彌沙塞部和醯五分律

DHARMAGUPTAKA FIVE-PART VINAYA — VOLUME 11

VOLUME 11
Part 2: DISCIPLINARY RULES FOR BHIKSHUNIS

Section 1: ON THE EIGHT PARAJIKA DHARMAS

The Buddha was staying in the city of Shravasti. At that time, the Elder Upali asked the Buddha:
“The Blessed One has established this rule for the bhikshus: ‘If any bhikshu, while training in the disciplinary rules together with the bhikshus, should fall away from the training without renouncing it and engage in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, that bhikshu commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’ How should this rule be observed? Should it be observed by one division of the Sangha or by both divisions of the Sangha?”
The Buddha said, “Both divisions of the Sangha should observe it. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, while training in the disciplinary rules together with the bhikshus, should fall away from the training without renouncing it and willfully engage in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

At that time, the Elder Upali asked the Buddha:
“The Blessed One has established this rule for the bhikshus: ‘If any bhikshu, in a village or in an uninhabited place, with the intention of stealing takes what has not been given… up to and including that he may no longer live in communion.’ How should I observe it?”
The Buddha said, “Both divisions of the Sangha should observe it. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, in a village or in an uninhabited place, with the intention of stealing takes what has not been given, and a king or great minister has her arrested, bound, executed, or expelled, saying, “You are a thief; you are a fool,” that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

The Elder Upali again asked the Buddha:
“The Blessed One has established this rule for the bhikshus: ‘If any bhikshu, with respect to a human being or one resembling a human being, should himself kill… up to and including that he may no longer live in communion.’ How should I observe it?”
The Buddha said, “Both divisions of the Sangha should observe it. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, with respect to a human being or one resembling a human being, should herself kill, provide a knife or poison for killing, instruct another to kill, instruct someone to kill themselves, extol death, or praise death, saying, “Good person! Living such a wretched life, it would be better for you to die!” and, speaking thus with such an intention to kill, that person consequently dies, that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

The Elder Upali again asked the Buddha:
“The Blessed One has established this rule for the bhikshus: ‘If any bhikshu, without knowing or seeing a superhuman dharma… up to and including that he may no longer live in communion.’ How should I observe it?”
The Buddha said, “Both divisions of the Sangha should observe it. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, without knowing or seeing a superhuman dharma or possessing the noble attainments, claims of herself, “I know thus; I see thus,” and at a later time, whether questioned or not, wishing to be freed from the offense and seeking purity, says, “Without knowing, I said that I knew; without seeing, I said that I saw. I spoke falsely and deceitfully,” except in the case of overestimation, that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

At that time, the son-in-law of Lady Vishakha was named Mrigara. Mrigara revered and loved Lady Vishakha as he revered and loved his own mother. People therefore called her Vishakha, Mother of Mrigara. Mrigara had a nephew named Shilibhadra. Shilibhadra became enamored of the bhikshuni Sthulananda. Later, Shilibhadra invited the Bhikshuni Sangha to receive a meal. The bhikshuni Sthulananda claimed to be ill and did not attend; she remained at the monastery to watch over it, together with a young shramanerika. When it was time for the meal, the Bhikshuni Sangha went to Shilibhadra’s house. Shilibhadra served the food with his own hands and then asked, “Why has Sthulananda not come?”

A bhikshuni who was present replied, “She is ill. The Sangha assigned her to remain behind to watch over the quarters, and therefore she did not come.”

After serving rice to the senior bhikshunis, Shilibhadra hurried to the monastery and asked, “What kind of illness do you have?”

Sthulananda replied, “All my bones ache!”

Shilibhadra then began to massage her. The bhikshuni said, “I permit you to massage my entire body, but you must not engage in sexual intercourse.”

When he had finished massaging her, Shilibhadra asked, “What do you need?”

The bhikshuni replied, “I need dried jujubes.”

He immediately bought some jujubes and brought them to her. Holding up a jujube, the bhikshuni asked, “Do you see this dried jujube?”

He replied, “I see it.”

The bhikshuni said, “When a person’s mind is bound to something that cannot be attained through sexual intercourse, the spirit shrivels like this jujube.”

Thus, at that very time, Shilibhadra and this bhikshuni caused their bodies to touch one another in every way, after which he departed. When the bhikshunis returned after finishing their meal and entered the gate, they saw Shilibhadra leaving from afar. They all suspected that he and Sthulananda had engaged in an impure act. The bhikshunis asked Sthulananda, “Have you broken the holy life?”

Sthulananda replied, “I have not broken the holy life; I merely caused my body and a man’s body to touch each other.”

The young shramanerika said the same. The bhikshunis reproached her, saying, “The Buddha has in many ways condemned the act of touching a man’s body and has in many ways praised refraining from touching a man’s body. Why have you now committed this evil deed?”

After reproaching her, the bhikshunis went to the Buddha and reported the matter. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and asked Sthulananda, “Did you truly do this?”

She replied, “Venerable Blessed One, it is true that I did.”

The Buddha reproached her in every way, as above, and then said to the bhikshus, “For the sake of ten benefits, I now establish a rule for the bhikshunis. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, her mind overwhelmed by intense lust, consents to any physical contact with a man from below the hairline to above the knees and inward from the elbows, that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

Bhikshuni: One who has received full ordination through a motion followed by three proclamations. From the phrase “her mind overwhelmed by intense lust” onward, the explanation is as given under the rule concerning “a bhikshu touching a woman’s body.”

