed, they become resentful and demand to go forth, saying: ‘When the Blessed One was about to attain the station of a wheel-turning holy king, he still left home to go forth.

What attachment remains for me that I should not go forth?’ Blessed One, when parents think of their children, their loving concern penetrates to the very marrow of their bones. I myself once experienced this. During the seven years after the Blessed One went forth, whether sitting or standing, eating or drinking, there was never a moment when I did not weep inwardly.

I respectfully ask the Blessed One to establish this rule: If the parents have not given permission, the bhikshus should not admit their child into the monastic life.”

The Blessed One then taught the Dharma to King Shuddhodana in accordance with his disposition, causing the king to give rise to joy. The king then bowed his head in homage at the Blessed One’s feet and departed. Not long after the king had gone, the Blessed One went to where a large assembly of bhikshus had gathered, spread out his sitting cloth, sat down, and recounted the foregoing matter in full to the bhikshus. The Buddha then emphasized:

—“From now on, if a child’s parents do not give permission, that child should not be allowed to go forth. There are three kinds of children: biological children, adopted children, and children who come seeking adoption. A biological child is one born to the parents.

An adopted child is a young child whom the parents have taken in and raised. A child who comes seeking adoption is one who comes of their own accord, seeking refuge and asking to become a child of the family. In this matter, if the parents of a biological child do not give permission, the child may not be allowed to go forth in this country or in other countries.

As for adopted children and those who come seeking refuge and adoption, they may not be allowed to go forth in this country, but may be allowed to do so in other countries. In brief, if a child’s parents do not give permission, the child should not be allowed to go forth. If the child has already gone forth, they should not be expelled.

Whoever allows such a person to go forth and receive full ordination commits a Yue-bi-ni offense. This is called the case of a child.

30/ Servants.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the monastery of the Sakya clan beneath the Nyagrodha tree in Kapilavastu, as related above in detail, there was a servant of the Sakya clan whose master had not dismissed him, yet the bhikshus allowed him to go forth. Consequently, when the other servants were instructed by their masters and assigned their duties, they refused to obey and resentfully said, “Even the Venerable Chanda was able to go forth; what is there for me to remain attached to? It would be better to leave and go forth, for then people would bow to me, honor me, and make offerings to me.”

The Sakyas then went to King Suddhodana and reported, “Your Majesty, although we have not dismissed our household servants, the bhikshus allow them to go forth. Consequently, when the remaining servants are assigned their duties, they become resentful and say, ‘Even the Venerable Chanda was able to go forth; what is there for me to remain attached to? If I leave and go forth, people will bow to me, honor me, and make offerings to me.’ Your Majesty, we of the Sakya clan have many servants whom we employ to carry out various tasks.

We respectfully ask Your Majesty to go to the Buddha and make this request: servants whose masters have not dismissed them should not be allowed to go forth.” King Suddhodana then went with the Sakyas to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Blessed One’s feet, and sat to one side. He fully related the foregoing matter to the Blessed One and said, “Blessed One, I beseech you to establish the rule that, from now on, the bhikshus must not allow servants whose masters have not dismissed them to go forth.”

[421c] The Blessed One then gave King Suddhodana a discourse on the Dharma suited to him, inspiring him and filling him with joy. The king bowed his head at the Blessed One’s feet and departed. Not long after the king had left, the Blessed One went to where a large assembly of bhikshus was gathered, spread out his sitting cloth, and sat down. He fully recounted the foregoing matter to the bhikshus. The Buddha then said:

—“From now on, servants whose masters have not dismissed them should not be allowed to go forth. There are five kinds of servants: those born in the household; those purchased; those captured; those given by others; and those who come of their own accord.

1) Those born in the household: Those born to female servants or concubines in the household.

2) Those purchased: Those bought with money.

3) Those captured: Soldiers captured from a neighboring country.

4) Those given by others: Those brought and given by another person.

5) Those who come of their own accord: Those who come of their own accord and ask to become servants.

Among these, the three kinds of servants—those born in the household, those purchased, and those captured—may not be allowed to go forth here if their masters have not dismissed them, nor may they be allowed to do so elsewhere. As for the other two kinds—those given by others and those who come of their own accord to become servants—they may not be allowed to go forth here, but may be allowed to do so elsewhere. In brief, if the head of the household has not dismissed a servant, that servant should not be allowed to go forth. If the servant has already gone forth, they should not be expelled. Whoever allows such a person to go forth and receive full ordination commits a Yue-bi-ni offense. This is called the case of a servant.

31/ Bodily Deformity.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, as related above in detail, the bhikshus allowed persons whose bodily features were deformed to go forth. People of the world ridiculed them, saying, “Why do the Sakyaputra ascetics allow persons with bodily deformities to go forth? One who has gone forth ought to have a sound and complete body. These are ruined people; what spiritual conduct could they possibly possess?”

The bhikshus then went and reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the bhikshu concerned be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him fully concerning the foregoing matter:

“Did you truly do this?”

“It is true, Blessed One.”

“From now on, persons with bodily deformities should not be allowed to go forth. Bodily deformity means being cross-eyed, hunchbacked, lame, having misaligned heels, protruding teeth, or an abnormally large head. Persons with bodily deformities such as these should not be allowed to go forth. If they have already gone forth, they should not be expelled. Whoever allows them to go forth and receive full ordination commits a Yue-bi-ni offense. This is called bodily deformity.

32/ Unsightly Appearance.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, as related above in detail, receiving offerings from devas and human beings, the bhikshus allowed persons of unsightly appearance to go forth, such as those who were excessively dark, excessively pale, excessively yellow, excessively red, excessively tall, excessively short, excessively large, or excessively small. People of the world ridiculed them, saying, “Why do the Sakyaputra ascetics allow persons of unsightly appearance to go forth?

Those who have gone forth ought to possess a dignified appearance, but these people are unsightly, and no one wishes to look at them. These are ruined people; what spiritual conduct could they possibly possess?” Others mocked them, saying, “There are only two kinds of people whom these ascetics will not ordain: the dead and those who do not wish to go forth. If they did not ordain such people, their following would not increase.”

