四分律
Chinese title:四分律
Save your scripture progress
Create a free account to save scriptures, track progress, and continue your daily learning path.
Translated and annotated by Thích Nguyên Chứng and Thích Đức Thắng
Revised and annotated
CHAPTER X
CAMPA
1. Unlawful Suspension
[885a15] The Blessed One was staying in the city of Campa.[1] In the country of Kasi,[2] there was a village called Vasabha.[3] At that time, at a certain dwelling place there was a resident bhikkhu[4] who always received everyone and was like a flowing spring.[5] He said: “If bhikkhus who have not been here before come as guests,[6] I shall provide them with the necessities, such as heating water for bathing and offering food and drink.”
At that time, a large number of bhikkhus traveling through the country of Kasi came to the village of Vasabha. That bhikkhu immediately provided them with the necessities and offered them food and drink. After some time, he thought: “I cannot continually go to lay households to solicit food and drink, nor can I continue to provide everything, such as heating water for bathing or preparing gruel as offerings. These guest bhikkhus have come from afar, but by now their weariness has passed. Formerly they had no acquaintances, but now they do. I can no longer go and solicit further provisions.” He then ceased providing for them.
These guest bhikkhus then thought: “That bhikkhu dislikes us. Previously he fully provided us with necessities such as food, drink, and bathing water. Now he has stopped and no longer provides for us. Should we suspend that bhikkhu?” They then assembled to suspend him.
That bhikkhu thought: “At present, I cannot know for myself whether I have committed an offense or not, whether this suspension is proper or improper, whether the formal act of suspension was carried out in accordance with the Dharma and is valid, or was not carried out in accordance with the Dharma and is invalid. I can now go to the Blessed One in Campa and fully present this matter to him. Whatever the Blessed One instructs, I shall act according to his teaching.”
Thereupon, that resident bhikkhu put on his robe, took up his bowl, and went to Campa. He approached the Blessed One, paid homage, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then greeted the visiting bhikkhu:
“Was it easy to obtain alms? Did you live in harmony? Was the journey very tiring?”
The visiting bhikkhu replied:
“I lived in harmony. Alms were easy to obtain. The journey was not tiring.”
The Buddha further asked:
“Where have you come from?”
The bhikkhu replied:
“In the village of Vasabha in the country of Kasi, I was a resident bhikkhu at a certain dwelling place. I always welcomed guests and provided them with whatever they needed, like a flowing spring. Whenever bhikkhus who had not been there before arrived as guests, they were fully provided with necessities such as food and drink, gruel, and bathing water.
Later, a large number of bhikkhus traveling through the country of Kasi came to the village of Vasabha. I then fully provided them with necessities such as food and drink, gruel, and bathing water. Venerable Sir, at that time I thought: ‘I cannot continually go to lay households to solicit food, drink, and other necessities.
These guest bhikkhus have now recovered from their weariness. Formerly they had no acquaintances, but now they have. I can no longer go and solicit provisions.’ I then ceased providing for them.
These guest bhikkhus then thought: ‘That resident bhikkhu dislikes us. Previously he always fully provided us with necessities such as food, drink, gruel, and bathing water. Now he no longer provides for us.
We can suspend that bhikkhu.’ They then assembled to suspend me. Venerable Blessed One, I thought: ‘I cannot know whether I have committed an offense or not, whether the suspension is proper or improper, whether the formal act of suspension was carried out in accordance with the Dharma and is valid, or was not carried out in accordance with the Dharma and is invalid. I should now go to the Blessed One in the city of Campa and fully report this matter to him.
Whatever the Blessed One teaches, I shall act according to his teaching.’”
The Buddha told that bhikkhu:
“You are a bhikkhu who has committed no offense; you are not an offender. The suspension was improper and did not constitute a valid suspension. To suspend you in this way was contrary to the Dharma. Those bhikkhus’ formal act was invalid. Bhikkhu, return to the village of Vasabha and provide the guest bhikkhus with necessities as before, like a flowing spring. Bhikkhu, I support you in accordance with the Dharma, not contrary to the Dharma.”
At that time, those guest bhikkhus left the village of Vasabha and, while traveling through the country of Kasi, came to the Blessed One. They paid homage and withdrew to stand to one side. The Blessed One then greeted the visiting bhikkhus:
“Did you dwell in harmony? Did you avoid hardship in obtaining alms?”
The bhikkhus replied:
“We dwelt in harmony. We encountered no hardship in obtaining alms.”
The Buddha further asked:
“Where have you come from?”
“We have come from the village of Vasabha.”
The Buddha asked:
“I have heard that there was a resident bhikkhu who always provided guest bhikkhus with necessities, like a flowing spring, and that you suspended him. Is that so?”
They replied:
“It is indeed so.”
The Blessed One asked:
“On what grounds did you suspend him in this way?”
They replied:
“There was no matter and no cause.”[7]
The Blessed One then rebuked those bhikkhus in countless ways:
“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the Dharma of a renunciant, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the training. You have done what ought not to be done. You are foolish men! That resident bhikkhu, like a flowing spring, provided for guest bhikkhus. Why did you suspend him without cause or grounds?”