At that time, bhikshunis allowed men to hold their hands and grasp their robes; they made appointments with men; and they went, stood, talked, or sat together with them alone, their bodies close to one another. Because of these lustful thoughts, they ceased to delight in living according to the Way; some returned to lay life, while others became followers of non-Buddhist paths. At that time, the bhikshuni Sthulananda put on newly dyed robes, rubbed ointment upon her body, outlined her eyelids, and went to a crowded place. Men held her hands and grasped her robes, saying, “Your hands are so soft and beautiful! Your robe is so smooth and fine!”

When the elder bhikshunis saw this, they reproached her in every way and then reported it to the Buddha. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and asked the bhikshunis, “Did you truly perform the eight acts described above?”

They replied, “Venerable Blessed One, it is true that we did.”

After reproaching them in every way, the Buddha said to the bhikshus, “I now establish a rule for the bhikshunis. From now on, this rule shall be stated as follows: ‘If any bhikshuni, her whole mind overwhelmed by intense lust, allows a man to hold her hand or grasp her robe; makes an appointment with him; goes, stands, talks, or sits together with him alone; or brings her body close to the body of a man—if she completes all eight acts, that bhikshuni commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.’”

– Holding the hand: Holding from the elbow outward.

– Grasping the robe: Grasping the robe she is wearing.

– Making an appointment: Arranging to meet at a certain place in order to engage in sexual intercourse or to rub and caress the body.

– Going together: Going alone with a man along the same road.

– Standing together: Standing alone with a man in the same place.

– Talking together: Conversing with a man.

– Sitting together: Sitting with a man on the same bed or seat.

– Two bodies in close proximity: Sitting in the same place so that, when one leans over, the bodies touch.

a man.
If she commits the act of holding hands, up to the point where the two bodies press close together, each act incurs a Sthulatyaya offense. If she has committed seven such acts and, although she has confessed each of them accordingly, later commits one more, making eight in all, this also constitutes a Parajika offense.
A siksamana or samaneri who commits these acts incurs a Duskrta offense.
At that time, the bhikkhu Chanda repeatedly committed offenses. In getting onto and down from his bed, he did not act in accordance with the Dharma; he frequently ate apart from the Sangha and entered villages at improper times without informing a virtuous bhikkhu. The Bhikkhu Sangha therefore imposed upon him the karman of refusing to acknowledge his offense.

The bhikkhuni Utta was Chanda's elder sister, and she continued to visit and converse with him and to provide him with robes and food. Seeing this, the bhikkhunis said: “Sister! The Bhikkhu Sangha has harmoniously imposed upon this bhikkhu the karman of refusing to acknowledge his offense.

The bhikkhus neither dwell with him, conduct Sangha business with him, nor converse with him. Why do you now continue to visit and converse with him and provide him with robes and food?”
The bhikkhuni Utta said: “Chanda is my younger brother. If I do not care for him, who will?” When the elder bhikkhunis heard this, they reproached her and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked Utta: “Did you actually do this?”
She replied: “Venerable Blessed One, it is true.” After reproaching her in various ways, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “A bhikkhuni who is close to Utta should go with her to a secluded place and admonish her: ‘You should not support a bhikkhu upon whom the Sangha has imposed the karman of refusing to acknowledge his offense.’ If she heeds the admonition, that is good. If not, many bhikkhunis should be instructed to admonish her.

If she heeds them, that is good. If not, the Bhikkhuni Sangha should admonish her.” The bhikkhus obeyed the Buddha's instruction and directed the bhikkhunis to have one bhikkhuni admonish her, and so forth, up to having the Bhikkhuni Sangha admonish her. She would not heed any of them.

The elder bhikkhunis reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas, sent word reproaching Utta in various ways, and told the bhikkhus: “I now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From this time onward, this precept shall be stated as follows:
“‘If a bhikkhuni knows that the Sangha has, in accordance with the Dharma, imposed upon a bhikkhu the karman of refusing to acknowledge his offense, and that the bhikkhus neither dwell with him, conduct Sangha business with him, nor converse with him, yet she supports that bhikkhu, the bhikkhunis shall say to her: “Sister, the Bhikkhu Sangha has imposed upon this bhikkhu the karman of refusing to acknowledge his offense, and the bhikkhus neither dwell with him, conduct Sangha business with him, nor converse with him.

