四分律

Thích Nguyên Chứng - Thích Đức Thắng

Revision and Annotation

CHAPTER V

PĀCITTIYA

I. DELIBERATE FALSE SPEECH^[1]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling among the Sakyans,^[2] in the Banyan Grove in Kapilavastu. At that time, among the Sakya clan there was a Sakyan son named Elephant Strength,^[3] who was skilled in debate and often held discussions with non-Buddhist brahmins. Whenever he was defeated, he would reverse what he had previously said. When questioned about this matter before the Sangha, Elephant Strength would likewise reverse his previous statements. In the midst of the assembly, although he knew the truth, he still spoke falsely. The brahmins frequently mocked him, saying:

“The Sakyan ascetics have neither shame nor moral dread. They habitually speak falsely, yet claim, ‘We practice the true Dharma.’ But what true Dharma is there in such conduct? When they cannot prevail in debate, they reverse what they previously said. When questioned in the midst of the Sangha, they likewise reverse their previous statements. In the midst of the assembly, although they know the truth, they still speak falsely.”

Among the bhikkhus who heard this, those who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed shame and moral dread reproached the Sakyan Elephant Strength:

“Why is it that, when you debate with non-Buddhist brahmins and are defeated, you reverse what you previously said? When questioned about the matter before the Sangha, you likewise reverse your previous statements. In the midst of the assembly, although you know the truth, you still speak falsely?”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and reproached the bhikkhu Elephant Strength:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of an ascetic, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the training. You have done what ought not to be done.

“Bhikkhu Elephant Strength, why is it that, when debating with non-Buddhist brahmins and being defeated, you reverse what you previously said? When questioned about the matter before the Sangha, you likewise reverse your previous statements. In the midst of the assembly, although you know the truth, you still speak falsely?”

At that time, after the Blessed One had reproached the bhikkhu Elephant Strength by countless skillful means, he told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is one in whom many seeds of the influxes are planted. He is the first person to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu knowingly speaks falsely, it is a pācittiya offense.^[4]

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Knowingly speaking falsely: having not seen, one says one has seen; having not heard, one says one has heard; having not sensed, one says one has sensed; having not cognized, one says one has cognized;^[5] having seen, one says one has not seen; having heard, one says one has not heard; having sensed, one says one has not sensed; having cognized, one says one has not cognized.

Seeing: seeing by means of eye-consciousness.

Hearing: hearing by means of ear-consciousness.

Sensing: sensing by means of the three consciousnesses of the nose, tongue, and body.

Cognizing: cognizing by means of mind-consciousness.

Not seeing: apart from eye-consciousness, the other five consciousnesses.

Not hearing: apart from ear-consciousness, the other five consciousnesses.

Not sensing: apart from the three consciousnesses, those of the eye, ear, and mind.

Not cognizing: apart from mind-consciousness, the other five consciousnesses.

If a person has not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, but says, “I have seen, heard, sensed, and cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

If a person has not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, yet has the perception of having seen, the perception of having heard, the perception of having sensed, or the perception of having cognized, but says, “I have not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

If a person has not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, and doubt arises in his mind, but he says, “I have no doubt,” and then says, “I have seen, heard, sensed, and cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

If a person has not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, and has doubt in his mind, but says, “I have no doubt about this,” and then says, “I have not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

If a person has not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized and has no doubt in his mind, but says, “I doubt that I have seen, sensed, and cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

If one has no doubt in one’s mind that “I have not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized,” but says, “I doubt that I have not seen, heard, sensed, or cognized,” knowingly speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

This should be explained in detail: Beforehand, one forms the thought, “I shall speak falsely.” While speaking falsely, one knows that one is speaking falsely; after speaking falsely, one knows that one has spoken falsely. Deliberately speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

Beforehand, one forms the thought, “I shall speak falsely.” While speaking falsely, one knows that one is speaking falsely; after speaking falsely, one does not remember that one has spoken falsely. Deliberately speaking falsely incurs a pācittiya offense.

Beforehand, one does not form the thought, “I shall speak falsely.” While speaking falsely, one knows that one is speaking falsely; after speaking falsely, one knows that one has spoken falsely. Deliberately speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

Beforehand, one does not form the thought of speaking falsely. While speaking falsely, one knows that one is speaking falsely; after speaking falsely, one does not remember that one has spoken falsely. Deliberately speaking falsely is a pācittiya offense.

What was seen is one thing, what was understood is another; what was desired is one thing, what was sensed is another; what was perceived is one thing, what was conceived in the mind is another.^[6] All such cases constitute false speech.

Knowingly speaking falsely in the midst of a great assembly is a pācittiya offense. If one speaks clearly, one incurs a pācittiya offense; if one speaks unclearly, one incurs a duṣkṛta offense. During the recitation of the precepts, when the question has been asked as many as three times, if one remembers that one has committed an offense but does not disclose it, one incurs a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a sikshamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called a violation.

There is no offense when one has not seen and says one has not seen; has not heard and says one has not heard; has not sensed and says one has not sensed; has not cognized and says one has not cognized; has seen and says one has seen; has heard and says one has heard; has sensed and says one has sensed; has cognized and says one has cognized; or has the perception of having seen and says one has seen.

Those who do not incur an offense are: the first offender before the precept was established, one who is insane, one whose mind is deranged, one tormented by pain, or one acting under coercion.

II. ABUSIVE SPEECH

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in Anathapindika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, while settling a dispute, the group of six bhikkhus insulted another bhikkhu by disparaging his birth.^[7] The bhikkhu became ashamed and, forgetting what came before and what came after, was unable to speak.

Among the bhikkhus who heard of this, those who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed shame reproached the group of six bhikkhus:

“Why did the group of six bhikkhus, while settling a dispute, insult a bhikkhu by disparaging his birth, causing him to become ashamed, forget what came before and what came after, and be unable to speak?”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and reproached the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of an ascetic, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the training. You have done what ought not to be done. Group of six bhikkhus, why did you, while settling a dispute, insult a bhikkhu by disparaging his birth, causing him to become ashamed, forget what came before and what came after, and be unable to speak?”

After the Blessed One had reproached the group of six bhikkhus by countless skillful means, he told the bhikkhus:

“Long ago, in the country of Takṣaśilā,^[8] there was a brahmin who kept an ox.^[9] Day and night he fed, caressed, and groomed it. At that time, also in the country of Takṣaśilā, there was a wealthy householder^[10] who went throughout every street and alley, loudly proclaiming:

“‘Whoever has an ox strong enough to compete with my ox in pulling one hundred carts, I will wager one thousand pieces of gold.^[11]’

“When the brahmin’s ox heard this proclamation, it thought to itself: ‘This brahmin feeds me devotedly day and night, caressing and grooming me. I should now exert all my strength to pull the carts and win those one thousand pieces of gold, [635a1] thereby repaying his kindness.’

“Having thought this, the ox said to the brahmin:

“‘Master, do you know? In the country of Takṣaśilā, a wealthy householder is proclaiming that whoever has an ox able to compete with his ox in pulling one hundred carts may wager one thousand pieces of gold. Master, you can go to that householder’s home and say, “I have an ox that can compete with yours in pulling one hundred carts, for a wager of one thousand pieces of gold.”’

“After hearing this, the brahmin went to the householder’s home and said, ‘I have a powerful ox that can compete with yours in pulling one hundred carts, for a wager of one thousand pieces of gold.’ The householder replied, ‘Now is the time.’ The brahmin then led his ox there to compete in strength with the householder’s ox, pulling one hundred carts for the wager of one thousand pieces of gold. At that time, a great many people stood watching. Before the crowd, the brahmin insulted the ox, calling out to it:

“‘One-Horn,^[12] pull!’

“When the brahmin’s ox heard this insult, it became ashamed and did not exert its strength to compete with its opponent. Thus, the householder’s ox won, and the brahmin’s ox was defeated. The brahmin lost one thousand pieces of gold.

“Then the brahmin said to his ox:

“‘Day and night I feed, caress, and groom you, hoping that for my sake you would exert all your strength and defeat the householder’s ox. Why, then, did matters turn out otherwise today, causing me to lose one thousand pieces of gold?’

