Mahāyāna — Northern Canon · Linh Sơn Vietnamese Mahāyāna Canon

四分律

Chinese title:四分律

📖14,004 words · ~56 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

Revised and Annotated

LXXI. REFUSING TO STUDY THE PRECEPTS^[396]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Ghosita’s Garden in the country of Kausambi. At that time, when the bhikkhu Chanda^[397] was admonished in accordance with the Dharma by other bhikkhus, he said: “For now, I will not study this precept. I shall first question other wise bhikkhus who are upholders of the Vinaya.”

The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga practices, delighted in studying the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached the bhikkhu Chanda: “Why, when the bhikkhus admonished you in accordance with the Dharma, did you say, ‘For now, I will not study this precept. I must first question other wise bhikkhus who are upholders of the Vinaya’?”

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. On account of this matter, the Blessed One immediately assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the bhikkhu Chanda:

“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. Bhikkhu Chanda, why, when the bhikkhus admonished you in accordance with the Dharma, did you say, ‘For now, I will not study this precept. I must first question other wise bhikkhus who are upholders of the Vinaya’?”

Having rebuked the bhikkhu Chanda in innumerable ways, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is a field 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 this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

Should any bhikkhu,^[398] when admonished in accordance with the Dharma by other bhikkhus, say: “For now, I will not study this precept. I shall first question other wise bhikkhus who are upholders of the Vinaya,” it is a pācittiya offense. Only when he wishes to understand or wishes to learn should he raise questions.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

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

When that bhikkhu admonishes this bhikkhu in accordance with the Dharma, and this bhikkhu says, “For now, I will not study this precept. I shall first question other wise bhikkhus who are upholders of the Vinaya,” if he speaks clearly, he commits a pācittiya offense; if he speaks indistinctly, he 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 the admonishing bhikkhu is foolish and does not understand clearly, and this bhikkhu says: “Go back and first ask your preceptor or ācārya. You should study further and recite the scriptures further.” Nor is there an offense if the matter is in fact as he says; if he speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to himself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another. In all such cases, there is no offense.

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

LXXII. DISPARAGING THE STUDY OF THE PRECEPTS^[399]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Garden in Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, a large number of bhikkhus had gathered in one place to recite the true Dharma and the Vinaya.^[400] The group of six bhikkhus said to one another: “These bhikkhus have gathered in one place to recite the true Dharma and the Vinaya. When those bhikkhus become thoroughly versed in the Vinaya, they will surely accuse us of offenses repeatedly.

We should now go to those bhikkhus and say: ‘Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting these minor precepts?^[401] If you wish to recite, you should recite the four matters. If you are determined to recite more, then recite the four matters and the thirteen matters. The remainder should not be recited.

Why? Because if the venerable ones recite these precepts, they will cause people to give rise to doubt and distress.’”

The group of six then went and said to those bhikkhus:

“Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting these minor precepts? If you wish to recite, you should recite the four matters. If you are determined to recite more, then recite the four matters and the thirteen matters. The remainder should not be recited. Why? Because if the venerable ones recite these precepts, they will cause people to give rise to doubt and distress.”

Upon observing them, the bhikkhus immediately knew that the group of six had spoken in this way because they wished to destroy the Dharma.

The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga practices, delighted in studying the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached the group of six bhikkhus: “What is this? Do you wish to destroy the Dharma, and therefore speak in this way?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of śramaṇas, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma; you have done what ought not to be done. What is this? Do you wish to destroy the Dharma, and therefore speak in this way?”

Having rebuked the group of six bhikkhus in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are fields in which many seeds of the outflows are planted. They are the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept, comprising the ten [686a1] benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

Should any bhikkhu, when the precepts are being recited,^[402] say: “Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting such minor precepts? When these precepts are recited, they cause people to give rise to doubt, distress, and shame,” then, for disparaging the precepts, it is a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

When that bhikkhu himself is reciting the precepts, when another is reciting the precepts, or while the precepts are being chanted, if he says: “Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting these minor precepts? If you wish to recite, you should recite the four matters; if you are determined to recite more, then you should recite only the four matters and the thirteen matters. Why? Because when these precepts are recited, they cause people to give rise to doubt, affliction, and shame.” If he speaks clearly in this way, he commits a pācittiya offense; if he speaks indistinctly, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

To disparage the Vinaya is a pācittiya offense. To disparage the Abhidharma is a duṣkṛta offense. To disparage the other kinds of sūtras is 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: first recite the Abhidharma, and afterward recite the Vinaya; first recite the sūtras, and afterward recite the Vinaya. Nor is there an offense if one is ill and says to wait until one has recovered before reciting the Vinaya; or if one says that within the Buddha-Dharma one should seek skillful means, attain the four fruits culminating in arhatship, and afterward recite the Vinaya. There is no offense if these words are intentionally spoken so that the true Dharma will not perish; if spoken in jest, spoken hastily, spoken in a dream, spoken to oneself, or if one intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another.

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

LXXIII. IGNORANCE OF THE PRECEPTS^[403]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Garden in Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. A bhikkhu belonging to the group of six, while listening to the recitation of the precepts, committed an offense and knew himself that he had committed it. Fearing that a pure bhikkhu would discover and expose it, he went before that pure bhikkhu and said:

“Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Prātimokṣa, is recited once every half-month, and is drawn from the Prātimokṣa.”

The bhikkhus investigated and learned that, while the precepts were being recited, the group of six bhikkhus had committed offenses. Knowing clearly themselves that these offenses constituted obstructions, and fearing that pure bhikkhus would discover and expose their offenses, they approached pure bhikkhus of their own accord and said: “Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and is drawn from the Pratimoksha Sutra.”

When the bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in studying the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproached the group of six bhikkhus: “How can you, while the precepts are being recited, commit offenses, clearly know yourselves that those offenses constitute obstructions, and, fearing that pure bhikkhus will discover and expose your offenses, approach pure bhikkhus of your own accord and say: ‘Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and is drawn from the Pratimoksha Sutra’?”

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 reproached the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of a sramana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why, while the precepts were being recited, did you know yourselves that you had committed offenses and, fearing that pure bhikkhus would discover and expose your offenses, approach pure bhikkhus of your own accord and say: ‘Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and is drawn from the Pratimoksha Sutra’?”

At that time, after the Blessed One had reproached one of the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, he told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is a ground 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 establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be recited as follows:

Should any bhikkhu, while the precepts are being recited, say: ‘Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and comes from the Pratimoksha Sutra,’ and the other bhikkhus know that this bhikkhu has sat at the recitation of the precepts not merely two or three times but many times, that bhikkhu cannot be excused on the ground that he did not understand.^[404] If he has committed an offense, he should be dealt with according to the Dharma, and the additional offense of ignorance should be imposed upon him,^[405] with the declaration: ‘Venerable, it is truly of no benefit to you, nor is there any wholesome attainment for you, because when the precepts were recited, you did not apply your mind in reflection,

nor did you listen to the Dharma with one-pointed collected mindfulness.’ For that person, being ignorant,^[406] it is a pacittiya offense.^[407]

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

That bhikkhu: Whether he himself is reciting the precepts, another is reciting the precepts, or the precepts are being chanted, he says: “Venerable! Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and comes from the Pratimoksha Sutra.” The bhikkhus know that this bhikkhu has attended the Posadha not merely two or three times but many times. That bhikkhu cannot be excused on the ground that he did not understand.

