四分律

Thích Nguyên Chứng - Thích Đức Thắng

Revision and annotations

At that time, Dabba Mallaputta was sitting not far from the Buddha. Although the Blessed One knew, he nevertheless asked:

“Did you hear what this bhikkhunī said?”

The Venerable One replied:

“Venerable Blessed One, I heard it. The Blessed One knows this.”

The Blessed One said:

“You should not answer in this way. If it is true, say that it is true. If it is not true, say that it is not true.”

Having heard the Blessed One’s instruction, Dabba Mallaputta immediately rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and addressed the Buddha:

“From the time of my birth until now, I do not recall ever engaging in sexual impurity even in a dream, much less while awake.”

The Blessed One said:

“Excellent, excellent, Dabba Mallaputta. That is how you should speak.”

The Blessed One then told the bhikkhus:

“You should question this bhikkhu Mettiya. Do not allow the pure bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta to be falsely accused, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life. Whoever falsely accuses another, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life commits a grave offense.”

The bhikkhus replied:

“Yes, Venerable Blessed One.”

Obeying the Buddha’s instruction, the bhikkhus went to bhikkhu Mettiya and questioned him thoroughly about the matter:

“What is the truth of this matter? Did it actually happen? Do not falsely accuse him, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life. This bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta is pure. Whoever falsely accuses another, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life commits a grave offense.”

When bhikkhu Mettiya was questioned by the bhikkhus, he reported:

“I know that Dabba Mallaputta is pure in the holy life and did no such thing. However, when I went to the city of Rājagṛha, he assigned lodgings and bedding to the Sangha, and he gave us poor lodgings and poor bedding. I immediately became resentful and said: ‘Dabba Mallaputta is biased.

Those he likes receive good lodgings and good bedding. Those he dislikes receive poor lodgings and poor bedding. Because he dislikes me, he assigned me poor lodgings and poor bedding.

Then, when inviting us to meals in order, he again sent me to a place where the food was bad.’ Because of this, my resentment grew many times stronger, and I said: ‘Why has the Sangha entrusted such a biased person with assigning lodgings and bedding and arranging the order of invitations to meals?’ Yet this Dabba Mallaputta is pure in the holy life and did no such thing.”

Among the bhikkhus who heard this, those who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutaṅga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproached bhikkhu Mettiya:

“Why did you falsely accuse Dabba Mallaputta, who is pure in the holy life, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life?”

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

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in accord with the way. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you falsely accuse one who is pure in the holy life, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life?”

The Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“There are two kinds of persons who are certain to enter hell: one who is not pure in the holy life but claims to be pure in the holy life, and one who falsely accuses a person truly pure in the holy life, without grounds, of an offense involving the renunciation of the holy life. These two kinds of persons proceed directly to hell without interruption.”

After reproaching bhikkhu Mettiya by countless means, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“This bhikkhu Mettiya is a foolish man, a field in which many seeds of the outflows are planted, and the first person to violate this precept. From now on, I shall establish this precept for the bhikkhus, encompassing the ten purposes, up to and including ensuring that the true Dharma long endures.”

When reciting the precept, it should be recited thus:

B. TEXT OF THE PRECEPT

If a bhikkhu, harboring anger and resentment, falsely accuses another bhikkhu who has not committed a pārājika offense of a baseless pārājika offense, intending to destroy that bhikkhu’s pure life; and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, it becomes known that the matter was baseless, and that bhikkhu says, “I spoke thus out of hatred,” that bhikkhu commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

C. EXPLANATION OF MEANING

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Anger: there are ten unwholesome conditions that serve as causes and conditions for anger. Each of these ten conditions can give rise to anger.

Grounds: there are three kinds of grounds: grounds based on seeing, grounds based on hearing, and grounds based on suspicion.

– Grounds based on seeing: one actually sees a person violate the holy life; sees a person steal five coins or more than five coins; or sees a person take a human life. If another person sees it and one hears it from that person, this is called grounds based on seeing.

– Grounds based on hearing: one hears it said that a person violated the holy life; hears it said that a person stole five coins or more than five coins; hears it said that a person took a human life; or hears it said that a person claimed to have attained a superhuman state. If that person spoke and one heard it from someone else, this is called grounds based on hearing.

– Grounds based on suspicion: suspicion arises in two ways: suspicion arising from seeing and suspicion arising from hearing. Suspicion arising from seeing is, for example, seeing a man enter a forest with a woman or emerge from the forest with her; seeing him without robes and naked, with his male organ unclean and his body soiled; or seeing him holding a bloodstained knife or associating with evil companions. This is called suspicion arising from seeing. Suspicion arising from hearing is, for example, hearing in a dark place the creaking of a bed, the movement of a grass mat, the movement of bodies, whispered speech, or the sounds of sexual intercourse; or hearing someone say, “I violated the holy life”; hearing someone say that he stole five coins or more than five coins; hearing someone say, “I killed a person”; or hearing someone say, “I attained a superhuman state.” This is called suspicion arising from hearing.

Apart from these three kinds of grounds, if one uses anything else to make a false accusation, it is called baseless.

D. CHARACTERISTICS OF AN OFFENSE

If the other person is impure, but one neither saw him commit a pārājika offense, nor heard that he committed a pārājika offense, nor suspected him of committing a pārājika offense, yet says, “I saw, heard, or suspected that this person committed a pārājika offense,” and defames him with a baseless charge, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

If the other person is impure, but one neither saw him commit a pārājika offense, nor heard that he committed a pārājika offense, nor suspected him of committing a pārājika offense, yet forms the perception that one saw, heard, or suspected it, then later forgets that perception and says, “I saw, heard, or suspected that this person committed a pārājika offense,” falsely accusing him with a baseless charge, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

If the other person is impure, but one neither saw, heard, nor suspected that he committed a pārājika offense, and one had some doubt concerning him, but later says, “I had no doubt about this,” and instead says, “I saw, heard, or suspected it,” falsely accusing him with a baseless charge, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

If the other person is impure, but one neither saw, heard, nor suspected that he committed a pārājika offense, and one had some doubt concerning him but later forgot that doubt and then said, “I saw, heard, or suspected it,” falsely accusing him with a baseless charge, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

If the other person is impure, but one neither saw, heard, nor suspected that he committed a pārājika offense, and one had no doubt about it, yet says, “In this matter I suspected that a pārājika offense had been seen, heard, or suspected,” falsely accusing him with a baseless charge, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one has neither seen nor heard nor suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense; in this matter there was no suspicion, but afterward one forgets that there had been no suspicion and instead says: “I saw, heard, and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense.” If one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense, yet says, “I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense,” then, if one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense, though one imagined that one had seen it, and afterward forgets this notion and instead says, “I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense,” then, if one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense; in this matter there was suspicion, but one instead says there was no suspicion: “I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense.” If one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense; in this matter there was suspicion, but afterward one forgets and instead says, “I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense.” If one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense; in this matter there was no suspicion, but one instead says, “I had suspicion. I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense.” If one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

If that person is not pure, but one did not see that person commit a pārājika offense; in this matter there was no suspicion, but afterward one forgets the absence of suspicion and instead says, “I heard and suspected that person of committing a pārājika offense.” If one makes an accusation on baseless grounds, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.^[92]

The cases of hearing and suspicion are likewise. (There are further statements here, but because the text is lengthy, they are not recorded.)^[93]

If a bhikṣu uses four baseless matters^[94] to accuse another bhikṣu, then if the accusation is clearly understood, he commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If he uses hand gestures, a letter, a messenger, or signs, and the accusation is clearly understood, he commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense.