“The ox said to the brahmin:

“‘Before the crowd, you insulted me, saying, “One-Horn, pull!” I felt deeply ashamed before everyone. Therefore, I could not exert all my strength to compete with that ox. If you can change the way you address me and refrain from insulting me with a name referring to my appearance, then go and say to the householder, “My ox can compete with yours in pulling one hundred carts, for a doubled wager of two thousand pieces of gold.”’”

“After hearing this, the brahmin said to his ox:

“‘Do not cause me to lose another two thousand pieces of gold.’

“The ox replied to the brahmin:

“‘Before the crowd, do not insult me by calling, “One-Horn, pull!” Instead, before the crowd you should praise me, saying that I pull exceedingly well and that my horns are very beautiful.’

“Then the brahmin went to the householder’s home and said:

“‘Now your ox may compete with mine in pulling one hundred carts, for a wager of two thousand pieces of gold, before a great many witnesses.’

“The householder said:

“‘This is indeed the proper time.’

“Then, before the crowd, the brahmin praised his ox, saying, ‘Pull exceedingly well! What beautiful horns!’

“When the ox heard this praise, it exerted all its strength to compete with the other ox. Thus, the brahmin’s ox won, and the householder’s ox was defeated. The brahmin obtained two thousand pieces of gold.”

At that time, the Buddha told the bhikṣus:

“Whenever people wish to speak, they should speak gracious words and should not speak harsh and evil words. Speaking gracious words is wholesome. Speaking harsh and evil words brings distress upon oneself. Therefore, bhikṣus, when even an animal is insulted by someone, it feels ashamed and cannot exert all its strength to pull a cart; how much more must a person feel ashamed when humiliated by another! These group-of-six bhikṣus are foolish men. While settling disputes, they insulted the bhikṣus by referring to their birth and kind, causing them such shame that they lost track of what came before and after and could not speak.”

The Blessed One rebuked the group-of-six bhikṣus in countless ways and then told the bhikṣus:

“These are foolish men, the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted, and the first offenders against this rule. From now on, for the sake of the bhikṣus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring continuance of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikṣu insults another by referring to his birth or kind, it is a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikṣu: the meaning is as explained above.

Insulting a person by referring to his birth or kind:^[13] for example, saying, “You were born into a family of low lineage; your occupation is also lowly, and your craft is also lowly.” Or saying, “You are an offender; you are a person with many fetters; you are blind; you are bald and blind...”

– Low lineage: the caṇḍāla lineage, the refuse collectors’ lineage, the basket weavers’ lineage,^[14] and the cartwrights’ lineage.^[15]

– Low clan: this refers to the clans Câu-tấu, Câu-thi, Bà-tô-trú, Ca-diếp, A-đề-lị-dạ, and Bà-la-đọa.^[16] Or one may not originally belong to a low clan, but by practicing a lowly craft one thereby comes to be regarded as belonging to a low clan.

– Lowly occupations: trading in pigs or goats, slaughtering cattle, keeping falcons or hawks, hunting, fishing with nets, being a bandit, apprehending bandits, guarding a city, or overseeing a prison.

– Lowly crafts: working as a blacksmith, carpenter, potter, leatherworker, barber, or winnowing-basket weaver.^[17]

– Offenses: pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, pācittiya, pratideśanīya, sthūlātyaya, duṣkṛta, and wrong speech.

– Fetters: from anger and hatred up to the five hundred fetters.

– Blindness:^[18] blindness, hunchbackedness, lameness, muteness, deafness, and other infirmities.

Or a bhikṣu may revile other bhikṣus, saying, “Venerable, you were born into a lowly household; your occupation is lowly, and your craft is lowly. Venerable, you have committed an offense; you are bound by fetters; you are bald and blind...” Such is insulting speech.

One may insult another directly to his face, insult him by means of an analogy, or insult him by making a comparison with oneself.

– Insulting another directly to his face: for example, saying, “You were born into a caṇḍāla household, born into a refuse collector’s household, born into a basket weaver’s lineage, or born into a cartwright’s lineage; you belong to the Câu-tấu, Câu-thi, Bà-tô-trú, Ca-diếp, Đề-lê-dạ, or Bà-la-đọa clan.” Or although he did not originally belong to a low clan, by practicing a lowly craft he thereby comes to be regarded as belonging to a low clan, as when one says, “You are a trader, a slaughterer of cattle, pigs, or goats. You are a thief or one who apprehends thieves. You are a city guard, a prison guard, a blacksmith, a carpenter, a potter, a shoemaker, or a barber. You are one who has committed a pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, pācittiya, pratideśanīya, sthūlātyaya, duṣkṛta, or wrong-speech offense. You are a person afflicted by fetters, from the fetters of anger and hatred up to the five hundred fetters. You are bald and blind, lame, deaf and mute, or afflicted with other illnesses...”

– Insulting by means of a simile: as when one says, “You are like a Chandala, like one of the caste of night-soil removers, like one of the weaver caste, like one of the cartwright caste. You are like one of the Kauśika clan, like one of the Kuśi, Vāsiṣṭha, Kāśyapa, Taireya, or Bhāradvāja clans. You are like a trader in pigs and goats; like a cattle slaughterer; like one who trains hawks and falcons; like a fisherman or hunter; like a thief, a catcher of thieves, a city guard, or a prison guard; like a potter, a shoemaker, or a barber; like one who has committed a pārājika offense, like one who has committed a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense, like one who has committed a pācittiya offense, like one who has committed a pratideśanīya offense, like one who has committed a sthūlātyaya offense, like one who has committed a duṣkṛta offense, like one who has committed an offense of wrong speech, like one bound by the fetters, like a blind person, like a person without hair, like a lame person, like a deaf-mute...”

– Insulting by comparing oneself with another: as when one says, “I am not of the Chandala caste; I am not of the caste of night-soil removers; I am not of the weaver caste; I am not of the cartwright caste. I am not of the Kauśika clan, nor of the Kuśi, Vāsiṣṭha, Kāśyapa, Taireya, or Bhāradvāja clans; nor am I a trader in pigs and goats, a cattle slaughterer, one who trains hawks and falcons, a fisherman, a hunter, a robber, a catcher of robbers, a city guard, a prison guard, a blacksmith, a carpenter, a weaver, a cartwright, a potter, a shoemaker, or a barber...

I am not one who has committed a pārājika offense, a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense, a pācittiya offense, a pratideśanīya offense, a sthūlātyaya offense, a duṣkṛta offense, or an offense of wrong speech. I am not bound by the fetters; I am not bald, blind, crippled, or deaf and mute...”

If a bhikshu insults another by referring to his lineage and speaks as above, he commits a pācittiya offense. If he insults another by referring to his lineage, and his words are explicit, he commits a pācittiya offense; if they are not explicit, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

Or he may use wholesome practices to insult another directly to his face, insult him by means of a simile, or insult him by comparing himself with the other.

– Using wholesome practices to insult another: as when one says, “You are a forest-dweller, an alms-food eater, a wearer of patched robes, and so forth, up to a meditator.”

– Using wholesome practices to insult another directly to his face: as when one says, “You are [636a1] a forest-dweller, an alms-food eater, a wearer of patched robes, and so forth, up to a meditator.”

– Insulting by means of a simile: as when one says, “You are like a forest-dweller, an alms-food eater, a wearer of patched robes, and so forth, up to a meditator.”

– Insulting by comparing oneself with another: as when one says, “I am not a forest-dweller... and so forth, up to a meditator.”

If a bhikshu uses wholesome practices to insult another directly to his face, insults him by means of a simile, or insults him by comparing himself with the other, then whether his words are explicit or not explicit, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikshuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called a transgression.

There is no transgression if he speaks for their mutual benefit, for the sake of the Dharma, for the sake of the Vinaya, for the sake of instruction, out of close friendship, in jest, through a slip of the tongue, while speaking to himself, while speaking in a dream, or when, intending to say one thing, he mistakenly says another. In all such cases, there is no transgression.

Those who do not transgress are: the first offender before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

III. DIVISIVE SPEECH

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikshus carried words back and forth. They secretly conveyed what one person had said to another, and secretly conveyed what the other had said back to the first.

They continued doing this until disputes arose in the Sangha where none had existed before, and once those disputes had arisen, they could not be brought to an end.

The bhikshus all thought, “For what reason have disputes now arisen in the Sangha, where none existed before, and why can they not be brought to an end once they have arisen?”

