Mahāyāna — Northern Canon · Linh Sơn Vietnamese Mahāyāna Canon

四分律

Chinese title:四分律

📖14,241 words · ~57 min read

Save your scripture progress

Create a free account to save scriptures, track progress, and continue your daily learning path.

Create account →

Interpreted by Inti AI (English)

🪷 AI interpretation

Thích Nguyên Chứng - Thích Đức Thắng

Revision and Annotation

LXIII. DELIBERATELY CAUSING DOUBT AND REMORSE ^[350]

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 seventeen bhikkhus approached the group of six bhikkhus and asked:

“Venerable sirs! How does one enter the first dhyāna? The second, third, and fourth dhyānas? How does one enter emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness? How does one attain the fruit of stream-entry? The fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, and the fruit of arhatship?”

The group of six bhikkhus then said:

“By asking such questions, you have committed a pārājika offense and are no longer bhikkhus.”^[351]

The group of seventeen bhikkhus then went to [678a1] a senior bhikkhu and asked:

“If bhikkhus were to ask, ‘How does one enter the first dhyāna? The second, third, and fourth dhyānas? How does one enter emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness? How does one attain the fruit of stream-entry? The fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, and the fruit of arhatship?’ what offense would they commit?”

The senior bhikkhu said:

“Asking in this way constitutes no offense whatsoever.”

The group of seventeen bhikkhus said:

“We went to the group of six bhikkhus and asked, ‘How does one enter the first dhyāna? The second, third, and fourth dhyānas? How does one enter emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness? How does one attain the fruit of stream-entry? The fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, and the fruit of arhatship?’ But the group of six bhikkhus said, ‘You have claimed for yourselves a superhuman attainment,^[352] have committed a pārājika offense, and are no longer bhikkhus!’”

That senior bhikkhu considered the matter and knew that the group of six bhikkhus had sought to cause doubt and distress in the group of seventeen bhikkhus.

When the bhikkhus learned of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the ascetic disciplines, delighted in training, and possessed a sense of shame criticized the group of six bhikkhus, saying, “Why did you cause doubt and distress in the group of seventeen bhikkhus?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then fully reported this matter to the Blessed One. Because of this matter, the Blessed One 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 conduct of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you cause doubt and distress in the group of seventeen bhikkhus?”

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

“These foolish men are the ground in which many tainted states are planted. They are the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the long endurance of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

Should any bhikkhu cause doubt and distress in another, it is a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One thus established the precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, many bhikkhus gathered in one place to discuss the Dharma and Vinaya, but one bhikkhu departed. After leaving, doubt arose in his mind, and he thought, “Do those bhikkhus believe that I caused them to doubt?” The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha said:

“If it was not done intentionally, there is no offense.”

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

Should any bhikkhu deliberately cause doubt and distress in another, making him uneasy even for a moment,^[353] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Doubt:^[354] causing doubt concerning birth, age, ordination, a formal act of the Sangha, an offense, or matters of Dharma.^[355]

– Causing doubt concerning birth: For example, one asks, “How long ago were you born?” The person replies, “I was born at such-and-such a time.” One then says, “You were not born at that time. Compared with the birth dates of others, you could not have been born then.” This is called causing doubt concerning birth.

– What is meant by causing doubt when asking about age? For example, one asks, “How old are you?” The person replies, “I am so many years old.” One then says, “You are not that age. Compared with others who received ordination, you have not yet reached that age.” This is called asking about age in order to cause doubt in another.

– What is meant by asking in order to cause doubt concerning ordination? For example, one says, “When you received ordination, you were not yet twenty years old. Furthermore, there was a separate assembly within the boundary.” This is called causing doubt concerning ordination.

– What is meant by causing doubt concerning a formal act of the Sangha? For example, one asks, “When you received ordination, was the motion invalid, the formal act invalid, or was it an unlawful act performed by a separate assembly?” This is called asking in order to cause doubt concerning the performance of a formal act of the Sangha.

– What is meant by causing doubt concerning an offense? For example, one says, “You have committed a pārājika, saṅghādisesa, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, thullaccaya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense.” This is called causing doubt concerning an offense.

– What is meant by causing doubt concerning matters of Dharma? For example, one says, “By asking about the Dharma in this way, you have committed a pārājika offense and are no longer a bhikkhu.” This is called causing doubt concerning the Dharma.

If a bhikkhu deliberately causes another bhikkhu to doubt, whether concerning birth or age, up to and including causing doubt concerning the Dharma, and speaks clearly, he commits a pācittiya offense; if he speaks unclearly, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

In relation to a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense. In relation to a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense in the following cases: The facts are truly so, and one does not act with the intention of causing doubt. The person was not born at that time; fearing that he might later experience doubt and remorse, undeservedly receive offerings from others, and accept the homage of senior bhikkhus, one says, “You were not born at that time. Compared with the birth dates of others, you should know that you were not born then.”

The facts are truly so, and that person is not of the stated age; fearing that he might later experience doubt and remorse, undeservedly receive gains from others, and accept the homage of senior bhikkhus, one says, “You are not that age. Compared with the ages of other bhikkhus, you have not yet reached that age.”

The facts are truly so: he was not yet twenty years old, or there was a separate assembly within the boundary. Fearing that he might later experience doubt and remorse, undeservedly receive gains from others, and accept the homage of senior bhikkhus, and wishing him to understand, return to his former status, and receive ordination again, one says, “You were not yet twenty years old, and there was a separate assembly within the boundary.”

The facts are truly so: the motion was invalid, the formal act was invalid, or it was an unlawful act performed by a separate assembly. Fearing that he might later experience doubt and remorse, undeservedly receive gains from others, and accept the homage of senior bhikkhus, and wishing him to understand, return to his former status, and receive ordination again, one says, “Your motion was invalid, the formal act was not accomplished, and it was an unlawful act performed by a separate assembly.”

The facts are truly so: he committed a pārājika, saṅghādisesa, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, thullaccaya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense. Fearing that he might later experience doubt and remorse, undeservedly receive gains from others, and accept the homage of bhikkhus who uphold the precepts, and wishing him to understand and make amends in accordance with the Dharma, one says, “You have committed a pārājika offense, up to and including a dubbhāsita offense.”

Furthermore, if that person is shallow by nature and does not know how to speak properly, one may say, “By speaking in this way, you are claiming a superhuman attainment, committing a pārājika offense; this is not the conduct of a bhikkhu.”

Or if one speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but speaks of another, in all such cases there is no offense.

Those who do not offend: one who committed the act for the first time before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

LXIV. CONCEALING A GRAVE OFFENSE ^[356]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, Bhaddananda the Sakyan was on intimate terms with a certain bhikkhu. Bhaddananda the Sakyan, however, frequently committed offenses, and so he went and said to that bhikkhu, “Venerable sir! I have indeed committed such-and-such offenses. Do not tell anyone.” That bhikkhu consented.