He is to be dealt with according to the Dharma for whatever offense he has committed, and the additional offense of ignorance is to be imposed upon him with the declaration:^[408] “Venerable! It is truly of no benefit to you, nor is there any wholesome attainment for you, because when the precepts were recited, you did not properly apply your mind in reflection or listen to the Dharma with one-pointed attention.” Because of his ignorance, a formal act imposing the additional offense is performed; it is a pacittiya offense.

If the formal act is not performed, that bhikkhu commits a duskrta offense.

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

There is no offense if he has never before heard the recitation of the precepts and is now hearing it for the first time; if he has never before heard the precepts recited in full and is now hearing them for the first time; if he speaks in jest, speaks hurriedly, speaks to himself, or speaks in a dream; or if, intending to speak of one matter, he mistakenly speaks of another. In all such cases there is no offense.

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. Under duress.

LXXIV. REPUDIATING A SANGHA ACT ^[409]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling on Mount Grdhrakuta in the city of Rajagrha. At that time, the Venerable Bhikkhu Dabbamallaputta had been appointed by the Sangha to take charge of the Sangha’s beds, seats, and bedding, and to distribute food and drink. Because the venerable one was occupied with affairs of the Sangha and affairs of the stupas, he had no leisure to attend the almsgiving festivals held by householders outside the monastery on the occasions of building new monasteries, constructing new rooms, digging new ponds, or digging new wells. Consequently, his robes became torn, soiled, and unclean.

One day, someone offered the Sangha a valuable robe. The members of the Sangha said to one another: “The Venerable Bhikkhu Dabbamallaputta has been appointed by the Sangha to take charge of the Sangha’s beds, seats, and bedding, and to distribute food and drink. Because the venerable one is occupied with affairs of the Sangha and affairs of the stupas, he has no leisure to attend the almsgiving festivals held by householders outside the monastery on the occasions of building new monasteries, constructing new rooms, digging new ponds, or digging new wells. Consequently, his robes have become torn, soiled, and unclean. We should give this robe to the venerable one.”

The Sangha then performed a formal act with one motion and one proclamation and gave the robe to the venerable one.

While the motion and formal act were being proclaimed, the group of six bhikkhus was also present in the assembly. After the robe had been given to the venerable one, the group of six bhikkhus said:

“These bhikkhus take the Sangha’s robe and give it according to their personal associations.”

When the bhikkhus heard this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in studying the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame reproached the group of six bhikkhus, saying:

“How could you be present in the assembly when the formal act of giving the robe to that bhikkhu was performed, and afterward say: ‘The bhikkhus take the Sangha’s robe and give it according to their personal associations’?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of a sramana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you assemble together, perform a formal act with a motion, and give the robe to that bhikkhu, yet after the robe had been given, say: ‘The bhikkhus take the Sangha’s robe and give it according to their personal associations’?”

After the Blessed One had reproached the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, he told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are a ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted. They are the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I establish this precept, comprising [687a1] the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be recited as follows:

Should any bhikkhu, after having participated in a formal Sangha act, afterward say: ‘The bhikkhus take the property of the Sangha and give it according to their personal associations,’ it is a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Personal associates: those who share the same preceptor or the same acarya; who eat, dwell, converse, and associate closely together.

Property of the Sangha: as explained above.

Property: a robe, bowl, needle case, nisidana, or even a drinking vessel.

That bhikkhu first participates in the formal act with the Sangha and afterward regrets it, saying: “The bhikkhus, according to their personal associations, take the Sangha’s robes and other requisites and give them to their own personal associates.” If he speaks clearly, he commits a pacittiya offense; if he speaks indistinctly, he commits a duskrta offense.

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

Non-offense: If the matter was truly as follows—someone took property belonging to the Sangha and gave it to an acquaintance of his—then one does not commit an offense by saying so. Or if one speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another, none of these constitutes an offense.

Those who do not commit an offense: 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.

LXXV. DEPARTING WITHOUT GIVING CONSENT ^[410]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika's Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, a large number of bhikkhus had assembled in one place to discuss the Vinaya Dharma together.

Then the group of six bhikkhus said to one another, “Look at these bhikkhus assembled together in one place. It appears that they intend to perform a formal act of the Sangha concerning us.” Thereupon, the group of six immediately rose and departed. The bhikkhus said:

“Venerable ones, remain here; do not leave. The Sangha has a matter to conduct, yet you deliberately depart and refuse to remain.”

Among the bhikkhus were those of few desires, content, practitioners of the dhuta practices, devoted to training in the precepts, and possessed of shame and moral dread. They reproached the group of six bhikkhus: “The Sangha has assembled and wishes to deliberate upon a matter of Dharma. Why do you rise and depart?”

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 reproached the group of six bhikkhus:

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

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

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu rises and departs before the Sangha has finished adjudicating a matter, he commits a pacittiya offense.

The Blessed One thus established the precept for the bhikkhus. Some bhikkhus were occupied with affairs of the Sangha, affairs of a stupa, or caring for sick bhikkhus, and they became doubtful. The Buddha said:

“From now on, I permit consent to be given.”

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

If a bhikkhu, before the Sangha has finished adjudicating a matter, departs without giving consent,^[411] he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Sangha: those who participate in the same recitation of the precepts and the same formal acts of the Sangha.

Matter: the eighteen matters that cause a schism in the Sangha: Dharma, non-Dharma… up to teaching and non-teaching.^[412] If a bhikkhu rises and leaves before the adjudication of a matter has been completed, when his feet pass beyond the doorway, he commits a pacittiya offense. If one foot is outside the doorway and one foot remains inside; if he makes preparations to leave but does not leave; or if he announces that he will leave but does not leave, in all such cases 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.

Non-offense: If one is occupied with affairs of the Sangha, affairs of a stupa, affairs of the monastery, or caring for the sick, and gives consent, there is no offense.

Or if one is mute and unable to verbally give consent.^[413]

Or if the formal act is contrary to the Dharma or contrary to the Vinaya.

Or if preparations are being made to perform a formal act that would result in the loss of one's dwelling place, cause harm, bring no benefit, or concern an affair of the Sangha, a monastery, or a stupa; or if the act is directed toward one's preceptor, a fellow disciple of the same preceptor, one's acarya, a fellow disciple of the same acarya, or a close and trusted friend;^[414] in such cases, there is no offense if one departs without giving consent.

Those who do not commit an offense: 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.

LXXVI. REGRETTING AFTER GIVING CONSENT ^[415]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika's Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus had committed an offense. Fearing that the Sangha would formally charge them, the six always went about together. During the main meal and the lesser meal, when the Sangha assembled to hear the Dharma, or when the precepts were recited, the six never separated from one another, leaving the bhikkhus no opportunity to perform a formal act of the Sangha.