The bhikshus learned that it was because the group of six bhikshus had carried words back and forth, thereby causing disputes to arise in the Sangha. These contentions had not existed before, but now they had arisen, and once the disputes had arisen, they could not be brought to an end.

At that time, among the assembly were bhikshus of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhūta disciplines, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame. They reproached the group of six bhikshus:

“Why do you carry words back and forth, thereby causing disputes to arise in the Sangha where none existed before, so that once these disputes have arisen, they cannot be brought to an end?”

The bhikshus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikshus and reproached the group of six bhikshus:

“Why do you carry words back and forth, thereby causing disputes to arise in the Sangha where none existed before, so that once disputes have arisen, they cannot be brought to an end?”

The Blessed One then reproached the group of six bhikshus in innumerable ways and said to the bhikshus:

“Listen attentively! Long ago, there were two fierce beasts who were friends. One was a lion named Good Fang,^[19] and the other was a tiger named Good Grasp.^[20] Day and night, they hunted deer together.

“At that time, a jackal always followed behind these two beasts and sustained himself by eating the meat they left over. The jackal then secretly thought, ‘I cannot continue following behind them like this forever. By what means can I cause these two fierce beasts to quarrel and fight with one another, so that they will no longer travel together?’ Having thought this, the jackal went to the lion Good Fang and said:

“‘Good Fang! I heard the tiger Good Grasp say, “My place of birth is superior; my lineage is superior; my appearance surpasses his, and my strength surpasses his. Why is this? Because every day I obtain rich and delicious food, while the lion Good Fang follows behind me and sustains himself by eating the food I leave over.”’ The jackal then spoke this verse:

In appearance and place of birth,

In strength as well, he is superior;

Good Fang cannot compare with him—

Thus did Good Grasp declare.

Having heard this, Good Fang asked the jackal:

“How do you know this?”

The jackal replied:

“When the two of you gather in one place and meet each other, you will know this clearly for yourself.”

After secretly speaking to Good Fang, the jackal immediately went to the tiger Good Grasp and said:

“Do you know? The lion Good Fang has said, ‘At present, my lineage and place of birth are both superior to his, and my strength is also superior. Why is this? Because I always eat delicious food, while the tiger Good Grasp sustains himself only by eating the food I leave over.’” The jackal then spoke this verse:

In appearance and place of birth,

In strength as well, he is superior;

Good Grasp cannot compare with him—

Thus did Good Fang declare.

Having heard this, Good Grasp asked:

“How do you know this?”

The jackal replied:

“When the two of you gather in one place and meet each other, you will know this clearly for yourself.”

Afterward, the two beasts gathered in one place and glared at each other with angry eyes. The lion Good Fang then thought, ‘I must not attack the tiger without first questioning him.’

The lion Good Fang then addressed the tiger Good Grasp in verse:

In appearance and place of birth,

And in strength, he is also superior.

Good Fang is no match for me—

Did Good Stripe say otherwise?

Good Stripe thought to himself, “Surely it is the jackal who has stirred up this quarrel between us.” Good Stripe the tiger spoke this verse in reply to Good Fang the lion:

Good Stripe did not say so:

In appearance and place of birth,

And in strength, you are also superior;

Good Fang cannot be matched.

If one accepts useless words,

And believes the words of this one and that,

One destroys a deep friendship

And thus becomes an enemy.

One should discern by the truth

And put an end to anger and affliction.

These are truthful words

That will bring us benefit.

Now we should skillfully subdue

And eliminate this evil friend.

We must kill this jackal;

It is he who stirred up the quarrel.

Good Fang the lion then killed the jackal.^[21]

At that time, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Those two beasts were set against each other by the jackal; therefore, when they gathered in one place and met, they were displeased. How much more so with people: when one person is set against another, how could resentment not arise? Why did the group of six bhikkhus stir up quarrels between this side and that, causing disputes that had not previously arisen to arise, and, once disputes had arisen, preventing them from being brought to an end?”

After the Blessed One had rebuked the group of six bhikkhus by countless skillful means, he told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is the first offender against this precept, a field in which many kinds of defilements are planted. From now on, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus, comprising ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

Should any bhikkhu engage in divisive speech,^[22] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. DEFINITION OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Divisive speech:^[23] causing a bhikkhu to quarrel with a bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, or brahmin.

A bhikkhuni, in turn, causes a bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, or bhikkhu to quarrel.

A śikṣamāṇā, in turn, causes a śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, or bhikkhuni to quarrel.

A novice monk causes a novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, or novice nun to quarrel.

A male lay follower, in turn, causes a male lay follower, female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, [637a1] ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, or male lay follower to quarrel.

A female lay follower, in turn, causes a female lay follower, king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, or male lay follower to quarrel.

A king, in turn, causes a king, great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, or female lay follower to quarrel.

A great minister, in turn, causes a great minister, non-Buddhist, ascetic of another teaching, brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, or king to quarrel.

Any non-Buddhist ascetic or brahmin, in turn, causes any non-Buddhist ascetic or brahmin, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, novice nun, male lay follower, female lay follower, king, or great minister to quarrel.

– Causing a quarrel: as when someone says,^[24] “You are descended from caṇḍālas, night-soil removers, basket weavers, cartwrights; you belong to the Kauśika, Kuśi, Vāsiṣṭha, Kāśyapa, Tairīya, or Bhāradvāja clan; you trade in pigs and goats, slaughter cattle, release falcons, trap birds, hunt, act as a bandit, capture bandits, guard cities, guard prisons, work as a blacksmith, make shoes, or work as a tanner; you have committed a pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, pācittiya, pratideśanīya, sthūlātyaya, duṣkṛta, or offense of wrong speech.”

– Speaking of fetters: from anger through the five hundred fetters; saying that one is bald-headed, blind, lame, deaf, or mute. Any bhikkhu who causes a rupture in this way is a bhikkhu who stirs up quarrels. If the statement is clear, he commits a pācittiya offense; if it is unclear, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, or novice nun, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense: if one separates someone from an evil spiritual friend or an evil faction; thwarts a scheme to divide the Sangha; prevents assistance given for the purpose of dividing the Sangha; stops two or three persons from performing a formal act of the Sangha; prevents a formal act contrary to the Dharma or contrary to the Vinaya; or acts against someone who divides the Sangha, destroys a stupa, destroys a shrine, causes a rupture with one’s preceptor or those sharing the same preceptor, causes a rupture with one’s ācārya or those sharing the same ācārya, causes a rupture between acquaintances or close friends, or speaks much that is meaningless and profitless while intending by skillful means to carry out a meaningless deed.

If one causes a rupture with such persons, there is no offense.

Persons who do not commit an offense: one who committed the first offense before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

IV. SLEEPING IN THE SAME ROOM AS A WOMAN^[25]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, Venerable Anuruddha was traveling from Śrāvastī to Kosala. Along the way, he came to a village where there was no lodging place for bhikkhus and made inquiries, asking, “Is there anyone who can give me lodging?” He heard that there was a courtesan’s house there where travelers were regularly allowed to lodge for the night. Venerable Anuruddha then went to the courtesan’s house and asked:

“Elder sister, I wish to lodge here for one night. May I?”

The courtesan said:

“Yes. The house is spacious; Venerable Sir, rest wherever you please.”

Venerable Anuruddha entered the house, spread out a grass sitting mat, sat cross-legged, concentrated his mind in contemplation, and established mindfulness before him.

That same day, some householders from Kosala, traveling on business, also came to that village seeking a place to lodge for the night. They too heard that the courtesan’s house regularly received travelers for temporary lodging. The householders went to the house and asked:

“We need to stay for one night. Can you allow us to lodge here?”

The courtesan replied:

“I have already promised lodging to an ascetic. Ask that ascetic; if he allows you to stay together, then you may lodge here.”

The householders went to Venerable Anuruddha and said:

“We asked the owner of the house to let us stay for one night, and she consented. May we lodge here together without hindrance?”

Venerable Anuruddha replied:

“I have already spread out my grass mat. The house is still spacious; rest wherever you please and have no concern.”