After some time, Bhaddananda the Sakyan and that bhikkhu came into conflict with each other. The bhikkhu then went and said to the other bhikkhus:

“Bhaddananda the Sakyan has committed such-and-such offenses.”

The bhikkhus asked that bhikkhu:

“How do you know?”

The bhikkhu replied:

“Bhaddananda the Sakyan himself told me.”

The bhikkhus said:

“Why did you not inform the other bhikkhus?”

That bhikkhu replied:

“Previously, I was on friendly terms with Bhaddananda, so I did not tell anyone. Now that I am no longer on friendly terms with him, I have spoken.”

When the bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the ascetic disciplines, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproved that bhikkhu, saying, “Why did you conceal the offense of Bhaddananda the Sakyan?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and reproved that bhikkhu:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the Dharma of a sramana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the teaching. You have done what ought not to be done. Bhikkhu, why did you conceal the offense of Bhaddananda the Sakyan?”

After reproving that bhikkhu in countless ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is the ground in which many seeds of the effluents are planted. He is the first person to violate this rule. From now on, I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhus, comprising ten benefits, up to and including the long endurance of the true Dharma.”

When reciting [679a1] the precept, it should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu conceals another bhikkhu’s grave offense, he commits a pacittiya offense.

The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, a certain bhikkhu did not know whether a grave offense had or had not been committed. Later, he learned that a grave offense had been committed, and so some performed the formal act of confessing a pacittiya offense. Others, being doubtful, asked about it. The Buddha said:

“If one did not know, there is no offense.”

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

If any bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense, conceals it, ^[357] he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Grave offense: the four parajika offenses and the sanghavasesa offenses.

If a bhikkhu knows that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense during the morning meal but speaks of it only after finishing his meal, he commits a dukkata offense. If he learns of it after the midday meal but speaks of it only at the beginning of midnight, he commits a dukkata offense. If he learns of it during the first part of the night but speaks of it only in the middle of the night, he commits a dukkata offense. If he learns of it in the middle of the night and, during the latter part of the night, intends to speak but has not yet done so when dawn appears, he commits a pacittiya offense.

Apart from grave offenses, if he conceals other offenses, he commits a dukkata offense. If he conceals his own grave offense, he commits a dukkata offense.

Apart from a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, if one conceals another person’s grave offense, one commits a dukkata offense.

If it is a grave offense and he perceives it as a grave offense, he commits a pacittiya offense. If it is a grave offense but he is doubtful, he commits a dukkata offense. If it is not a grave offense but he perceives it as a grave offense, he commits a dukkata offense; if it is not a grave offense but he is doubtful, he commits a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a siksamana, sramanera, or sramaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if previously he did not know that it was a grave offense; if he perceived it as not being a grave offense; if he informed another person; if there was no one to whom he could speak; if, while thinking, “I shall speak,” dawn appeared before he had spoken; or if speaking would have endangered someone’s life or endangered the holy life, and therefore he did not speak. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend: one who committed the act for the first time before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

LXV. CONFERRING FULL ORDINATION ON A PERSON UNDER TWENTY YEARS OF AGE ^[358]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Blessed One was staying in the Bamboo Grove, at the Kalandaka grounds in Rajagrha.

At that time, there were seventeen boys ^[359] in the city of Rajagrha who had long been close friends. The eldest was seventeen years old, and the youngest was twelve. The wealthiest family possessed eighty hundred-thousand, ^[360] while the poorest possessed eighty thousand.

Among them was a boy named Upali. ^[361] His parents had only this one child, and therefore loved him dearly and never wanted him out of their sight. His parents thought, “What craft should we have this child learn so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor?” Then they thought, “First, we should have him learn writing. ^[362] After we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor.” His parents then thought, “Learning writing would also weary his body and strength. ^[363] What craft should we have him learn so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor?” Again they considered,

“We should now have him learn arithmetic.

After we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor.” His parents then thought, “Learning arithmetic would also weary his body and strength. ^[364] What craft should we have him learn so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor? We should have him learn the art of painting images. After we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and he will not have to labor.” Afterward, they thought again, “If we have him learn painting, we fear it will weary his eyes.

What craft should we have him learn so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and his eyes will not be wearied?” Again they thought, “The Sakyan sramanas support themselves well and live happily, free from all afflictions. We should have our son leave the household life and cultivate the path in the teaching of the Sakyan sramanas. After we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will suffer no deprivation, and his body will not be subjected to hardship.”

After some time, the group of seventeen boys ^[365] said to the boy Upali:

“Will you come with us to leave the household life and cultivate the path?”

The boy Upali replied:

“Why should I leave the household life? You may go and do so.”

A second friend and then a third among the seventeen boys ^[366] said to the boy Upali:

“Let us leave the household life and cultivate the path together. Why? Just as we now enjoy playing together, we will then continue to play and frolic together as we do now.”

The boy Upali then said to the other boys:

“Wait for me a little while. I must first ask my parents.”

The boy Upali immediately went to his parents and said:

“I now wish to leave the household life and cultivate the path. Please permit me to do so.”

Upali’s parents immediately replied:

“We have only you, our one child, and we love you dearly. Even in death we would not wish to part from you; how could we bear to be separated from you while alive?” ^[367]

The boy Upali asked his parents three times in this way:

“Please permit me to leave the household life.”

Upali’s parents also replied three times in the same way:

“We have only you, our one child, and we love you dearly. Even in death we would not wish to part from you; how could we bear to be separated from you while alive?”

At that time, when Upāli’s parents heard him earnestly ask three times for permission to go forth, they thought, “Previously, we too had this thought: ‘What skill should we have our son learn so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will lack nothing, and his body will not have to endure hardship?’ We considered having him learn writing or even painting so that, after we die, his livelihood will be secure, he will lack nothing, and his body will not have to toil. Yet we were concerned that his eyes and body would suffer from the strain. We thought that only the Śākyan ascetics know how to support themselves well and are free from such afflictions. If we allow our son to go forth among them, his livelihood will certainly be secure and he will be free from such afflictions.”

Then his parents said to their son:

“Now is the proper time. We permit you to go forth.”

The youth Upāli then returned to the seventeen youths* and said:

“My parents have permitted me to go forth. If you wish to do so as well, now is the proper time.”

The youths then went to the Sangharama and said to the bhikkhus:

“Venerable Ones, we wish to go forth and train in the Path. We beseech you, venerable sirs, to ordain us so that we may practice the holy life.”

The bhikkhus then admitted them to the going forth and conferred full ordination upon them.

Because these youths had previously been accustomed to living in comfort, they could not endure eating only one meal a day. Hungry at midnight, they cried loudly:

“Give me food! Give me food!”