Apart from the four pārājika offenses, if one accuses another of other conditions disqualifying one from being a bhikṣu, saying, “You have committed a boundary offense; violated a bhikṣuṇī; received ordination with the mind of a thief; are a schismatic adherent of an internal or external doctrine; are a eunuch; killed your father; killed your mother; killed an arhat; caused a schism in the Sangha; maliciously caused the Buddha’s body to bleed; are a nonhuman being; are an animal; or possess both sexual organs,”^[95] then, if the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense.

If one uses hand gestures, a letter, a messenger, or signs, and the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense.

Apart from these conditions disqualifying one from being a bhikṣu, if one uses some other baseless matter to accuse a bhikṣu, the offense is as stated above.

If one uses any of the eight baseless pārājika offenses to accuse a bhikṣuṇī, then if the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If one uses hand gestures, a letter, a messenger, or signs, and the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense.

Apart from these eight pārājika offenses, if one uses other baseless conditions disqualifying one from being a bhikṣuṇī to slander her, then if the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If one uses hand gestures, a letter, a messenger, or signs, and the accusation is clearly understood, one commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense; if it is not clearly understood, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense.

Apart from the conditions disqualifying one from being a bhikṣuṇī, if one uses some other baseless matter to accuse a bhikṣuṇī, the offense is as stated above.

Apart from bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs, if one accuses another person of an offense on baseless grounds, one commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikṣuṇī, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called a transgression.

There is no offense if one speaks truthfully on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or suspected; 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 rule was established; one who is insane or mentally deranged; or one afflicted or overwhelmed by pain.

IX. ACCUSATION BASED ON A PRETEXT

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa at Rājagṛha.^[96] At that time, the bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka were descending Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa when they saw a large male goat copulating with a female goat. Seeing this, they said to one another:

“This male goat is Dabba Mallaputta. The female goat is the bhikṣuṇī Mettiyā. Now we shall tell the bhikṣus: ‘Previously, we accused Dabba Mallaputta on the baseless ground of hearsay. Now we have seen with our own eyes Dabba Mallaputta copulating with the bhikṣuṇī Mettiyā.’”

They then immediately went to the bhikṣus and said:

“Previously, we accused Dabba Mallaputta on the baseless ground of hearsay. Now we have seen with our own eyes Dabba Mallaputta copulating with the bhikṣuṇī Mettiyā.”

The bhikṣus asked:

“How can this be? You must not accuse Dabba Mallaputta, a practitioner of the holy life, on baseless grounds. To accuse a practitioner of the holy life on baseless grounds is a most grave offense.”

At that time, after the bhikṣus had questioned them, the bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka said:

“Dabba Mallaputta did no such thing. He is pure. Just now, as we were descending Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa, we saw a male goat copulating with a female goat. We therefore said to one another: ‘This male goat is Dabba Mallaputta. The female goat is the bhikṣuṇī Mettiyā. Today we have seen the deed with our own eyes. We shall go to the bhikṣus and make this accusation: Previously, I accused Dabba Mallaputta on the baseless ground of hearsay. Now I have seen with my own eyes Dabba copulating with a bhikṣuṇī.’ Yet Dabba Mallaputta is pure. In truth, there was no such deed.”

Among the bhikṣus who heard of this, some had few desires and were content, practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached the bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka:

“Why did you accuse Dabba Mallaputta, who is pure, of a pārājika offense without grounds, using a matter belonging to a different category?”

The bhikṣus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this entire matter to the Blessed One in full.

Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikṣus and, by innumerable means, rebuked the bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accordance with proper conduct, not the conduct of a śramaṇa, not a pure practice, and not a practice in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Dabba Mallaputta practices the holy life. Why did you accuse Dabba Mallaputta of a baseless pārājika offense by using a matter belonging to a different category?”

After rebuking the bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, the Blessed One addressed the bhikṣus:

“These bhikṣus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are foolish men, a field in which many tainted states are cultivated. They are the first offenders against this rule. From now on, I establish this precept for the bhikṣus, encompassing the ten benefits, up to and including the long endurance of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be recited as follows:

B. TEXT OF THE PRECEPT

If any bhikkhu, out of anger and resentment, seizes upon a minor detail from a matter of another category and groundlessly accuses a bhikkhu who has not committed a pārājika offense of a pārājika, wishing to destroy his life of purity, and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, it becomes known that the matter was based upon a minor detail from a matter of another category, and this bhikkhu himself says: “I spoke thus out of enmity,” any bhikkhu who speaks thus commits a saṅghādisesa offense.

C. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Anger: as previously explained.

Matter of another category:^[97] when a bhikkhu has committed a pārājika and one says that one saw him commit a pārājika, but accuses him on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

D. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If a bhikkhu has not committed a pārājika, but one calls him an offender, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If one accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu has not committed a pārājika, but one sees him commit a pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, thullaccaya, dukkaṭa, or offense of wrong speech, and accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu has committed a saṅghādisesa, but one says that he committed a pārājika and accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu has committed a saṅghādisesa, but one says that he committed a pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, thullaccaya, dukkaṭa, or offense of wrong speech, and accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If an impure person resembles another impure person,^[98] or they have the same name, the same clan name, or the same physical characteristics, and one takes the deed of one person and uses it to accuse the other, accusing him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If an impure person resembles a pure person, having the same name, the same clan name, or the same physical characteristics, and one takes the deed of one person and uses it to accuse the other, accusing him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a pure person resembles an impure person, having the same name, the same clan name, or the same physical characteristics, and one takes the deed of one person and uses it to accuse the other, accusing him [590a1] of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a pure person resembles another pure person, having the same name, the same clan name, or the same physical characteristics, and one takes the deed of one person and uses it to accuse the other, accusing him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

Or, having seen that person, while still a householder, engage in sexual intercourse, steal five coins or more than five coins, or kill a human being, one then says to others: “I saw the bhikkhu engage in sexual intercourse, steal five coins or more than five coins, or heard that he killed a human being.” If one accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

Or, having heard that the person, while still a householder, engaged in sexual intercourse, stole five coins or more than five coins, killed a human being, or falsely claimed to have attained a superhuman state, one then says: “I heard that the other person engaged in sexual intercourse, stole five coins or more than five coins, killed a human being, or falsely claimed to have attained a superhuman state.” If one accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu himself says that he heard an echoing voice saying: “I engaged in sexual intercourse, heard that five coins or more than five coins were stolen, heard that a human being was killed, or heard a false claim of having attained a superhuman state.” If one accuses him of a pārājika on groundless evidence belonging to another category, it is a saṅghādisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu uses the four matters^[99] as groundless evidence belonging to another category^[100] to accuse another bhikkhu, and his words are clearly understood, he commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if they are not clearly understood, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he uses hand gestures, writes a letter, sends a messenger, or makes signs to communicate it, and the signs are clearly understood, he commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if they are not clearly understood, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

Apart from the four pārājikas, if one disparages him on groundless evidence belonging to another category concerning another condition that disqualifies one from being a bhikkhu, saying: “You have committed a disqualifying offense, and so forth, up to being sexually indeterminate,” with the details as above, and the statement is understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if it is not understood, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one uses hand gestures, a letter, or a messenger, or makes signs to communicate it, and it is understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if it is not understood, one commits a thullaccaya offense.