After some time, while the group of six bhikkhus was sewing robes, the bhikkhus said to one another, “The group of six bhikkhus is now here sewing robes. If a formal act of the Sangha needs to be performed, now is the time.”

The bhikkhus then sent one bhikkhu to summon them:

“The Sangha has a matter to conduct. Venerable ones, please come.”

The group of six bhikkhus asked:

“What matter does the Sangha have? We cannot stop sewing our robes to come.”

The Sangha replied:

“If you cannot come, then appoint one or two among you to bring your consent.”

The group of six bhikkhus then appointed one bhikkhu to receive and convey their consent. The Sangha performed a formal act concerning that bhikkhu. After the formal act had been completed, the bhikkhu returned to the group of six. The group of six asked:

“What matter did the Sangha conduct?”

The bhikkhu replied:

“Something detrimental to me personally.”

The group of six asked:

“What happened that was detrimental to you personally?”

He said:

“The Sangha performed a formal act concerning me.”

Although the group of six bhikkhus had previously given their consent, they later regretted it and said:

“The formal act performed by the Sangha in this manner is not a valid formal act. The formal act is not established. We gave consent for that matter, not for this matter.”

When the bhikkhus heard this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhuta practices, were devoted to training in the precepts, and possessed shame and moral dread reproached the group of six bhikkhus:

“Why, after giving your consent, did you later regret it and say, ‘We gave consent for that matter, not for this matter’?”

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

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having given his consent, later regrets it, he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

If a bhikkhu, after giving consent, later regrets it and says, “The formal act you performed is not a formal act; the formal act is not established. I gave consent for that matter, not for this matter,” then if he speaks clearly, he commits a pacittiya offense; if he speaks indistinctly, 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.

Non-offense: If the matter truly is as stated—the act is not a valid formal act and the formal act is not established—then there is no offense in saying so. If the invalid formal act is not established, there is no offense. Or if one speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another, none of these constitutes an offense.

Those who do not commit an offense: 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.

LXXVII. EAVESDROPPING ON A DISPUTE ^[416]

A. ORIGIN

[688a1] At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Garden in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikshus overheard contentious words spoken by other bhikshus and then carried them to the other party, causing disputes to arise in the Sangha where none had yet arisen, and preventing disputes that had already arisen from being settled.

The bhikshus thought: “What is the cause that makes disputes arise in the Sangha where none had yet arisen, and prevents disputes that have already arisen from being settled?” The bhikshus investigated and learned that it was because the group of six bhikshus overheard contentious words spoken by other bhikshus and then carried them to the other party.

When the bhikshus heard of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread criticized the group of six bhikshus:

“Why do you overhear contentious words spoken by other bhikshus and then carry them to the other party, causing disputes to arise in the Sangha where none had yet arisen, and preventing disputes that have already arisen from being settled?”

The bhikshus 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 bhikshus and rebuked the group of six bhikshus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma, and ought not to be done. Why do you overhear contentious words spoken by other bhikshus and then carry them to the other party, causing disputes to arise in the Sangha where none had yet arisen, and preventing disputes that have already arisen from being settled?”

After rebuking them in countless ways, the Blessed One told the bhikshus:

“These foolish men are the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted. They are the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikshus, 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 bhikshu, after bhikshus have become embroiled in a dispute, overhears^[417] the words of one party and carries them to the other, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikshu: as defined above.

Dispute: there are four kinds: disputes concerning words, disputes concerning accusations, disputes concerning offenses, and disputes concerning matters.

Overhear: to listen secretly to what others are saying.

If a bhikshu goes to overhear the contentious words of other bhikshus, whether going from one path to another, from the right path to a wrong path, from a wrong path to the right path, from a high place to a low place, or from a low place to a high place, then if he goes and hears them, he commits a pācittiya offense; if he does not hear them, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

If he intends by some means to go but does not go, or agrees to go but does not go, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If two persons are conversing in a dark place, he should snap his fingers or clear his throat to alert them; if he does not, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If two persons are speaking in a secluded place, he must likewise snap his fingers or clear his throat; if he does not, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikshuni, 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, when two persons are conversing in a dark place, one clears one’s throat or snaps one’s fingers; or when two persons are conversing in a secluded place, one snaps one’s fingers or clears one’s throat. If, while traveling on a road, two persons walking ahead are conversing and one approaches from behind, one clears one’s throat or snaps one’s fingers. Or if they intend to perform an unlawful karma procedure, a karma procedure contrary to the Vinaya, a karma procedure lacking a valid basis, or a karma procedure involving harm or loss and bringing no benefit to the Sangha, a stupa, one’s preceptor, another who shares the same preceptor, one’s acarya, another who shares the same acarya, or close friends and acquaintances, then,

wishing to learn about such karma procedures, one may go and listen without committing an 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 deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

LXXVIII. STRIKING A BHIKSHU IN ANGER ^[418]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Garden in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, one member of the group of six bhikshus, in anger, struck a member of the group of seventeen bhikshus. The one who was struck cried out loudly:

“Stop, stop! Do not strike me!”

A bhikshu in a nearby room heard him and asked:

“What has happened that you are shouting so loudly?”

The bhikshu who had been struck said:

“That bhikshu just struck me.”

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

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikshu, being angry and displeased, strikes another bhikshu, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikshu: as defined above.

Strike: whether with the hand, a stone, or a staff.

If a bhikshu strikes another bhikshu with his hand, a stone, or a staff, in every case he commits a pācittiya offense.^[419] If, apart from a piece of wood, the hand, or a stone, he strikes him with another object, such as a door key, hook, fly-whisk handle, or incense-burner handle, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikshuni, 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 a sick person needs to be massaged or patted; if someone is choking on food and needs to be stroked so that it will go down; if someone does not hear what is said and needs to be touched so that he will listen; if one touches someone while asleep; if people touch one another while walking back and forth in meditation; or if, while sweeping the ground, one accidentally touches someone with the end of a long broom handle. In all such cases, 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 deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

LXXIX. MAKING A GESTURE TO STRIKE A BHIKSHU^[420]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Garden in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikshus raised their hands to strike members of the group of seventeen bhikshus. One who was threatened with a blow^[421] cried out loudly:

“Stop, stop! Do not do that!”

A bhikshu in a nearby room heard him and asked:

“Why are you crying out so loudly?”

A member of the group of seventeen said:

“This bhikshu raised his hand to strike me, so I cried out loudly.”

After the Blessed One had rebuked the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, he told the bhikkhus:

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

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu, out of anger and displeasure, strikes^[422] another bhikkhu with his hand, he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. DEFINITION OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Hand: refers to the two hands.