The bhikkhus told them:

“Children, wait until daybreak. If the Sangha has food, we shall eat together. If there is none, we shall go out together to seek alms. Why is this? There has never been any place for cooking here.”

At that time, the Blessed One was sitting in contemplation in a secluded place during the night when he heard the children crying. Although he knew the reason, he nevertheless asked the Venerable Ānanda:

“Where are these children whose cries can be heard at midnight?”

The Venerable Ānanda then reported the foregoing circumstances fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said to the Venerable Ānanda:

“Full ordination should not be conferred upon anyone under twenty years of age. Why is this? One who is under twenty cannot endure heat, cold, hunger, thirst, wind, rain, gadflies, mosquitoes, poisonous insects, or harsh words. If bodily suffering arises, he cannot endure it. Furthermore, he is unable to observe the precepts and unable to subsist on one meal a day. Ānanda, you should know that only upon reaching twenty years of age is one able to endure such things.”

When the night had passed, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, on account of this matter, said to them:

“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 a bhikkhu confers full ordination, it may be conferred only upon one who has reached twenty years of age. If he confers full ordination upon one who is under twenty years of age, that person does not receive the precepts, and that bhikkhu is to be censured as a foolish man and commits a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus in this manner. There was a bhikkhu who did not know whether a certain person had or had [680a1] not reached twenty years of age. Only afterward did he learn that the person was under twenty, and so he either performed the formal act of confessing a pācittiya offense or harbored doubt. The Buddha said: “If one did not know, there is no offense.”

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

If a bhikkhu confers full ordination, it may be conferred only upon one who has reached twenty years of age. If, knowing that a person is under twenty years of age, he confers full ordination upon him, that person does not receive the precepts, and that bhikkhu is to be censured as a foolish man,^[368] and commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor knows that he is under twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination also know that he is under twenty. When he is asked before the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not clearly know the number of years, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya offense. The Sangha commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor knows that he is under twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination say that he has reached twenty. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya offense. The Sangha commits no offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor knows that he is under twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination are uncertain. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya offense. The Sangha commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor also knows that he is under twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination do not know. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya offense. The Sangha commits no offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor says that he has reached twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination know that he is under twenty. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor says that he has reached twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination say that he has reached twenty. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha also commits no offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor says that he has reached twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination are uncertain. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The person receiving ordination is under twenty years of age. The preceptor says that he has reached twenty. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination do not know. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha also commits no offense.

The unordained person is under twenty years of age. The preceptor is uncertain. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination know that he is under twenty. When he is asked in the midst of the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” the unordained person replies either that he has reached twenty, that he has not reached twenty, that he is uncertain, that he does not know, or he remains silent. Or the Sangha does not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya offense. The Sangha commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor was uncertain. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination maintained that he was twenty years old. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya. The Sangha commits no offense.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor was uncertain. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination were also uncertain. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya. The Sangha commits a dukkaṭa.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor was uncertain. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination did not know. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. The preceptor commits a pācittiya. The Sangha commits no offense.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor did not know. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination knew that he was not yet twenty years old. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha commits a dukkaṭa.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor did not know. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination maintained that he was twenty years old. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. Neither the preceptor nor the Sangha commits an offense.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor did not know. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination were uncertain. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. The preceptor commits no offense. The Sangha commits a dukkaṭa.

The person receiving ordination was not yet twenty years old. The preceptor did not know. The Sangha and the person receiving ordination also did not know. When he was asked before the assembly, “Are you twenty years old?” the person not yet ordained replied either that he was twenty, that he was not yet twenty, that he was uncertain, that he did not know, or remained silent. Or the Sangha did not ask. Neither the preceptor nor the Sangha commits an offense.

If that bhikkhu knowingly confers full ordination upon a person not yet twenty years old, then, when the three proclamations of the formal act have been completed, the preceptor commits a pācittiya. When the motion has been made and two proclamations completed, the preceptor commits three dukkaṭas. When the motion has been made and one proclamation completed, the preceptor commits two dukkaṭas. When the motion has been completed, the preceptor commits one dukkaṭa. Before the motion has been completed, the preceptor commits a dukkaṭa. If the motion has not yet been made but preparations are undertaken—whether shaving his hair or intending to assemble the Sangha—the preceptor and all those involved commit dukkaṭas. If the Sangha has assembled, the preceptor commits a dukkaṭa.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya. For a śikṣamāṇā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if he did not know beforehand; if he trusted what the person receiving ordination said; if someone closely acquainted with him attested to it; if he trusted the words of the person’s parents; or if he became uncertain only after the ordination. The Buddha said:

“It is permitted to count the months spent in the womb, to count intercalary months, or to count every fourteen-day recitation of the precepts when calculating the number of years;^[369] there is no offense.”

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

LXVI. REVIVING A SETTLED DISPUTE^[370]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus revived a dispute after it had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, saying, “You did not properly examine the matter, so it does not constitute an examination; you did not properly resolve it, so it does not constitute a resolution; you did not properly bring it to an end, so it does not constitute a conclusion. Thus, where there had been no dispute within the Sangha, a dispute arose; and once a dispute had arisen, it could not be eliminated.”

The bhikkhus then thought, “Why did a dispute arise where there had been no dispute within the Sangha, and why, once it had arisen, could it not be eliminated?”

Upon examining the matter, the bhikkhus learned that it was because the group of six bhikkhus had revived a dispute after it had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, saying, “You did not properly examine the matter, so it does not constitute an examination; you did not properly resolve it, so it does not constitute a resolution; you did not properly bring it to an end, so it does not constitute a conclusion. Thus, where there had been no dispute within the Sangha, a dispute arose; and once a dispute had arisen, it could not be eliminated.”

When the bhikkhus learned of this, those among them who had few desires and were content, who practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame, rebuked the group of six bhikkhus, saying:

“Why did you revive a dispute after it had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, saying, ‘You did not properly examine the matter, so it does not constitute an examination; you did not properly resolve it, so it does not constitute a resolution; you did not properly bring it to an end, so it does not constitute a conclusion. Thus, where there had been no dispute within the Sangha, a dispute arose; and once a dispute had arisen, it could not be eliminated’?”