Do not support him.” If, after being admonished in this way, she obstinately refuses to desist, she should be admonished a second and a third time. If she desists after the second or third admonition, that is good. If she does not desist, that bhikkhuni commits a Parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion.’”
The remainder is as stated in the precept concerning Devadatta's schism in the Sangha. The cases in which there is no offense are also as in that precept.
At that time, the bhikkhuni Susuma and the bhikkhuni Vappa always went about together. Later, the bhikkhuni Vappa died, and the bhikkhuni Susuma wept in grief. The bhikkhunis said: “Sister, do not weep like this. All conditioned phenomena must perish. As the Buddha has said, those bound by affection must part; they cannot remain together forever. It is impossible for conditioned phenomena not to decay and disintegrate.”
The bhikkhuni Susuma said: “I am not weeping because of her; I am weeping because, while she was alive, she did not cultivate the holy life.”
The bhikkhunis asked: “How do you know?”
Susuma replied: “Because she traveled with me, and I myself saw her engage in sexual intercourse with a man.”
The bhikkhunis reproached her: “Why did you conceal her offense while she was alive, yet now that she is dead disclose it?” When the elder bhikkhunis learned of this, they reproached her and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked Susuma: “Did you actually see this?”
She replied: “Venerable Blessed One, it is true that I saw it.” After reproaching her in various ways, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From this time onward, this precept shall be stated as follows:
“‘If a bhikkhuni sees another bhikkhuni commit a Parajika offense and conceals it, and only later, whether that bhikkhuni is still alive or has died, has gone far away or has been expelled, has abandoned the training or undergone a change of sex, says: “Formerly, I myself saw that bhikkhuni commit a Parajika offense,” such a bhikkhuni commits a Parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion.’
Concealment: From early morning until the first watch of the night, she incurs a Duskrta offense for each passing period. From the first watch of the night until the first sign of sunrise has not yet appeared, she incurs a Sthulatyaya offense for each passing period. When the first sign of sunrise appears, she commits a Parajika offense. A siksamana or samaneri incurs a Duskrta offense.
If she wishes to report it but does not do so because no bhikkhuni is present, or if she enters the samadhi of great equanimity, or if one of the eight dangers arises, there is no offense. The eight dangers are:
1. Illness.
2. The king.
3. Bandits.
4. Flood.
5. Fire.
6. Robe and bowl.
7. Life.
8. The holy life.

Section 2: THE SEVENTEEN SANGHADISESA DHARMAS

At that time, the elder Upali asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One has established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu acts as a go-between, even if only for a single act of sexual intercourse, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I uphold it?”
The Buddha said: “It should be upheld by both Sanghas. From this time onward, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni acts as a go-between, whether for an illicit liaison or otherwise, conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, even if only for a single act of sexual intercourse, as soon as she does so that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”
The elder Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One has established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu, himself acting contrary to the Dharma and moved by anger, groundlessly accuses a bhikkhu who has not committed a Parajika offense of a Parajika offense,’ and so forth, up to: ‘he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I now uphold it?”
The Buddha said: “It should be upheld by both Sanghas. From this time onward, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni, herself acting contrary to the Dharma and moved by anger, groundlessly accuses a bhikkhuni who has not committed a Parajika offense of a Parajika offense, desiring to destroy her holy life, and some time later, whether questioned or not questioned, admits: “That accusation was groundless; I made it because I was angry,” as soon as she does so that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”
The elder Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One has established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu, himself acting contrary to the Dharma and moved by anger, takes some feature from a different matter, or some similar feature,’ and so forth, up to: ‘he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I now uphold it?”
The Buddha said: “Both Sanghas should uphold it. From this time onward, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni, herself acting contrary to the Dharma and moved by anger, takes some feature from a different matter, or some feature resembling a Parajika offense, and uses it to accuse a bhikkhuni who has not committed a Parajika offense, desiring to destroy her holy life, and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, admits: “Because I was angry, I took some feature from a different matter, or some similar feature, and used it to accuse her,” as soon as she does so that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”
At that time, the members of the Sakya clan made an agreement: “We shall not intermarry with commoners. Whoever violates this agreement shall incur a grave punishment.”

At that time, among the Sakyan clan there was a woman named Hắc-ly-xa whose husband had died. Her husband's younger brother wished to take her as his wife, but she refused. Three times he proposed, but she would not consent. He therefore thought, “This woman must surely be having an affair with someone else. I will kill her.” Pretending to hold a memorial ceremony for his elder brother, he said to his sister-in-law, “I am holding a ceremony for my elder brother. For your husband's sake, you should come and pay homage.” She accordingly went. Her brother-in-law gave her wine until she became intoxicated, then committed an impure act with her and struck and scratched her with his hands, injuring her.

Afterward, he reported to the authorities, “Hắc-ly-xa is my wife, and now she has committed adultery with an outsider.” The authorities immediately sought to arrest her. When she sobered up and saw that her body was covered with injuries, she thought, “This man intends to kill me.” She secretly escaped and fled to the city of Sravasti, where she went to the dwelling place of the bhiksunis and requested ordination to train in the Path.

The authorities searched but could not find her. Learning, however, that the offender had fled to Sravasti, they sent an official letter to King Prasenajit stating: “In our country there is a woman who has committed a capital offense and has escaped into Your Majesty's realm. We request that Your Majesty return her to us.

If an offender from your honored country flees into ours, we shall likewise extradite that person.”

Upon receiving the letter, King Prasenajit asked his ministers and attendants, “Has such a woman entered our country?” The ministers replied that she had, but the bhiksunis had already ordained her and allowed her to train in the Path. The king had previously issued an order that anyone in his realm who violated a bhiksu or bhiksuni would incur a grave offense. Since the woman had now gone forth, they did not dare dishonor her. The king therefore replied: “It is true that such a woman fled into my country, but she has now gone forth and should not be prosecuted. If there is another such case, I shall return the offender.”

The Sakyans then reproached them, saying, “If someone who has committed such an offense cannot be arrested and punished, the country will fall into disorder! Why did the bhiksunis, unable to distinguish whom they might ordain from whom they might not, nevertheless ordain such a person? They do not practice the conduct of a sramana; they destroy the Dharma of the sramanas.” When the elder bhiksunis heard of this, they reproached the bhiksunis and reported the matter to the Buddha.

On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and asked the bhiksunis, “Did you actually do this?” They replied, “Blessed One, it is true.” The Buddha reproached them in many ways and then told the bhiksus, “I shall now establish a precept for the bhiksunis. From this day forward, this precept shall be stated as follows:

“Should any bhiksuni knowingly ordain a woman who has committed an offense as a bhiksuni, that bhiksuni, immediately upon doing so, commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring expiation.”