If that bhikkhu, out of anger, strikes another bhikkhu with his hand, he commits a pacittiya offense. Apart from the hand, if he uses a door bar, fly whisk, incense holder, or anything else, he commits a dukkata offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. A sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri commits a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if, when another person is about to strike, one raises a hand to ward off the blow; or if an elephant, bandits, a vicious beast, or a person bearing sharp thorns [689a1] approaches, and one uses a hand to hold them back. There is no offense if, when wishing to cross a river or traverse a place of mud and standing water, one reaches out to beckon another nearby bhikkhu and happens to touch him. There is no offense if the other person cannot hear and one gestures with a hand to make him understand; or if, while sleeping, coming or going, sweeping the ground, or swinging a staff, one accidentally strikes someone without intending to do so. In all such cases, there is no offense.

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

LXXX. FALSE ACCUSATION OF A SANGHADISESA OFFENSE. ^[423]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, out of anger, the group of six bhikkhus falsely accused the group of seventeen bhikkhus of an unfounded Sanghadisesa offense.^[424]

When the bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhutanga observances, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed shame and moral dread criticized the group of six bhikkhus, saying, “Why did you, out of anger, falsely accuse the group of seventeen bhikkhus of an unfounded Sanghadisesa offense?”

“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accordance with proper conduct, not the conduct of a renunciant, not the Dharma, not pure conduct, and not a practice conducive to harmony. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you, out of anger, slander the group of seventeen bhikkhus with an unfounded Sanghadisesa offense?”

After the Blessed One had rebuked the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, he told the bhikkhus:

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu, out of anger, falsely accuses another bhikkhu of an unfounded Sanghadisesa offense, he commits a pacittiya offense.

B. DEFINITION OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Grounds: there are three—evidence based on seeing, evidence based on hearing, and evidence based on suspicion.

– Evidence based on seeing: One actually sees that bhikkhu stimulating himself and emitting semen; sees him making physical contact with a woman; sees him speaking lewdly to a woman; sees him praising his own body in the presence of a woman; or sees him acting as a go-between. Alternatively, another person sees it, and one hears it from that person. This is called evidence based on seeing.

– Evidence based on hearing: One hears that the bhikkhu stimulated himself and emitted semen; hears that he was physically intimate with a woman; hears him speaking lewdly to a woman; hears him praising his own body in the presence of a woman; or hears that he acted as a go-between. Alternatively, another person hears it, and one hears it from that person. This is called evidence based on hearing.

– Evidence based on suspicious reports: Suspicion arises from two causes: suspicion arising from seeing and suspicion arising from hearing.

– What is suspicion arising from seeing? One sees that bhikkhu and a woman emerging from a forest or entering a forest; or sees him naked and without robes, with impure discharge soiling his body; or sees him engaging in activities or amusing himself with bad companions. This is called suspicion arising from seeing.

– What is suspicion arising from hearing? One hears sounds in that place: the sound of a bed, the sound of a grass mat, heavy breathing, voices, or the sounds of sexual intercourse. Or one hears that bhikkhu say of himself, “I committed an emission of semen. I made physical contact with a woman. I spoke lewdly to a woman. I praised my own body in the presence of a woman. I acted as a go-between for a man and a woman.” Suspicion arises upon hearing such things.

Apart from these three grounds, accusing someone on the basis of other matters is called an unfounded accusation. If any bhikkhu, out of anger, falsely accuses another of an unfounded Sanghadisesa offense, he commits a pacittiya offense if his words are explicit; if they are not explicit, he commits a dukkata offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. A sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri commits a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if one has seen, heard, or has grounds for suspicion and speaks truthfully, wishing to cause the other person to repent rather than falsely accusing him; if one speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another.

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

LXXXI. ENTERING DEEPLY INTO THE ROYAL PALACE. ^[425]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, in the city of Sravasti there was a brahmin of a prominent family named Yajnadatta,^[426] who possessed abundant precious wealth and immeasurable property. His fields, lands, rice, and grain were beyond reckoning, and he had gold, silver, mother-of-pearl, agate, pearls, amber, crystal, lapis lazuli, elephants, horses, servants, and overflowing treasuries in abundance. He possessed a majestic appearance. Yajnadatta had a maidservant named Yellow Head,^[427] who regularly tended the Mallika Garden.^[428] That maidservant often lamented, “When shall I be freed from this life of servitude?”

One morning, the maidservant received her portion of dry rice and carried it into the garden. At that time, when the hour for almsround had arrived, the Blessed One donned his robe, took up his bowl, and entered the city to seek alms. Seeing the Tathagata from afar, the maidservant Yellow Head thought, “I should now offer this portion of dry rice to that renunciant. Perhaps I may thereby be freed from this life of servitude.” Having thought thus, Yellow Head offered her portion of rice to the Tathagata.

Out of compassion, the Blessed One accepted the offering and then returned to the monastery. The maidservant Yellow Head continued on her way to the Mallika Garden.

At that time, King Prasenajit marshaled the four divisions of his army and went out hunting for sport. His retinue scattered in pursuit of a herd of deer. The weather was hot, and the king became weary. From afar, the king saw the nearby Mallika Garden and ordered his chariot to turn toward it. Leaving the chariot outside, the king entered the garden on foot.

Yellow Head then saw King Prasenajit approaching from afar and thought, “From the bearing and demeanor of this approaching man, he is no ordinary person.” She immediately went forward to welcome him and respectfully greeted him:

“Welcome, noble sir! Please come and sit upon this seat.”

Yellow Head then removed her outer garment and spread it out, inviting the king to sit. Yellow Head asked:

“Do you require water for washing your feet?”

The king replied:

“I do.”

Huang-t'ou immediately used a lotus leaf to scoop up water and brought it to the King. The King washed himself with the water, while Huang-t'ou rubbed and massaged his feet and asked:

“Do you need water to wash your face?”

The King said:

“I do.”

Huang-t'ou again used a lotus leaf to scoop up a full measure of water and brought it for the King to wash his face.

Huang-t'ou then asked:

“Do you need water to drink?”

The King said:

“I wish to drink.”

Huang-t'ou immediately went to the pond, washed her hands clean, then took a fine lotus leaf, filled it with water, and brought it for the King to drink. Huang-t'ou again asked the King:

“I do not know whether you need to rest for a while?”

The King said:

“I need to rest quietly for a while.”

Huang-t'ou immediately removed one of her garments and spread it out, inviting the King to lie down and rest. When the King had lain down, Huang-t'ou went to one side, knelt upright, and massaged his body to relieve his weariness. Huang-t'ou's body was soft and delicate like the body of a celestial maiden. As the King was being gently massaged, he thought, “Never before have I encountered a woman so intelligent. Without being told, she does everything according to my wishes.” The King then asked:

“Whose daughter are you?”

Huang-t'ou replied:

“I am a servant in the household of Yajñadatta. My master ordered me to guard this Mallikā Garden.”

While the King was questioning Huang-t'ou in this way, a minister of King Prasenajit followed the tracks of the chariot to the Mallikā Garden. After bowing at the King's feet, he stood to one side. The King commanded a man:

“Go and summon the brahmin Yajñadatta to the King.”