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

“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accordance with proper conduct, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not conduct conducive to the path, and ought not to be done. Why did you revive a dispute after it had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, saying, ‘You did not properly examine the matter, so it does not constitute an examination; you did not properly resolve it, so it does not constitute a resolution; you did not properly bring it to an end, so it does not constitute a conclusion. Thus, where there had been no dispute within the Sangha, a dispute arose; and once a dispute had arisen, it could not be eliminated’?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the seedbed for the proliferation of the taints and are the first offenders against this rule. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish a precept comprising ten beneficial purposes, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu revives a dispute after it has already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, he commits a pācittiya.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, the bhikkhus did not know whether a dispute had been settled in accordance with the Dharma or contrary to the Dharma. Only afterward did they learn that it had been settled in accordance with the Dharma. Some therefore performed the formal act of confessing a pācittiya, while others were uncertain. The Buddha said:

“If one did not know, there is no offense.”

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

If any bhikkhu, knowing that a dispute has already been settled in accordance with the Dharma,^[371] subsequently revives it,^[372] he commits a pācittiya.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

In accordance with the Dharma: That is, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.

Disputes: there are four kinds: verbal disputes, accusatory disputes, disputes concerning offenses, and disputes concerning matters.^[373]

If a bhikkhu knows that a disputed matter has already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, but afterward reopens it, saying: “Because it was not properly examined, the examination is invalid. Because it was not properly resolved, the resolution is invalid. Because it was not properly concluded, the conclusion is invalid,” then if he speaks clearly, he commits a pācittiya; if he speaks indistinctly, he commits a duṣkṛta. Apart from this dispute, if he later revives any other quarrel involving abusive speech, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta. If he himself revives his own quarrel, he commits a duṣkṛta.

Apart from bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, if he quarrels and exchanges abuse with other persons and afterward revives the matter, he commits a duṣkṛta.

If the matter was examined and he perceives it as having been examined, he commits a pācittiya. If it was examined but he is doubtful, he commits a duṣkṛta. If the examination was invalid but he perceives it as having been examined, he commits a duṣkṛta. If the examination was invalid and he is doubtful, he commits a duṣkṛta.

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

There is no offense if he did not previously know; or if it was examined but he perceived it as not having been examined. Or if in truth it was not properly examined, so the examination was invalid; it was not properly resolved, so the resolution was invalid; it was not properly concluded, so the conclusion was invalid, and he therefore said: “It was not properly examined,” and so forth, through “the conclusion was invalid.” Or if he spoke in jest, spoke hastily, spoke in a dream, or intended to speak of one matter but mistakenly spoke of another. 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, tormented by pain, or under duress.

LXVII. TRAVELING TOGETHER WITH ROBBERS ^[374]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, a large number of bhikkhus wished to travel from Śrāvastī to Vaiśālī. There was then a caravan of merchants traveling in the same direction.^[375] This caravan intended to find a way to slip secretly through the checkpoint and evade the king’s tax. The merchants asked the bhikkhus:

“Venerable Ones, where do you wish to go?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“We wish to go to Vaiśālī.”

The merchants said:

“May we travel together with you?”

The bhikkhus said:

“You may.”

At that time, the bhikkhus traveled together with the merchants and secretly passed through the checkpoint. However, the guards at the checkpoint caught them, escorted them before King Prasenajit, and reported:

“These people wished to pass secretly through the checkpoint to evade paying the tax.”

The king asked:

“These merchants wished to pass secretly through the checkpoint and evade the tax. But what involvement did these śramaṇas have?”

The customs officers replied:

“They were traveling together with these people.”

The king asked the bhikkhus:

“Venerable Ones, is it true that you were traveling together with these merchants?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“It is indeed true.”

The king further asked:

“Did you know that these merchants were evading the tax?”

The bhikkhus said:

“We knew.”

The king declared:

“If you truly knew, then according to the law you deserve the death penalty.”

The king then thought to himself: “I am a consecrated king; how could I put to death śramaṇas who are sons of the Śākya?” After reproaching the bhikkhus in various ways, the king ordered before everyone that they be released. In obedience to the king’s command, they immediately released the bhikkhus. At that time, all among the king’s ministers and retainers loudly said:

“The śramaṇas who are sons of the Śākya violated a grave law of the king and deserved death, yet the king merely reprimanded them lightly and released them!”

When the bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhūta disciplines, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame reproached the group of six bhikkhus:^[376] “Why did you travel together with those merchants?”

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

“Why did you travel together with those merchants?”

After reproaching the bhikkhus in various ways, he told them:

“These foolish men are the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted, and they are the first to commit this offense. 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 a bhikkhu arranges to travel along the same road together with a band of robbers, even as far as the distance between two villages, he commits a pācittiya.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. The bhikkhus did not know whether or not they were members of a band of robbers, and only afterward learned that they were robbers. Some therefore performed the procedure for confessing a pācittiya, while others were doubtful. 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 they are members of a band of robbers, travels along the same road together with them, even as far as the distance between two villages, he commits a pācittiya.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. A bhikkhu happened to travel together with them without making any prior arrangement and became doubtful. The Buddha said:

“If there was no prior arrangement, there is no offense.”

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

If a bhikkhu, knowing that they are members of a band of robbers, arranges to travel along the same road together with them, even as far as the distance between two villages,^[377] he commits a pācittiya.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

A band of robbers: those who are either returning after committing robbery or are just setting out to do so.

Arrangement: mutually agreeing to travel to a certain city or a certain village.

Road: any road traversed in the interval between two villages.

If a bhikkhu knows that they are robbers and mutually arranges to travel with them along the same road, then within the interval separating the villages, for each road traveled he commits one pācittiya. In a place without villages, out in open country where there are no village boundaries, upon traveling ten li,^[378] he commits a pācittiya.

If he arranges to travel together with them for half the distance between two villages, he commits a duṣkṛta; if he travels less than ten li, he commits a duṣkṛta. If he travels within the boundaries of a single village, he commits a duṣkṛta.

If he makes preparations intending to go but does not go, or mutually arranges to go but does not go, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta.

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

There is no offense if he did not previously know; if he did not mutually arrange to travel together with them; or if he went there for safety. Nor is there an offense if he was compelled by force, was bound and led away, or acted because his life or his celibate practice was in danger.

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.

LXVIII. PERSISTING IN AN EVIL VIEW^[379]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, a bhikkhu named Ariṣṭa^[380] gave rise to this evil view: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, the practice of sexual intercourse, which is spoken of therein, is not an obstacle to the path.”^[381]

At that time, the bhikkhus heard that the bhikkhu Ariṣṭa had given rise to the evil view: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, the practice of sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.” Upon hearing this, the bhikkhus wished to eliminate the bhikkhu Ariṣṭa’s evil view. They therefore went to Ariṣṭa, respectfully exchanged greetings with him, and sat to one side. The bhikkhus said to the bhikkhu Ariṣṭa:

“Is it true that, as you understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, the practice of sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path?”

Ariṣṭa replied:

“It is indeed true that, as I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, the practice of sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.”

At that time, the bhikkhus, wishing to eliminate Ariṣṭa’s evil view, earnestly said:

“Ariṭṭha, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One.