The householders then entered the house. Because they had many companions, the place where they sat became very crowded. Seeing this, the courtesan felt affection for Anuruddha and thought, “This Anuruddha is the son of a noble family. Long accustomed to comfort, he cannot endure hardship. Now the house is too crowded with these householders.” Having thought thus, she went to Anuruddha and said, “Venerable Sir, you have long been accustomed to comfort and cannot endure hardship. The house is now too crowded with these householders. Would you be willing to rest in my inner chamber^[26]?” The Venerable consented.

Venerable Anuruddha then entered the inner chamber, sat cross-legged upon the seat there, and established mindfulness before him. In the courtesan’s house, the lamps burned throughout the night without going out.

During the first watch of the night, the courtesan approached Venerable Anuruddha and said:

“Recently, wealthy brahmin householders possessing many precious goods came and said to me, ‘Will you become my wife?’ I replied to those householders, ‘You are very unattractive. I cannot become your wife. If someone were handsome, I would become his wife.’ I see that the Venerable One has a handsome appearance. Would the Venerable One become my husband?”

At that time, although the Venerable Anuruddha heard these words, he remained silent, neither answering nor looking at her. Why was this? Because the Venerable One had attained the supreme liberation in both respects.^[27] At the end of the night, as dawn was about to appear, she again said to Anuruddha:

“The wealthy householders of brahmin lineage, possessing many precious goods, said to me, ‘Become my wife.’ I firmly refused to consent. But the Venerable One has a handsome and well-formed countenance. Would you become my husband?”

The Venerable Anuruddha again remained silent, neither answering nor looking at her. Why was this? Because the Venerable One himself had attained the supreme liberation in both respects.

Then the courtesan removed her clothing, approached the Venerable One, and seized him. The Venerable One immediately employed his supernormal power and rose into the air. Seeing this, the courtesan became deeply ashamed of her nakedness. She crouched down and hastily covered herself with her garments. When she had finished, she joined her palms, raised her face toward the sky, and said to the Venerable Anuruddha:

“Please forgive me! Please forgive me!” She said this three times. Then she entreated the Venerable One to return to his seat.

The Venerable One descended and sat again in his former place. After bowing at the Venerable One’s feet, the courtesan withdrew and sat to one side. For her sake, the Venerable One taught the subtle and wondrous Dharma, explaining the meaning of generosity, moral discipline, and rebirth in the heavens. The Venerable One censured sensual desire as impure, base, tainted, and fettering.^[28] He praised the bliss of renunciation^[29] and the benefit of liberation.

At that time, while still seated, the courtesan became entirely free from dust and defilement and attained the purity of the Dharma eye. Having seen the Dharma and attained the Dharma, she entreated him, “May the Venerable One permit me to become a female lay devotee, taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. From this day until the end of my life, I shall abstain from killing living beings through to abstaining from drinking intoxicants.

Today, may the Venerable One accept my invitation to a meal.” The Venerable One gave his consent by remaining silent. Knowing that the Venerable One had silently accepted her invitation, the courtesan prepared delicious and nourishing food and drink as an offering. After the Venerable One had finished his meal, she brought a small seat and sat before the Venerable Anuruddha.

For her sake, the Venerable One taught the Dharma, exhorting and guiding her in many ways and causing joy to arise in her heart. After teaching the Dharma, the Venerable One rose from his seat and departed. Upon returning to the Sangharama, he related this matter fully to the bhikkhus.

At that time, among the assembly were bhikkhus of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame. They criticized Anuruddha, saying:

“Anuruddha, why did you sleep in the same room as a woman?”^[30]

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One thereupon assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus on account of this matter. Although he knew the facts, he still asked Anuruddha:

“Is it true that you alone slept in the same room as a woman?”

Anuruddha replied:

“It is true, Blessed One!”

The Blessed One, using innumerable means, [638a1] rebuked Anuruddha:

“What you did was wrong. It was not proper deportment, not the conduct of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You did what ought not to have been done. Anuruddha, why did you sleep in the same room as a woman?”

Then, after rebuking Anuruddha by innumerable means, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is a ground in which many seeds of the taints are planted. He is the first offender against this precept. From now onward, I establish this precept for the bhikkhus, encompassing the ten purposes, up to and including the enduring continuance of the True Dharma.”

When stating the precept, it should be stated thus:

Should any bhikkhu sleep in the same dwelling as a woman, it is a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Woman: a female human being capable of understanding,^[31] whose life faculty has not ceased.

Dwelling:^[32] a place surrounded by enclosing walls and roofed above; or open at the front, without a wall; or having walls but no roof above; or roofed but not completely enclosed; or fully roofed but with an opening. This is called a dwelling.

Whether the bhikkhu falls asleep first and the woman arrives afterward, the woman arrives first and the bhikkhu afterward, or both arrive together: if he reclines and lies down with his side touching the mat, he commits a pacittiya offense. Each time he turns over, there is one pacittiya offense.

If he sleeps in the same dwelling as a female deva, a female asura, a female naga, a female yaksha, or a female hungry ghost, he commits a dukkata offense. If he sleeps in the same room as a female animal, whether capable or incapable of transformation, he commits a dukkata offense. If he sleeps in the same room as a eunuch or a hermaphrodite, he commits a dukkata offense. If, during the daytime, a woman is standing while the bhikkhu lies down, it is a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense; for a sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if the bhikkhu sleeps without knowing that a woman is in that dwelling; or if the bhikkhu arrives first and the woman afterward, without the bhikkhu knowing it; or if the dwelling is roofed but unenclosed on all sides; or fully roofed but only half enclosed; or fully roofed but enclosed only to a small extent; or fully enclosed but unroofed; or fully enclosed but roofed only to a small extent; or half roofed and half enclosed; or roofed and enclosed only to a small extent; or neither roofed nor enclosed, being in the open air.

There is also no offense if, within this dwelling, he is walking or sitting; if dizziness causes him to fall to the ground; if he lies down because he is ill; if he is seized by force; if he is bound by another person; or if there is danger to his life or danger to his pure conduct.

Those who do not commit an offense are: the first offender before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

V. SLEEPING IN THE SAME ROOM AS ONE WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED FULL ORDINATION^[33]

A. ORIGIN

1. THE INCIDENT OF THE GROUP OF SIX BHIKKHUS

At one time, the Blessed One was staying in the city of Alavi.^[34] At that time, the group of six bhikkhus slept together with householders in the lecture hall.^[35]

At that time, one among the group of six, while sleeping with a distracted mind and wholly unaware, rolled over and exposed his naked body. A bhikkhu then covered him with a robe. Later, he rolled over again and exposed himself as before. Another bhikkhu likewise covered him with a robe. After a short while, he continued rolling about, and his organ became erect. Seeing this, the householders became critical, laughed loudly, and mocked him.

When the sleeping bhikkhu awoke, he was overcome with shame, and his face turned pale. The other bhikkhus were also ashamed. Among them were bhikkhus of few desires and contentment, who possessed a sense of shame, practiced the dhutanga austerities, and delighted in training in the precepts. They criticized these bhikkhus, saying, “Why did this group of six bhikkhus sleep together with householders?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One thereupon assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus on account of this matter and rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma; you have done what ought not to be done. Six monks, why did you sleep in the same room with householders?” The Blessed One then rebuked the group of six monks in countless ways and said to the monks:

“These six monks are foolish men, a breeding ground for many outflows, and the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the monks, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a monk sleeps in the same room with one who has not received full ordination, it is a pācittiya offense.

2. THE CASE OF RĀHULA

The Blessed One established the precept for the monks in this way.

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Kauśāmbī.^[36] The monks said, “The Buddha does not permit us to sleep in the same room with one who has not received full ordination. Therefore, tell Rāhula^[37] to go elsewhere.”

At that time, Rāhula had no lodging in which to sleep and had to sleep in the latrine. Knowing this, the Buddha went to the latrine and cleared his throat. Rāhula also cleared his throat in reply. Although the Blessed One knew who it was, he deliberately asked:

“Who is in there?”

Rāhula replied:

“It is I, Rāhula.”

He asked again:

“What are you doing here?”

Rāhula replied:

“The monks said that they were not permitted to sleep in the same room with one who had not received full ordination, so they drove me out.”

The Blessed One then said:

“How can these monks be so foolish and devoid of loving-kindness that they drive a child out of the room? He is a son of the Buddha; do they not understand my intention?”