Apart from the foregoing matters, if one uses other groundless evidence belonging to another category to accuse a bhikkhu, the offense is determined according to the preceding cases.

If a bhikkhu uses the eight pārājika matters as groundless evidence belonging to another category to accuse a bhikkhunī, and his words are understood, he commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if they are not understood, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he uses hand gestures, a letter, or a messenger, or makes signs to communicate it, and it is understood, he commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if it is not understood, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

Apart from the eight pārājikas, if one uses other grounds belonging to another category concerning a condition that disqualifies one from being a bhikkhunī to accuse her, and the statement is understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if it is not understood, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one uses hand gestures, a letter, or a messenger, or makes signs to communicate it, and it is understood, one commits a saṅghādisesa offense; if it is not understood, one commits a thullaccaya offense. Apart from conditions disqualifying one from being a bhikkhunī, if one uses other groundless evidence belonging to another category to accuse a bhikkhunī, the offense is determined according to the circumstances.

Apart from accusations against a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, if one uses groundless evidence belonging to another category to accuse another person, one commits a dukkaṭa offense.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a saṅghādisesa offense. For a sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense when one speaks truthfully on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or reasonably suspected; when one speaks in jest, speaks in haste, 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 rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, or under duress.

X. CAUSING A SCHISM IN THE SANGHA

A. ORIGIN

1. THE SAKYAN PRINCES

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anudiya, in the country of Mīnisu.^[101] At that time, the young nobles of the Sakyan clan, firm in faith, followed the Blessed One and sought to go forth. There were then two Sakyan brothers. The elder was named Anuruddha,^[102] and the younger was named Mahānāma.^[103] Anuruddha was dearly loved by his mother, who did not wish him to leave her sight. She had three palaces built for him, for spring, summer, and winter, and provided female attendants so that he might freely indulge in the five sensual pleasures.

Then Mahānāma said to Anuruddha:

“At present, the young nobles of the Sakyan clan, firm in faith, have all followed the Blessed One and requested the going forth. Our family alone has no one who has gone forth. Elder brother, please oversee the family estate. I entrust everything to you, both public and private affairs. I wish to go forth. If you cannot do this, then I shall maintain the family estate and you may go forth.”

Anuruddha said:

“At present, I cannot go forth. You may go.”

Mahānāma spoke thus three times. Anuruddha likewise replied:

“I cannot go forth.”

Mahānāma said to Anuruddha:

“If you cannot go forth, I shall explain to you how to maintain the family estate. You must supervise the workers, keep the houses in repair, attend upon the elders and relatives, and when entering or leaving the royal residence, observe the proper deportment and ceremonial etiquette. You must plow the fields and sow the crops in accordance with the seasons.”

Anuruddha said:

“What you have just described is exceedingly troublesome. I could not bear it. Why did you not say, ‘You may freely enjoy the five sensual pleasures, while I shall take care of the household affairs’? Out of faith, I wish to follow the Blessed One and seek ordination.”

Mahanama said:

“You must go and take leave of Mother.”

Aniruddha then went to his mother and said:

“Mother, please listen to me. At present, among the sons of the Sakyan clan, every family has someone who has gone forth. Only our family has no one who has gone forth. I now wish to go to the Blessed One and request ordination. If you permit me, I shall go forth and cultivate the pure life.”

His mother said:

“I have only two sons, and my affection for you is exceedingly deep. I do not wish you out of my sight for even a moment. How could I now allow you to go forth? Even at death I would not wish to be separated from you, much less be parted from you while we are both still alive!”

Three times Aniruddha thus asked his mother for permission to go forth. Three times his mother likewise refused, saying, “I will not let you go!”

After Aniruddha had asked his mother three times for permission to go forth, she thought, “What means can I devise to keep my son from going forth?” Then she reflected, “The Sakyan Bhaddiya^[104] is dearly loved by his mother, and she certainly will not allow him to go forth. I should tell Aniruddha, ‘If Bhaddiya’s mother allows Bhaddiya to go forth, I too shall allow you to go forth.’” Having thought this, she said so to Aniruddha. When Aniruddha heard his mother’s words, he immediately went to Bhaddiya and said:

“Do you know? The Sakyans have all gone forth, yet among us no one has done so. The two of us should go forth together.”

Bhaddiya said:

“I cannot bear to go forth. If you wish to go forth, you may do as you please.”

Aniruddha urged him three times. Bhaddiya also replied three times:

“I will not go forth.”

Aniruddha said:

“Today, my going forth depends in part upon you.”

Bhaddiya replied:

“Why does your going forth depend in part upon me?”

Aniruddha answered:

“I asked my mother for permission to go forth. My mother said to me, ‘If you can persuade Bhaddiya to go forth, I shall allow you to go forth.’ That is the reason.”

Bhaddiya said:

“Very well. Wait a little while and let me go speak to my mother.”

The Sakyan Bhaddiya immediately went to his mother, knelt prostrate, and said:

“Mother, do you know? The sons of the Sakyan families have all gone forth. Only our own family has not. Out of faith, I now wish to follow the Blessed One and seek ordination. Please allow me to go!”

His mother said:

“I will not allow you to go forth. Why? I have only you, my sole son. I love you dearly and do not wish to be separated from you even for a moment. Even at death I would not wish to part from you, much less be separated from you while we are both still alive.”

[591a1] Bhaddiya thus asked three times for permission to go forth. His mother also replied three times, refusing her consent.

Seeing that her son’s resolve was most earnest, his mother thought, “What means can I devise to keep my son from going forth?” Then she reflected, “Aniruddha’s mother dearly loves her son and certainly will not allow him to go forth. If Aniruddha’s mother allows her son to go forth, I too shall allow my son to go forth.” Having thought this, she said to Bhaddiya:

“If Aniruddha’s mother allows her son to go forth, I too shall allow you to go forth.”

The Sakyan Bhaddiya then went to Aniruddha and said:

“My mother has allowed me to go forth. Let us now postpone it for seven years, remain at home, and enjoy the five sensual pleasures to the fullest; afterward we shall go forth.”