Having received the King's command, the man immediately went to summon the brahmin. The brahmin came, bowed at the King's feet, and stood to one side.

The King asked:

“Is this woman your servant?”

The brahmin replied:

“It is so.”

The King said:

“I now wish to take this woman as my wife. What do you think?”

The brahmin replied:

“This woman is a servant. How could she become the King's wife?”

The King declared:

“That is of no concern. You need only tell me the price that must be paid.”

The brahmin replied:

“Even if her price were worth a hundred thousand measures of gold, how would I dare accept it? I offer her as a gift to Your Majesty.”

The King said:

“That cannot be. Since I am now taking her as my wife, how could no price be reckoned?”

[690a1] The King immediately ordered that a hundred thousand measures of gold be issued and given to the brahmin. After it had been delivered, the King sent someone back to the palace to obtain various necklaces, garments, and ornaments. After she had bathed, washed her hair, and adorned herself, she rode in the same chariot as the King back to the palace, escorted and accompanied by the ministers.

Huang-t'ou then thought, “This man is none other than King Prasenajit himself.” Huang-t'ou was brought into the palace, where she studied various arts, poetry, mathematics, engraving, the painting of various images, singing, dancing, drama, and music; there was no discipline she did not master. Because she had been brought from the Mallikā Garden, she was given the name Lady Mallikā. As she grew older, the King loved and respected her all the more. After some time, from among five hundred women, Mallikā was appointed by the King as his chief queen.

While in the lofty palace hall, Lady Mallikā thought to herself, “Through what karmic causes and conditions was I freed from servitude and now able to live in such happiness?” She then thought further, “Could it be because I formerly offered my portion of food—dried rice mixed with honey—to a śramaṇa? Through that cause and condition, have I now been freed from the body of a servant and come to enjoy such happiness?” Lady Mallikā then asked an attendant:

“Is there in the city of Śrāvastī a śramaṇa whose appearance is like this?”

The attendant replied:

“There is. He is precisely the Tathagata, the Unattached One, the Perfectly and Fully Awakened One.”

Upon hearing this, the Queen rejoiced and immediately wished to go to the Buddha. She therefore approached King Prasenajit and said:

“Your Majesty! I wish to go see the Buddha, pay homage to him, and inquire after his well-being.”

The King said:

“You should know the proper time.”

Lady Mallikā immediately prepared five hundred carriages and, accompanied by five hundred palace women, departed from the city of Śrāvastī and went to the Jetavana Monastery. Upon arriving, Mallikā descended from her carriage and entered on foot. From afar she saw the Tathagata, dignified and upright in appearance, his faculties serene and composed, having attained unsurpassed self-mastery, like a fully tamed king of elephants, like a clear and tranquil abyss, pure and undefiled. Seeing him, the Queen rejoiced. She approached the Buddha, bowed at his feet, sat to one side, and asked him:

“Through what causes and conditions does a woman receive a female body, have an ugly complexion displeasing to those who see her, possess little wealth, and lack influence? Through what causes and conditions does she have an ugly complexion displeasing to those who see her and possess abundant wealth, yet lack great influence? Through what causes and conditions does she have an ugly complexion displeasing to those who see her, possess abundant wealth, and have great influence? Through what causes and conditions does she have a beautiful complexion delightful to those who see her, possess abundant wealth, and have great influence?”

The Blessed One then taught Lady Mallikā:

“There is a kind of woman whose heart is filled with anger and who delights in troubling and harming others. Sometimes a few words cause her to become violently enraged. Sometimes many words cause her anger to grow all the greater.

Nor does she give alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the elderly, the orphaned, the widowed, or the poor when they come seeking clothing, food and drink, elephants, horses, carriages, perfumes, flowers, necklaces, lodgings, bedding, or lamps. She gives them none of these things. When she sees others receiving gains and offerings, jealousy arises in her heart.

Therefore, Mallikā, because such a woman is greatly angered, her appearance is ugly and displeasing to those who see her. Because she does not give, she possesses little wealth. Because jealousy arises in her when she sees others receiving gains and offerings, she has no influence.

“Lady Mallikā! There is a kind of woman whose heart is filled with anger and who delights in causing others distress. Sometimes a few words cause her to become violently enraged. Sometimes many words cause her anger to grow all the greater. Yet she readily gives alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the elderly, the orphaned, the widowed, and the poor. Whenever they come seeking clothing, food and drink, elephants, horses, carriages, perfumes, flowers, necklaces, lodgings, or bedding, she provides these things for them. However, when she sees others receiving gains and offerings, jealousy arises in her heart. Therefore, because this woman is greatly angered, her appearance is ugly; because she gives alms, she does not lack wealth; and because of her jealousy, she has no influence.

“Lady Mallikā! There is a kind of woman whose heart is filled with anger and who delights in troubling and harming others. Whether few words or many are spoken to her, she displays great anger. Yet she readily gives alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the elderly, the solitary, and the poor. When they come seeking clothing, food and drink, perfumes, flowers, necklaces, and even lodgings, bedding, or lamps, she provides all these things for them. When she sees others receiving gains and offerings, no jealousy arises in her heart. Therefore, because this woman is angry, her appearance is ugly; because she gives alms, she does not lack wealth; and because no jealousy arises in her when she sees others acquiring wealth and benefit, she has great influence.

“Mallikā! There is a kind of woman who is free from anger and does not trouble or harm others. Whether few words or many are spoken to her, she displays no anger. She readily gives alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the orphaned, the widowed, the elderly, and the poor. When they come seeking elephants, horses, carriages, clothing, food and drink, and even lamps, she provides all these things for them. When she sees others receiving gains and offerings, no jealousy arises in her heart. Mallikā! Because she is free from anger, her complexion is beautiful; because she gives alms, she does not lack wealth; and because she is free from jealousy, she has great influence.”

“Mallikā, because of these causes and conditions, a woman is ugly in appearance, deficient in wealth, and without influence. Because of these causes and conditions, a woman is ugly in appearance but is not deficient in wealth, yet has no influence. Because of these causes and conditions, a woman is ugly in appearance but is not deficient in wealth and possesses great influence. Because of these causes and conditions, a woman is beautiful in appearance, is not deficient in wealth, and possesses great influence.”

At that time, Lady Mallikā again addressed the Buddha:

“Venerable Sir, in a previous life I was often angry, delighted in troubling and harming others, and displayed great anger whether little or much was said. Why was this? I know it because in this life I have received an ugly body that people do not find pleasing.

“Venerable Sir, in a previous life I often gave alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the elderly, the solitary, and the poor. When they came seeking clothing, food and drink, or even lamps and torches, I provided these things for them. Therefore, today I am not deficient in wealth.

“Venerable Sir, in a previous life, when I saw others receiving gains and offerings, I did not give rise to jealousy. Therefore, today I possess great influence. Within King Pasenadi’s palace are five hundred women, all of the kṣatriya lineage, yet among them I am the one who is honored and possesses authority.