2. The Required Quorum for Formal Acts
After rebuking them, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:
“There are four kinds of formal acts: an unlawful formal act, an unlawful formal act by an incomplete assembly, an unlawful formal act by a united assembly, and a lawful formal act by an incomplete assembly.[8] Of these, two formal acts—an unlawful formal act and a formal act by an incomplete assembly—must not be performed. If they are performed, the offenders shall be dealt with according to the Dharma. Only a lawful formal act and a formal act by a united assembly should be performed.
“There are four cases concerning the quorum:[9] There is one who is counted toward the quorum but has no right to object. There is one who is not counted toward the quorum but has the right to object. There is one who is neither counted toward the quorum nor has the right to object. There is one who is counted toward the quorum and also has the right to object.
“Who is counted toward the quorum but has no right to object? One upon whom the Sangha has imposed a formal act of censure, a formal act of banishment, a formal act of dependence, or a formal act prohibiting him from going to lay households. Such persons are counted toward the quorum but have no right to object.
“Who is not counted toward the quorum but has the right to object? One who wishes to receive full ordination. This person is not counted toward the quorum but has the right to object.”
“Who may neither be counted toward the quorum nor raise an objection? When bhikkhus perform a formal act, a bhikkhuni may neither be counted toward the quorum nor raise an objection. The same applies to a sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri; one who has committed a parajika offense; one who has violated a bhikkhuni; one who received ordination with the intent of a thief; one who has gone over to a non-Buddhist sect and then returned; a eunuch; one who has killed his father or mother; one who has killed an arhat; one who has caused a schism in the Sangha; one who, with malicious intent, has shed the blood of a Buddha; a nonhuman being; an animal; a hermaphrodite; one who has been suspended; one who has been expelled; one who deserves expulsion; one dwelling separately;
one who is beyond the boundary; one who, through supernormal powers, is in the sky; one who has concealed his form; one who is beyond the range of sight and hearing; or the person performing the formal act.
Such persons may neither be counted toward the quorum nor raise an objection.
[886a1]“Who may be counted toward the quorum and also has the right to raise an objection? A virtuous bhikkhu who dwells within the same boundary, who does not use supernormal powers to remain in the sky, who has not concealed his form, and who is not beyond the range of sight and hearing, being near enough even to speak to the person beside him. Such persons may be counted toward the quorum and also have the right to raise an objection.”
At that time, among the group of six bhikkhus, one person suspended one person, one person suspended two persons, one person suspended three persons, or one person suspended the Sangha. Two persons suspended one person, two persons suspended two persons, two persons suspended three persons, or two persons suspended the Sangha. Three persons suspended one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha; or the Sangha suspended the Sangha. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“One person must not suspend one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha. Two persons must not suspend one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha. Three persons must not suspend one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha. The Sangha must not suspend the Sangha.
“If one person suspends one person, the formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya; it must not be performed in this way. The same applies if one person suspends two persons, three persons, or the Sangha; if two persons suspend one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha; if three persons suspend one person, two persons, three persons, or the Sangha; or if the Sangha suspends the Sangha. Such a formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya and must not be performed in this way.”
At that time, the group of six bhikkhus imposed formal acts one upon another,[10] such as performing a formal act of censure and then a formal act of expulsion; imposing dependence and then prohibiting the person from going to laypeople’s homes; imposing suspension and then granting parivasa probation; granting restoration to the original status and then granting manatta discipline; granting abbhana rehabilitation and then applying the Vinaya procedure of presence; applying the Vinaya procedure of mindfulness and then applying the Vinaya procedure for one no longer insane; applying the procedure based on an admission and then the procedure of investigating an offense; applying the procedure of determining the character of an offense and then the procedure of covering over as with grass.
The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“Formal acts must not be imposed one upon another. A formal act of censure must not be followed by a formal act of expulsion, and so forth through the procedure of covering over as with grass.”
The Buddha told the bhikkhus:
3. The Sangha Quorum
“There are four kinds of Sangha:[11] a Sangha of four members, a Sangha of five members, a Sangha of ten members, and a Sangha of twenty members.
“A Sangha of four members may perform all formal acts in accordance with the Dharma except the Invitation, higher ordination, and rehabilitation from an offense.
“A Sangha of five members may perform all formal acts in accordance with the Dharma except higher ordination in a populous central region and rehabilitation from an offense.
“A Sangha of ten members may perform all formal acts in accordance with the Dharma except rehabilitation from an offense.
“A Sangha of twenty members may perform all formal acts in accordance with the Dharma, how much more so a Sangha of more than twenty members.
“If four members are required to perform a formal act but one member is lacking, although that formal act is carried out, it is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. If a bhikkhuni is used as the fourth member, or a sikkhamana, samanera, samaneri, one who has committed a parajika offense, one who has violated a bhikkhuni, one who received ordination with the intent of a thief, one who has gone over to a non-Buddhist sect and then returned, a eunuch, one who has killed his father, killed his mother, killed an arhat, or maliciously shed the blood of a Buddha, a nonhuman being, an animal, a hermaphrodite, one who has been suspended, expelled, or deserves expulsion, or the person performing the formal act—if persons of these kinds are used to complete a quorum of four,
that formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
It must not be performed in this way. The same applies to a Sangha of five, ten, or twenty members.”