There were also women who were bandits or thieves and women deserving death. The householders said, “If you are able to go forth, we may allow you to live.” They therefore sought ordination and appealed to the bhiksunis, asking them to ordain them so that they might escape death. The bhiksunis said, “The Buddha has not yet permitted us to ordain persons of this kind.” They reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and told the bhiksus, “If the person who has authority over them grants permission, the bhiksunis may ordain them. From this day forward, this precept shall be stated as follows:

“Should any bhiksuni knowingly ordain a woman who has committed an offense without permission from the person who has authority over her, that bhiksuni, immediately upon doing so, commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring expiation.”

There was also a woman who had committed an offense and could not go forth in the Buddha's teaching, so she entered another religious order. Later, when the householders saw her, they said, “This is the woman who committed an offense against us. We should strip her of the robes of the other religious order.” Others said, “Going forth in another religious order is already a severe punishment; she may be pardoned,” and they released her.

Afterward, these women went to the bhiksunis and said, “Venerable ladies! It was not out of disrespect for the Buddha that we went forth in another religious order. It was only because you would not ordain us that we had no choice but to enter and train with those outside the teaching.

Now those whom we feared have given us permission to go forth. We beseech you, out of compassion, to ordain us.” The bhiksunis did not know what to do and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and told the bhiksus, “If a woman who has committed an offense has previously gone forth, she may now be ordained.

From this day forward, this precept shall be stated as follows:

“Should any bhiksuni knowingly ordain a woman who has committed an offense without permission from the person who has authority over her, except one who has previously gone forth, that bhiksuni, immediately upon doing so, commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring expiation.”

– One who has committed an offense: One who has committed sexual misconduct, fraud, or theft is called one who has committed an offense.

– Person who has authority: One upon whom her life or death depends is called the person who has authority. If a bhiksuni forms the intention to ordain such a woman, then from the preparations until the assembly of the Sangha, and until the third proclamation of the karman has been completed, she commits a Duskrta offense at each stage. When the third proclamation of the karman has been completed, the preceptor commits a Sanghavasesa offense, while the other members of the bhiksuni Sangha all commit a Sthulatyaya offense.

At that time, the bhiksuni Ưu-ta frequently committed offenses. She did not ascend or descend from her bed in accordance with the Dharma, ate continuously, ate apart from the community, and entered laypeople's houses at improper times. The bhiksuni Sangha imposed upon her the act of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense.

At that time, the bhiksuni Thâu-la-nan-đà knew that Ưu-ta's mind was not yet disciplined, that she did not respectfully comply with the Sangha, and that she did not obey the community's command. Nevertheless, on her own authority, she went beyond the boundary together with her close associates and rescinded Ưu-ta's suspension. After her suspension had been rescinded, the bhiksuni Ưu-ta became still more arrogant and showed no respect for the Sangha.

Seeing this, the elder bhiksunis reproached her and reported the matter to the Buddha.

On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and asked Thâu-la-nan-đà, “Did you actually do this?” She replied, “Blessed One, it is true.” The Buddha reproached her in many ways and then told the bhiksus, “I shall now establish a precept for the bhiksunis. From this day forward, this precept shall be stated as follows:

“Should any bhiksuni know that the Sangha has, in accordance with the Dharma, suspended a bhiksuni whose mind has not yet been disciplined and who does not comply with the Sangha, and should she, on her own authority, go beyond the boundary together with her retinue and absolve that bhiksuni of the offense, such a bhiksuni, immediately upon doing so, commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring expiation.”

If one wishes to absolve her of the offense and makes preparations to do so, then until the third proclamation of the karman has been completed, she commits a Duskrta offense at each stage. When the third proclamation of the karman has been completed, the one who performs the karman commits a Sanghavasesa offense, while the other members of that bhiksuni Sangha all commit a Sthulatyaya offense.

At that time, bhiksunis traveled alone along the roads. When laymen saw them, they teased them with coarse and lewd remarks, seized or touched them, or attempted to commit impure acts with them. On another occasion, a large group of bhiksunis traveled together with a caravan of merchants.

Thâu-la-nan-đà saw a man and became enamored of him, so she slowed her pace and fell behind. The bhiksunis said, “Why do you not walk quickly and keep up with your companions? This is a dangerous place; do not let an evil person violate you.” Thâu-la-nan-đà said, “Do you see that person walking behind us?” The bhiksunis replied, “We see him.” Thâu-la-nan-đà said, “When I see that man, my heart is deeply infatuated.” The bhiksunis reproached her, saying, “Why do you become enamored of a man while traveling on the road?”

On another occasion, a large group of bhiksunis waded across a river to collect cow dung. After they had crossed, the water rose, and they could not wade back; they were then violated by bandits. There were also bhiksunis who slept alone and had their robes and bowls stolen, and their celibate conduct was violated. When the elder bhiksunis heard of this, they sternly reproached them and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled both divisions of the Sangha and asked the bhiksunis, “Did you actually do this?” They replied, “Blessed One!”

Indeed, we did so. After reproaching them in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Now I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni travels alone, sleeps alone, crosses water alone, or, with lustful intent toward a man, walks alone behind him, as soon as she does so she commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring penance.’