The Buddha then extended a finger for Rāhula to hold and led him into the room, allowing him to sleep there that night. Early the next morning, he assembled the monks and said:

“You were devoid of loving-kindness and therefore drove the child away. He is a son of the Buddha;^[38] do you not understand my intention?^[39] From now on, I permit monks to sleep in the same room with one who has not received full ordination for two nights. On the third night, before the signs of dawn appear, one should rise and leave. If there is to be a fourth night, either the monk himself must leave or he must tell the person who has not received full ordination to leave.^[40]”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a monk sleeps in the same room with one who has not received full ordination for more than two nights, continuing into the third night,^[41] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Monk: the meaning is as explained above.

One who has not received full ordination: apart from monks and nuns, all others are persons who have not received full ordination.

Sleeping in the same room: as explained previously.^[42]

Whether the monk arrives first and the person who has not received full ordination arrives later; the person who has not received ordination arrives first and the monk arrives later; or both arrive at the same time—if the hip touches the ground, the offense is committed; even reclining slightly constitutes an offense. If he sleeps for more than two nights, continuing for three nights, with a male deva, male asura, male gandharva, male yakṣa, male hungry ghost, or an animal capable or incapable of transformation, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

For a nun, it is a pācittiya offense; for a śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, or novice nun, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if the monk, not knowing that someone is there, arrives first and a person who has not received ordination arrives later; or if the person who has not received ordination arrives first and the monk arrives later; or if the building is roofed but unobstructed on all four sides; or if it is fully roofed but enclosed on only half its sides; or fully enclosed but only partly roofed; or half enclosed and half roofed; or partly enclosed and partly roofed; or if it is in the open air; or if one is sitting or walking in meditation.

In all these cases, there is no offense. There is also no offense if one becomes dizzy and falls to the ground; lies down because of illness; is seized by force; is bound and imprisoned; or if there is danger to one’s life or danger to one’s pure conduct.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

VI. RECITING SCRIPTURE TOGETHER^[43]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Āḷavī. At that time, the group of six monks gathered with householders in the lecture hall and recited the Buddha’s scriptures in loud, forceful voices, sounding no different from brahmins reciting their texts, thereby disturbing the minds of those practicing seated meditation.

Among the monks who heard of this were some who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They criticized the group of six monks, saying, “How can they gather with householders in the lecture hall and recite scripture in voices like those of brahmins reading their texts?”

The monks then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of monks and rebuked the group of six monks:

“How can you gather with householders in the [639a1] lecture hall and recite scripture in voices no different from those of brahmins?”

After rebuking the group of six monks in countless ways, the Blessed One said to the monks:

“These are foolish men, a breeding ground for many outflows, and the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the monks, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a monk recites together with one who has not received ordination, it is a pācittiya offense.^[44]

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Monk: the meaning is as explained above.

One who has not received full ordination: as in the preceding precept, namely, anyone other than a monk or nun.

A meaningful sentence, a non-meaningful sentence, a phrase, a non-phrase; a meaningful syllable, a non-meaningful syllable.^[45]

– A meaningful sentence: reciting together with another person, neither before nor after the other, as in the recitation:

Do not commit any evil;

Practice all that is wholesome;

Purify your own mind—

This is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– A non-meaningful sentence: for example, before one person has finished saying, “Do not commit any evil,” a second person repeats the sentence, “Do not commit any evil.”

– A phrase: two people recite together, neither before nor after the other, as in the recitation, “The eye is impermanent. The ear is impermanent. And so forth, up to: the mind is impermanent.”

– A non-phrase: for example, before one person has finished saying, “The eye is impermanent...,” a second person repeats the preceding words, “The eye is impermanent...”

– A meaningful syllable: two people recite together, neither before nor after the other, as in the recitation, “A-ra-pa-ca-na.”

– A non-meaningful syllable: for example, before one person has finished uttering the sound “A...,” a second person repeats the preceding sound “A....”

– Dharma expressions: words spoken by the Buddha, by disciples, by sages, or by devas.

If a monk recites together with one who has not received full ordination one expression, two expressions, or three expressions, whether transmitting it orally or transmitting it in writing, in every case, if it is clearly articulated, he commits a pācittiya offense; if it is not clearly articulated, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

If he recites one expression, two expressions, or three expressions together with a son of a deva, asura, yakṣa, nāga, or gandharva, or with an animal capable of transformation, then whether the articulation is clear or unclear, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If the teacher does not instruct, “After I have finished speaking, you may speak,” the teacher commits a dukkaṭa offense.

For a nun, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, novice monk, or novice nun, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense when one says, “After I have finished speaking, you may speak”; when one person recites and another writes; when two fellow practitioners recite together; when one speaks in jest; speaks hurriedly; speaks alone; speaks in a dream; or intends to say one thing but says another. In all these cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

VII. DISCLOSING AN OFFENSE TO A LAYPERSON^[46]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling on Mount Gijjhakuta. At that time, in the city of Rajagriha, there was a bhikkhu undergoing parivasa and manatta, and therefore he sat at the lowest place. The group of six bhikkhus asked the laypeople:

“Do you know why that man sits at the very end?”

The laypeople replied:

“We do not know.”

The group of six bhikkhus said:

“He committed such-and-such an offense. Because he committed such an offense, the Sangha imposed a penalty upon him, causing him to sit at the lowest place.”

When the offending bhikkhu heard this, he felt ashamed, and the other bhikkhus who heard these words also felt ashamed. Among them were bhikkhus of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They criticized the group of six bhikkhus, saying, “Why did you tell laypeople about a bhikkhu’s grave offense?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“Why did you tell laypeople about a bhikkhu’s grave offense?” Then, after rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“These are foolish men, a ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted, and the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring presence of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:^[47]

If a bhikkhu tells one who has not received full ordination about a bhikkhu’s grave offense, it is a pacittiya offense.

After the Blessed One had established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way, some bhikkhus did not know whether an offense was grave or not grave and only later learned that it was grave. Some performed the act of confession for a pacittiya offense, while others became anxious. The Buddha said, “If one did not know, there is no offense.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense, tells one who has not received full ordination, it is a pacittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus.

At that time, Venerable Sariputra was appointed by the Sangha to go among the King’s ministers and the populace and clearly proclaim Devadatta’s offenses,^[48] saying that whatever Devadatta did should not be said to be the doing of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, but should be known as the doing of Devadatta. On hearing this, Venerable Sariputra became apprehensive and anxious.^[49] When the bhikkhus learned of this, they went and reported it to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said:

“If one has been appointed by the Sangha, there is no offense.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense, tells one who has not received full ordination, except pursuant to an act of the Sangha, it is a pacittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

One who has not received full ordination: as in the preceding precept (that is, anyone other than a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni).

Grave offense: a parajika or sanghadisesa offense.

Sangha: united in a single formal act and united in the same recitation of the precepts.

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another has committed a grave offense, tells one who has not received full ordination, except pursuant to an act of the Sangha, it is a pacittiya offense. If he speaks clearly, it is a pacittiya offense; if he speaks unclearly, it is a dukkata offense.

If, apart from a grave offense, he tells one who has not received full ordination about other offenses, it is a dukkata offense.

If he tells one who has not received full ordination about a grave offense that he himself has committed, it is a dukkata offense. If anyone other than a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni tells one who has not received full ordination about another person’s grave offense, it is a dukkata offense.

If it is a grave offense and he perceives it as a grave offense, it is a pacittiya offense. If it is a grave offense but he is uncertain, it is a dukkata offense. If it is not a grave offense but he perceives it as a grave offense, it is a dukkata offense. If it is not a grave offense but he is uncertain, it is a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense; for a siksamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if he did not know, or if he was appointed by the Sangha; if the offense was grave but he perceived it as not grave; or if the layperson already knew of the grave offense beforehand.

There is no offense for the first offender before the precept was established, or for one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

VIII. SPEAKING OF SUPERHUMAN STATES^[50]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the Gabled Hall by the Monkey Pond at Vaisali. At that time, the bhikkhus residing in the garden by the Vaggumuda River told people who had not received full ordination that they themselves had realized superhuman states. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, though knowing the answer, deliberately asked the bhikkhus residing in the garden by the Vaggumuda River:

“Is this true?”

They replied:

“Venerable Blessed One, it is true.”

The Buddha rebuked them:

“You are foolish men. Even if it were true, you should still not tell others of it, much less when it is untrue.”