Aniruddha said:

“Seven years is too long. Human life is impermanent.”

Bhaddiya again said:

“If seven years is not possible, then we may remain at home for six years, or five, four, two, or one year, enjoying the five sensual pleasures.”

Aniruddha again said:

“One year is too long. I cannot bear it, for human life is impermanent.”

Bhaddiya said:

“If one year is not possible, then we may enjoy the five sensual pleasures for seven months.”

Aniruddha said:

“Seven months is too long. I cannot bear it, for human life is impermanent.”

Bhaddiya said:

“If you cannot agree to seven months, then let us enjoy the five sensual pleasures together for six, five, four, three, two, or one month.”

Aniruddha said:

“One month is too long. I cannot bear it, for human life is impermanent.”

The Sakyan Bhaddiya said:

“If one month is not possible, then we may enjoy sensual pleasures together for seven days.”

Aniruddha said:

“Seven days is not long. If, after seven days have passed, you are able to go forth, that will be well; otherwise, I shall go forth by myself.”

During those seven days, the Sakyans enjoyed the five sensual pleasures together to the fullest, according to their wishes. When the seven days had passed, the Sakyan Aniruddha, the Sakyan Bhaddiya, the Sakyan Nandiya, the Sakyan Kimbila, the Sakyan Nanda, the Sakyan Bhaddananda, the Sakyan Ananda, the Sakyan Devadatta, and the barber Upali as the ninth all bathed themselves thoroughly, anointed their bodies with fragrances, combed their hair, put on jeweled necklaces, mounted great elephants and horses, and departed from the city of Kapilavastu. When the people of the country saw the Sakyans, they said among themselves:

“In the past, these Sakyans often bathed themselves, put on jeweled ornaments, and rode great elephants and horses into the pleasure gardens. Today must be the same.”

When the Sakyans, riding the great elephants, reached the frontier, they dismounted and gave their garments, jeweled necklaces, as well as the elephants and horses, to Upali, saying:

“You have always depended upon us for your livelihood. We are now going forth. We give you these precious garments and great elephants as a means of supporting yourself.”

As the Sakyans proceeded onward toward Anupiya,^[105] in the country of Malla, Upali, following behind, thought, “Formerly I obtained my livelihood by relying upon these Sakyans. Now, out of faith, they have left me and are following the Blessed One to seek ordination. I should now follow them and go forth. If they attain anything, I too shall attain it.”

Upali immediately wrapped the precious garments and jeweled necklaces in a piece of white silk and hung the bundle upon a tall tree, thinking, “Whoever comes and takes it may have it.” Upali then went to the Sakyans and said to them:

“After you had departed, this thought arose in me: ‘Formerly I obtained my livelihood by relying upon these Sakyans. Now, out of faith, they have left me and are following the Blessed One to seek ordination. I should now follow them and go forth. If they attain anything, I too shall attain it.’”

The Sakyans and Upali then went together to the Blessed One. They bowed at the Buddha’s feet, withdrew to one side, and said to the Buddha:

“Blessed One, our parents have given us permission to go forth. We beseech the Venerable One to allow us to go forth. We implore the Blessed One to ordain Upali first. Why? Because we are very proud and wish to eliminate our pride.”

At that time, the Blessed One first ordained Upali, then the Sakyan Aniruddha, then the Sakyan Bhaddiya, then the Sakyan Nandiya, then the Sakyan Kimbila, and then the Sakyan Nanda. Upali, having received full ordination, was the most senior elder among them. At that time, there was a great elder named Viraddha,^[106] who separately ordained the Sakyan Ananda. Other elders ordained the Sakyan Bhaddananda and the Sakyan Devadatta.

After the Blessed One had ordained the Sakyan princes, he instructed them to go to the country of Campa. Having received instruction from the Blessed One and the elders, the Sakyan princes went there. Each contemplated independently and attained a higher state.

Devadatta attained psychic powers. At that time, the Sakyan Bhaddiya dwelt alone in the wilderness, beneath a tree, or in a charnel ground, cultivating contemplation. Toward the end of the night, he cried aloud, “What bliss!

What bliss!” The bhikkhus dwelling nearby heard him and thought, “Formerly, while still living in the household, this Bhikkhu Bhaddiya habitually enjoyed the five sensual pleasures. Now he has renounced that splendor, gone forth to practice the path, and lives alone in the wilderness, beneath a tree, or in a charnel ground; yet toward the end of the night, he says to himself, ‘What bliss! What bliss!’ Could it be that the Sakyan Bhaddiya is recalling how he enjoyed the five sensual pleasures while at home and therefore says to himself, ‘What bliss!

What bliss!’?”

The next morning, the bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then related this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One told a bhikkhu:

“Go and summon Bhikkhu Bhaddiya here at once!”

Obeying the Buddha, the bhikkhu went and said to Bhikkhu Bhaddiya:

“The Blessed One summons you at once.”

Bhikkhu Bhaddiya immediately went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. Though the Blessed One already knew, he nevertheless asked Bhaddiya:

“Is it true that while dwelling alone in the wilderness, in a charnel ground, or beneath a tree, you cried out to yourself in the middle of the night, ‘What bliss! What bliss!’?”

Bhaddiya replied:

“Blessed One, it is indeed true.”

The Buddha asked Bhaddiya:

“What meaning were you contemplating when you cried out to yourself, ‘What bliss! What bliss!’?”

Bhaddiya replied:

“Formerly, when I lived at home, I was constantly guarded both within and without by men bearing swords and staves. Yet even with such protection, I was still afraid, fearing that bandits from outside might come and take my life. But now, though I dwell alone in the wilderness, beneath a tree, or in a charnel ground, even until the middle of the night, I feel no fear whatsoever, nor does a single hair on my body stand on end. Blessed One, I reflected upon the bliss of renunciation, and therefore said to myself, ‘What bliss! What bliss!’”

The Blessed One then praised him:

“Excellent, excellent, son of a good family! This is fitting for one who has gone forth out of resolute faith and delights in the pure life.”

2. THE CAUSAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF AJATASHATRU

At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling on Mount Gridhrakuta at Rajagriha.

At that time, King Bimbisara^[107] had no son. The King therefore assembled brahmins skilled in physiognomy and had them examine the marks of his consorts. The King said, “Examine the marks of these consorts and determine which one will bear a son.”

After examining their marks, the brahmins reported:

“This young and healthy consort will bear a son. However, he will become the King’s enemy.” Having heard this, the King lay with that consort that very night. She then conceived and afterward gave birth to a son of handsome and dignified appearance. Before his birth, the brahmins had predicted that he would become the King’s enemy. For this reason, he was named Enemy Before Birth.^[108]

In the course of time, this prince grew to adulthood. Devadatta used his psychic powers to inspire admiration in the Prince.

Devadatta thought, “I must gather and support a following.”