4. Invalid Formal Acts
At that time, the group of six bhikkhus performed formal acts contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. They performed formal acts contrary to the Dharma with a divided assembly; formal acts contrary to the Dharma with a harmonious assembly; formal acts in accordance with the Dharma with a divided assembly; formal acts resembling those in accordance with the Dharma with a divided assembly; formal acts resembling those in accordance with the Dharma with a harmonious assembly; and formal acts of censure without cessation. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“Do not perform formal acts contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. Do not perform formal acts contrary to the Dharma with a divided assembly. Do not perform formal acts contrary to the Dharma with a harmonious assembly. Do not perform formal acts in accordance with the Dharma with a divided assembly. Do not perform formal acts resembling those in accordance with the Dharma with a divided assembly. Do not perform formal acts resembling those in accordance with the Dharma with a harmonious assembly. Do not perform a formal act of censure without cessation.”
1. What is a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya?
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the motion is made but the proclamation is not, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the motion is made twice without making the proclamation; the motion is made three times without making the proclamation; or the motion is made many times without making the proclamation, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the motion is made once and the proclamation twice, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the motion is made once and the proclamation three times; the motion once and the proclamation many times; the motion twice and the proclamation once; the motion twice and the proclamation twice; the motion twice and the proclamation three times; the motion twice and the proclamation many times; the motion three times and the proclamation once; the motion three times and the proclamation twice; the motion three times and the proclamation three times; the motion three times and the proclamation many times; the motion many times and the proclamation once; the motion many times and the proclamation twice; the motion many times and the proclamation three times;
or the motion many times and the proclamation many times, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the proclamation is made once without making the motion, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the proclamation is made twice without making the motion, three times without making the motion, or many times without making the motion, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the proclamation is made once and the motion twice, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the proclamation is made once and the motion three times; the proclamation once and the motion many times; the proclamation twice and the motion once; the proclamation twice and the motion twice; the proclamation twice and the motion three times; the proclamation twice and the motion many times; the proclamation three times and the motion once; the proclamation three times and the motion twice; the proclamation three times and the motion three times; the proclamation three times and the motion many times; the proclamation many times and the motion once; the proclamation many times and the motion twice; the proclamation many times and the motion three times;
or the proclamation many times and the motion many times, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation, if the motion is not made in accordance with the Dharma and the proclamation is not made according to the prescribed procedure for a formal act, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, if the motion is made once but no formal act is performed, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, if the motion is made twice but no formal act is performed; three times but no formal act is performed; or many times but no formal act is performed, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations: if the motion is made once and the formal act once, the motion once and the formal act twice, or the motion once and the formal act many times; if the motion is made twice and the formal act once, the motion twice and the formal act twice, the motion twice and the formal act three times, or the motion twice and the formal act many times; if the motion is made three times and the formal act once, the motion three times and the formal act twice, the motion three times and the formal act three times, or the motion three times and the formal act many times;
if the motion is made many times and the formal act once, the motion many times and the formal act twice, the motion many times and the formal act three times, or the motion many times and the formal act many times—this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, if the formal act is performed once without making the motion, this is a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, if the formal act is performed twice without making the motion, three times without making the motion, or many times without making the motion, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
In a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations: if the formal act is performed once and the motion once, the formal act once and the motion twice, the formal act once and the motion three times, or the formal act once and the motion many times; if the formal act is performed twice and the motion once, the formal act twice and the motion twice, the formal act twice and the motion three times, or the formal act twice and the motion many times; if the formal act is performed three times and the motion once, the formal act three times and the motion twice, the formal act three times and the motion three times, or the formal act three times and the motion many times;
if the formal act is performed many times and the motion once, the formal act many times and the motion twice [887a1], the formal act many times and the motion three times, or the formal act many times and the motion many times—this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
It must not be done in this way.
If, in performing a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, the motion is not made in accordance with the Dharma, and the three proclamations are not performed in accordance with the Dharma, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.