After rebuking the bhikkhus residing in the garden by the Vaggumuda River in countless ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“These are foolish men, a ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted, and the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring presence of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu tells one who has not received full ordination that he himself has realized a superhuman state, saying, ‘I see this; I know this,’ then, if it is true, it is a pacittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

One who has not received full ordination: as in the preceding precept.

Human states:^[51] human morality, human skandhas, and human ayatanas.^[52]

Superhuman states:^[53] refers to the states leading to liberation.

To speak of oneself: to say that one has attained mindfulness of the body, wholesome reflection, morality, aspiration, heedfulness, diligence, concentration, right concentration, the Path, cultivation, wisdom, vision, attainment, or fruition. If he truly possesses any of these and speaks clearly about it to one who has not received full ordination, he commits a pacittiya offense; if he speaks unclearly, he commits a dukkata offense.

If he uses hand gestures, writing, or [640a1] signs to make another understand clearly, it is a pacittiya offense; if the meaning is not clear, it is a dukkata offense.

If he speaks of a superhuman state to devas, asuras, yaksas, gandharvas, nagas, hungry ghosts, or animals capable of transformation, then whether his meaning is clear or unclear, it is a dukkata offense.

If he has truly attained a superhuman state but speaks of it to one who has received full ordination and does not consent to hear it, he commits a dukkata offense. If he declares, “I have attained the faculties, powers, factors of awakening, the Path, meditative concentration, liberation, or entry into samadhi,” and says this to another person, he commits a pacittiya offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense; for a siksamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if it is due to overestimation of one’s attainment; if he says that something is the result of karma rather than claiming that he attained it through his own cultivation; if he has truly attained a superhuman state and speaks of it to a consenting bhikkhu; if he speaks of the faculties, powers, factors of awakening, the Path, liberation, or entry into samadhi without saying to another person, “I have attained it”; if he speaks in jest, speaks to himself, speaks in a dream, or intends to say one thing but says another. In all such cases, there is no offense.

There is no offense for the first offender before the precept was established, or for one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

IX. TEACHING THE DHARMA IN MORE THAN FIVE SENTENCES^[54]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in Anathapindika’s Garden in the Jeta Grove in the country of Sravasti. At that time, Venerable Kaludayin, at the appropriate time, put on his robe, took up his alms bowl, and went to the home of a householder. In the presence of the mother-in-law, he leaned close to the daughter-in-law’s ear and taught her the Dharma. Seeing this, the mother-in-law asked the daughter-in-law:

“What did the bhikkhu just say?”

The daughter-in-law replied:

“The bhikkhu was teaching me the Dharma.”

The mother-in-law said to the bride:

“If he is teaching the Dharma, he should speak loudly enough for all of us to hear. Why did he lean close to your ear and speak only for you to hear?”

The bride said:

“What the bhikkhu just said was no different from a conversation between brothers and sisters. What fault could there be in that?”

At that time, a bhikkhu on almsround heard this and rebuked Kaludayin, saying, “Why did the Venerable One lean close to the bride’s ear and teach her the Dharma in the presence of her mother-in-law?”

After completing his almsround, the bhikkhu returned to the Sangharama and related this matter fully to the bhikkhus. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They criticized Kaludayin, saying, “Why did he lean close to the bride’s ear and teach her the Dharma in the presence of her mother-in-law?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, though he knew the facts, deliberately asked Kaludayin:

“Is it true that you leaned close to the bride’s ear and taught her the Dharma in the presence of her mother-in-law?”

He replied:

“It is true.”

The Blessed One then rebuked Kaludayin in countless ways:

“What you did was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper deportment, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the training. You did what ought not to be done. Why did you lean close to the bride’s ear and teach her the Dharma in the presence of her mother-in-law?”

After rebuking Kaludayin in countless ways, the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus:

“This foolish Kaludayin is a place in which many seeds of the outflows are planted. He is the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated thus:

If any bhikkhu teaches the Dharma to a woman, it is a pacittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus.

At that time, some women requested the bhikkhus:

“May the Venerable Ones please teach us the Dharma.”

The bhikkhus were apprehensive because of the precept established by the Blessed One that a bhikkhu must not teach the Dharma to a woman.

The bhikkhus reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to speak five or six sentences of Dharma to a woman.”

From now on, the precept should be stated thus:

If any bhikkhu speaks more than five or six sentences of Dharma for a woman to hear, it is a pacittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus were again apprehensive and, when no knowledgeable man was present, refrained from teaching the Dharma to women. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, when a knowledgeable man is present, I permit you to speak more than five or six sentences of Dharma to a woman.”

From now on, the precept should be stated thus:

If any bhikkhu speaks more than five or six sentences of Dharma to a woman, except when a knowledgeable man is present, it is a pacittiya offense.

At that time, some women requested the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, please confer the Five Precepts upon me.”

The bhikkhus were apprehensive because no knowledgeable man was present, and therefore did not confer the Five Precepts upon the women. The Buddha taught:

“From now on, I permit the Five Precepts to be conferred upon women even when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, a woman requested the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, please explain the Dharma of the Five Precepts to me.”

Because no knowledgeable man was present, the bhikkhu was apprehensive and did not explain the Dharma of the Five Precepts to the woman. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to explain the Dharma of the Five Precepts to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women wished to undertake the Eight Precepts of the uposatha observance. The bhikkhus were apprehensive because no knowledgeable man was present and did not dare administer the observance to them. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to confer the Eight Precepts of the uposatha observance upon women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women requested the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, please explain the Dharma of the Eight Precepts of the uposatha observance to me.”

Because no knowledgeable man was present, the bhikkhu was apprehensive and did not explain the Dharma of the Eight Precepts of the uposatha observance. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to explain the Dharma of the Eight Precepts of the uposatha observance to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women said to the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, we wish to hear the Dharma of the Noble Eightfold Path.”

Because no knowledgeable man was present, the bhikkhu was apprehensive and did not explain the Dharma of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to explain the Dharma of the Noble Eightfold Path to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women said to the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, please explain the ten unwholesome actions to me.”

Because no knowledgeable man was present, the bhikkhu was apprehensive and did not explain the ten unwholesome actions. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to explain the ten unwholesome actions to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women said to the bhikkhus:

“Venerable sir, please explain the ten wholesome actions to us.”

Because no knowledgeable man was present, the bhikkhu was apprehensive and did not explain the ten wholesome actions. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to explain the ten wholesome actions to women when no knowledgeable man is present.”

At that time, some women came to question the bhikkhus about the meaning of the Dharma. The bhikkhus were apprehensive and did not explain the ten unwholesome actions. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus, when no knowledgeable man is present, to answer women’s questions concerning the meaning. If they do not understand, the bhikkhus should explain it to them in detail.”

From now on, the precept should be stated thus:

If any bhikkhu speaks more than five or six sentences of Dharma to a woman, except when a knowledgeable man is present, it is a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Woman: also as defined above.

Five sentences: Form is non-self; feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are non-self.

Six sentences: The eye is impermanent; the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are impermanent.

A knowledgeable man: one who clearly understands what is lewd and what is not lewd.

If a bhikkhu speaks more than five or six sentences of Dharma to a woman, except when a knowledgeable man is present, and she understands them clearly, he commits a pacittiya offense; if she does not understand them clearly, he commits a dukkata offense.

If he speaks more than five or six sentences of Dharma to a maiden, an asura woman, a naga woman, a yaksha woman, a gandharva woman, a female hungry ghost, or a female animal capable of transformation, whether they understand clearly or not, he commits a dukkata offense.

Among animals [641a1], if he speaks more than five or six sentences to those incapable of transformation, he commits a dukkata offense in every case.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a siksamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if he speaks only five or six sentences; or if he speaks more than that while a knowledgeable man is present. If no knowledgeable man is present, he may still confer the five precepts upon a female lay follower, teach the Dharma concerning the five precepts, confer the eight fasting precepts, teach the Dharma concerning the eight fasting precepts, explain the Noble Eightfold Path, teach the Dharma concerning the ten unwholesome actions, or answer a woman’s questions about the meaning. If they do not understand, he may explain it to them at length. Or if he speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to himself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but speaks of another, there is no offense in any such case.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

X. DIGGING THE EARTH^[55]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Khoáng Dã. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus, while repairing the lecture hall for the Buddha, dug the earth around the lecture hall.^[56] When the householders saw this, they criticized them, saying: “These Sakyan ascetics are shameless; they destroy the lives of other beings. Outwardly they proclaim, ‘We know the true Dharma,’ but judging from what they do today, what true Dharma is there? They dig the earth themselves and destroy the lives of other creatures!”