[422a] The bhikshus then went and reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered that the bhikshu concerned be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him fully concerning the foregoing matter:

“Did you truly do this?”

“It is true, Blessed One.”

—“From now on, persons of unsightly appearance should not be allowed to go forth. Unsightly appearance means being excessively dark, excessively pale, excessively yellow, excessively red, excessively tall, excessively short, excessively coarse, or excessively small. This is because people do not wish to look upon those of unsightly appearance even when they are joyful, much less when they are angry. Therefore, persons of unsightly appearance should not be allowed to go forth. If they have already gone forth, they should not be expelled. Whoever allows them to go forth and receive full ordination commits a Yue-bi-ni offense. This is called the case of persons of unsightly appearance.

If a person falls within any of the thirty-two cases above, it cannot be said that they have received full ordination. Conversely, if the ordination is pure and in accordance with the Dharma, it is called receiving full ordination.

Now the subject of karmavacana and the performance of karmavacana will be discussed.

KARMAVACANA.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, the bhikshus at Champa became embroiled in disputes and lived in discord. One bhikshu brought charges against one bhikshu; two bhikshus brought charges against two bhikshus; and many bhikshus brought charges against many bhikshus. The bhikshus then went and reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha taught, “From now on, I do not permit one person to bring charges against one person, nor even many persons to bring charges against many persons.” The Buddha then told the bhikshus, “From now on, a karmavacana should be performed.

Karmavacanas comprise: four kinds of karmavacana; two kinds of karmavacana; one proclamation followed by one karmavacana; one proclamation followed by three karmavacanas; a karmavacana performed by four persons; a karmavacana performed by five persons; a karmavacana performed by ten persons; and a karmavacana performed by twenty persons. If five unlawful conditions are fulfilled and the Sangha is not in harmony, then after performing the karmavacana, one must confess and repent. If five lawful conditions are fulfilled and the Sangha is in harmony, then after performing the karmavacana, one need not confess and repent.”

1/ Four kinds of karman: unlawful harmonious karman; lawful disharmonious karman; lawful harmonious karman; and unlawful disharmonious karman. These are called the four kinds of karman.

2/ Two kinds of karman: the Uposatha karman and the karman of paying respect. These are called the two kinds of karman.

3/ One motion and one proclamation: This comprises twenty-eight matters, namely: 1) the karman of release; 2) sleeping without being separated from one’s robe; 3) sleeping apart from one’s robe; 4) designating the site for building a dwelling; 5) designating the site for building a large dwelling; 6) designating the site for building a dwelling beforehand; 7) the person who distributes bowls; 8) the person who distributes lots; 9) examining a non-Buddhist ascetic; 10) tying a carrying bag to a staff and bearing it away; 11) supervising beds and bedding; 12) supervising the cooking; 13) supervising the assignment of persons to attend meals; 14) supervising the allocation of lodgings; 15) supervising the keeping of robes; 16) supervising the awarding of robes;

17) supervising the distribution of robes; 18) supervising the taking of cloth; 19) supervising the cutting of cloth; 20) supervising the distribution of cloth; 21) supervising the distribution of flowers; 22) supervising the distribution of incense; 23) supervising the distribution of fruit; 24) supervising the distribution of hot water; 25) supervising the distribution of cakes; 26) supervising the lodging of accusations at the Invitation ceremony; 27) supervising the distribution of gruel; 28) supervising the distribution of miscellaneous articles.

These are called the twenty-eight matters.

4/ [422b] One motion and three proclamations: This comprises eight cases, namely: 1) censure; 2) prohibition from speaking; 3) expulsion; 4) restoration to good standing; 5) lodging an accusation; 6) probationary residence; 7) mānatta; 8) rehabilitation from an offense. These belong to the procedure of one motion and three proclamations.

5/ Karman requiring four persons: Four persons may perform such procedures as the Uposatha karman and cases involving the appointment of a person. This is called karman requiring four persons.

6/ Karman requiring five persons: Five persons may perform such procedures as receiving the Invitation, receiving full ordination in the borderland of Thâu-na, and all matters concerning offenses of Ni-tát-kì. This is called karman requiring five persons.

7/ Karman requiring ten persons: Ten persons may perform such procedures as the full ordination of a bhikshu and the full ordination of a bhikshuni. This is called karman requiring ten persons.

8/ Karman requiring twenty persons: Twenty persons may perform the rehabilitation of a bhikshu or the rehabilitation of a bhikshuni (?). This is called karman requiring twenty persons.

9/ When karman is performed under five unlawful circumstances, repentance is required afterward: 1) the person concerned is not present; 2) no inquiry is made; 3) the offense is not stated; 4) the procedure is performed unlawfully; 5) the Sangha is not harmonious. This is called performing karman under five unlawful circumstances, for which repentance is required afterward.

10/ When karman is performed under five lawful circumstances, no repentance is required afterward: 1) the person concerned is present; 2) an inquiry is made; 3) after the inquiry, the offense is stated; 4) the procedure is performed in accordance with the Dharma; 5) the Sangha is harmonious. This is called performing karman under five lawful circumstances, for which no repentance is required afterward.

In a case requiring twenty persons to perform the karman, its performance by ten persons is invalid. In a case requiring ten persons to perform the karman, its performance by five persons is invalid. In a case requiring five persons to perform the karman, its performance by four persons is invalid. In a case requiring one motion and three proclamations, performing only one motion is invalid. In a case requiring one motion and one proclamation, making only one motion is invalid. In a case requiring a karman by a single motion, performing instead a karman that merely seeks the assembly’s consent is invalid.

Conversely, when a karman merely seeking the assembly’s consent is required, making a motion is valid. When a karman by a motion is required, performing one motion and one proclamation is valid. When one motion and one proclamation are required, performing one motion and three proclamations is valid. When karman with four persons is required, performing it with five persons is valid. When karman with five persons is required, performing it with ten persons is valid. When karman with ten persons is required, performing it with twenty persons is valid. This is called karman.