The Blessed One did not speak thus. Ariṭṭha, by innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has taught the Dharma, instructing that sensual craving be abandoned, that sensual perceptions be understood, that sensual craving be eliminated, and that perceptions of sensual craving be abandoned; that the burning caused by sensual craving be extinguished, and that the bonds of craving be transcended. By innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has said: ‘Sensual desire is like a great pit of fire; sensual desire is like a torch, like ripe fruit; sensual desire is like something borrowed; sensual desire is like a dry bone, like a piece of meat, like a scene seen in a dream; sensual desire is like a sharp knife;

sensual desire is like a newly molded clay vessel filled with water and placed in the sun; sensual desire is like the head of a venomous snake; sensual desire is like grasping the blade of a sharp sword; sensual desire is like a pointed spear.’ Thus has the Blessed One spoken concerning sensual desire.

“Ariṭṭha, the Dharma well taught by the Blessed One is as follows: the abandonment of sensual desire, the absence of sensual desire, the removal of defilement, freedom from defilement, the taming of craving, the destruction of its lair,^[382] liberation from all bonds, and nirvana through the exhaustion of craving. Such is the Dharma taught by the Buddha. Why, then, do you say that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path?”

The bhikshus earnestly admonished Ariṭṭha in this way. Nevertheless, the bhikshu Ariṭṭha persisted in his wrong view and again asserted resolutely: “This alone is true; everything else is false.”

At that time, since the bhikshus were unable to make the bhikshu Ariṭṭha relinquish that wrong view, they went to the Blessed One, bowed at his feet, sat to one side, and reported the entire matter and its circumstances to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said to a bhikshu:

“On my authority, go and summon the bhikshu Ariṭṭha here.”

Obeying the instruction, that bhikshu immediately went to the bhikshu Ariṭṭha and said:

“The Blessed One summons you.”

When the bhikshu Ariṭṭha heard that the Buddha had summoned him, he immediately went to the Blessed One, bowed at his feet, and sat to one side. The Buddha asked the bhikshu Ariṭṭha:

“Did you truly say, ‘As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path’?”

Ariṭṭha replied:

“Venerable Sir, it is true that I said so.”

The Buddha said to Ariṭṭha:

“How did you come to understand the Dharma I taught in this way? By innumerable skillful means I have taught the abandonment of sensual craving...” as stated above.

At that time, after the Blessed One had reproached Ariṭṭha by innumerable skillful means, he told the bhikshus:

“I permit the Sangha to perform an act of admonition for the bhikshu Ariṭṭha, so that he will relinquish this matter, by a motion and three proclamations.^[383] He should be admonished as follows: Within the assembly, a bhikshu capable of performing the formal act should be appointed, and he should make the motion as above, saying:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikshu Ariṭṭha says: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.” If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent now to perform an act of admonition for the bhikshu Ariṭṭha, so that he will relinquish this matter, saying: “Ariṭṭha, you should not speak thus. You should not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has said that sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the path. If one engages in sexual intercourse, it is an obstacle to the path.” This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikshu Ariṭṭha says: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.” The Sangha is now performing an act of admonition so that he will relinquish this matter, saying: “Ariṭṭha, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One.

It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has said that sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the path; if one engages in sexual intercourse, it is indeed an obstacle to the path.” Those venerable ones who consent that the Sangha perform an act of admonition for the bhikshu Ariṭṭha so that he will relinquish this matter should remain silent; whoever does not consent should speak.

This is the first proclamation.’” (The second and third proclamations should be spoken in the same way.)

“‘The Sangha has performed the act of admonition for the bhikshu Ariṭṭha. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.’

“The act of reproach should be performed in this way for the bhikshu Ariṭṭha, so that he will relinquish that matter, by a motion and three proclamations.” The bhikshus reported this to the Buddha.^[384] The Buddha said:

“If another bhikshu also says, ‘As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path,’ the Sangha should likewise admonish him by a motion and three proclamations. From now onward, for the bhikshus I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the lasting endurance of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikshu says: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path,” those bhikshus should admonish that bhikshu, saying: “Venerable one, do not speak thus; do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has said that engaging in sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the path.” If, when those bhikshus admonish that bhikshu, he does not relinquish this view, they should admonish him as many as three times so that he will relinquish it. If, after being admonished three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikshu: the meaning is as explained above.

That bhikshu says: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.” Those bhikshus admonish this bhikshu, saying: “You should not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One! The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable skillful means the Blessed One has said that engaging in sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the path. You should now relinquish this matter; do not allow the Sangha to reproach you and thereby incur an offense.”

If he heeds the admonition, that is good. If not, a motion should be made. After the motion has been made, he should be told: “I have completed the motion. Further proclamations remain. You should relinquish this matter; do not allow the Sangha to reproach you and thereby incur an offense.”

If he heeds the admonition, that is good. If not, the first proclamation should be made. After the first proclamation has been made, he should be told: “I have completed the first proclamation. Two more proclamations remain. You should relinquish this matter; do not allow the Sangha to reproach you and thereby incur an offense.”

If he heeds these words, that is good. If not, the second proclamation should be made. After the second proclamation has been made, he should be told: “The second proclamation has been completed. One more proclamation remains. [683a1] You should relinquish this matter; do not allow the Sangha to reproach you and thereby incur an offense.”

If he heeds the admonition, that is even better. If not, upon completion of the third proclamation, he commits a pācittiya offense.^[385]

If, after the motion has been made and the second proclamation completed, he relinquishes the matter, he commits three dukkaṭa offenses. If, after the motion has been made and the first proclamation completed, he relinquishes the matter, he commits two dukkaṭa offenses. If he relinquishes the matter after the motion has been made, he commits one dukkaṭa offense. If he relinquishes the matter before the motion is completed, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If, before the motion is made, he says, “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path,” each such instance constitutes a dukkaṭa offense.

When those bhikshus admonish this bhikshu, if another bhikshu obstructs them, or a bhikshuni obstructs them, or another person obstructs them by saying, “Do not relinquish that matter”; or if, while the Sangha is admonishing him, someone obstructs the act by treating it as though no admonition were being given, every such instance constitutes a dukkaṭa offense.

For a bhikshuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a shikshamana, shramanera, or shramanerika, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

Cases of non-offense: If, when first admonished, he immediately says that he will relinquish it; or if the admonition is an unlawful act by a divided Sangha, an unlawful act by a united Sangha, a lawful act by a divided Sangha, an act resembling the Dharma by a divided Sangha, an act resembling the Dharma by a united Sangha, something contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, or not spoken by the Buddha; or if no admonition is given—in all such cases there is no offense.

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

LXIX. SUPPORTING A SUSPENDED BHIKKHU^[386]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Arittha had given rise to a pernicious view. Although the Sangha admonished him, he obstinately refused to relinquish it.