Here, there was a bhikkhu who saw that there was no offense.[12] But another bhikkhu said: ‹You have committed an offense. Do you acknowledge it?› He replied: ‹I do not acknowledge it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense.[13] The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
Here, there was a bhikkhu who had no offense requiring confession.[14] But another bhikkhu said: ‹You have committed an offense and should confess it.› He replied: ‹I will not confess.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not confessing. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
Here, there was a bhikkhu who held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish. But another bhikkhu said: ‹You hold a wrong view and should relinquish it.› He replied: ‹I will not relinquish it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for failing to relinquish a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
Here, there was a bhikkhu who saw no offense and had no offense requiring confession. But another bhikkhu said: ‹Do you acknowledge the offense? You should confess it.› He replied: ‹I do not acknowledge an offense. I will not confess.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for neither acknowledging an offense nor confessing it. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
Here, there was a bhikkhu who saw no offense and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish. But another bhikkhu said: ‹Do you acknowledge an offense? You hold a wrong view and should relinquish it.› He replied: ‹I do not acknowledge an offense. I hold no wrong view that I have failed to relinquish.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense and for failing to relinquish a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
Here, there was a bhikkhu who had no offense requiring confession and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish. But another bhikkhu said: ‹You have committed an offense and should confess it. You hold a wrong view and should relinquish it.› He replied: ‹I will not confess. I do not hold a wrong view that I have failed to relinquish.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not confessing and for not relinquishing a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who saw no offense, had no offense requiring confession, and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish. But another bhikkhu said: ‹Do you acknowledge the offense? You should confess it. Relinquish your wrong view.› He replied: ‹I do not acknowledge an offense. I will not confess. I hold no wrong view that I have failed to relinquish.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense, not confessing, and not relinquishing a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who had committed no offense and saw no offense. But another bhikkhu said: ‹Do you acknowledge the offense or not?› He replied: ‹I acknowledge it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who had no offense requiring confession, but another bhikkhu said: ‹You have committed an offense and should confess it.› He replied: ‹I shall confess it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not confessing. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish, but another bhikkhu said: ‹You hold a wrong view and should relinquish it.› He replied: ‹I shall relinquish it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for failing to relinquish a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who had committed no offense, saw no offense, and had nothing to confess, but another bhikkhu said: ‹You should acknowledge the offense and confess it.› He replied: ‹I acknowledge the offense and shall confess it.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense and not confessing. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who did not acknowledge an offense and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish, but another bhikkhu said: ‹Acknowledge the offense, and relinquish your wrong view.› He replied: ‹I acknowledge the offense. I shall relinquish the wrong view.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense and not relinquishing a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who had no offense requiring confession and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish, but another bhikkhu said: ‹You have committed an offense and should confess it; you hold a wrong view and should relinquish it.› He replied: ‹I shall confess and relinquish the wrong view.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not confessing and not relinquishing a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who saw no offense, had no offense requiring confession, and held no wrong view that he had failed to relinquish, but another bhikkhu said: ‹Acknowledge the offense, confess it, and relinquish your wrong view.› He replied: ‹I acknowledge the offense, shall confess it, and shall relinquish the wrong view.› The other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense, not confessing, and not abandoning a wrong view. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who acknowledged that there was an offense. The other bhikkhus said: ‹You have committed an offense. Do you acknowledge it?› He replied: ‹I acknowledge it.› But the other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not acknowledging an offense. The Buddha said:
«This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be done in this way.»
In another case, there was a bhikkhu who had committed an offense and confessed it. The other bhikkhus said: ‹You have committed an offense and should confess it.› He replied: ‹I shall confess it.› But the other bhikkhu then carried out a formal act of suspension for not confessing. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu held an evil view and would not relinquish it. The bhikshus said: “Venerable, you hold an evil view and should relinquish it.” He replied: “I shall relinquish it.” Yet they immediately carried out against him a formal act for refusing to relinquish an evil view. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu recognized that he had committed an offense and ought to repent of it. The other bhikshus said: “Venerable, since you recognize that you have committed an offense, you should repent.” He replied: “I recognize that I have committed an offense and shall repent.” Yet they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize an offense and failing to repent. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu recognized that he had committed an offense and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. The other bhikshus said: “Venerable, you recognize that you have committed an offense. You should relinquish your evil view.” He replied: “I recognize the offense. I shall relinquish the evil view.” Yet they immediately carried out against that bhikshu a formal act for failing to recognize an offense and failing to relinquish an evil view. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu had committed an offense of which he should repent and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you have committed an offense and should repent. You should relinquish your evil view.” He replied: “I shall repent. I shall relinquish the evil view.” Yet they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize and repent of the offense and failing to relinquish the evil view. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu recognized that he had committed an offense of which he should repent and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. The other bhikshus said: “Venerable, you recognize the offense. You should repent. You should relinquish your evil view.” He replied: “I recognize the offense. I shall repent. I shall relinquish the evil view.” Yet they carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize the offense, failing to repent, and failing to relinquish the evil view. The Buddha said:
“This formal act is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya. It must not be performed in this way.
These are formal acts contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.
2. What is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya?
In a formal act consisting of a motion and one proclamation, the motion is made in accordance with the Dharma, and the formal act is carried out in accordance with the Dharma. This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.
In a formal act consisting of a motion and three proclamations, the motion is made in accordance with the Dharma, and the formal act is carried out in accordance with the Dharma. This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.
In another case, a bhikshu had committed an offense.[15] Another bhikshu asked him: “Venerable, you have committed an offense. Do you recognize it?” He replied: “I do not recognize it.” They immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize an offense. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu had committed an offense of which he should repent. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you have committed an offense and should repent.” He replied: “I will not repent.” They immediately carried out against him a formal act for refusing to repent. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. [887a1] It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu held an evil view and would not relinquish it. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you hold an evil view and should relinquish it.” He replied: “I will not relinquish it.” They immediately carried out against him a formal act for refusing to relinquish an evil view. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu had committed an offense, recognized it, and ought to repent. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you recognize that you have committed an offense. You should repent of the offense.” He replied: “I do not recognize it. I will not repent.” In accordance with what he had done, they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize the offense and failing to repent. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu had committed an offense, recognized it, and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you have committed an offense. You hold an evil view and should relinquish it.” He replied: “I do not recognize the offense, and I will not relinquish the evil view.” In accordance with what he had done, they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize the offense and failing to relinquish the evil view. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu recognized that he had committed an offense of which he should repent and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you have committed an offense. You should repent. You hold an evil view and should relinquish it.” He replied: “I will not repent. I will not relinquish the evil view.” In accordance with what he had done, they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to repent and failing to relinquish the evil view. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
In another case, a bhikshu recognized that he had committed an offense of which he should repent and held an evil view that he had not relinquished. Another bhikshu said: “Venerable, you recognize that you have committed an offense. You should repent. You hold an evil view and should relinquish it.” He replied: “I do not recognize the offense. I will not repent. I will not relinquish the evil view.” In accordance with what he had done, they immediately carried out against him a formal act for failing to recognize the offense, failing to repent, and failing to relinquish the evil view. The Buddha said:
“This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. It should be performed in this way.”