MATTERS OF KARMAN

1/ The matter of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshu; 2/ the matter of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshuni; 3/ the matter of karman concerning the fulfillment of the requisite factors; 4/ the matter of karman concerning the purity of a lawful objection; 5/ the matter of karman concerning incomplete purity; 6/ the matter of karman in which the precepts do not arise; 7/ the matter of karman concerning the root of an offense; 8/ the matter of karman concerning failure to relinquish the root; 9/ the matter of karman concerning relinquishing the root; 10/ the matter of karman concerning harmony at the root.

1/ The matter of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshu:

The candidate for full ordination requests an upadhyaya; the upadhyaya instructs him to obtain robes and a bowl, to request the Sangha, to request a preceptor, and to request an instructing teacher to instruct him in a secluded place. From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters [422c] belong to the matter of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshu.

2/ The matter of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshuni:

After the bhikshunis have conferred full ordination upon the candidate, they immediately lead her before the Sangha. The Sangha should ask the bhikshunis: “Is the candidate pure and free from disqualifying impediments?” The bhikshuni preceptor replies: “She is pure.” From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the case of karman for the full ordination of a bhikshuni.

3/ The matter of karman concerning the fulfillment of the requisite factors:

The candidate for full ordination has requested an upadhyaya; the upadhyaya has instructed him to obtain robes and a bowl, to invite the Sangha, to invite a preceptor, and to invite an instructing teacher to instruct him in a secluded place. The instructing teacher leads the candidate before the Sangha, requests the Sangha to confer full ordination upon him, questions him regarding the disqualifying impediments, and explains the four requisites upon which he must depend. From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters are called the matter of karman concerning the fulfillment of the requisite factors.

4/ The matter of karman concerning the purity of a lawful objection.

A valid objection. From this matter arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these belong to the matter of karman concerning the purity of a lawful objection (a valid objection).

5/ The matter of karman concerning incomplete purity.

From invalid particulars arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the matter of karman concerning incomplete purity (invalidity).

6/ The matter of karman in which the precepts do not arise.

One who has violated the pure conduct of a bhikshuni, one who dwells in the Sangha with the intent to steal the Dharma, an impostor, one guilty of any of the five heinous offenses, one who has committed a Pārājika offense, or a novice holding wrong views: from these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the matter of karman in which the precepts do not arise (the essence of the precepts is not generated).

7/ The matter of karman concerning the root of an offense:

This comprises the five classes of offenses: Pārājika, Saṅghāvaśeṣa, Pāyattika, Pratideśanīya, and Vinaya-transgression. From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the matter of karman concerning the root of an offense.

8/ The matter of karman concerning failure to relinquish the root.

A bhikshu is admonished three times in private, three times before several persons, and three times before the Sangha, yet does not relinquish his fault. From this arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the matter of karman concerning failure to relinquish the root (relinquishing the root of the offense).

9/ The matter of karman concerning relinquishing the root.

A person is admonished three times in private, three times before several persons, and three times before the Sangha, and then relinquishes the root of the offense. From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the matter of karman concerning relinquishing the root (relinquishing the root of the offense).

10/ The matter of karman concerning harmony at the root:

The bhikshu Sangha assembles and distributes voting tokens; those who do not attend send their consent, and it is proclaimed that the Sangha is harmonious. From these matters arise the karman and the motion for karman. Both of these matters belong to the karman of harmony.

The matters just stated belong to the matters of karman. (Now follow the other karman procedures.)

1. The karman of censure:

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, the bhiksus at Campa engaged in disputes and quarrels and lived in discord. The bhiksus then brought the matter before [423a] the Blessed One. The Buddha instructed: “A formal act of censure should be permitted.” This formal act of censure comprises five matters and was established by the Buddha in the city of Sravasti. They are: 1) Eight cases of intimate association; 2) Habitually committing offenses; 3) Going to evil companions in places where one ought not to go, leaving early and returning late; 4) Engaging in disputes and quarrels; 5) Showing deference to a junior.

(1) Eight cases of intimate association:

a. When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, the bhiksu Từ Địa engaged in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with another person.

Physical intimacy means sitting together on the same bed, sleeping together on the same bed, eating from the same bowl, sharing clothing, and going and returning together. This is called physical intimacy.

Verbal intimacy means that both parties, with defiled minds, speak words of attachment to each other. This is called verbal intimacy.

Physical and verbal intimacy means sitting together on the same bed, sleeping on the same bed, eating from the same bowl, sharing clothing, and going and returning together. When speaking, they speak words of attachment to each other with defiled minds. This is called physical and verbal intimacy.

The bhiksus then admonished him: “Venerable Bhiksu Từ Địa, do not engage in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, or physical and verbal intimacy with another person.” Though admonished once in this way, he did not desist; even after being admonished three times, he still did not desist. The bhiksus then brought the matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha instructed: “If this Bhiksu Từ Địa engages in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with another person and does not desist after being admonished three times, the Sangha should perform a formal act of censure against him for engaging in physical intimacy with another person. The officiant should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhiksu Từ Địa has engaged in physical intimacy with another person and has not desisted after being admonished three times. The Sangha now imposes upon Bhiksu Từ Địa a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy with another person. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhiksu Từ Địa has engaged in physical intimacy with another person, and although the Sangha has admonished him three times, he has not desisted. The Sangha now imposes upon Bhiksu Từ Địa a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy with another person. Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s imposing upon Bhiksu Từ Địa a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy with another person should remain silent; whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the formal act. (The second and third proclamations should be made in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to impose upon Bhiksu Từ Địa a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy with another person, since the Sangha is silent. Thus do I record this matter.

The cases of verbal intimacy and physical and verbal intimacy should also be stated in the same way.

b. Furthermore, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, at that time Ưu-đà-di engaged in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with the bhiksuni Hiếu Sinh. Physical intimacy means holding hands, sitting together, and sharing clothing. This is called physical intimacy.

Verbal intimacy means speaking words of attachment to each other with defiled minds. This is called verbal intimacy.

[423b] Physical and verbal intimacy means holding hands, sitting together, sharing clothing, and speaking words of attachment to each other with defiled minds. This is called physical and verbal intimacy.