The bhikkhus heard of this. 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. They reproached the bhikkhu Arittha, saying: “Why have you given rise to a pernicious view and, although the Sangha admonishes you, refuse to relinquish it?”

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

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Arittha! Why have you given rise to a pernicious view and, although the Sangha admonishes you, obstinately refuse to relinquish it?”

After rebuking the bhikkhu Arittha in countless ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, the Sangha shall impose suspension upon the bhikkhu Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view,^[387] by means of a motion followed by three proclamations. The Sangha should impose suspension upon the bhikkhu Arittha. Having formally charged him with the offense, it should cause him to recollect it. Having caused him to recollect it in this way, it should assign the offense.^[388] Within the assembly, a member capable of performing the karma procedure should be appointed. As above, he should make the motion as follows:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. This Arittha has given rise to a pernicious view. Although the Sangha has admonished him, he deliberately refuses to relinquish it. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent. The Sangha will now perform the karma of suspension against Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view. This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. This bhikkhu Arittha has given rise to a pernicious view. Although the Sangha has admonished him, he obstinately refuses to relinquish it. The Sangha will now perform the karma of suspension against the bhikkhu Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view. Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s performance of the karma of suspension against the bhikkhu Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.’ (The same should be said for the second and third proclamations.)

“‘The Sangha has consented to perform the karma of suspension against the bhikkhu Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I record it.’”

After the Sangha had performed the karma of suspension against the bhikkhu Arittha for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view, the group of six bhikkhus continued to provide him with requisites, participate in the same Sangha acts with him, sleep under the same roof with him, and converse with him.

The bhikkhus heard of this. 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. They rebuked the group of six bhikkhus: “The bhikkhu Arittha has been subjected by the Sangha to the karma of suspension for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view. Why do you still provide him with requisites, sleep under the same roof with him, and converse with him?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Group of six bhikkhus! The bhikkhu Arittha has been subjected by the Sangha to the karma of suspension for refusing to relinquish his pernicious view. Why do you provide him with requisites, sleep under the same roof with him, and converse with him?”

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

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

The precept should be recited as follows:

If any bhikkhu provides requisites to, participates in the same Sangha acts with, sleeps under the same roof with, or converses with a person who has not undergone the formal act of reinstatement,^[389] who holds such a pernicious view and has not relinquished it,^[390] he commits a pacittiya offense.

After the Blessed One had established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way, some bhikkhus did not know whether or not that person had made such a statement. Only afterward did they learn that he had indeed made such a statement. Some therefore performed the rite of confession for a pacittiya offense, while others were doubtful. The Buddha said:

“If one did not know, there is no offense.”

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

If any bhikkhu, knowing that a person has made such a statement, provides requisites to, participates in the same Sangha acts with, sleeps under the same roof with, or converses with that person who has not undergone the formal act of reinstatement, who holds such a wrong view and has not relinquished it, he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. EXPLANATION OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Has made such a statement: that is, he has said: “I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One to mean that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.”

Has not undergone the formal act of reinstatement: if he has been suspended but has not yet been reinstated.

Holds such a view: he understands that what the Blessed One taught is not an obstacle to the path.

Has not relinquished the pernicious view: although the Sangha has admonished him, he does not relinquish the pernicious view.

Providing requisites: there are two kinds, Dharma and material goods.

– Dharma: teaching the cultivation of higher morality, higher mind, and higher wisdom; instruction in learning and recitation of sutras.

– Material goods: providing robes, food and drink, beds, bedding, and medicines for treating illness.

Participating in the same Sangha acts: that is, participating in the same recitation of the precepts.

Sleeping under the same roof: a building with four walls, completely roofed and completely enclosed; or completely roofed; or completely roofed but not completely enclosed; or completely enclosed but not completely roofed; or neither completely roofed nor completely enclosed. If the bhikkhu enters the building first and the person who made such a statement arrives afterward; or if the person who made such a statement enters first and the bhikkhu arrives afterward; or if both enter and sleep there, each time his side touches the mat, the bhikkhu commits a pacittiya offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a siksamana, sramanera, or sramaneri, it is a duskrta offense. This is called an offense.

Cases of non-offense: The bhikkhu does not know and therefore enters to sleep; the bhikkhu is in the building first, and the person who made such a statement arrives afterward and enters without the bhikkhu’s knowledge; or the building is completely roofed but not enclosed on four sides; or it is completely roofed but half enclosed; or completely roofed but only slightly enclosed; or completely enclosed but not roofed; or completely enclosed but half roofed; or completely enclosed but only slightly roofed; or half roofed and half enclosed; or only slightly roofed; or neither roofed nor enclosed; or it is an open ground—and in all such cases he does not know; there is no offense.

Or if, due to illness, he falls to the ground; or, due to illness, he turns over; or he is compelled by force; or bound and confined; or there is danger to his life or danger to his pure conduct, there is no offense.

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

LXX. SHELTERING AN EXPELLED SRAMANERA^[391]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, Bhadrananda the Sakyan had two sramaneras. One was named Kantaka,^[392] and the other was named Mahaka. These two were shameless and engaged in impure conduct with each other. They said among themselves [684a1]: “We understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha to mean that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the path.”

“Why did you two say to one another, ‘According to the Dharma I have heard from the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the Path’?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accord with proper conduct, not the practice of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you say to one another that, according to the Dharma you heard from the Blessed One, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the Path?”

After rebuking the two novices in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“From now on, the two novices are to be given an admonition procedure^[393] so that they may relinquish this matter, by means of a motion and three proclamations. The admonition procedure is to be carried out as follows: Have the two novices stand before the Sangha, at a place where they can be seen but cannot hear. Within the assembly, appoint one who is capable of performing the karman. Based upon the foregoing matter, he should make the motion:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. Those two novices said to one another: “According to the Dharma I have heard from the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the Path.” If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha approves, the Sangha shall admonish those two novices so that they relinquish this matter, saying: “Novices, do not speak in this way. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this. Novices, the Blessed One has explained in innumerable ways that engaging in sexual intercourse is an impediment to the Path.” This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! Those two novices said to one another: “According to the Dharma I have heard from the Blessed One, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the Path.” The Sangha will now carry out the admonition procedure and rebuke those two novices so that they relinquish this matter, saying: “Novices, do not speak in this way. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One.

It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this. Novices, the Blessed One has explained in innumerable ways that engaging in sexual intercourse is an impediment to the Path.” Those elders who approve that the Sangha now rebuke those two novices and cause them to relinquish this matter should remain silent.

Whoever does not approve should speak. This is the first proclamation of the karman.’” (The same is to be said for the second and third proclamations.)

“‘The Sangha has approved the rebuking of these two novices. Because the Sangha approves, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.’”