At that time, some bhikkhunis traveling along a road became suspicious and frightened, and so ran into a village and went to the home of acquaintances. Other bhikkhunis became weary while traveling, or were old or ill and could not keep up. In some places there was only a little water, or there was a bridge or ferry, yet they dared not cross alone.

In other places where they stayed overnight, they feared men and dared not sleep alone in separate places. The bhikkhunis did not know what to do and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and told the bhikkhus: “When there is a valid reason, I permit them to act alone as circumstances require.

From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni travels alone, sleeps alone, crosses water alone, or, with lustful intent toward a man, walks alone behind him, except when there is a valid reason, as soon as she does so she commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring penance.’

A valid reason means: having to flee because of fear; being unable to keep up with one’s companions because of old age, illness, or weariness; shallow water where there is a bridge or ferry; or a place where men are feared. Such circumstances are called valid reasons. If she travels alone, in a place without villages, for half a yojana, or, in a place with villages, from one village to another, in every case she commits a Sanghavasesa offense.

If she walks behind and can see a bhikkhuni in the distance but cannot hear her voice, or can hear her voice but cannot see her form, in either case she commits a dukkata offense. If she can neither see nor hear her, she commits a Sanghavasesa offense. If she crosses water alone, and the water is ten cubits wide and reaches halfway up her thighs, she commits a Sanghavasesa offense; if it is shallower, she commits a dukkata offense.

When sleeping at night, if they extend their hands, they must be able to touch one another. If their hands cannot touch, she commits a thullaccaya offense during the first watch and the middle watch; when signs of sunrise appear, she commits a Sanghavasesa offense. A sikkhamana or samaneri commits a dukkata offense.

At that time, a householder donated a house to the Bhikkhu Sangha. The Bhikkhu Sangha then exchanged it with the Bhikkhuni Sangha for the Andhavana Grove. Later, Queen Mallika donated a royal grove to the Bhikkhuni Sangha. The Bhikkhuni Sangha dismantled the old house, leaving the land vacant.

Then the son of the householder who had originally donated the house thought: “Formerly my father donated this property to the Sangha, and the Sangha exchanged it with the bhikkhunis. Yet the bhikkhunis do not live there; they have dismantled the house and left the land vacant. I should take it back and cultivate it.” He then took possession of the land.

The bhikkhunis said: “Do not take the Sangha’s land.” The man replied: “Although my father formerly donated it to the Sangha, the Sangha does not use it, so it now belongs to me.” The bhikkhunis said: “We have not relinquished that land. If you take it, we shall bring suit against you. Do not blame us if your property is confiscated.” He still did not return it.

The bhikkhunis went before the authorities and brought suit, whereupon his property was confiscated.

When the laypeople saw this, they criticized them, saying: “Why did these bhikkhunis go before the authorities and bring suit, causing a man’s property to be confiscated? They treat someone who made an offering to them in this way; how much more so would they treat others! They do not have the conduct of renunciants and are destroying the Dharma of renunciants.” When the elder bhikkhunis heard this, they sternly reproached them and then reported the matter to the Buddha.

On account of this, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked the bhikkhunis: “Did you actually do this?” They replied: “Blessed One, indeed, we did.” After reproaching them in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Now I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni goes before the authorities to bring suit against another person, as soon as she does so she commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring penance.’

If a bhikkhuni is treated with contempt by someone, she should tell that person’s parents. If she cannot tell the parents, she should tell the relatives. If there are no relatives, she should tell a bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, upasaka, or upasika. If an influential bhikkhu or bhikkhuni fails to protect her, that person commits a dukkata offense. When speaking, she should say: “That person has treated me with contempt; please admonish that person on my behalf.” If she goes to the doors of the authorities to bring suit, she commits one Sanghavasesa offense for each journey there and back. A sikkhamana or samaneri commits a dukkata offense.

At that time, there was a traveling merchant whose wife had died. He thought: “Where should I go to find another suitable wife?” At that time, the bhikkhuni Candrasumana had a disciple named Suma, who possessed surpassing beauty. When the merchant saw Suma, he immediately became infatuated with her and devised a way to possess her: “If I entice her with food, I shall certainly succeed.” The merchant courteously said: “If you need ghee, oil, honey, molasses, bhojaniya, or khadaniya, simply come to my house and take them.” The bhikkhuni Suma then went there to receive them.

After they had become familiar, he asked the bhikkhuni: “Do you know with what intention I give you food?” She replied: “You give me food because you seek merit.” The merchant said: “That is not why. My wife has died, and when I saw that you were cultivating the pure life, desire and attachment arose in me. Can you satisfy my wish?” The bhikkhuni firmly replied: “That is impossible.” He said again: “Become my wife, and I shall give you precious things and beautiful clothing, and you will never lack timely food and drink.” The bhikkhuni answered as before.

Other merchants came to his aid and said: “If you do not wish to become his wife, why do you accept his food? If you truly say, ‘That is impossible,’ then we shall seize all your robes and bowl at once.” Someone else said: “Disperse quickly; do not let anyone hear of this. If the king learns of it, we shall certainly incur a grave punishment.”

When the laypeople heard of this, they criticized her, saying: “Why did a bhikkhuni accept food from a lustful man? Such people do not have the conduct of renunciants and are destroying the Dharma of renunciants.” When the elder bhikkhunis heard this, they sternly reproached her and then reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked the bhikkhuni Suma: “Did you actually do this?” She replied: “Blessed One, indeed, I did.” After reproaching her in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Now I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni accepts food from a lustful man, as soon as she does so she commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring penance.’