“Venerable Sir, from this day forward, I shall neither become angry nor trouble or harm others, and I shall not display anger whether little or much is said. I shall always give alms to śramaṇas, brahmins, the elderly, the solitary, and the poor. When they come seeking clothing, elephants, horses, carriages, or even lamps and torches, I shall provide these things for them. If I see others receiving gains and offerings, I shall not give rise to jealousy.

“Blessed One, from this day forward and for the rest of my life, I vow to take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha and to become a female lay disciple. From this day forward, I vow to undertake and uphold the precepts, from refraining from taking life through refraining from drinking intoxicants.”

At that time, the Blessed One employed countless skillful means to teach and instruct Lady Mallikā in the Dharma, causing her to rejoice. He taught the Dharma of giving, moral discipline, and rebirth in the heavens. He explained that sensual desire is blameworthy, impure, defiled by the outflows, and a fetter. He praised the benefits of renunciation and liberation. Thereupon, while still seated, Lady Mallikā became entirely free of the dust and defilements. She attained the purity of the Dharma-eye, saw the Dharma, attained the Dharma, and realized the fruit. The lady then addressed the Buddha once more:

“Now, for the second and the third time, I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha and become a female lay disciple. From this day forward and for the rest of my life, I shall refrain from taking life through refraining from drinking intoxicants.” Mallikā then rose from her seat, bowed reverently at the Buddha’s feet, circumambulated the Buddha three times, and departed.

After returning to the palace, Mallikā encouraged King Pasenadi and caused him to have faith and delight in the Buddha-Dharma. After the king had acquired faith, he permitted the bhikṣus to enter and leave the palace without obstruction.

Then, when it was time, Kāludāyin put on his robe, took up his bowl, and entered King Pasenadi’s royal palace. At that time, the king and his lady were still taking their daytime rest. Seeing Kāludāyin approaching from afar, the lady immediately rose and put on her robe. She then used a very precious garment to wipe the seat and invited Kāludāyin to sit. Her robe slipped loose and [691a1] fell to the ground, exposing her body. Ashamed, she sat down. When Kāludāyin saw this, he turned and left the royal palace. The king then asked the lady:

“Did that bhikṣu just see your body?”

The lady replied to the king:

“Although he saw it, it was as between brothers and sisters and nothing more. There is no need to be concerned about it.”

Kāludāyin then returned to the Sanghārāma and told the bhikṣus, “Today I clearly saw King Pasenadi’s foremost treasure.”

The bhikṣus asked:

“What treasure did you see?”

Kāludāyin said:

“I saw Lady Mallikā’s naked body. I saw everything!”

When the bhikṣus heard this, those among them who had few desires and were content, who practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed conscience and shame criticized Kāludāyin, saying, “Why did you enter the palace and go to the women’s quarters?”

The bhikṣus 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 bhikṣus. Although he already knew, he deliberately asked Kāludāyin:

“Is it true that you entered the royal palace and went to the women’s quarters?”

Kāludāyin replied:

“Blessed One, it is indeed true.”

The Blessed One employed countless skillful means to rebuke Kāludāyin:

“What you did was wrong. It was not in accord with proper conduct, not the conduct of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not a practice of conformity. You did what should not be done. Why did you enter the inner palace and go to the women’s quarters?”

After employing countless skillful means to rebuke Kāludāyin, the Blessed One told the bhikṣus:

“This foolish man is one who plants many seeds of the outflows. He is the first offender against this precept. From this day forward, I establish a precept for the bhikṣus, 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 enters while a consecrated kṣatriya king^[429] has not yet left and the treasures have not yet been put away, then upon crossing the threshold of the palace, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikṣu: as explained above.

A consecrated kṣatriya king:^[430] Water is taken from the four great seas, and the right horn of a white ox is filled with every kind of seed. It is placed upon the king’s carriage and borne by the lesser kings. The king and his foremost lady sit upon the carriage. A great brahmin pours the water over the crown of the king’s head. If he is of kṣatriya lineage, the pouring of water upon his head establishes him in kingship. Therefore, he is called a consecrated kṣatriya king. If one of brahmin, vaiśya, or śūdra lineage has water poured upon his head to establish him in kingship, that king is likewise called a consecrated kṣatriya king.

Has not yet left: this means that the king has not yet gone out and the palace women have not yet returned to their former quarters.

The treasures have not yet been put away: gold, silver, pearls, mother-of-pearl, agate, crystal, beryl, and shell-gems.^[431] None of the precious necklaces and ornaments have yet been put away.

If a bhikṣu crosses the threshold of the royal palace while a consecrated kṣatriya king has not yet left and the precious objects have not yet been put away, he commits a pācittiya offense. If one foot is outside and one foot is inside, and he intends to proceed, or if he has made an appointment but does not proceed, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta offense. Apart from the residence of a kṣatriya king, if he crosses the threshold of the homes of lesser tributary kings,^[432] eminent householders, or nobles, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikṣuṇī, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerikā, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if the king has already left and the palace women have returned to their former quarters; if the treasures and precious ornaments have already been put away; if there is a necessary matter to report to the king; if one has been summoned; if one is taken there by force; if there is danger to one’s life; or if there is danger to one’s pure conduct. 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 deluded or insane; one whose mind is disordered; or one who is tormented or oppressed by pain.

LXXXII. HANDLING TREASURES^[433]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, a lay follower of an outside path from the country of Kosala was traveling along the road. He stopped to rest by the roadside and inadvertently left behind a bag containing one thousand taels of gold. A large number of bhikkhus were also traveling along that road. Later, they too stopped to rest by the roadside at the place where the layman had rested. Seeing the bag of gold lying on the ground, the bhikkhus said to one another, “We should take it with us. If its owner recognizes it, we shall return it to him.” Having said this, they took it with them.

After traveling several miles, the layman remembered the bag of gold he had forgotten and hurried back.

Seeing him approaching rapidly from afar in the opposite direction, the bhikkhus said to one another:

“That man hurrying this way must be the owner of the gold.”

When he arrived, the bhikkhus asked:

“Where are you going?”

The layman said:

“Go on your way. Why must you inquire into my affairs?”

The bhikkhus said:

“We wish to spare you the trouble of going all the way back there.”

The layman said in surprise:

“I had just rested at that place and left behind a bag of gold, so I am now returning to retrieve it.”

The bhikkhus immediately brought out the bag of gold and asked:

“Is this not yours?”

The layman said:

“This is indeed my bag. But why is some of what was inside missing?”

The bhikkhus said:

“We truly found only the bag as it is now.”

The layman then went to the magistrate’s residence and lodged a complaint.

At that time, King Prasenajit was personally seated on the judgment seat. The King summoned the bhikkhus and asked:

“Venerable Ones, what happened in this matter? Is what that man says true or not?”

The bhikkhus replied to the King:

“We found only the bag as it is now and saw nothing else.”

The layman said:

“My gold amounted to such-and-such a weight.”

The King then ordered that the full amount of gold claimed by the layman be brought forth and told him to place it in the bag, but the bag could not contain it all. The King then said to the layman:

“This is therefore not your property. Go and look elsewhere.”