Although the Sangha had rebuked those two novices, they obstinately refused to relinquish this matter.

The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires, contented, practicing the dhutanga austerities, devoted to learning the precepts, and possessed of moral shame and dread of wrongdoing. They rebuked the two novices: “Why do you obstinately refuse to relinquish this evil view even after the Sangha has rebuked you?”

After rebuking the two novices in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“The Sangha should impose the expulsion procedure^[394] upon the two novices because they refuse to relinquish their evil view, by means of a motion and three proclamations, proceeding as follows:

“Bring the two novices before the assembly and have them stand at a place where they can be seen but cannot hear. Within the assembly, appoint one who is capable of performing the karman. Based upon the foregoing matter, he should make the motion as follows:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. Although the Sangha has rebuked these two novices, they obstinately refuse to relinquish their evil view. If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha approves, the Sangha shall now carry out the expulsion procedure against these two novices because they refuse to relinquish their evil view. From now on, these two novices must not say, “The Buddha is my Blessed One.” They may not accompany the bhikkhus. Other novices are permitted to sleep in the same lodging as bhikkhus for two or three nights, but you are not permitted to do so. You must depart from sight and may not remain here. This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. Although the Sangha has rebuked these two novices, they obstinately refuse to relinquish their evil view. The Sangha will now perform the karman of expulsion against these two novices because they refuse to relinquish their evil view.

From now on, these two novices may not say, “The Buddha is my Blessed One.” They may not accompany the bhikkhus. Other novices are permitted to sleep in the same lodging as bhikkhus for two or three nights, but you two are no longer permitted to do so. You must leave this place and may not remain here.

Those elders who approve that the Sangha perform the expulsion procedure against these two novices because they refuse to relinquish their evil view should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak. This is the first proclamation of the karman.’” (The same is to be said for the second and third proclamations.)

“‘The Sangha has approved the expulsion procedure against the two novices because they refuse to relinquish their evil view. Because the Sangha approves, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.’”

At that time, although the group of six bhikkhus knew that the Sangha had performed the karman of expulsion against these two novices because they refused to relinquish their evil view, they nevertheless enticed them to come back, provided for them, and slept in the same lodging with them.

The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires, contented, practicing the dhutanga austerities, devoted to learning the precepts, and possessed of a sense of shame. They reproached the group of six bhikkhus: “Why, knowing that the Sangha had performed the karman of expulsion against these two novices because they refused to relinquish their evil view, did you nevertheless entice them to return, provide for them, and sleep in the same lodging with them?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accord with proper conduct, not the practice of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why, knowing that the Sangha had performed the karman of expulsion against these two novices because they refused to relinquish their evil view, did you nevertheless entice them to return, provide for them, and sleep in the same lodging with them?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

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

When stating the precept, it should be stated as follows:

If a novice says: “I have heard the Dharma from the Blessed One, who said that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the Path,” the bhikkhus should admonish that novice as follows: “Do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One! The Blessed One did not say so.

By innumerable means, the Blessed One has said that engaging in sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the Path.” When admonished thus by those bhikkhus, if that novice persists and does not relinquish this view, those bhikkhus should admonish him up to three times so that he may relinquish it. If, after being admonished three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, those bhikkhus should say to that novice: “From now on, you may no longer say, ‘The Buddha is my Blessed One.’ You may not accompany the other bhikkhus.

Other novices are permitted to sleep together with bhikkhus for two or three nights, but you are no longer permitted to do so. You must depart from this place and may no longer remain here.” If a bhikkhu, knowing that a novice has thus been expelled from the community, nevertheless entices him back, supports him, or sleeps together with him, it is a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One laid down the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. Those two novices, having been expelled from the city, went outside to the villages to seek lodging. But because they were also expelled from outside the city, they returned within the city to seek lodging. The bhikkhus did not know whether they had been expelled. When they later learned that the novices had been expelled, some performed the act of confessing a pācittiya offense, while others harbored doubts. 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 knows that a novice has said: “I have heard the Dharma from the Buddha, who said: ‘Engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the Path,’” the bhikkhus should admonish that novice as follows: “Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say so. Novice, by innumerable means the Blessed One has said that engaging in sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the Path.” When admonished by those bhikkhus, if that novice persists and does not relinquish this view, the bhikkhus should admonish him up to three times so that he may relinquish it.

If, after being admonished up to three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, the bhikkhus should say to that novice: “From now on, you may no longer say, ‘The Buddha is my Blessed One.’ You may not accompany the other bhikkhus. Other novices are permitted to sleep together with bhikkhus for two or three nights, but you are no longer granted that permission. You must depart from this place and may no longer remain here.” If a bhikkhu, knowing that a novice has thus been expelled from the community, nevertheless entices him back, supports him, or sleeps together with him, it is a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Expulsion: the Sangha expels him by performing a formal act with one motion and three proclamations.

Supporting: either supporting him oneself or having someone else support him.

Enticing: either enticing him oneself or having someone else entice him.

Sleeping together: as explained above.

If the bhikkhu enters and goes to sleep first and the expelled person arrives afterward; or the expelled person enters first and the bhikkhu arrives afterward; or both arrive together—whenever the hip touches the sleeping mat or one turns over, it is a pācittiya offense.

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

There is no offense if one did not know beforehand; or if the bhikkhu arrived first and the expelled person came later, and the bhikkhu did not know it. Or if the lodging is open on all four sides, although roofed… (as above); or if it is in the open air, there is no offense. Or if one falls to the ground because a fit of derangement arises; or because of an illness causing involuntary movement; or if one is seized or bound by force; or if there is danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life, there is no offense.

Those who do not commit an offense: one who committed the act for the first time before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally disordered, tormented by pain, or under duress. ^[395]

Notes:

^[350] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 52; Mahāsāṃghika: 62; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 62. Pali, Pāc. 77.

^[351] All the schools state that doubt was cast upon whether these seventeen bhikkhus had validly received full ordination, because their ordination had not been conducted in accordance with the Dharma.

^[352] The preceding passage does not state the name of this offense.

^[353] Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 16 (T23n1435, p.111b17): “Only for that purpose and no other.”

^[354] Vexing with doubt 疑惱. Mahīśāsaka, Mahāsāṃghika, and Sarvāstivāda: doubt and remorse 疑悔. Mūlasarvāstivāda: vexation 惱. Pali: sañcicca kukkuccaṃ upadaheyya, deliberately arousing anxiety (remorse).

^[355] Mahāsāṃghika: raising grounds for doubt concerning whether full ordination was validly received: birth or age; the formal act, physical characteristics, illness, offense, abuse, or fetters.

^[356] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 74; Mahāsāṃghika: 60; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 50; Pali, Pāc. 64.