At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling in the country of Kausambi.^[109] In that country was a man named Kakudha Koliyaputta.^[110] Not long after his death, he was reborn by transformation in the Heaven of Delight in Others’ Emanations.^[111] Then, in the middle of the night, the deva Kakudha went to Mahamaudgalyayana, bowed at his feet, stood to one side, and said to Maudgalyayana:

“Devadatta’s mind inclines toward evil, and he has conceived the thought, ‘I [592a1] wish to gather and support a following.’”

Having spoken thus, the deva Kakudha bowed, circumambulated him, and disappeared.

When the night had passed, Maudgalyayana went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. He then reported this matter fully to the Buddha. The Blessed One asked Maudgalyayana:

“What do you think? Are the words spoken by the deva Kakudha certainly true and not mistaken?”

Maudgalyayana replied:

“Blessed One, they are indeed so.”

The Blessed One told Maudgalyayana:

“Do not speak thus. I do not regard any utterance of devas, human beings, Maras, Brahmas, sramanas, or brahmins as necessarily true and free from error. The words of the Tathagata alone are never false.”^[112]

The Buddha told Maudgalyayana:

“There are five things in the world that are held in the highest esteem. They will be explained below.^[113]”

At that time, Devadatta went to Ajatashatru and used his psychic powers to soar into the sky. At times, he appeared bodily and taught the Dharma; at times, he concealed his body and taught the Dharma; at times, he appeared with only half his body and taught the Dharma; at times, smoke streamed from his body; and at times, flames streamed from his body. He also transformed himself into an infant adorned with necklaces,^[114] sat upon the Prince’s lap, rolled from side to side, and sucked the Prince’s finger. When Prince Ajatashatru saw these transformations, he became terrified, and all the hairs on his body stood on end. Knowing that the Prince was frightened, Devadatta said:

“Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!”

The Prince asked:

“Who are you?”

“I am Devadatta.”

The Prince said:

“If you truly are Devadatta, return to your original form.”

Devadatta returned to his original form. When the Prince saw this, his admiration increased. As his admiration grew, he also increased his offerings.

Thereafter, every day, morning and evening, Ajatashatru came with five hundred carriages to pay his respects and supplied five hundred vessels of food and drink.

When the bhikkhus heard that every day, morning and evening, Ajatashatru came with five hundred carriages to pay his respects to Devadatta and supplied five hundred vessels of food and drink, they went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“You should restrain your own minds and not become covetous of^[115] the gains and offerings received by Devadatta. Why is this? Precisely because Ajatashatru comes every day with five hundred carriages to pay his respects morning and evening and supplies five hundred vessels of food and drink, Devadatta’s evil intentions are increasing. It is like a man striking a vicious dog upon the snout, thereby making that dog even more savage. Bhikkhus, you should know that it is the same in this case. Precisely because Ajatashatru comes every day with five hundred carriages to pay his respects morning and evening and supplies five hundred vessels of food and drink, Devadatta’s evil intentions are increasing.”

At that time, King Bimbisara of Magadha learned that every day, morning and evening, Ajatashatru came with five hundred carriages to pay his respects to Devadatta and supplied him with five hundred vessels of food and drink. King Bimbisara likewise came every day with seven hundred carriages to pay his respects to the Blessed One and supplied seven hundred vessels of food and drink.

At that time, Devadatta heard that King Bimbisara came morning and evening with seven hundred carriages to visit the Blessed One and supplied seven hundred vessels of food and drink. Because of his desire for gain and offerings, jealousy arose in him, and Devadatta immediately lost his supernormal powers. He then conceived this thought: “Now I should wait until the Buddha and the great assembly have gathered, then go before the Buddha and earnestly say: ‘The Blessed One is now advanced in years, has lived longer than most, and has also practiced the path for a long time. He should dwell peacefully in a quiet place and remain in seclusion, attending only to himself. The Blessed One is the master of all Dharmas; he should entrust the Sangha to me, and I shall care for it.’”

Having thought thus, Devadatta waited until the great assembly had gathered and then presented this thought in full to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said:

“Even to Sariputra and Maudgalyayana I would not entrust the Sangha, much less to you, a foolish man full of spittle and mucus!^[116] How could I possibly entrust the Sangha to you?”

Devadatta then thought: “Now, before the great assembly, the Blessed One has called me a foolish man full of spittle and mucus.” Because of this, Devadatta immediately became resentful. This was the first time in his life that Devadatta harbored resentment toward the Blessed One.

Devadatta then went to Ajatasatru and said:

“The King governs the people according to the true Dharma and will therefore enjoy a long life. Only after your royal father passes away will you ascend the throne. By then you will already be advanced in years and will not long enjoy the five sensual pleasures. You should now kill your father, and I shall kill the Buddha. Then the realm of Magadha will have a new king and a new Buddha to govern and teach it. Would that not be delightful?”

The prince said:

“That can be done.”

The prince then asked Devadatta:

“What do you require?”

Devadatta said:

“I require some men.”

The prince immediately supplied him with men.

Devadatta sent two men to kill the Buddha, instructing them:

“Go and kill the Buddha, and then return by another road.”

After sending those two men away, Devadatta sent another four men, instructing them:

“Intercept those two men. When you encounter them, kill them. Then return by another road.”

Next, he sent eight men, likewise instructing them:

“Intercept those four men. When you meet them on the road, kill them. Then return by another road.”

In this way, Devadatta successively doubled the number of men he sent, until there were sixty-four. Thus, every trail would be severed, and no one would be able to determine who had harmed the Blessed One.

At that time, the Blessed One was seated in the Boar’s Grotto.^[117] Emerging from that grotto, he walked in meditation along the mountainside. The Buddha thought to himself: “Today is the appointed time for the karmic deed I committed in the past.”

The two men who had received Devadatta’s command then donned armor and, bearing swords and clubs, went toward the Blessed One. Both thought: “We shall kill the Buddha.” As soon as this thought arose, they were unable to take another step. They then thought: “The Blessed One possesses great spiritual virtue and immeasurable might.

Even his disciples possess supernormal powers. How could we possibly harm the Blessed One?” As soon as this thought arose, they were able to proceed. From afar, they saw the Blessed One’s countenance, upright and handsome; his faculties serene; supremely disciplined; foremost in quiescence; his faculties steadfast like a well-trained noble elephant; his mind free from confusion, like clear, settled water, transparent within and without.

Seeing him thus, joy arose in their hearts. They released their swords and clubs, cast them aside, approached the Blessed One, bowed at his feet, and sat to one side. The Blessed One gradually expounded the wondrous Dharma to the two men, causing joy to arise in their hearts and exhorting them to cultivate goodness.

He spoke of generosity, moral discipline, and the merit that leads to heavenly rebirth; he denounced sensual desire as impure and praised renunciation. While still seated there, the two men became free from all dust and defilement and attained the pure Dharma-eye. Having seen the Dharma and realized the Dharma, they said to the Buddha:

“From this day forward, we ask to receive the Three Refuges: refuge in the Buddha, refuge in the Dharma, and refuge in the Sangha, becoming upasakas. From now until the end of our lives, we shall abstain from killing living beings, and likewise abstain from drinking intoxicants.”