The bhiksus then admonished him: “Venerable Ưu-đà-di, do not engage in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, or physical and verbal intimacy with the bhiksuni Hiếu Sinh.” Though admonished once, twice, and three times in this way, he did not desist. The bhiksus then brought the matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha said to the bhiksus: “If this Ưu-đà-di engages in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with the bhiksuni Hiếu Sinh and does not desist after being admonished three times, the Sangha should impose upon him a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy. The person performing the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. This Ưu-đà-di has engaged in physical intimacy with the bhiksuni Hiếu Sinh, and although the Sangha has admonished him three times, he has not desisted. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha shall impose upon Ưu-đà-di a formal act of censure for engaging in physical intimacy. This is the motion.

After the motion has been made, the formal act is proclaimed three times, and so forth... Since the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

The cases of verbal intimacy and physical and verbal intimacy should also be stated as above.

sentient beings). Furthermore, at that time the bhiksu Bạt-đà-lê and the bhiksuni Bạt-đà-thi-lê engaged in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy, just as was fully explained above in the case of Ưu-đà-di.

d. Furthermore, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, at that time the bhiksu Tô Tì Đề and the bhiksuni Tô Tì Đề Di lived in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy, just as was fully explained above in the case of the bhiksuni Hiếu Sinh.

đ. Furthermore, at that time a bhiksu went to a layman’s house and engaged in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with the layman’s wife. Physical intimacy means holding hands and sitting together with the woman, exchanging incense, flowers, fruit, and melons, and using another person as an intermediary. This is called physical intimacy.

Verbal intimacy means speaking words of attachment to each other with defiled minds. This is called verbal intimacy.

Physical and verbal intimacy is as fully explained in the two preceding cases. This is called physical and verbal intimacy.

The bhiksus then admonished him: “Venerable, do not engage in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, or physical and verbal intimacy with a woman.” Though admonished in this way three times, he did not desist. The bhiksus then brought the matter before the Blessed One, just as was fully explained above in the case of Ưu-đà-di.

e. Furthermore, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, at that time a bhiksu engaged in physical intimacy, verbal intimacy, and physical and verbal intimacy with a sexually incapacitated person (a hermaphrodite). Physical intimacy means holding hands, sitting together, and going and returning together. This is called physical intimacy.

Verbal intimacy means [423c] speaking affectionate words to each other with defiled minds. This is called verbal intimacy.

Physical and verbal intimacy is as fully explained in the two matters above. This is called physical and verbal intimacy.

At that time, the bhikkhus admonished him: “Venerable, do not maintain bodily intimacy, verbal intimacy, or bodily and verbal intimacy with a paṇḍaka.” Although they admonished him in this way three times, he would not desist. The bhikkhus then reported this matter to the Blessed One, just as explained above in the case of Udāyin.

g. Furthermore, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, Udāyin maintained bodily intimacy, verbal intimacy, and bodily and verbal intimacy with a disciple who accompanied him, just as explained above in the case of the bhikkhu Từ Địa.

h. Furthermore, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, Chanda maintained bodily intimacy, verbal intimacy, and bodily and verbal intimacy with a youth, just as explained above in the case of the bhikkhu Từ Địa.

These are the eight cases of maintaining intimate relations.

(2) Repeatedly committing offenses:

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà repeatedly committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses. The bhikkhus admonished him, saying: “Venerable, do not commit offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses.” Though admonished once in this way, he did not desist; though admonished a second time, he did not desist; and though admonished a third time, he still did not desist. The bhikkhus then reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “If Thi Lợi Da Bà repeatedly commits offenses among the five classes of offenses, you should perform an act of censure against him for repeatedly committing offenses. The officiant performing the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. This bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà repeatedly commits offenses and, though admonished three times, has not desisted. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha now imposes upon the bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà an act of censure for repeatedly committing offenses. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà repeatedly commits offenses and, though admonished three times, has not desisted. The Sangha now imposes upon the bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà an act of censure for repeatedly committing offenses. Let those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s imposing upon the bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà an act of censure for repeatedly committing offenses remain silent; let anyone who does not consent speak. This is the first proclamation of the formal act. (The second and third proclamations are spoken in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to impose upon the bhikkhu Thi Lợi Da Bà an act of censure for repeatedly committing offenses, because the Sangha remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

This is called repeatedly committing offenses.

(3) Entering a village too early, returning too late, associating with bad and wicked persons, and going with them to places where one should not go.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the bhikkhu Ca-lộ entered villages too early, returned too late, associated with wicked and bad persons, and went to places where one should not go.

Going too early means entering a village too early to seek alms. Returning too late means leaving the village too late. Associating with wicked persons means associating with elephant keepers, horse tenders, thieves, robbers, and dice players; forming close relations with such persons is called associating with wicked persons. [424a] Associating with bad persons likewise refers to the wicked companions listed above. Going to places where one should not go means going to the home of a widow, the home of an older unmarried woman, the home of a prostitute, the home of a paṇḍaka, a bhikkhuni of ill repute, or a sāmaṇerī of ill repute. This is called going to places where one should not go.

In these cases, the bhikkhus admonished him: “Venerable, do not set out too early, return too late, (and so forth...) or go to the place of a sāmaṇerī of ill repute.” Yet though admonished once, twice, and three times, he still did not desist. Therefore, the bhikkhus reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “If the bhikkhu Ca Lộ sets out too early, returns too late, and so forth, up to going to places where one should not go, and though admonished three times does not desist, the Sangha should perform an act of censure against him for entering villages too early. The officiant performing the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu Ca-Lộ enters villages too early and, though admonished three times, has not desisted. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha now imposes upon the bhikkhu Ca Lộ an act of censure for entering villages too early. This is the motion. (After the motion, the formal act is proclaimed three times, up to:) Because the Sangha has consented, it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

The matters of returning too late, associating with bad and wicked persons, and going to places where one should not go are handled in the same way, both in admonishment and in performing the formal act.

(4) Engaging in disputes and quarrels.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the bhikkhu Mã Túc, being haughty and arrogant, engaged in disputes and quarrels with others. The bhikkhus admonished him: “Venerable bhikkhu Mã Túc, do not engage in disputes.” Though admonished once in this way, he did not desist; though admonished twice and three times, he still did not desist. The bhikkhus then reported this matter to the Blessed One.