^[357] Mahīśāsaka: “concealing it for one night.” Sarvāstivāda: “concealing it even for one night.”

^[358] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 61; Mahāsāṃghika: 71; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 72. Pali, Pāc. 65.

^[359] Mahāsāṃghika 19 (T22n1425, p.383a14): the occasion arose because of “the group of sixteen bhikkhus” and the father and son Mahāla.

^[360] That is, 8,000,000 gold coins.

^[361] Cf. Vin.i. 77 Upāli(dāraka).

^[362] Chinese: learning writing 學書. Pali, ibid.: lekhaṃ sikkheyya.

^[363] Pali, ibid.: lekhaṃ sikkhissati aṅguliyo dukkhā bhavissanti, “If he learns writing, his fingers will suffer.”

^[364] Pali, ibid.: gaṇaṃ sikkhissati urassa dukkho bhavissati, “If he learns arithmetic, his chest will suffer.”

^[365] Original Chinese: the group of seventeen boys 十七群童子, counting one boy too many. Pali: Upāli came to invite those other boys.

^[366] See the note above.

^[367] This dialogue contradicts the preceding account. There appears to be some confusion in the Chinese version.

^[368] Because of foolishness 癡故. Mahāsāṃghika 19 does not mention this. Mahīśāsaka 8 replaces it with: “That Dharma must be so 是法應爾.” Sarvāstivāda 16: “That matter must be so 是事應爾.” Pali: te ca bhikkhū gārayhā, idaṃ tasmiṃ pācittiyan’ti, “Those bhikkhus are blameworthy; in this case, this is a pācittiya offense.” The Sanskrit version has ayaṃ tatra samaya, “In this case, this matter is proper.”

^[369] Counting all the short lunar months.

^[370] Mahīśāsaka 6: pācittiya 5; Mahāsāṃghika 12: 4; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda 26: 4. Pali, Pāc. 63.

^[371] The text of the precept in this version reads: “has been confessed in accordance with the Dharma.” Mahīśāsaka: “The matter has been adjudicated by the Sangha in accordance with the Dharma.”

^[372] The Mahāsāṃghika adds: “…saying that this formal act is invalid. Perform the act again on the same grounds, not otherwise…”

^[373] See Chapter VIII, Settlement of Disputes.

^[374] Mahīśāsaka 9: pācittiya 66; Mahāsāṃghika 19: 72; Sarvāstivāda 16 and Mūlasarvāstivāda 41: 71. Pali, Pāc. 66.

^[375] Mahīśāsaka (T22n1421, p.63b22): the border between the two countries was unsafe, so the bhikkhus accompanied the bandits for protection. Mahāsāṃghika (T22n1425, p.384a01): the bhikkhus accompanied the bandits so that they would not lose their way.

^[376] The preceding passage says “a large number of bhikkhus.”

^[377] The distance of one village 一村間. Mahīśāsaka: “from one settlement to another…”

^[378] Sarvāstivāda (T23n1435, p.116b04): one krośa.

^[379] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 48; Mahāsāṃghika: 45; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 55. Pali, Pāc. 68.

^[380] Ariṭṭha 阿梨吒. Mūlasarvāstivāda 39: Animitta 無相. Pali: Ariṭṭha, Vin. iv. 133; M.i. 130; S.v. 314.

^[381] Cf. Madhyama Āgama 54, Sūtra 200, “Ariṭṭha” (T1, p.763b). M. i. 130–2. Mahīśāsaka: “The obstacles to the Path taught by the Buddha do not truly obstruct the Path.”

^[382] Chinese: nest or lair 巢窟; Pali: ālaya (= ālaya); see the later passage in fascicle 32 (T22n1428, p.787a03), “Ordination Khandhaka.”

^[383] Admonition karman 呵諫. See also rule 69 below: when one does not desist after being admonished, the Sangha performs the karman of suspension. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 15 (T23n1435, p.106a20): the Sangha performs a karman of injunction and warning 約敕. If one still does not desist, it performs the procedure of the karman of expulsion 擯羯磨法. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 39 (T23n1442, p.840b25; T23n1442, p.840c26): when one does not desist after the karman of admonition (a separate admonition concerning the matter 事別諫), the Sangha performs the karman of setting aside 捨置羯磨. Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 18 (T22n1425, p.367b13): it performs the karman of suspension 作舉羯磨. Vin.ii. 25: ukkhepaniya-kamma, the karman of setting aside.

^[384] There may be an accidental omission in the text.

^[385] See note 385 above.

^[386] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 49; Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: 46; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas: 56. Pali, Pāc. 69.

^[387] The karman for “not relinquishing a wrong view 惡見不捨.” See note 385 on rule 68 above. Pali, Vin.ii. 28: pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhepanīyakammaṃ.

^[388] The procedural sequence is: performing the suspension 作舉, formally stating the offense; performing the act of recollection 作憶念, causing the offender to acknowledge it personally; and assigning the offense 與罪, adjudging the offender guilty. Pali: codetvā...sāretvā āpattiṃ āropetabbo.

^[389] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: “has not repented in accordance with the Dharma.” Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: “has been subjected by the Sangha to the karman of suspension but has not yet been released in accordance with the Dharma.”

^[390] Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: “Those who associate with one who has not relinquished a wrong view.”

^[391] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 50; Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: 57; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas: 57. Pali, Pāc. 70.

^[392] Yena 羯那; and Mahūka 摩睺迦. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: two novices named Lici 利刺 and Changda 長大. Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: the disciple of Ariṣṭa was the novice Dharmadatta 法與. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, there was a novice named Maga 摩伽. Pali: the novice Kaṇḍaka.

^[393] In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya and the other Vinayas, the Sangha exhorts him three times to desist; there is no text for a karman of admonition.

^[394] The karman of expulsion for not relinquishing a wrong view 惡見不捨滅擯羯磨. Pali, Vin.iv. 138: the Sangha expels the novice Kaṇḍaka, saṅgho kaṇṭakaṃ samaṇuddesaṃ nāsetu; there is no text of a karman.

^[395] End of fascicle 17 in the Chinese text.

🌏Why is this sūtra summarized by Inti AI?

The version you're viewing was faithfully rendered by Inti AI in keeping with the tradition. Switch to the other language tab to read a human translation.

Translation source: Linh Sơn Pháp Bảo Đại Tạng KinhLicense: Linh Sơn Pháp Bảo Đại Tạng Kinh (Việt dịch) · nguồn: rongmotamhon.net (Liên Phật Hội) · EN: AI translation from Vietnamese source, awaiting source English

Translations belong to the translator/source credited above. The bilingual compilation, presentation, and AI translations compiled by Inti are © Inti Foundation. Please attribute when quoting; do not bulk-copy or use commercially without permission.

←Previous四分律 Next四分律→

🕯️ Light a candle