All these formal acts are in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya.
3. What is a formal act contrary to the Dharma and performed by a divided assembly?
When a formal act is performed among those sharing the same dwelling place, if someone does not attend and ought to give consent but does not give consent, and a person who is present and entitled to object raises an objection; if they should perform a formal act consisting of a motion and one proclamation but instead perform one consisting of a motion and three proclamations, or make a motion concerning one matter but perform the formal act concerning another matter, this is called a formal act contrary to the Dharma and performed by a divided assembly.
4. What is a formal act contrary to the Dharma but performed by a united assembly?
When those sharing the same dwelling place assemble together to perform a formal act, those who should give consent give their consent, and those present who are entitled to object do not object; if they should perform a formal act consisting of a motion and one proclamation but instead perform one consisting of a motion and three proclamations, or make a motion concerning one matter but perform the formal act concerning another matter, this is a formal act contrary to the Dharma but performed by a united assembly.
5. What is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma but performed by a divided assembly?
When a formal act is performed among those sharing the same dwelling place, if someone does not attend and ought to give consent but does not give consent, and a person present who is entitled to object raises an objection, yet the formal acts consisting of a motion and one proclamation or a motion and three proclamations are performed in accordance with the Dharma, this is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma but performed by a divided assembly.
6. What is a formal act resembling the Dharma and performed by a divided assembly?
When a formal act is performed among those sharing the same dwelling place, if someone does not attend and ought to give consent but does not give consent, and a person present who is entitled to object raises an objection; if, in performing a formal act consisting of a motion and one proclamation or a motion and three proclamations, they first carry out the formal act and only afterward make the motion, this is a formal act resembling one in accordance with the Dharma, but performed by a divided assembly.
7. What is a formal act resembling the Dharma but performed by a united assembly?
When a formal act is performed among those sharing the same dwelling place, if someone does not attend, that person gives consent, and those present who are entitled to object do not object; if, in performing a formal act consisting of a motion and one proclamation or a motion and three proclamations, they first carry out the formal act and only afterward make the motion, this is a formal act resembling one in accordance with the Dharma, but performed by a united assembly.
5. Obstructing a Formal Act
Whose objection[16] constitutes a valid objection? In some cases a person’s objection constitutes a valid objection, while in other cases it does not.
Whose objection does not constitute a valid objection?
When bhikshus perform a formal act, an objection raised by a bhikshuni does not constitute a valid objection. Nor does an objection constitute a valid objection when raised by a shikshamana, a shramanera, or a shramanerika; one said to have committed a parajika offense; one who has violated a bhikshuni; one who received ordination with the mind of a thief; one who has defected to another religion or returned from another religion; a eunuch; one who has killed his father or mother; one who has killed an arhat; one who, with evil intent, has shed the blood of a Buddha; one who has caused a schism in the Sangha; a nonhuman being; an animal; a hermaphrodite; one who has been suspended; one who has been expelled; one who ought to be expelled; one who is above the boundary ground;
one undergoing separate residence; one who, by means of spiritual powers, is in the air; one who has concealed his form; one who is beyond the range of sight or hearing; or the person for whom the formal act is being performed.
When any such person objects, the objection does not constitute a valid objection.
What is called an objection that constitutes a valid objection?
A bhikshu in good standing who is within the same boundary, is not in the air, has not concealed his form, and is not beyond the range of sight or hearing—even, it is said, a bhikshu seated nearby—may raise an objection that constitutes a valid objection. Such kinds of persons may raise an objection that constitutes a valid objection. This is the obstruction of a formal act.
At that time, Upali rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and addressed the Buddha:
“If, when a formal act of censure ought to be performed, a formal act of expulsion is instead permitted, is that formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya?”
The Buddha said to Upali:
“That is not a formal act in accordance with the Dharma.”
Upali again addressed the Buddha:
“If one should be given a formal act of censure, but instead is given a formal act of dependence, or a formal act prohibiting him from going to laypeople’s homes, and so forth up to covering [a dispute] with grass, are such formal acts in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya?”
The Buddha said:
“They are not in accordance with the Dharma. One who deserves the formal act of censure must not instead be given the formal act of expulsion, and so forth up to covering [a dispute] with grass. Such a formal act is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya. It must not be performed. Likewise, all the formal acts up to covering [a dispute] with grass would be contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya. They must not be performed.”
The Buddha told Upāli:
“One who deserves the formal act of censure should be given the formal act of censure. This is a formal act in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, and it should be performed. Likewise, all the formal acts up to the formal act of covering [a dispute] with grass are in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya, and they should be performed.