The Blessed One then told the two men:

“If you wish to return, you should take that road and not this one.”

The two men immediately rose from their seats, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, circumambulated him three times, and departed.

When they returned to Devadatta, they reported:

“The Blessed One possesses great spiritual power and immeasurable might. His disciples also possess supernormal powers. How could we possibly harm the Blessed One?”

Devadatta replied:

“Begone! Perish! What use are you? How is it that two men could not kill one man?”

In that fit of rage, Devadatta personally went to Mount Grdhrakuta. With his own hands, he lifted a great boulder and hurled it from afar at the Blessed One. A deva immediately caught the boulder and placed it atop the mountain. A small fragment broke off from the edge of the boulder and struck the Buddha’s toe, tearing the skin and causing it to bleed. The Blessed One then turned to look to his right like a great naga and said:

“Never before has such a thing occurred! A man of the Gautama clan has done this deed.”

The Blessed One then returned to the grotto. He folded his sanghati into four layers as a pillow and lay down on his right side in the lion posture, one heel resting upon the other, mindfully and single-mindedly enduring the extreme pain.

At that time, [593a1] a large number of bhiksus heard that Devadatta had sent men to kill the Buddha. Each took up a staff or stone, stood guard around the grotto, and shouted loudly. From within the grotto, the Buddha called out to the bhiksus: “Why are you carrying staffs and stones around the grotto and shouting like fishermen crying out when they catch fish?”

The bhiksus said to the Buddha:

“Just now, we heard that Devadatta intends to come and harm the Buddha. Therefore, we brought staffs and stones to the grotto, fearing that an enemy might come to harm the Blessed One.”

The Buddha told the bhiksus:

“Return to your lodgings and diligently devote yourselves to cultivation. It is the abiding nature of all Buddhas that they need no protection. Why is this? Because they have vanquished all enemies. You bhiksus should know that it is impossible for a wheel-turning sage king to be harmed by an external enemy. The Tathagata is likewise. There is no possibility that any evil could harm the Tathagata.”

The Buddha then told the bhiksus:

“In the world there are five kinds of honored teachers.^[118] What are the five?

“There may be an honored teacher whose moral discipline is impure, yet who claims: ‘My moral discipline is pure.’ His close disciples know the truth of the matter and say: ‘Our teacher’s moral discipline is impure, yet he claims that his moral discipline is pure. If we were to tell the laypeople, our teacher would be displeased. Since he would be displeased, we should not speak of it. Let the teacher continue to receive the donors’ offerings; afterward, he will understand for himself.’ Thus, bhiksus, the Dharma of such an honored teacher in the world is protected by his disciples on account of his moral discipline. The teacher depends upon his disciples for protection.

“Second, bhiksus, there may be an honored teacher whose livelihood is impure,^[119] yet who claims: ‘My livelihood is pure.’... This should be explained as above.

“Third, bhiksus, there may be someone whose knowledge and view are impure,^[120] yet who claims: ‘My knowledge and view are pure.’... This should be explained as above.

“Fourth, there may be someone whose speech is impure,^[121] yet who claims: ‘My speech is pure.’... This should be explained as above.

“Fifth, there may be someone outside the Dharma-Vinaya,^[122] who nevertheless declares, ‘I am pure within the Dharma-Vinaya.’... as stated above.

“Thus, bhikkhus, in the world there are five kinds regarded as the qualities of a teacher.

“Bhikkhus! Now, I observe the precepts purely and also declare of myself, ‘I observe the precepts purely.’ I do not cause my disciples to protect me, nor do I seek my disciples’ protection.

“Likewise, bhikkhus, my livelihood is pure, and I also declare, ‘My livelihood is pure.’... as stated above.

“Likewise, bhikkhus, my insight and wisdom are pure, and I declare, ‘My insight and wisdom are pure.’... as stated above.

“Likewise, bhikkhus, my speech is pure, and I also declare, ‘My speech is pure.’... as stated above.

“Likewise, bhikkhus, I abide within the Dharma-Vinaya, and I also declare of myself, ‘I abide within the Dharma-Vinaya.’... as stated above.”

At that time, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“You should appoint Sariputra to inform the assembly of laypeople: ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. It is done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’ This should be done by a motion and one proclamation. One who knows how to perform the Sangha act should be appointed. As in the case above, the motion should be made as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, listen. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, and the Sangha approves, the Sangha now appoints the bhikkhu Sariputra to go to the assembly of laypeople and inform them: ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. You should know that it is done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’ This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, listen. The Sangha now appoints the bhikkhu Sariputra to go to the assembly of laypeople and inform them: ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. You should know that it is done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’ Those elders who approve of the Sangha appointing the bhikkhu Sariputra to go to the assembly of laypeople and inform them, ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. You should know that it is done by Devadatta on his own initiative,’ should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.

“The Sangha has approved. The Sangha appoints the bhikkhu Sariputra to go to the assembly of laypeople and inform them: ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. You should know that it is done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’ Because the Sangha is silent, this matter is thus acknowledged.”

When Sariputra heard these words, doubt arose in his mind. He immediately went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and said:

“Blessed One, how can I go among the lay assembly and speak of his faults? Why is that? Previously, before the laypeople, I praised Devadatta’s good qualities, saying, ‘He went forth from a great clan, is intelligent, possesses great spiritual powers, and has a handsome appearance.’”

The Buddha said to Sariputra:

“Previously, when you praised Devadatta, saying, ‘He went forth from a great clan, is intelligent, possesses great spiritual powers, and has a handsome appearance,’ was that true?”

Sariputra replied:

“Venerable Sir, it was indeed true.”

“Therefore, Sariputra, you should now go among the lay assembly and say: ‘Previously Devadatta was thus; today he is thus. Whatever Devadatta has done is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. It was done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’”

The Venerable Sariputra accepted the Buddha’s instruction and went among the lay assembly, saying, “Previously Devadatta was thus; today he is thus. Whatever Devadatta has done is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. It was done by Devadatta on his own initiative.”

At that time, some in the assembly who supported Devadatta said, “The Sakyaputriya ascetics have become jealous over offerings. They are displeased that Devadatta receives offerings, and therefore they say before the assembly: ‘Whatever Devadatta does is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, but is done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’”

Among them, those who admired the Buddha said, “Perhaps Devadatta has done such things, or is now doing them.”

At that time, Ajatasatru secretly concealed a knife inside his robe and stealthily hurried into the palace to kill his father. The gatekeeper discovered him, searched him, found the knife hidden on Ajatasatru’s person, and asked:

“Why has the Crown Prince concealed this knife?”

Ajatasatru replied:

“I wish to enter the palace and harm the King.”

The gatekeeper asked:

“Who instructed you and caused such a thought to arise?”

The prince said:

“Devadatta instructed me.”

The gatekeeper then immediately took him before the chief ministers and reported:

“Ajatasatru intends to harm the King.”