Some men invited bhikkhunis to the earlier meal or the later meal, but during the intervening time lust arose in those men. The bhikkhunis became aware of it and dared not eat, and they reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and told the bhikkhus: “It is impossible for a bhikkhuni who is free from lust to incur a Sanghavasesa offense by accepting food from a lustful man. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a lustful bhikkhuni accepts food from a lustful man, as soon as she does so she commits a Sanghavasesa offense requiring repentance.’

Again, a lustful bhikkhuni accepted food from a lustful man. After accepting it, doubt arose in her: ‘Have I perhaps committed a Sanghavasesa offense?’ She then gave that food to another bhikkhuni. The bhikkhuni—

Another bhikkhuni asked: “Why do you not dare to eat such delicious food?” That bhikkhuni replied by clearly explaining what was in her mind. The other bhikkhuni said: “What you fear, I also fear,” and then reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and told the bhikkhus: “If a bhikkhuni, with a mind of sensual attachment, personally accepts food from a man with a mind of sensual attachment but does not eat it and instead gives it to another person to eat, there is no offense.” From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhuni, with a mind of sensual attachment, personally accepts food from a man with a mind of sensual attachment,

then by that very act the bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.

A sikkhamana or samaneri commits a dukkata offense.”

At that time, the merchant again thought: “Previously I used food to entice that bhikkhuni, but because the time was brief and hurried, I did not succeed. Now, if I use food to entice her over a long period, she may yield.” He then went to the bhikkhuni and gently said: “Previously I spoke in jest and caused you displeasure. Please accept my apology. From now on, as before, come and receive food from me.” That bhikkhuni said: “Enough, enough, sir! Previously you caused me distress, on account of which I was painfully reproached by the Buddha, and He established a precept for the bhikkhunis. Why should we now meet again so that you may humiliate me once more?”

The preceptor of that bhikkhuni then said: “Why did you previously receive much delicious and nourishing food, but now receive none?” Bhikkhuni Suma replied: “Previously that man troubled me, and on account of this the Buddha established a prohibitory precept, so now I dare not accept food from him again.” Her preceptor then said: “So long as you do not give rise to a mind of sensual attachment, what harm is there in accepting the food?

If he gives rise to a mind of sensual attachment, what has that to do with you?” Bhikkhuni Suma reproached her preceptor, saying: “The Buddha has in every way censured intimacy with men and praised keeping one’s distance. Why, then, do you tell me to accept food from a man with a mind of sensual attachment?!” When the bhikkhunis heard this, they reproached that teacher: “Why did you tell your disciple to accept food from a man with a mind of sensual attachment?” After sternly reproaching her, they reported the matter to the Buddha.

On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked Canda Sumana: “Did you truly do this?” She replied: “Venerable Blessed One, it is true that I did so.” After reproaching her in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I shall now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni tells another bhikkhuni: “So long as you do not give rise to a mind of sensual attachment, what harm is there in accepting food from a man who has given rise to a mind of sensual attachment?” then by that very act the bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’” Whenever a bhikkhuni speaks in this way, she commits one Sanghadisesa offense for each utterance.

A sikkhamana or samaneri commits a dukkata offense.

Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhuni undertakes to create a schism in the harmonious Sangha, diligently devising means to do so...’ up to the words: ‘commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I uphold it?” The Buddha said: “Both Sanghas should uphold it. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni undertakes to create a schism in the harmonious Sangha and strives to devise means to do so, the bhikkhunis should say to that bhikkhuni: “Do not undertake to create a schism in the harmonious Sangha or actively devise means to do so.

You should remain in harmony with the Sangha. When in harmony with the Sangha, you should rejoice, be free from disputes, study together with one mind like water blending with milk, and together proclaim the Teacher’s instruction concerning the practice of peace and happiness.” If, when admonished in this way, she obstinately refuses to desist, she should be admonished a second and a third time. If she desists after being admonished a second or a third time, that is good.

If she does not desist, then after the third admonition that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”

Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu supports the creation of a schism in the harmonious Sangha...’ up to the words: ‘commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I uphold it?” The Buddha said: “Both Sanghas should uphold it. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If one, two, or even many bhikkhunis support the creation of a schism in the harmonious Sangha and say to the bhikkhunis: “What this bhikkhuni says, she says with knowledge, not without knowledge; she speaks in accordance with the Dharma, not contrary to the Dharma; she speaks in accordance with the Vinaya, not contrary to the Vinaya;

and what she says is accepted by all our minds,” the bhikkhunis should say to those bhikkhunis: “Do not say: ‘What this bhikkhuni says, she says with knowledge, not without knowledge; she speaks in accordance with the Dharma, not contrary to the Dharma; she speaks in accordance with the Vinaya, not contrary to the Vinaya; and what she says is accepted by all our minds.’ Why?

Because that bhikkhuni does not speak with knowledge, does not speak in accordance with the Dharma, and does not speak in accordance with the Vinaya. You should not delight in supporting the creation of a schism in the harmonious Sangha. You should delight in the harmony of the Sangha.

When the Sangha is harmonious, you should rejoice, be free from disputes, study together with one mind like water blending with milk, and together proclaim the Original Teacher’s instruction while dwelling in the practice of peace and happiness.” If, when admonished in this way, she obstinately refuses to desist, she should be admonished a second and a third time. If she desists after being admonished a second or a third time, that is good.