At that time, at a certain dwelling place, the Sangha imposed the formal act of censure upon a bhikkhu,[17] but performed it unlawfully with an incomplete assembly. Another Sangha heard[18] that this Sangha had imposed the formal act of censure upon a bhikkhu unlawfully with an incomplete assembly, and that the formal act was therefore invalid. They then said, ‘Let us together perform the formal act of censure.’ They accordingly performed the formal act of censure unlawfully but with a complete assembly.
At another place,[19] a Sangha heard that the former Sangha had imposed upon the bhikkhu a formal act of censure that was unlawful though performed with a complete assembly, and that the formal act was therefore invalid. They then said, ‘Let us perform the formal act of censure.’ They accordingly performed the formal act of censure lawfully but with an incomplete assembly.
A Sangha at another place heard that the former Sangha had imposed upon the bhikkhu a formal act of censure that was lawful but performed with an incomplete assembly, and that the formal act was therefore invalid. They then said, ‘Let us perform the formal act of censure.’ They accordingly performed a formal act of censure that resembled the Dharma but was performed with an incomplete assembly.
A Sangha at another place heard that the former Sangha had imposed upon the bhikkhu a formal act of censure that resembled the Dharma but was performed with an incomplete assembly, and that the formal act was therefore invalid. They then said, ‘Let us perform the formal act of censure.’ They performed a formal act that resembled the Dharma with a complete assembly.
That bhikkhu thought, ‘What should I do?’ The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“The formal acts described above are not in accordance with the Dharma and are invalid. All formal acts of this kind are invalid.”
At that time, at a certain dwelling place, the Sangha performed an unlawful formal act with an incomplete assembly concerning a bhikkhu. Many disputes then arose within the Sangha. Some said that the formal act was unlawful and performed with an incomplete assembly; some said that it was unlawful but performed with a complete assembly; some said that it was lawful but performed with an incomplete assembly; some said that it resembled the Dharma but was performed with an incomplete assembly; some said that it resembled the Dharma and was performed with a complete assembly; some said that the formal act was valid; and some said that it was invalid. The bhikkhus did not know how to resolve the matter, so they informed other bhikkhus, who went and reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“At that dwelling place, the Sangha imposed upon a bhikkhu the formal act of censure unlawfully and with an incomplete assembly. Many disputes then arose within the Sangha. Some said that the formal act was unlawful and performed with an incomplete assembly, and so forth up to some who said that the formal act was valid and others who said that it was invalid. Within the Sangha, whoever says that it was unlawful and performed with an incomplete assembly speaks in accordance with the Dharma. So too, whoever says that it resembled the Dharma and was performed with a complete assembly also speaks in accordance with the Dharma.”
At that time [889a1], Upāli rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, placed his palms together, and addressed the Buddha:
“If the Sangha previously imposed a formal act upon a bhikkhu and later the Sangha releases him from it, is that release valid or invalid?”
The Buddha told Upāli:
“It may be valid, or it may be invalid.”
Upāli asked again:
“When is it valid, and when is it invalid?”
The Buddha said:
“Upāli, there are thirteen kinds of persons[20] for whom, if the Sangha has previously performed a formal act, a subsequent release is invalid. Apart from these thirteen kinds of persons, if a formal act has been performed upon any other person and the Sangha then grants the formal act of release, the release is valid.”
Upāli again asked the Buddha:
“If the Sangha previously performed a formal act concerning someone and then performs the formal act of release, when that person is expelled, does the expulsion take effect or not?”
The Buddha said:
“The expulsion may take effect, or it may not. In the case of the thirteen kinds of persons, if a formal act is performed and they are then expelled, the expulsion takes effect. Apart from these thirteen kinds of persons, if a formal act is performed concerning other persons and they are afterward released by a formal act, then they have been released. If they are expelled at that time, the expulsion does not take effect.
CHAPTER XI
REBUKE[1]
1. Rebuke
[889a14] The Buddha was staying in the country of Śrāvastī. There were two bhikkhus, one named Wisdom and the other Lohena,[2] who delighted in disputes and reviled one another. Their mouths poured forth words like knives and swords, and they searched out each other’s strengths and shortcomings. They themselves quarreled and reviled one another. Moreover, whenever other bhikkhus were engaged in a dispute, they would go to them and urge them on, saying: ‘Venerable ones, strive your utmost and do not let them defeat you. You are learned and wise, you possess greater wealth, and you are known by many people. We stand on your side.’ Consequently, if no contention had yet arisen within the assembly, contention would arise; and once contention had arisen, it could not be eliminated.
The bhikkhus thought, ‘For what reason does contention arise within the assembly when none had yet arisen, and why, once contention has arisen, can it not be eliminated?’ The bhikkhus investigated and learned that it was because the two bhikkhus Wisdom and Lohena delighted in quarreling and reviling one another. Their mouths poured forth words like knives and swords, and they searched out each other’s strengths and shortcomings.
They themselves quarreled and reviled one another. Moreover, whenever other bhikkhus quarreled, they would go to them and urge them on, saying: ‘Venerable ones, strive your utmost and do not let them defeat you. You are learned and wise, you possess greater wealth, and you are known by many people.