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “When the following five conditions are present, one should know that a dispute will arise. They are: 1) Saying that a formal act performed in accordance with the Dharma is contrary to the Dharma; 2) Saying that an assembly convened in accordance with the Dharma is contrary to the Dharma; 3) Saying that absolution from an offense carried out in accordance with the Dharma is contrary to the Dharma; 4) Saying that relinquishment of an object carried out in accordance with the Dharma is contrary to the Dharma; 5) Saying that the determination of an offense made in accordance with the Dharma is contrary to the Dharma.

These are called the five conditions contrary to the Dharma. The opposites of these five conditions are called being in accordance with the Dharma. The bhikkhus should admonish him as follows: ‘Venerable, a bhikkhu entering the assembly should be endowed with the following five qualities: 1) He should speak gently upon entering the assembly; 2) Upon hearing a formal act, he should place confidence in it; 3) Having placed confidence in it, he should comply with it; 4) If he sees that a formal act is contrary to the Dharma but cannot prevent it, he should send his consent by proxy; 5) If he cannot send his consent by proxy, he should inform the bhikkhu seated beside him that he does not consent.’ Upon hearing this admonition, the bhikkhu said: ‘I know how to speak skillfully;

why must I speak softly when entering the assembly?

I too am learned; why must I place confidence in a formal act as soon as I hear it? I clearly understand the rules; why must I comply as soon as I hear it? I too am well versed in formal acts; if I hear a formal act that is contrary to the Dharma, why should I be unable to prevent it and instead send my consent by proxy?

Since I have been able to come here, why should I inform the person seated beside me that I do not consent? I shall prevent it myself.’

The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “When five qualities are present that cause disputes to arise, the Sangha should perform an act of censure. These five qualities are: 1) Haughtiness; 2) A coarse and vicious temperament; [424b] 3) Speaking meaningless words; 4) Speaking at an improper time; 5) Not associating with virtuous persons. These are called the five qualities whose presence requires the Sangha to perform an act of censure. The officiant performing the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu Mã Túc is haughty and engages in disputes and quarrels with others, and though admonished three times, he has not desisted. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha now performs an act of censure against the bhikkhu Mã Túc for his haughtiness. This is the motion.”

May the venerable Sangha listen. Bhikshu Mã Túc is arrogant and engages in disputes and quarrels with others. Though admonished three times, he has not desisted. The Sangha now performs an act of censure against Bhikshu Mã Túc for his arrogance. Let those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s performing an act of censure against Bhikshu Mã Túc for his arrogance remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first pronouncement of the act. (The second and third pronouncements are made in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to perform the act of censure against Bhikshu Mã Túc for his arrogance, as the Sangha remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

The following four matters are stated in the same way.

(5) Showing deference to a younger person.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the account was as related above. At that time, Bhikshu Chanda had ordained a young man and personally attended to all his needs. Early each morning, the teacher went to inquire after him, emptied his vessels for urine and excrement and his spittoon, and then returned them to their places.

He also massaged the young man’s body, handed him his bowl, and accompanied him into the village, allowing him to walk in front. Upon reaching a donor’s house, the teacher had him sit in the higher seat and receive his offering first. When the young man had finished eating, the teacher took his bowl, washed it clean, and returned it to its place; he also dyed his robes, heated his bowl, and spread out his bed and bedding.

When night came, the teacher lit a lamp and brought him the spittoon and the vessels for urine and excrement. Seeing this, the bhikshus admonished him: “Venerable one, you should not attend upon a younger person; the younger person should attend upon you.” He replied: “It is as the venerable ones say. But this young man was formerly a musician before going forth.

Therefore, I am deeply fond of him, defer to him, feel ashamed before him, and must attend upon him.”

The bhikshus admonished him once in this way, but he did not desist. They admonished him a second and a third time, but still he did not desist. The bhikshus therefore reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha ordered Chanda to be summoned. When he arrived, the Buddha questioned him fully about the foregoing matter:

“Is this true?”

“It is true, Blessed One.”

“Foolish man! Toward the Tathagata you show no fondness, deference, shame, or compliance, yet toward this young man you show such fondness, deference, shame, and compliance.”

The Buddha then told the bhikshus: “Because Bhikshu Chanda is fond of a younger person, the Sangha should perform an act of censure against him for his fondness for and attendance upon a younger person. The one performing the act should speak as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen. Bhikshu Chanda is fond of and deferential toward a younger person and attends upon and serves him. Though admonished three times, he has not desisted. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha will now perform an act of censure against Bhikshu Chanda for his fondness for and attendance [424c] upon a younger person. This is the motion.

“May the venerable Sangha listen. Bhikshu Chanda is fond of and attends upon a younger person. Though admonished three times, he has not desisted. The Sangha now performs an act of censure against Bhikshu Chanda for his fondness for and attendance upon a younger person. Let those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s performing an act of censure against Bhikshu Chanda for his fondness for and attendance upon a younger person remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first pronouncement of the act. (The second and third pronouncements are made in the same way.)

“The Sangha has consented to perform the act of censure against Bhikshu Chanda for his fondness for and attendance upon a younger person, as it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”

The matters of deference, shame, and compliance are also stated in the same way. This is called the act of censure.

2. The act of refusing to speak.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, Bhikshu Mã Túc had been subjected by the Sangha to an act of censure but did not comply with it. He did not do what ought to be done and did not abandon what ought to be abandoned. The bhikshus reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha taught: “If Bhikshu Mã Túc, after being subjected by the Sangha to an act of censure, does not comply with it, does not do what ought to be done, and does not abandon what ought to be abandoned, the Sangha should perform an act of refusing to speak with him. The one performing the act should speak as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen. This Bhikshu Mã Túc has been subjected by the Sangha to an act of censure but does not comply with it. He does not do what ought to be done and does not abandon what ought to be abandoned. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha will now perform an act of refusing to speak with Bhikshu Mã Túc. This is the motion. (After the motion, the act is proclaimed three times, through to:) The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”

Again, when the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, there was a muddle-headed man who had gone forth and frequently violated minor precepts, such as eating apart from the Sangha, eating in several places, storing food and then eating it, sharing a bowl with another person, sleeping in the same room as a woman, lodging with others for more than three nights, sharing the same bed, sitting on the same seat, eating fruit that had not been made allowable, accepting raw meat, accepting grain, and accepting gold and silver.