If she does not desist, then after the third admonition that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”

Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu is ill-tempered and difficult to instruct, studies the precepts together with the other bhikkhus, and repeatedly commits offenses...’ up to the words: ‘commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I uphold it?” The Buddha said: “Both Sanghas should uphold it. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni is ill-tempered and difficult to instruct, studies the precepts together with the bhikkhunis, and repeatedly commits offenses, the bhikkhunis should admonish her concerning her offenses in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya.

She may say: “Ladies, do not say anything to me, whether good or bad, and I likewise shall not say anything to you, whether good or bad.” The bhikkhunis should then say: “Do not conduct yourself in this way, considering yourself someone to whom no one may speak. You should speak to the bhikkhunis in accordance with the Dharma, and the bhikkhunis should likewise speak to you in accordance with the Dharma. By mutually exchanging instruction, admonishing one another, and rehabilitating one another from offenses, you become the noble assembly of the Tathagata.” If, when admonished in this way, she obstinately refuses to desist, she should be admonished a second and a third time.

If she desists after being admonished a second or a third time, that is good. If she does not desist, then after the third admonition that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.’”

Upali again asked the Buddha: “The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus: ‘If a bhikkhu dwells in dependence upon a village, engages in evil conduct, and corrupts households...’ up to the words: ‘commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’ How should I uphold it?” The Buddha said: “Both Sanghas should uphold it. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhuni dwells in dependence upon a village, engages in evil conduct, and corrupts households; her evil conduct is seen, heard, and known by everyone, and her corruption of households is seen, heard, and known by everyone, the bhikkhunis should say to those bhikkhunis: “You engage in evil conduct and corrupt households.

Your evil conduct is seen, heard, and known by everyone, and your corruption of households is heard, seen, and known by everyone. You should depart from this place and should no longer remain here.”’

That bhikkhuni said: “You act arbitrarily out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear. Why is this? Because there are bhikkhunis guilty of the same offense, yet some are expelled and others are not.” The bhikkhunis said to that bhikkhuni: “Do not say: ‘You act arbitrarily out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear; among bhikkhunis guilty of the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.’ You engage in evil conduct and corrupt households.

Everyone sees, hears, and knows of your evil conduct; everyone sees, hears, and knows that you corrupt households. You should abandon the statement: ‘You act arbitrarily out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear.’ You should leave this place and no longer remain here.” If, when admonished thus, she persists and does not abandon it, she should be admonished a second and a third time. If she abandons it after the second or third admonition, that is good.

If she does not abandon it, then after three admonitions that bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense requiring penance.

At that time, the bhikkhuni Tu-huu-ma and the bhikkhuni Ba-pha engaged together in evil conduct, and their ill repute spread everywhere. They also concealed one another’s offenses and troubled the Sangha. The bhikkhunis said: “You engage in evil conduct, and your ill repute has spread widely.

You should not remain together. If you cease your evil deeds and cease troubling the Sangha, then your dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase.” The two bhikkhunis said: “We do not engage in evil conduct; our ill repute has not spread everywhere; nor do we trouble the Sangha. Here there are two other bhikkhunis who engage together in evil conduct, whose ill repute has spread widely, and who trouble the Sangha.” The bhikkhunis said: “Do not speak thus.

Why? There are no two other bhikkhunis here who engage in evil conduct and trouble the Sangha; there are only you two. You two should separate, abandon evil conduct, and cease troubling the Sangha.

Then your dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase.” When admonished thus, they persisted and would not abandon their conduct, so the bhikkhunis reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and asked those two bhikkhunis: “Did you truly do this?” They replied: “Blessed One, it is true that we did.” After rebuking them in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “A bhikkhuni who is close to those two bhikkhunis should be sent to admonish them in private.

If they accept the admonition, that is good. If not, a group of bhikkhunis should be sent to admonish them. If they accept it, that is good.

If not, they should be admonished in the name of the Bhikkhuni Sangha.” The bhikkhus obeyed his instruction and sent bhikkhunis to admonish them, but all three admonitions were rejected. The elder bhikkhunis sternly rebuked them and then reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled both Sanghas and rebuked those two bhikkhunis in every way.

He then told the bhikkhus: “I shall now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If two bhikkhunis engage together in evil conduct, their ill repute spreads everywhere, they conceal one another’s offenses, and they trouble the Sangha, the bhikkhunis shall say: “You two are bhikkhunis who engage in evil conduct; your ill repute has spread everywhere; you conceal one another’s offenses and trouble the Sangha.

You two should separate. Do not engage in evil conduct and do not trouble the Sangha. Then your conduct of dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase.” Those two bhikkhunis say: “We do not engage in evil conduct; our ill repute has not spread everywhere; we do not conceal one another’s offenses; and we do not trouble the Sangha.

Here there are two other bhikkhunis who engage together in evil conduct and trouble the Sangha.” The bhikkhunis shall again say: “You two should not speak thus. Why? There are no two other bhikkhunis here; there are only you two.

You two should separate. Do not engage in evil conduct and do not trouble the Sangha. Then your conduct of dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase.” If, when admonished thus, the two persist and do not abandon their conduct, they should be admonished a second and a third time.

If they abandon it after the second or third admonition, that is good. If they do not abandon it, then after three admonitions those two bhikkhunis commit a Sanghadisesa offense requiring penance.’”