We stand on your side.’ Consequently, if no contention had yet arisen within the assembly, contention would arise; and once contention had arisen, it could not be eliminated.”
At that time, bhikkhus in the assembly who learned of this—those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread—criticized the two bhikkhus, saying: “Why do you delight in quarreling and reviling one another, pouring forth from your mouths words like knives and swords, thereby causing disputes to arise within the Sangha that cannot be eliminated?”
The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed with their heads at his feet, withdrew to one side, sat down, and reported the entire matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the two bhikkhus:
“What you have done is wrong. It is not in accordance with proper conduct, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not conduct that accords with the teaching; you have done what ought not to be done. Wisdom and Lohena, why do you delight in quarreling and reviling one another, pouring forth from your mouths words like knives and swords, thereby causing disputes to arise within the Sangha that cannot be eliminated?”
After rebuking them in many ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:
“I permit the bhikkhus to impose upon Wisdom and Lohena the formal act of rebuke[3] by a motion followed by three proclamations. The Sangha should be convened. After the Sangha has assembled, an accusation should be made against Wisdom... After the accusation has been made, they should be called upon to recollect; after they have been called upon to recollect, the offense should be assigned.[4] Within the assembly, a bhikkhu capable of carrying out the formal act should be appointed to make the following motion on the basis of the matter stated above:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These two bhikkhus, Wisdom and Lohena, delight in disputing and reviling one another; from their mouths pour forth words like knives and swords, and they seek out one another’s strengths and shortcomings. They themselves quarrel and revile one another.
Moreover, whenever other bhikkhus are engaged in a dispute, they immediately go to them and encourage them, saying: ‘Venerable ones, strive your utmost and do not let yourselves be defeated by them. You are learned and wise, possess greater wealth, and are known to many people. We stand on your side.’ Consequently, if contention has not yet arisen within the Assembly, contention then arises; and if contention has already arisen, it cannot be brought to an end.
If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha shall perform an act of censure against the two bhikkhus Wisdom and Lohena. If they again engage in contention and revile one another in the future, the Sangha shall impose an additional penalty to discipline them. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These two bhikkhus, Wisdom and Lohena, delight in disputing and reviling one another; from their mouths pour forth words like knives and swords, and they seek out one another’s strengths and shortcomings. They themselves quarrel and revile one another.
Moreover, whenever other bhikkhus are engaged in a dispute, they immediately go to them and encourage them, saying: ‘Venerable ones, strive your utmost and do not let yourselves be defeated by them. You are learned and wise, possess greater wealth, and are known to many people. We stand on your side.’ Consequently, if contention has not yet arisen within the Assembly, contention then arises; and if contention has already arisen, it cannot be brought to an end.
The Sangha now performs an act of censure against the two bhikkhus Wisdom and Lohena. Those Elders who consent to the Sangha imposing an act of censure upon the two bhikkhus Wisdom and Lohena, such that if they again engage in contention and revile one another in the future, the Sangha shall impose an additional penalty to discipline them, should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.
This is the first proclamation of the formal act.”
The second and third proclamations were made in the same way.
“The Sangha has consented to perform an act of censure against Wisdom and Lohena. Since the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
A person against whom an act of censure has been performed may not do five things: 1. He may not confer the higher ordination upon anyone. 2. He may not accept anyone as a dependent pupil. 3. He may not keep a novice under his care. 4. He may not accept an appointment from the Sangha to instruct bhikkhunis. 5. If he has already been appointed by the Sangha, he may not give instruction. These are the five things one may not do after an act of censure has been performed.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. He may not recite the precepts. 2. When the Sangha asks about the meaning of the Vinaya, he may not answer. 3. When the Sangha appoints him to perform a formal act, he may not do so. 4. When the Sangha selects wise persons to assemble and deliberate upon the affairs of the Assembly, he may not participate. 5. When the Sangha appoints someone to act as a messenger, he may not undertake that duty. These are the five things one may not do after an act of censure has been performed.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. He may not enter a village too early. 2. He may not return too late. 3. He must associate closely with bhikkhus and may not associate closely with followers of other paths. 4. He must skillfully comply with the instructions of the bhikkhus. 5. He may not speak evasively.[5] These are the five things one may not do after being censured.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. After the Sangha has performed an act of censure on account of a particular disciplinary offense, he may not commit that offense again. 2. Nor may he commit other offenses. 3. Nor may he commit an offense resembling it or arising from that precept. 4. Nor may he commit an offense more serious than it. 5. He may not criticize the formal act or the persons who performed it. These are the five things one may not do after being censured.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. He may not accept a seat prepared and offered by a bhikkhu in good standing. 2. He may not allow another to wash his feet. 3. He may not allow another to set out the implements for washing his feet. 4. He may not allow another to wipe his footwear. 5. He may not allow another to rub or massage his body. After an act of censure has been performed, he may not do the foregoing things.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. He may not accept homage from a bhikkhu in good standing. 2. He may not accept a gesture of reverence with joined palms from a bhikkhu in good standing. 3. He may not accept a greeting from a bhikkhu in good standing. 4. He may not allow a bhikkhu in good standing to come forward to welcome him. 5. He may not allow a bhikkhu in good standing to carry his robe and bowl for him. After an act of censure has been performed, he may not do these five things.