The King then punished him for making a false accusation and confiscated his property; all the gold was placed in the royal treasury.

When some bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires and were content, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in learning the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread, reproached the bhikkhus:

“Why did you take gold and silver into your own hands, thereby causing a layman to be punished by the authorities and his property to be confiscated, with all his possessions being placed in the royal treasury?”

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

“What you did was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper conduct, not the Dharma of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the path. You did what ought not to have been done. Why did you take gold and silver into your own hands, thereby causing the King to punish the layman and confiscate his property?”

After rebuking the bhikkhus by innumerable means, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the first offenders against this precept and the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, 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:

Should any bhikkhu take a valuable or a precious ornament into his own hands, or cause another to take it, it is a pacittiya offense.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time in the city of Sravasti, according to the customary practice of the world, on the day of a women’s festival, Mother Visakha ^[434] adorned herself with necklaces and passed by the Jetavana monastery. Faith and reverence arose in her, and she thought, “What need have I to attend a women’s festival? I should now go to the Blessed One, pay homage to him, and inquire after his well-being.”

Mother Visakha immediately turned back and entered the Jetavana monastery. She then thought, “I should not go before the Blessed One wearing these jeweled ornaments. I should remove them and only then go to pay homage to him.”

She therefore went beneath a tree, removed her precious robe and jeweled necklaces, and gathered them into a large pile. She then approached the Blessed One, bowed at his feet, and stood to one side. The Blessed One taught the Dharma to her through skillful means, instructing, inspiring, and gladdening her. After hearing the Tathagata teach the Dharma, Mother Visakha rejoiced. She respectfully bowed at the Buddha’s feet, circumambulated him [692a1], and departed.

Her mind still dwelling on the Dharma, she walked directly out through the gate of Jetavana and forgot to retrieve her ornaments, precious robe, and jeweled necklaces. Only after returning home did she remember them. She then thought, “If I send someone to retrieve them and they are no longer there, the bhikkhus might be humiliated.” She therefore did not send a messenger to retrieve them.

A bhikkhu had seen Mother Visakha go beneath the tree when she entered Jetavana, but when she departed, she did not return to that place. The bhikkhu then went beneath the tree and saw the ornaments, jeweled necklaces, and precious robe gathered together in one place. Doubt arose in his mind, and he did not dare to take them. He thought, “The Blessed One has laid down the precept: ‘Should any bhikkhu take a valuable or a precious ornament into his own hands, or cause another to take it, it is a pacittiya offense.’” That bhikkhu went and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, if an object left behind is seen within a Sangharama, I permit it to be taken and put away so that it will not be lost.”

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

Should any bhikkhu take gold or valuables, or a precious ornament, ^[435] into his own hands, or cause another to take it, it is a pacittiya offense, except within a Sangharama.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, a large number of bhikkhus traveling from the country of Kosala stopped in a village where there was no lodging place. They inquired:

“Where is there an empty dwelling here in which we may stay temporarily for the night?”

The people there said:

“There is an empty room here in the house of a goldsmith. ^[436] You may go and stay there.”

The bhikkhus went to the goldsmith’s house and said:

“We would like to ask permission to stay here for one night. May we?”

The goldsmith replied:

“You may.”

The bhikkhus entered the house, spread out grass mats, and sat down, their bodies upright, their minds composed, and mindfulness established before them. On that day, the goldsmith had placed in that house various kinds of worked gold, unworked gold, and gold objects that were only partly fashioned; there were also finished silver objects, unworked silver, and unfinished silver objects. That night, in order to safeguard those things, the bhikkhus did not sleep at all, fearing that thieves might come and take them. In the morning, the goldsmith entered the house and asked the bhikkhus:

“Venerable Ones, did you sleep well last night?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“We could not sleep.”

The goldsmith then asked:

“Why could you not sleep?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“You left a number of valuable objects in the house. We spent the entire night guarding them for you and therefore could not sleep.”

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

“From now on, when bhikkhus stay temporarily for the night in another person’s house, if there are valuable objects in that house, I permit them to take those objects and put them away so that they will not be lost.”

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

Any bhikkhu who himself takes hold of a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or causes another person to take hold of it, commits a pācittiya offense, except within a monastery or at a lodging place. If, within a monastery or at a lodging place, he himself takes hold of a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or causes another person to take hold of it, he should think: “If the owner recognizes it, he will reclaim it.” This is permitted only under such circumstances and no others.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RULE

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Precious objects: gold, silver, pearls, amber, mother-of-pearl, agate, lapis lazuli, shells, jade, and coral.

Ornaments made of precious materials: copper, iron, lead, tin, and pewter fashioned into ornaments with precious materials.

If a bhikkhu, within a monastery or a dwelling, himself takes hold of precious objects or ornaments made of precious materials, or causes another person to take hold of them, he should ascertain the appearance of the bag, the appearance of its interior, and the manner in which it was tied. He should open the bag and examine it, determining how many objects are joined together, how many are separate, how many are square, how many are round, how many are old, and how many are new.

If someone comes seeking the property, he should ask: “What does your property look like?” If that person describes it correctly, he should return it to him. If the description is incorrect, he should say: “I have not seen any such object.” If two people both come seeking it, he should ask: “What is the appearance of your property?” If one describes it correctly, he should return it. If the description is incorrect, he should say: “I have not seen any such object.” If both people describe it correctly, he should bring the property before them and say: “This is your property.

Take it.”

If a bhikkhu, within a monastery or a dwelling, himself takes hold of precious objects or ornaments made of precious materials, or causes another person to take hold of them, but does not ascertain the appearance of the bag, the appearance of the wrapping, or the manner in which it was tied, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he does not open it and examine how many objects are joined together, how many are not joined in a cluster, how many are square, how many are round, how many are new, and how many are old, each such omission constitutes a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhunī, 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, upon arriving at a monastery or a place of overnight lodging, one personally takes hold of precious objects or ornaments made of precious materials, or causes another person to take hold of them; ascertains the appearance of the bag, the appearance of its interior, and the manner in which it was tied; opens the wrapping and examines it; and determines how many objects are joined together, how many are not joined together, how many are square, how many are round, how many are new, and how many are old.

If two people both come to inquire, one should ask: “What is the condition of your property?” If one describes it correctly, return it. If the description is incorrect, say: “I have not seen any such object.” If both people describe it correctly, bring the property before them and say: “That is your property. Take it.” If the objects are adornments offered to a stupa or monastery and are intended to be preserved for a long time, they should be collected and stored.

In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not commit an offense are: one who committed the act for the first time before the rule was established, one who is insane, one whose mind is deranged, one afflicted by agonizing pain, or one under duress. ^[437]

Notes:

^[396] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 63; Mahāsāṃghika, Sarvāstivāda, and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 75; Pali, Pāc. 71.

^[397] See Chapter ii, Saṅghāvaśeṣa 12. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the cause involved the Group of Six bhikkhus.