The chief ministers asked:

“Who instructed you to do this?”

The prince replied:

“Devadatta instructed me.”

One of the chief ministers said:

“All the Sakyaputriya ascetics are involved in this deed. They should all be killed.”

Another chief minister said:

“Not all the Sakyaputriya ascetics commit evil deeds. This is merely the doing of the prince and Devadatta. These men should be killed.”

Another chief minister said:

“Not all the Sakyaputriya ascetics commit evil deeds. This is merely the doing of Devadatta and Ajatasatru. Although theirs is a capital offense, they should not be killed. Why is that? The King is a ruler who esteems the Dharma; when he hears of this, he will certainly be displeased.”

The gatekeeper then immediately took Ajatasatru before King Bimbisara and reported:

“This Ajatasatru intends to harm the King.”

The King asked:

“Who told you to do this?”

The prince replied:

“Devadatta.”

One of the chief ministers said:

“All the Sakyaputriya ascetics are involved in this deed. They should all be killed.”

When the King heard these words, he was displeased. Another of the chief ministers said:

“Not all the Sakyaputriya ascetics commit evil deeds, so they should not all be killed. This is merely the doing of Devadatta and Ajatasatru; only those two should be killed.”

When the King heard these words, he was also displeased.

Another of the chief ministers said:

“Not all the Sakyaputriya ascetics commit evil deeds, so they should not all be killed. This is the doing of Devadatta and Ajatasatru. Although the two deserve death, they should not be killed. Why is that? The King is a Dharma king; when he hears of this, he will certainly be displeased.”

King Bimbisara was pleased with this opinion and told the ministers:

“Not all these Sakyaputriya ascetics are necessarily evil, and therefore they should not all be killed. This is the doing of Devadatta and Ajatasatru, but they too should not be killed. Why is that? Previously, the Buddha had Sariputra proclaim publicly before the multitude: ‘Whatever Devadatta has done is not the work of the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, but was done by Devadatta on his own initiative.’ Therefore, they should not be killed.”

After the royal father had rebuked Crown Prince Ajatasatru, he told the chief ministers:

“The Crown Prince Ajatasatru may be pardoned.”

He was then released.

At that time, the chief ministers cried out loudly among themselves:

“Ajatasatru has committed a monstrous deed worthy of death. Why was he merely given a mild rebuke [594a1] and then released?”

At that time, Devadatta had already sent men to harm the Buddha and had also told Ajatasatru to kill his father. His evil reputation spread everywhere, and the offerings he received were cut off. Devadatta and his five-member group went from house to house for alms. The first was named Tam-văn-đạt-đa; the second was named Kiền-trà-đạt-ba; the third was named Cấu-bà-ly; the fourth was named Ca-lưu-la-đê-xá;^[123] and Devadatta himself was the fifth.

At that time, the bhikkhus heard that Devadatta had sent someone to harm the Buddha and had also told Ajātaśatru to kill his father. His evil reputation spread far and wide, and his gains and offerings ceased. He and his group of five companions went from house to house for alms. The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the great community. Although he knew the answer, he nevertheless asked Devadatta:

“Is it true that you led four persons from house to house for alms?”

Devadatta replied:

“It is so, Blessed One.”

The Blessed One rebuked Devadatta in countless ways:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the path. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you separately lead four persons from house to house for alms? In countless ways I have said, ‘You should show compassion for the households of laypeople.’ Why, then, did you now separately lead four persons from house to house for alms?”

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

“From now on, you must not eat as a separate group; as many as three persons may eat together.^[124] There are two benefits for which this rule must be established. First, it restrains those who are difficult to discipline. Second, it shows loving-kindness toward the households of laypeople. Why is this? It is feared that those who are difficult to discipline might conspire among themselves, form a separate group, and cause trouble for the Sangha.”

Devadatta then conceived this thought: “How extraordinary! The śramaṇa Gautama has even gone so far as to take away another person’s morsel of food. I shall break his Wheel of the Sangha.^[125] After my death, this report may remain: ‘The śramaṇa Gautama possessed great spiritual power and unobstructed wisdom, yet Devadatta broke his Wheel of the Sangha.’”

3. BREAKING THE WHEEL OF THE SANGHA

Devadatta then went to the bhikkhus who were his companions and said:

“Now we can join together to break Gautama’s Wheel of the Sangha. After our deaths, this report may remain: ‘The śramaṇa Gautama possessed great spiritual power and unobstructed wisdom, yet Devadatta broke his Wheel of the Sangha.’”

At that time, one of Devadatta’s companions, Samudradatta, who was highly intelligent and gifted, said:

“The śramaṇa Gautama possesses great spiritual power. Even the assemblies of his disciples are likewise. How could we break his Wheel of the Sangha?”

Devadatta said:

“The Tathagata always praises the dhuta practices, fewness of desires, contentment, and delight in renunciation. I now have five practices that are also supreme practices of ascetic discipline, fewness of desires, contentment, and delight in renunciation: throughout one’s life to subsist on alms, throughout one’s life to wear rag robes, throughout one’s life to dwell in the open air, throughout one’s life not to eat salt,^[126] and throughout one’s life not to eat fish or meat.^[127] I shall now uphold these five practices and use them to instruct the bhikkhus, which will be sufficient to cause them to believe in and delight in them.

I shall tell the bhikkhus: ‘The Blessed One, in countless ways, praises those who cultivate the dhuta practices, have few desires, are content, and delight in renunciation. We now have five practices that are also supreme dhuta practices: throughout one’s life to subsist on alms, … up to and including not eating fish or meat. Let us practice them together.’ The younger bhikkhus will surely accept this teaching.

The elder bhikkhus will hesitate and refuse to accept it in faith. By this expedient, we can break that Wheel of the Sangha.”

Samudradatta then said to Devadatta:

“If it is done in this way, it will be sufficient to break that Wheel of the Sangha.”

Devadatta then used the five practices above to instruct the bhikkhus:

“The Blessed One, in countless ways, praises those who cultivate the dhuta practices, have few desires, are content, and delight in renunciation. We now have five supreme practices that are also dhuta practices embodying fewness of desires, contentment, and delight in renunciation: throughout our lives we shall subsist on alms, throughout our lives wear rag robes, throughout our lives dwell in the open air, and throughout our lives refrain from eating salt, fish, and meat.”

At that time, many bhikkhus heard that Devadatta was using these five practices to instruct the bhikkhus and cause them to believe in and delight in them … the details are as above.

Having heard this, the bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Devadatta now wishes to cut off the Four Noble Lineages.^[128] What are the four? In countless ways I have always taught that, regarding robes, contentment is essential. I have also praised contentment regarding robes. In countless ways I have likewise taught that contentment is essential regarding food, beds and bedding, and medicines for treating illness. Bhikkhus, you should know that Devadatta now wishes to cut off the Four Noble Lineages.”

On account of this matter, the Blessed One then assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus. Although he knew the answer, he nevertheless deliberately asked Devadatta:

“Is it true that you used the five practices to instruct the bhikkhus?” … the details are as above.