When the bhikkhus heard this, those among them who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed shame and moral dread rebuked the group of six bhikkhus: “Why, while repairing the lecture hall for the Buddha, did you dig the earth with your own hands, causing the householders to find fault?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported the circumstances fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One rebuked the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the practice of an ascetic, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you dig the earth yourselves, causing the householders to find fault?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“These are foolish men, a breeding ground for many kinds of taints, and the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu digs the earth with his own hands, it is a pācittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus.

At that time, while repairing the lecture hall, the group of six bhikkhus merely instructed someone else to dig the earth, saying: “Dig here; remove the earth here.” When the householders saw this, they found fault, saying: “Why are these Sakyan ascetics so shameless? They order others to dig the earth and destroy the lives of other creatures, without any loving-kindness. Outwardly they proclaim, ‘We know the true Dharma,’ but judging from what they do today, what true Dharma is there?”

At that time, when the bhikkhus heard this, those among them who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed shame and moral dread rebuked the group of six bhikkhus: “Why, while repairing the Buddha’s lecture hall, did you instruct someone else to dig the earth, saying, ‘Dig here; remove the earth here,’ thus causing the householders to find fault?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus, a bhikkhu of few desires went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. He then reported the circumstances fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One immediately assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the practice of an ascetic, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why, while repairing the lecture hall, did you instruct someone else to dig the earth, saying, ‘Dig here; remove the earth here,’ thus causing the householders to find fault?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept”:

If any bhikkhu digs the earth with his own hands or causes another to dig it,^[57] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Earth: earth that has been dug or earth that has not been dug.^[58] If earth that has already been dug has, after four months of rain, become saturated and returned to its former condition, then whether one harrows it with a rake, digs it with a spade, strikes it with a mallet, cuts it with a sickle or knife, or even scratches it with a fingernail so that the earth is damaged, in every case one commits a pācittiya offense. Driving a stake into the earth is a pācittiya offense. Lighting a fire on the earth is a pācittiya offense. If it is earth and one perceives it as earth, it is a pācittiya offense. If one does not instruct another by saying, “Look at this; attend to this!”^[59] one commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if one says, “Look at this; attend to this!” Or if one drags a tree or bamboo; raises a fallen fence; turns over a stone to obtain dung; deals with a collapsed earthen embankment; takes earth from a mouse hole; clears earth from a place used for walking meditation; clears earth inside a dwelling; clears a path used for coming, going, or walking meditation; sweeps the ground; plants a monk’s staff upon the ground; or digs unintentionally. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress. ^[60]

Notes:

1] Cf. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 (T22n1421, p.37b14); Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 12 (T22n1425, p.324c07); Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 7 (T23n1435, p.63b16); Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 25 (T23n1442, p.760b16). Pali, Pācittiya 1, Musāvāda, Vin.iv. 2.

^[2] Thích-súy-sấu 釋翅瘦 (Pali: Sakkesu), among the Sakyans; it is not a place-name. All the other Vinayas state that the Buddha was at Śrāvastī; the Pali does likewise.

^[3] Tượng Lực 象力. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 (T22n1421, p.37b15): the Dharma-teaching bhikkhu named Sa-lan 法師比丘名沙蘭. Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 12 (T22n1425, p.324c08): Elder Thi-lị-da-bà 長老尸利耶婆. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 7 (T23n1435, p.63b22): the Sakyan bhikkhu Ha-đa 訶哆釋子比丘. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 25 (T23n1442, p.760b17): the occasion arose because of Venerable Rāhula 具壽羅怙羅 (Cụ thọ La-hỗ-la), but the precept was not yet established; it was only after the occasion involving the bhikkhu Pháp Thủ 法手苾芻 that the precept was established. Pali: Hatthako Sakyaputto.

^[4] Pācittiya. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 7 (T23n1435, p.63c19): “Ba-dạ-đề 波夜提 is the name of an offense; it means burning and obstruction. If it is not confessed, it can obstruct the Path.” Pali: pācittiya.

^[5] Seen, heard, sensed, and cognized; Chinese: 見聞觸知. These are the four functions of cognition, also commonly expressed as seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya has 見聞知識. Pali: diṭṭhaṃ, sutaṃ, mutaṃ, viññātaṃ.

^[6] Cf. Pali, Vin.iv. 2, which speaks of lying in seven forms concerning any one of the four functions of cognition: before lying, while lying, and after lying, one clearly knows that one will lie, is lying, and has lied; one intentionally misrepresents one’s view, approval, preference, and intention; (…) vinidhāya diṭṭhiṃ, vinidhāya khantiṃ, vinidhāya ruciṃ, vinidhāya bhāvaṃ.

^[7] Abuse concerning one’s kind 種類罵. See the explanation in the section on the characteristics of the precept.

^[8] The country of Đắc-sát-thi-la 得剎尸羅國. Pali: Takkasilā, the capital of Gandhāra, renowned as a center of learning. It is mentioned frequently in the Jātaka tales.

^[9] In the Pali, the ox is named Nandivisāla.

^[10] Pali: seṭṭhi, a wealthy householder or great merchant.

^[11] Pali: sahassena abbhutaṃ karoti, to make a wager of one thousand. It does not say one thousand of what. The English translation conjectures kahāpaṇa, gold coins. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 (T22n1421, p.37c21): fifty gold coins. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 15 (T23n1442, p.765a22): five hundred gold coins.

^[12] Chinese: nhất giác 一角, a mocking name for the ox. Pali: kūṭa, hornless; an ox with broken horns.

^[13] Chinese: words of disparagement concerning one’s class or kind 種類毀呰語. Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 12 (T22n1425, p.325b28): words concerning class and physical characteristics 種類形相語; there are seven modes: lineage, occupation, appearance, illness, offense, ailment, and fetters (defilements). Pali (Vin.iv. 4): omasavāda. There are ten modes of reviling: by family (jātiyā), name (nāmena), clan (gottena), occupation (kammena), craft (sippena), illness (bādhena), distinguishing mark (liṅgena), defilement (bad habit) (kilesena), offense (āpattiyā), and low status (hīnena).

^[14] Bamboo-worker caste 竹師種: artisans who make bamboo implements. Pali: veṇajāti.

^[15] Cartwright caste 車師種. Pali: rathakārajāti.

^[16] Câu-tấu 拘湊, Câu-thi 拘尸, Bà-tô-trú 婆蘇晝, Ca-diếp 迦葉, A-đề-lị-dạ 阿提梨夜, Bà-la-đọa 婆羅墮. In Pali, there are clans of low and high standing. Clans of low standing: Kosiya, Bhāradvāja; clans of high standing: Gotama, Moggallāna, Kaccāyana, Vāsiṭṭha.

^[17] Chinese: winnowing basket 簸箕. Pali: naḷakāra, the craft of plaiting/weaving rushes.

^[18] Blind and sightless 盲瞎, referring collectively to disabilities and illnesses.

^[19] Thiện Nha 善牙. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 9 (T23n1435, p.66a27): Hảo Mao 好毛.

^[20] Thiện Bác 善博. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 (T22n1421, p.38b05): Thiện Trảo 善抓. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 9 (T23n1435, p.66a27): Hảo Nha 好牙.

^[21] Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 12 (T22n1425, p.326b19): the account is told in the “Jātaka Sūtra of the Three Beasts”; no details are given.

^[22] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, ibid.: “Speaking with a double tongue, causing bhikkhus to quarrel in discord.” Pali: bhikkhupesuñña, divisive speech among bhikkhus.

^[23] In Pali, divisive speech has two forms (dvīhākārehi pesuññaṃ hoti): speaking with the aim of winning affection, and speaking with the aim of causing division.

^[24] That is, reporting one person’s words to another. In Pali, there are ten kinds of divisive speech, corresponding to the ten kinds of harsh and abusive speech: from disparaging someone’s lineage through to reviling them.