^[398] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: “A bhikkhu repeatedly committed offenses…” Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: “When the precepts were being recited, a bhikkhu said…”

^[399] The various Vinayas: pācittiya 10. Pali, Pāc. 72.

^[400] Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: Bhikkhus recited the precepts at the fortnightly uposatha. The Group of Six opposed the minor precepts.

^[401] Miscellaneous minor precepts 雜碎戒. Pali: khuddānukhuddaka sikkhāpada. Cf. Cullavagga, Vin. ii. 287: at the council, the Sangha discussed the minor precepts that the Buddha had permitted them to abolish. Some held that, apart from the four pārājikas, all the remaining precepts were minor. Others held that only the ninety-two pācittiyas were minor precepts. See Four-Part Vinaya 54, the later passage concerning the First Council (T22, p. 967b).

^[402] Mahāsāṃghika: “When the prātimokṣa was being recited each fortnight, he spoke as follows…” Mahīśāsaka: there is no detail concerning “the recitation of the precepts.” Pali: uddissamāne, while the precepts are being recited; commentary, VA. 876: ācariyena antevāsikassa uddissamāne, “while the teacher is reciting them to the disciple.”

^[403] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 64; Mahāsāṃghika: 92; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 93.

^[404] “There is no conformity and no understanding” 無如無解. Mahīśāsaka: 不以不知故得脫, “That bhikkhu is not absolved of the offense on account of not knowing.” The other Vinayas agree. Pali: na ca tassa bhikkhuno aññakena mutti atthi, with the same meaning as the Chinese versions.

^[405] Mahāsāṃghika: “He should be censured…” This means that a formal act of censure should be carried out.

^[406] Pali: idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiyaṃ, “This is a pācittiya because of that ignorance.” That is, because a formal act concerning ignorance had been carried out. See the note above. Sanskrit: āyuṣman tatra kaukṛtyāt pāyantikā, “Venerable sir, herein, because there is remorse, a pācittiya offense is committed.” That is, after a formal act requiring remorse has been carried out.

^[407] Mahāsāṃghika: “A bhikkhu…, after having been censured, commits a pācittiya offense.”

^[408] “The offense of ignorance is additionally increased” 重增無知罪; the bhikkhus carry out a formal act concerning ignorance to censure the fault of failing to listen attentively to the recitation of the precepts. The Sanskrit text has: uttaraṃ ca kaukṛtyam āropayitavyaṃ, “Furthermore, he should be required to express remorse.” Pali: uttariñc’ assa moho āropetabbo, “Furthermore, ignorance should be imposed upon that bhikkhu.” In the Pali Vinaya, this is a formal act involving a motion and one proclamation, censuring his ignorance. If no formal act concerning ignorance has been carried out, he commits only a duṣkṛta offense.

^[409] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 80; Mahāsāṃghika, Sarvāstivāda, and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 9. Pali, Pāc. 81.

^[410] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 53; Mahāsāṃghika: 79; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 77. Pali, Pāc. 80.

^[411] Mahāsāṃghika: “Without informing a bhikkhu.” Mūlasarvāstivāda: “He silently arose and departed, without entrusting the matter to another” 不囑授.

^[412] See Chapter ii, Saṅghāvaśeṣa x.

^[413] The types of formal acts performed without benefiting the person concerned; see Four-Part Vinaya, Part Three, Chapter xi (T22, p. 906a17).

^[414] Cf. the Pali Vinaya, Vin. iv. 153: one who departs without giving consent does not commit an offense if he thinks that a dispute will arise within the Sangha or that there will be a schism in the Sangha; if the formal act is contrary to the Dharma or conducted by an incomplete assembly; if the formal act is unlawfully directed against the person concerned; if something must be done for a sick person; if he is going to relieve himself; or if he does not wish to be obliged to obstruct the formal act.

^[415] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 79; Mahāsāṃghika: 43; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 53. Pali, Pāc. 79.

^[416] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 60; Mahāsāṃghika: 78; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 76. Pali, Pāc. 78.

^[417] Mahīśāsaka: “Secretly eavesdropping in a concealed place” 屏處默聽.

^[418] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 71; Mahāsāṃghika: 58; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 48.

^[419] Mahīśāsaka: If he strikes another without anger, he does not commit a pācittiya offense.

^[420] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 72; Mahāsāṃghika: 59; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 49. Pali, Pāc. 75.

^[421] Chinese: 搏, to strike or slap. Mahīśāsaka: 擬如打相, making a gesture as though about to strike. Mahāsāṃghika: 側掌刀擬, turning the hand sideways and making a gesture as though striking with a knife. Pali: talasattikaṃ uggireyya, “to raise the palm of the hand,” meaning to threaten to strike.

^[422] “To strike with the hand” 以手搏; see the note above.

^[423] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: pācittiya 75; Mahāsāṃghika: 90; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 69. Pali, Pāc. 76.

^[424] See Ch. ii, Sanghadisesa 8 & 9.

^[425] Mahisasaka: Pacittiya 65; Mahasanghika: 82; Sarvastivada and Mulasarvastivada: 82. Pali, Pāc. 83.

^[426] Yaññadatta 耶若達 (Pali: Yaññadatta, but there is no related account in the Pali sources). The origin story concerning Queen Mallikā is not recounted in the Vinaya texts. The Mahasanghika directs that it be read in the Madhyama Agama.

^[427] Yellow-Head 黃頭. The Pali source says that she was the daughter of a garland maker in Kosala.

^[428] Mallikā’s Park 末利園. Pali: Mallikārāma, a park within the city of Sravasti, so named because it belonged to Queen Mallikā. In the account given here, the Queen was so named because she had originally been a maiden who tended a garden of mallikā flowers.

^[429] Mahisasaka: there is no detail concerning a consecrated king. Mahasanghika: if he is a king but not of the ksatriya lineage, or a ksatriya but not consecrated, there is no offense in either case.

^[430] Chinese: “the ksatriya lineage whose heads are sprinkled with water” 剎利水澆頭種. Mahasanghika: “a consecrated ksatriya king” 剎利灌頂王.

^[431] Mahisasaka: precious objects and female beauty are both called treasures. Mahasanghika: “treasure” refers only to the King’s Queen.

^[432] A minor king “scattered like grains of millet” 粟散小王. A minor king—one among many, like scattered grains—who rules a small state subordinate to a consecrated king.

^[433] Mahisasaka: Pacittiya 69; Mahasanghika: 49; Sarvastivada and Mulasarvastivada: 58. Pali, Pāc. 84.

^[434] Mother Visakha 毘舍佉母. Pali: Visākā Migāramātā.

^[435] Sarvastivada: “either a treasure or something resembling a treasure.” Explanation: a treasure is money, gold, silver, and so forth; something resembling a treasure is copper, tin, pewter, lead, and so forth. Pali: ratanaṃ vā ratanasammaṃ, a treasure or something equivalent to a treasure.

^[436] Original Chinese: artisan 巧師.

^[437] Here ends fascicle 18 of 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