The bhikshus admonished him: “Venerable one, you should not do these things.” He replied: “Since the venerable ones have instructed me, I shall comply.” The bhikshus thought to themselves: “This muddle-headed teacher has the resolve to practice.” But afterward, he frequently committed minor offenses, from eating apart from the Sangha through to accepting gold and silver. The bhikshus again admonished him: “Muddle-headed teacher, you should not do these things.” He replied: “Since the venerable ones have informed me, I shall comply.” Nevertheless, he afterward continued to violate them repeatedly.

The bhikshus thought to themselves: “This muddle-headed teacher has gone forth, yet he knows no gratitude, does not follow instruction, is devious and untruthful, and has no wish to train.” The bhikshus then reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha taught: “This muddle-headed teacher has gone forth but knows no gratitude and does not follow instruction. [425a] Therefore, the Sangha should perform an act of refusing to speak with him.

The one performing the act should speak as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen. This muddle-headed teacher has gone forth but knows no gratitude and does not follow instruction. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha will perform an act of refusing to speak with this muddle-headed teacher. This is the motion. (After the motion, the act is proclaimed three times, through to:) Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”

This is called the procedure for the act of refusing to speak.

3. The procedure for the act of banishment.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, the group of six bhikshus were staying in the settlement of Kāśī. They behaved contrary to proper deportment, spoke words contrary to proper deportment, and were improper in both conduct and speech. They caused harm bodily, caused harm verbally, and caused harm both bodily and verbally; they acted crookedly with the body, spoke crookedly with the mouth, and were crooked in both body and speech, as was explained in detail in the Sanghāvaśeṣa rule concerning the group of six bhikshus dwelling in the village of Black Mountain above. This is called the act of banishment.

4. The procedure for the act of reconciliation.

This act applies to the following cases: 1) Hỉ the upāsikā; 2) Xá-na-giai; 3) Du Ngao, the fisherman’s son; 4) Ca-lộ; 5) Ma-ha-nam; 6) the group of six bhikshus.

(1) Hỉ the Upāsikā.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Śrāvastī, Nanda had been traveling through various countries and then returned to Śrāvastī. Early one morning, he put on his customary robe, took his bowl, and went to the home of the upāsikā. When Hỉ the upāsikā saw him, she was greatly delighted and warmly greeted him: “Welcome, teacher! Why do you visit so seldom?” She then invited him to sit. After sitting down, Nanda said:

“I seldom come here, so what do you intend to offer me?”

– Whatever the Venerable needs, I shall offer it—whether an early meal, a later meal, gruel, cakes, or fruit. Whatever the Venerable requires, I shall prepare it.

– I need an early meal. Prepare it well.

– In accordance with your instruction, I shall prepare it very well. Venerable, please come early tomorrow morning.

Having said this, Nanda departed. Early the next morning, the upasika arose and prepared a delicious early meal, arranged seats, and waited for him. But Nanda, being occupied with many affairs, forgot and did not come. The appointed time had long passed, yet the upasika still did not see him. She therefore set aside whatever food could be kept and ate whatever could not be kept. She waited in this manner through the second and third days, but he still did not appear, so she brought out and ate all the food. On the fourth day, Nanda finally came and asked, “Upasika, are you well?” The upasika became angry and said:

– Venerable, you accepted my invitation to come for the early meal. Why did you not come?

– Are you angry, upasika?

– I am angry.

– If so, I ask your forgiveness.

– Venerable, go and confess before the Blessed One.

Nanda then went to confess before the Buddha. The Buddha asked, “For what reason are you confessing?” Nanda related the foregoing matter fully to the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked him: “You foolish man! This upasika begrudges nothing whatsoever to the Buddha and the Sangha of bhikkhus. Why, then, did you trouble her?” The Buddha then addressed the bhikkhus: “This upasika is a person of steadfast faith, yet Nanda troubled her [425b] and caused her displeasure. The Sangha should now perform for Nanda the formal act of reconciliation. The one performing the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. Nanda has troubled a layperson and caused her displeasure. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha perform for Nanda the formal act of causing the layperson to become pleased. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu Nanda has troubled a layperson and caused her displeasure. The Sangha now performs for Nanda the formal act of causing the layperson to become pleased. Let those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s performance for Nanda of the formal act of causing the layperson to become pleased remain silent; whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation. (The second and third proclamations are spoken in the same way.)

The Sangha consents to performing for Nanda the formal act of causing the layperson to become pleased, since it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

This is called reconciliation with an upasika (causing an upasika to become pleased).

(2) Shana-jie.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, the householder Chit De Le invited the Sangha to receive an offering of medicine. When the group of six bhikkhus heard this, they said to one another, “The householder has invited the Sangha to receive an offering of medicine. Let us go and test him.” Then, at the time for almsround, they put on their customary robes, took their bowls, and went to his house. After exchanging greetings, they asked:

– I have heard that the householder has invited the Sangha to receive an offering of medicine. Is this true?

– It is true. Does the Venerable need medicine?

– I need one carrying-load of shana-jie.

– Please wait until I find some, and then I shall give it to you.

– How strange! You invited the Sangha without first preparing medicine? Do you not know that the medicine consumed by one bhikkhu amounts to the food eaten by a great royal elephant in the Snow Mountains? Your offering is not sincere; you merely seek renown.

– Venerable, even the king’s storehouse does not contain that much medicine, much less my household. Please wait until I find some, and then I shall give it to you.

– Whether you give it or not is up to you.

Having said this, the Venerable departed. The householder afterward sent someone to Elephant Village in the country of Kaundinya, where shana-jie was obtained. He then came and said, “Venerable, I have found shana-jie. Please come and receive it.” On hearing this, they looked at one another and snickered. The householder then reproached them:

– Why do you look at one another and snicker instead of accepting it? Of all the possessions in my house, I begrudge nothing whatsoever to the Buddha and the Sangha of bhikkhus. Venerables, why did you test me?

– Are you angry, householder?

– Of course I am angry.