At that time, the bhikkhuni Tu-huu-ma and the bhikkhuni Ba-pha engaged together in evil conduct, and their ill repute spread everywhere, continuing through the words: “Their dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase” (as stated in the preceding precept). The two bhikkhunis said: “We do not engage in evil conduct and do not trouble the Sangha. The Sangha sees that we are weak and despises us, and therefore speaks thus.” The bhikkhunis again said: “Do not speak thus.

Why? It is not because the Sangha sees that you are weak and despises you. You yourselves engage in evil conduct and trouble the Sangha.

You must separate, abandon evil conduct, and cease troubling the Sangha. Then you may dwell in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma.” When admonished thus, the two persisted and would not abandon their conduct. The elder bhikkhunis rebuked them, continuing through the words: “I shall now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis” (as stated in the preceding precept).

From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If two bhikkhunis engage together in evil conduct, their ill repute spreads widely, they conceal one another’s offenses, and they trouble the Sangha, the bhikkhunis shall say: ‘You two are bhikkhunis. You should not engage together in evil conduct, cause your ill repute to spread widely, conceal one another’s offenses, and trouble the Sangha. You two should separate, abandon evil conduct, and cease troubling the Sangha.

Then your dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma may flourish.’ Those two bhikkhunis say: ‘We do not engage in evil conduct; our ill repute has not spread everywhere; we do not conceal one another’s offenses; and we do not trouble the Sangha. The Sangha itself sees that we are weak and despises us, and therefore speaks thus.’ The bhikkhunis shall again say: ‘Do not speak thus. Why?

It is not because the Sangha sees that you are weak and despises you. You must separate, abandon evil conduct, and cease troubling the Sangha. Then your dwelling in happiness within the Buddha’s Dharma will increase.’ If, when admonished thus, they persist and do not abandon their conduct, they should be admonished a second and a third time.

If they abandon it after the second or third admonition, that is good. If they do not abandon it, then after three admonitions those two bhikkhunis commit a Sanghadisesa offense requiring penance.” The remainder is as stated in the preceding precept. A siksamana or samaneri who violates this commits a duskrta offense.

At that time, Chanda’s mother, named Sumana, was a person of wicked disposition. The people of that time called her Candala Sumana. She delighted in disputing with others.

When the Sangha adjudicated such a matter, she further said: “The Sangha acts out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear.” The bhikkhunis said: “Do not delight in disputing with others, and do not say: ‘The Sangha acts out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear.’ Why? Because the Sangha does not act out of partiality, hatred, delusion, or fear. You should abandon that statement.

Only then will you stand firm within the Buddha’s Dharma and your happiness increase.” When admonished thus, she persisted and would not abandon it, continuing through the words: “I shall now establish a precept for the bhikkhunis” (as stated in the preceding precept). From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhuni delights in disputing with others and, when the Sangha adjudicates the matter, further says: ‘The Sangha acts out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear,’ the bhikkhunis shall say: ‘Do not delight in disputing with others.

Do not say: “The Sangha acts out of partiality, hatred, delusion, and fear.” Why? Because the Sangha does not act out of partiality, hatred, delusion, or fear. If you abandon that statement, only then will you stand firm within the Buddha’s Dharma and gain increasing happiness.’ If, when admonished thus, she persists and does not abandon it, she should be admonished a second and a third time.

The second time,

if, upon the third admonition, she relinquishes it, that is good; if she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhuni, after being admonished three times, commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.” The remainder is as stated in the preceding rule.
At that time, the bhikkhuni Canda-Sumana was fond of disputing with others. When the Sangha adjudicated the matter, she became angry and said: “I renounce the Buddha, renounce the Dharma, renounce the Sangha, and renounce the precepts to follow the non-Buddhist paths. Other ascetics and brahmins also have training precepts and a sense of shame; I shall go to them and purely cultivate the holy life.”
The bhikkhunis said: “You should not delight in disputing with others. You should not say: ‘I renounce the Buddha,’ and so forth, up to: ‘I shall go to them and cultivate the holy life.’ Why is this? Other ascetics and brahmins have neither training precepts nor a sense of shame; how could you go to them and cultivate the holy life? You should relinquish this wrong view; only within the Buddha-Dharma can you increasingly dwell in peace and happiness.”
When admonished in this way, she persisted and would not relinquish it, and so forth, up to: “I now establish this precept for the bhikkhunis” (as stated in the preceding rule). Henceforth, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhuni delights in disputing with others, and when the Sangha adjudicates the matter, she says: ‘I renounce the Buddha, renounce the Dharma, renounce the Sangha, renounce the precepts, and become a follower of the non-Buddhist paths.

Other ascetics and brahmins also have training precepts and a sense of shame; I shall go to them and purely cultivate the holy life,’ the bhikkhunis should say: ‘You should not delight in disputing with others. You should not say: “I renounce the Buddha, renounce the Dharma, and renounce the Sangha.” Why is this? Other ascetics and brahmins have neither training precepts nor a sense of shame; how could you go to them and cultivate the holy life?

You should relinquish this wrong view; only then, within the Buddha-Dharma, will there be an increase of vast peace and happiness.’ When admonished in this way, if she persists and does not relinquish it, she should be admonished a second and a third time. If, upon the second or third admonition, she relinquishes it, that is good; if she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhuni, after being admonished three times, commits a Sanghadisesa offense and must undergo penance.” The remainder is as stated in the preceding rule.
The Sanghadisesa rules have now been fully stated.
THE FIVE-PART VINAYA OF THE MAHISASAKA SCHOOL