^[25] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 8 (T22n1421, p.59b09), Pācittiya 56; Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 19 (T22n1425, p.381c28), Pācittiya 69; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (T23n1435, p.112c22), Pācittiya 65; Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 40 (T23n1442, p.849b25), Pācittiya 65. Pali, Vin.iv. 17, Pācittiya 6.

^[26] Original Chinese: inside the dwelling 舍內; more precisely, this should be understood as the inner chamber. Pali: mañcakaṃ abbhantaraṃ, a bed in the inner chamber. See n. 32 below.

^[27] Chinese: liberated in both respects 二俱解脫. That is, liberated through mind and liberated through wisdom. An arhat who has attained the cessation attainment is said to possess both (aspects of) liberation. See Abhidharmakośa (T22n1558, p.131b26). Pali: ubhatobhāga-vimutta, cf. D.ii. 71; M.i. 477; S.i. 191.

^[28] Chinese: the impurity of sensual desire, transcendence, and the bondage of the taints 欲不淨度有漏縛. Cf. Pali, Mahāvagga, Vin. i. 16: bhagavā… anupubbiṃ kathaṃ kathesi seyyathidaṃ dānakathaṃ sīlakathaṃ sagga-kathaṃ, kāmānaṃ ādīnavaṃ okāraṃ saṃkilesaṃ nekkhamme ānisaṃsaṃ, “… then the Blessed One gave a progressive discourse, speaking on giving, on morality, on rebirth in heaven, on the danger, degradation, and defilement of sensual pleasures, and on the benefit of renunciation.

^[29] Cf. A.i.80, dvemāni … sukhāni… kāmasukhanca nekkhammasukhañca: there are these two kinds of happiness: the happiness of sensual pleasure and the happiness of renunciation.

^[30] Original Chinese: same room 同室, sharing one house. More precisely, sharing one chamber. Pali: sahaseyya. See n. 32 below.

^[31] Chinese: possessing awareness 有知. Cf. the Pali definition, Vin. iv. 20: (…) manussitthī na yakkhī na petī na tiracchānagatā…, a female human being, not a yakkha, not a ghost, and not an animal.

^[32] Chinese: chamber 室. Pali: seyya, sleeping chamber; defined as: either fully roofed over, fully enclosed, partly roofed over, or partly enclosed. All the Chinese versions translate it as “chamber.”

^[33] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 (T22n1421, p.40a07), Pācittiya 7; Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 17 (T22n1425, p.365b03), Pācittiya 42; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 15 (T23n1435, p.105b09), Pācittiya 54; Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 39 (T23n1442, p.838c07), Pācittiya 54. Pali: Pāc. 5, Sahaseyya, Vin. iv.15.

^[34] Khoáng Dã City 曠野城. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, ibid.: the settlement of A-trà-tì 阿荼脾邑. Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, ibid.: Khoáng Dã Monastery 曠野精舍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid.: the country of A-la-tì 阿羅毘國. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid.: the Buddha was at Thất-la-phiệt City 室羅伐城 (Śrāvastī). Pali, ibid.: āḷaviyaṃ viharati aggāḷave cetiye, dwelling at Āḷavi, in the great shrine of Āḷavi.

^[35] Pali, navakā bhikkhū … upāsakehi saddhiṃ…, newly ordained bhikkhus… together with lay devotees.

^[36] The country of Câu-thiệm-tỳ 拘睒毘國. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, ibid.: in the country of Câu-xá-di, in Ghosita’s Park 拘舍彌國瞿羅園. Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, ibid.: the occasion took place at Kapilavastu. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid.: the Buddha was at Śrāvastī. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid.: the Buddha was at Kauśāmbī, in Ghosita’s Park 憍閃毘妙音園. Pali: Kosambī.

^[37] La-vân: Rāhula.

^[38] The meaning is that a novice who has gone forth no longer acknowledges his parents in worldly life, but is a child of the Buddha. Rāhula alone is not the Buddha’s child. See the note below.

^[39] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, ibid. (T22n1421, p.40b17): “Why should a pack of jackals drive away a lion?” Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid. (T23n1435, p.105c11): “This novice has no parents. If you do not lovingly care for and protect him, how could he survive?” Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, ibid. (T23n1442, p.839c02): “Candidates for ordination (that is, novices) have no parents. Only you, their companions in the holy life, should lovingly care for and protect them.”

^[40] Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, ibid. (T22n1425, p.365c11): “It is permitted to sleep in the same chamber for three nights; on the fourth night one should lodge separately.”

^[41] The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya state: “Beyond two nights, a Pācittiya offense.” The Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya states: “Beyond three nights, a Pācittiya offense.” Pali: uttaridirattatirattaṃ, “beyond two or three nights”; this is understood to mean “from two to three nights.” Explaining the meaning for practical observance, the Pali, Vin.iv. 17, says: “If two nights have elapsed, then on the third night one should depart before the first sign of dawn.”

^[42] Sleeping in the same chamber 同室宿. See n. 30. Pācittiya 4 above. Pali: sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya.

^[43] In the various Vinayas, Pācittiya 6. Pali, Pāc. 4 Padasodhammasikhā.

^[44] Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 6: “Teaching the wording of the Dharma to one who has not received full ordination…”

^[45] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6, the wording of the Dharma: sentence, phrase, and syllable—that is, a clause, a group of words, and a syllable (because Sanskrit is polysyllabic). Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 6, the wording of the Dharma: a complete sentence (a complete clause), an incomplete sentence (an incomplete clause); a complete word (a whole, polysyllabic word), an incomplete word (an incomplete word); a complete syllable, and an incomplete syllable.

^[46] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6, Pācittiya 9; Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 14, Pācittiya 8; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 10, Pācittiya 8; Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 27, Pācittiya 7. Pali, Pāc. 9 Duṭṭhullārocana.

^[47] In the Mahīśāsaka and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas, the precept was established three times. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, it was established once. In the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, it was established twice. In the Pali, once.

^[48] See Ch. ii, Saṅghādisesa x.

^[49] Chinese: fearful and circumspect 畏慎.

^[50] Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 13 and Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 10, Pācittiya 7; Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6 and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 27, Pācittiya 8. Pali, Pāc. 8 Bhūta-rocanasikhā. Cf. Ch. i, Pārājika iv.

^[51] Chinese: superhuman state, in “a state beyond human capacity” 過人法 (“a superior human state”; Pali: uttarimanussa-dhamma). See the explanation in Ch. i, Pārājika 4.

^[52] The human dhatus 人界, human skandhas 人陰, and human ayatanas 人入; that is, dhatus (Pali: dhātu), skandhas (khandha), and ayatanas (āyatana): the aggregates that constitute a person.

^[53] Original Chinese: a state beyond human capacity 過人法.

^[54] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 6, Pācittiya 4; Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 13, Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 27, Pācittiya 5; Pali, Pāc. 7 Dhammadesanasikhā.

^[55] Pali, Pāc. 10 Pathavīkhaṇana. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 8, Pācittiya 59; Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya 19, Pācittiya 73; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 16 and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 41, Pācittiya 73.

^[56] The Five-Part Vinaya, similarly: The Buddha traveled from Kosala to the village of Āṭavī. The bhikkhus repaired the dwellings in order to welcome the Buddha. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, similarly: the bhikkhu in charge of construction work.

^[57] The Five-Part Vinaya 8 (T22n1425, p. 60c22): “He causes someone to dig, or says, ‘Dig in this place.’” The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 19 (T22n1425, p. 384c): “He causes someone to dig, or points out the place to be dug.” The Ten Recitations Vinaya: “He instructs another person to dig, saying, ‘You shall dig in this place.’”

^[58] The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, as above, distinguishes two kinds of earth: sanh 生, meaning natural earth; and tác 作, cultivated ground. The Ten Recitations Vinaya, as above, distinguishes two kinds of earth: sinh địa 生地, productive earth—in countries with much rain, the earth becomes productive in the eighth month; in countries with little rain, it becomes productive in the fourth month—and bất sinh địa 不生地, non-productive earth, meaning earth other than productive earth. Pali, Vin. iv. 33: jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī.

^[59] The Five-Part Vinaya, as above: “Know this; look at this. I need this. Give me this.” Cf. Pali: imaṃ jāna, imaṃ dehi, imaṃ āhara, iminā attha, imaṃ kappaṃ karohi, “Recognize this clearly; give this; bring this; I need this; make this allowable.”

^[60] End of fascicle 11 of the Chinese text.