– If you are angry, I ask your forgiveness.

– Venerables, go and confess before the Blessed One.

This was handled in the same way as the case of reconciliation with the upasika described above.

(3) Youyan Ao Yuzi.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, the householder Chit De Le prepared one hundred dishes with which to serve the Sangha. When the Sangha had finished eating and returned to the monastery, the householder instructed his wife and children: “[425c] Take care of the remaining food and drink and distribute it among the neighboring households. I wish to go and visit the Blessed One.”

At that time, the group of six bhikkhus were standing before the gate of the Jeta Grove Monastery, discussing worldly affairs. Seeing them, the householder thought, “These men do not observe the Vinaya, but if I do not go and greet them, they will harbor resentment.” He therefore approached and exchanged courteous greetings with them. A bhikkhu then replied:

– It is good that the donor has come here, like a great elephant’s mounting block.

The householder asked:

– Venerable, did you come to my house for the meal today?

– I did come for the meal.

– Venerable, was the food to your liking?

– It was truly excellent; only one thing was missing.

– What was missing?

– If there had been Youyan Ao Yuzi, a celebrated delicacy, the donor’s good reputation would have been complete.

– Venerable, I did not know this beforehand. Had I known, I would have prepared a great quantity, enough to give each person a bowlful. But, Venerable, please listen to this analogy of mine: In the past, a flock of chickens lived in the Nalin Forest. A fox gradually caught and ate the roosters until only a single hen remained. A crow then came and mated with her, and she gave birth to a chick. When the chick cried, its owner recited this verse:

“This chicken resembles none;

Its father wild, its mother tame.

Born from the union of the two,

It is neither crow nor chicken.

If it would learn its father’s call,

Yet from its mother it was born.

If it should learn its mother’s call,

Its father, then, is still a crow.

Learning the crow, it sounds a chicken;

Learning the chicken, it sounds a crow.

Though learning both the crow and chicken,

It can become neither of the two.”

So it is with you, Venerable: you are neither a layperson nor a renunciant.

– Are you angry, householder?

– I am angry.

– If you are angry, I ask your forgiveness.

– Go and ask the Blessed One’s forgiveness.

The group of six bhikkhus then went to the Buddha and confessed before him. The Buddha asked, “For what reason are you confessing?” The group of six bhikkhus related the foregoing incident fully to the Blessed One. The Buddha rebuked them: “You foolish men!

Of all the possessions in the householder Chit De Le’s home, he begrudges nothing whatsoever to the Buddha and the Sangha of bhikkhus. Why, then, did you harass him?” The Buddha then addressed the bhikkhus: “Through knowledge of former lives, this householder saw that the group of six bhikkhus had once been the offspring of a chicken and a crow, and therefore he spoke in this way. The Sangha should accordingly perform for the group of six bhikkhus the formal act of causing the layperson to become pleased.

The procedure is the same as in the case of causing the upasika to become pleased described above.”

(4) Kalu.

When the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Shravasti, at the time for almsround a bhikkhu put on his robe, took his bowl, and entered the city to seek alms. Going from house to house, he came to the gate of a certain home and saw the husband [426a] sitting in the courtyard. The husband said to his wife:

– Offer food to the renunciant.

– From which path is he ordained?

– He is ordained in the lineage of the Shakyans.

– I will not give him anything.

– Why will you not give?

– Because he does not practice the holy life.

At that time, the bhikkhu said:

– Sister, I am not one who violates the holy life.

– Even Venerable Kāla is unable to practice the holy life; how could you possibly practice the holy life?

When the bhikkhu heard these words, he became distressed and unhappy. He therefore did not go on almsround but returned to sit in meditation. Late in the afternoon, he emerged from meditation and, finding his body weak with hunger and thirst, went to the Blessed One, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, and stood to one side. Although the Buddha knew what had happened, he nevertheless asked:

– Bhikkhu, why do you look so faint with hunger?

– Because I have had nothing to eat, Blessed One.

– Were you unable to go on almsround?

The bhikkhu then related the foregoing incident in full to the Blessed One. The Buddha said to the bhikkhus: “This Bhikkhu Kāla has displeased the laity. The Sangha should therefore perform a formal act requiring Kāla to conciliate the laity, just as was explained above in the case of conciliating the upāsikā. This is called the case of Kāla.”

(5) Mahānāma.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Śrāvastī, a man of the Śākya clan named Mahānāma invited the Sangha to his home to make an offering of medicines. On hearing this, Nanda and Upananda said to each other: “Let us go and put this man to the test.” Then, at the time for almsround, they put on their robes, went to his house, exchanged greetings with him, and said:

– We have heard that the donor intends to invite the Sangha and make an offering of medicines. Is that true?

– It is true. But do the venerable ones require medicine?

– Yes. I require this many jars of milk, this many jars of oil, this many jars of honey, this much rock sugar, and this many medicinal roots, medicinal leaves, medicinal flowers, and medicinal fruits.

– Venerable sir, it is impossible to obtain that much medicine today. I must first seek it out, and only then can I offer it.

Nanda said:

– How strange! You invited the Sangha of bhikkhus without preparing the medicines beforehand. Do you not know that the medicine consumed by one bhikkhu equals the food consumed by a great elephant in the Snow Mountains? You do not truly wish to make an offering; you merely seek renown.

– Venerable sir, even the king’s storehouse would not contain that much medicine, much less my own household. Allow me to gather it all, and then I shall offer it.

– Whether you give it or not is up to you.

Having said this, he departed. Later, when the householder had obtained the medicines, he came and reported: “Venerable sir, you may come and collect them today.” On hearing this, the two looked at each other and snickered. The donor reproached them, saying: “Why did you test me and then look at each other and laugh? When the medicines were unavailable, you came and demanded them urgently; now that I have obtained them, you will not accept them.” Nanda said:

– Are you angry, donor?

– I am angry.

– If you are angry, I ask your forgiveness.

– Go to the Blessed One and confess.