He replied:

“It is so, Blessed One.”^[129]

Notes:

^[92] Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 13 (T23n1442, p. 697c17), ten factors constituting an offense: 1–3. Having neither seen, heard, nor suspected, one falsely claims actually to have seen, heard, or suspected. 4–5. Having heard or suspected and then forgotten, one says that one has not forgotten. 6–7.

Having heard and believed, or having heard and disbelieved, one nevertheless says, “I saw it.” 8–9. Having heard and entertained doubt, or having heard and entertained no doubt, one nevertheless says, “I saw it.” 10. Merely harboring one’s own suspicion, one says, “I saw it.” The Ten Recitations Vinaya 4 (T23n1435, p. 23b03) gives eleven factors concerning an impure bhikkhu: 1–3.

One has neither seen, heard, nor suspected. 4–6. Having seen, heard, or suspected, one then forgets. 7–8. Having heard, one either believes or disbelieves. 9.

Having heard, one says that one suspects. 10. Suspecting, one says that one saw. 11. Suspecting, one says that one heard.

^[93] An interlinear gloss in the Chinese text.

^[94] The four pārājikas.

^[95] The thirteen impediments to ordination; one who possesses any one of these factors cannot receive the bhikkhu precepts.

^[96] Vin.iii. 166: Rājagahe viharati Veḷuvane Kalandanivāpe.

^[97] Pali: aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa, concerning a legal issue belonging to a different category; a matter belonging to a different class of offense, or a dispute having a different basis.

^[98] This passage and those that follow explain the meaning of “taking a pretext” 取片. “Pretext” is understood as false evidence used to make a slanderous accusation; Pali: lesa. Cf. Vin.iii. 168: leso nāma dasa lesā, there are ten false pretexts: same birth or blood relationship, same name, same clan, same physical characteristics, same offense, same bowl, same robe, same preceptor, same ācārya, and same seat or bedding.

^[99] The four classes of legal matters 四事法; that is, the four kinds of disputes: disputes concerning arguments, accusations, offenses, and formal acts; cf. Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 21. Pali, Vin. iii. 164: cattāri adhikaraṇāni: vivādādhikaraṇaṃ anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kiccādhikaraṇaṃ.

^[100] Cf. Vin.iii.166: kathaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ adhikaraṇassa aññabhāgiyaṃ, how does one legal matter belong to a different category or division from another legal matter? That is, a dispute concerning argument belongs to a different category from a dispute concerning accusation, a dispute concerning an offense, and a dispute concerning a formal act …

^[101] The boundary of Anuyi in the country of Minisou 彌尼搜國阿奴夷界. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the Anou Grove in the settlement of Mina 彌那邑阿凫林. Pali: Anupiyā, a town in the Malla country near Kapilavatthu.

^[102] Anuruddha 阿那律. Pali: Anurudddha, brother of Mahānāma and son of King Amitodana. Vin. ii. 183 (Cūḷavagga 7, Saṅghabheda).

^[103] Mahānāma 摩訶男. Pali: Mahānama. See note 102 above.

^[104] Bhaddiya 跋提. Pali: Bhaddiya, Vin.ii. 181.

^[105] Anouyi; above it is transcribed as Anuyi.

^[106] Belaṭṭhasīsa 毘羅荼. Pali, Vin.i. 202: Belaṭṭhasīsa. He was originally a brahmin in Sāvatthi who went forth under Uruvela-Kassapa before the Buddha attained enlightenment. When Uruvela-Kassapa followed the Buddha, he followed as well.

^[107] King Bình-sa 瓶沙王. Pali: Bimbisāra/ Seniya Bimbisāra, King of Magadha.

^[108] Vị Sanh Oán 未生怨. Pali: Ajātasattu/ Ajātasattu Vedehiputta, Ajātaśatru, son of Vaidehī.

^[109] Câu-thiểm-tỳ 拘睒毘國. Pali: Kosambī.

^[110] Ca-hưu-câu-la Tử 迦休拘羅子. Vin.ii. 185, Kakudha/ Kakudha Koliya; formerly an attendant of Venerable Mahā-Moggallāna. Cf. A.iii. 122ff.

^[111] The Heaven of Those Who Delight in Creating 化自在天; Vin.ii. 185: adhunā kālaṅkato aññataraṃ manomayaṃ kāyaṃ upapanno, reborn with another mind-made body.

^[112] Cf. Vin. ibid., the Buddha cautioned Moggallāna: “Keep these words secret!”

^[113] An interlinear annotation in the Chinese text.

^[114] Pali: wrapped a garland of snakes around himself.

^[115] Pali, “Do not be jealous!” Vin.ii. 188.

^[116] Chinese: thế thóa chi thân 涕唾之身. Pali, Vin.ii. 189: chavassa kheḷāsakassa, a corpse smeared with phlegm and spittle.

^[117] Trư khảm 豬坎. Pali: Sūkarakhatalena, a rock cave on the slope of Vulture Peak (Gijjhakūṭa).

^[118] Five kinds of teachers 五種尊. Pali: pañca satthāro.

^[119] Pali: aparisuddhājīvo, an impure means of livelihood.

^[120] Pali: aparisuddhaññāṇadassano, impure knowledge and vision.

^[121] Pali: aparisuddhaveyyākaraṇa, impure exposition (prediction).

^[122] Pali: aparisuddhadhammadesana, impure teaching of the Dharma.

^[123] Devadatta’s associates: Tam-văn-đạt-đa 三聞達多, Kiền-trà-đạt-bà 騫荼達婆, Câu-bà-ly 拘婆離, Ca-lưu-la-đề-xá 迦留羅提舍. Pali, Vin.ii. 196: Kokālika, Kaṭamoraka-tissa, Khaṇḍadeviyāputta, Samuddadatta.

^[124] See Pācittiya, rule 33, prohibiting eating in a separate group.

^[125] Creating a schism in the Sangha and breaking the wheel; Pali: saṅghabhedam, cakkabhedam: splitting the Sangha and breaking the wheel.

^[126] Original Chinese: tô diêm 酥鹽.

^[127] Five-Part Vinaya 25 (T22n1421, p.164a): 1. Not eating salt. 2. Not eating curds. 3. Not eating fish or meat. 4. Begging for alms only and accepting no invitations. 5. During the eight months of spring and summer, sitting in the open; during the four months of winter, dwelling in a grass hut. Ten Recitations Vinaya 36 (T23n1435, p.295a): 1. Wearing rag robes. 2. Subsisting solely on alms. 3. Eating only once. 4. Sitting in the open air. 5. Not eating meat. Pali, Vin. ii. 197, Vin. iii. 171: 1. Dwelling in the forest. 2. Subsisting solely on alms. 3. Wearing refuse-rag robes. 4. Dwelling beneath a tree. 5. Not eating fish.

^[128] The Four Noble Traditions 四聖種. Pali: cattāro ariyavaṃsā; cf. D.iii. 224.

^[129] The Chinese text ends fascicle 4 here.