Nanda then went to the Buddha and confessed. The Buddha asked: “For what reason are you confessing?” Nanda related the foregoing incident in full to the Blessed One. The Buddha rebuked him: “Foolish man! [426b] Of all the possessions in Mahānāma’s household, he begrudges nothing to the Buddha or the Sangha of bhikkhus. Why did you harass him?” The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus: “The Sangha should impose upon Nanda the formal act of conciliating the laity, just as was explained above in the case of conciliating the upāsikā.” This is called the case of Mahānāma.

(6) The Group of Six Bhikkhus.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Śrāvastī, the Group of Six Bhikkhus were staying in the settlement of Kāśī. Their bodily conduct violated proper deportment, their verbal conduct violated proper deportment, and their bodily and verbal conduct violated proper deportment; they caused harm by body, caused harm by speech, and caused harm by body and speech; they practiced wrong livelihood by body, wrong livelihood by speech, and wrong livelihood by body and speech, and so forth, thereby displeasing the laity.

The Buddha then told the bhikkhus: “The Sangha should impose upon the Group of Six Bhikkhus the formal act of conciliating the laity, just as was explained above in the case of conciliating the upāsikā. This is called the case of the Group of Six Bhikkhus.”

In summary, the foregoing are the six formal acts of conciliation.

“Unlawful higher ordination,

Incomplete qualifications, lack of purity.

Formal act, matter for a formal act,

Censure, prohibition from speaking.

Banishment, conciliation.

End of the first varga.”

5. The Formal Act of Suspension for an Offense.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Śrāvastī, as described in detail above, Bhikkhu Chanda frequently committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses. The bhikkhus said:

– Elder, do you acknowledge this offense?

– I do not. Why do you ask whether I acknowledge it or not?

The bhikkhus then reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “This Bhikkhu Chanda frequently commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he says that he does not acknowledge his offense. The Sangha should therefore perform a formal act suspending him for refusing to acknowledge an offense. The officiant should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhikkhu Chanda frequently commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he says that he does not acknowledge his offense. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha shall now perform a formal act suspending Bhikkhu Chanda for refusing to acknowledge an offense. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhikkhu Chanda frequently commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he says that he does not acknowledge his offense. The Sangha shall now perform a formal act suspending Bhikkhu Chanda for refusing to acknowledge an offense. Whoever among the venerable ones approves should remain silent; whoever does not approve should speak. This is the first proclamation. (The second and third proclamations are spoken in the same way.)

The Sangha has approved the formal act suspending Bhikkhu Chanda for refusing to acknowledge an offense, since the Sangha remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

After the Sangha had performed the formal act of suspension, Chanda said to the bhikkhus: “Elders, I have understood what must be done concerning that offense and have complied accordingly. I now ask the Sangha, out of compassion, to rescind the formal act suspending me for refusing to acknowledge an offense.”

The bhikkhus then reported the matter [426c] to the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Bhikkhu Chanda frequently committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he said that he did not acknowledge them. For his benefit, the Sangha performed the formal act of suspension. He has now complied with what was required and says that he acknowledges his offense. The Sangha should therefore rescind the formal act suspending him for refusing to acknowledge an offense. The officiant should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhikkhu Chanda frequently committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he said that he did not acknowledge his offense. For his benefit, the Sangha imposed upon him the formal act of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense. He has now complied with what was required and says that he acknowledges his offense. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha shall now permit Bhikkhu Chanda to enter the midst of the Sangha and request the rescission of the formal act suspending him for refusing to acknowledge an offense.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. Bhikkhu Chanda wishes to enter the midst of the Sangha and request the rescission of the formal act suspending him for refusing to acknowledge an offense. Since the Sangha approves, it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

He should then enter the midst of the Sangha and make the following request:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. I, Bhikkhu Chanda, frequently committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet said that I did not acknowledge them. For my benefit, the Sangha performed the formal act suspending me for refusing to acknowledge an offense. I have now complied with what was required and declare that I acknowledge my offense. I now request the Sangha to rescind the formal act suspending me for refusing to acknowledge an offense. May the venerable Sangha, out of compassion, rescind the formal act suspending me for refusing to acknowledge an offense. (He should make this request three times.)

The officiant should then speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikshu Xiển Đà has repeatedly committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he himself declared that he did not see them as offenses. Desiring that he might receive benefit, the Sangha performed the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense. He has compliantly carried out all that was required of him. Now he himself declares that he acknowledges the offense, and therefore he asks the Sangha to rescind the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha shall now rescind the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense imposed upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikshu Xiển Đà has repeatedly committed offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses, yet he himself declared that he did not see them as offenses. Desiring that he might receive benefit, the Sangha performed the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense.

He has compliantly carried out all that was required of him. Now he himself declares that he acknowledges the offense, and therefore he asks the Sangha to rescind the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense. Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s rescinding the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense imposed upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà should remain silent; anyone who does not consent should speak.

This is the first proclamation of the formal act. (The second and third proclamations are spoken in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to rescind the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense imposed upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà, since it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

After the Sangha had rescinded the formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense, the bhikshus said to Xiển Đà, “Venerable, this offense should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma.” [427a] He replied, “Why do you instruct me to deal with it in accordance with the Dharma? I cannot do so.”

The bhikshus then brought this matter before the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikshus, “The bhikshu Xiển Đà repeatedly commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses and cannot be corrected in accordance with the Dharma. The Sangha should therefore perform upon him the formal act of suspension for committing an offense and refusing correction. The one who performs the formal act should speak as follows:

– Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikshu Xiển Đà repeatedly commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses and refuses to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha shall now impose upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà the formal act of suspension for committing an offense and refusing to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma. This is the motion.

Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikshu Xiển Đà repeatedly commits offenses belonging to the five classes of offenses and refuses to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma. The Sangha shall now impose upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà the formal act of suspension for committing an offense and refusing to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma. Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s imposing upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà the formal act of suspension for committing an offense and refusing to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma should remain silent; anyone who does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the formal act. (The second and third proclamations are spoken in the same way.)

The Sangha has consented to impose upon the bhikshu Xiển Đà the formal act concerning the commission of an offense and refusal to be corrected in accordance with the Dharma, since it remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.

THE MAHĀSĀṄGHIKA VINAYA

End of the twenty-fourth fascicle.