There are a further five things he may not do: 1. He may not accuse a bhikkhu in good standing of an offense. 2. He may not call upon a bhikkhu in good standing to recollect an offense or to make a personal admission.[6] 3. He may not serve as a witness in another person’s matter. 4. He may not obstruct the uposatha or the invitation ceremony. 5. He may not engage in a dispute with a bhikkhu in good standing. These are the five things that a person who has been censured may not do.
He must conduct himself accordingly.
After the Sangha had performed the act of censure against Wisdom and Lohena by a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said [890a1]:
“There are three conditions under which an act of censure is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya and is not validly accomplished: the offense is not stated, the accused is not called upon to recollect it, and he is not required to acknowledge the offense.[7]
“There are a further three conditions: he has committed no offense; the offense is not one requiring confession;[8] or he committed an offense but has already confessed it.
“There are a further three conditions: no accusation is made, the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: he is not called upon to recollect the offense, the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: he does not acknowledge the offense,[9] the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: no offense was committed, the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: the offense committed does not require confession, the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: the offense was committed but has already been confessed, the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided.
“There are a further three conditions: the accused is not present,[10] the act is unlawful, or the Sangha is divided. When an act of censure is performed under any such three conditions, it is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya and is not validly accomplished.
“There are three conditions under which an act of censure accords with the Dharma and the Vinaya and is validly accomplished. What are these three? An accusation is made, the accused is called upon to recollect the offense, and he makes a personal admission.
“There are a further three conditions: an offense has been committed, it is an offense requiring confession, and the offense has not yet been confessed.
“There are a further three conditions: the accusation is made lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha. The accused is called upon to recollect the offense lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha.[11] He makes a personal admission lawfully and before a harmonious Sangha. The offense was committed, and the act is performed lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha. It is an offense requiring confession, and the act is performed lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha. The offense was committed but has not yet been confessed, and the act is performed lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha. The accused is present, and the act is performed lawfully and by a harmonious Sangha. These are the sets of three conditions under which an act of censure accords with the Dharma and the Vinaya and is validly accomplished.
“There are five conditions under which an act of censure is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya and is not validly accomplished: the accused is not present, he has made no personal admission, it is directed against one who is pure, and the Sangha is divided. These are the five conditions under which an act of censure is contrary to the Dharma and the Vinaya and is not validly accomplished.
“There are five conditions under which an act of censure accords with the Dharma and the Vinaya and is validly accomplished. What are these five? The accused is present, he makes a personal admission, it is directed against one who is not pure, and the act is conducted according to the Dharma by a harmonious Sangha. These are the five conditions under which an act of censure accords with the Dharma and the Vinaya and is validly accomplished.”
When the Sangha is taking the morning meal or the main meal, expounding the Dharma, or holding the uposatha, the person upon whom the act of censure has been imposed should arrange his robes properly, remove his footwear, stand to one side, kneel, join his palms, and say:
“May the venerable ones accept my repentance.”
“From now onward, admonish your own mind. Enough—do not transgress again.”
At that time, the bhikkhus Wisdom and Lohena complied with the Sangha and did not oppose it, and they sought the revocation of the act of censure. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“If he has already conformed to the Sangha and has not acted contrary to it, and seeks to have the karma rescinded, permission is given to rescind it by a motion followed by three proclamations.”
“There are five grounds on which the karma of censure may not be rescinded: if he confers the higher ordination upon others, and so forth, up to engaging in disputes with virtuous bhikkhus. If the person under censure does any of these five things, the karma of censure may not be rescinded for him.[12]
“There are five grounds on which it should be rescinded: if he does not confer the higher ordination upon others, and so forth, up to not engaging in disputes with virtuous bhikkhus. If the person upon whom the karma of censure was imposed fulfills these five conditions, it should be rescinded.”
It should be rescinded as follows: The person upon whom the karma of censure was imposed should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his sandals, kneel with his right knee on the ground, join his palms, and say:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named..., was subjected by the Sangha to the karma of censure. I now conform to the Sangha and do not act contrary to it, and I request the Sangha to rescind the karma of censure. May the Sangha, out of compassion, rescind the karma of censure for me.”
He should make this request a second and a third time in the same way.
A member of the assembly capable of carrying out the karma should then be appointed. In accordance with the matter stated above, he should make the motion as follows:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named... was subjected by the Sangha to the karma of censure. That bhikkhu has conformed to the Sangha, has not acted contrary to it, and now requests the Sangha to rescind the karma of censure. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents to rescind the karma of censure for the bhikkhu.... This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... was subjected by the Sangha to the karma of censure. That bhikkhu has conformed to the Sangha and has not acted contrary to it. He has now come before the Sangha to request that the karma of censure be rescinded. The Sangha now rescinds the karma of censure for the bhikkhu named.... Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s rescinding the karma of censure for the bhikkhu... should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.”
The second and third proclamations should be made in the same way.
“The Sangha has consented to rescind the karma of censure for the bhikkhu.... The Sangha consents, and therefore remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”
2. Banishment
The Blessed One was staying in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, in the country of Kīṭāgiri,[13] there were two long-resident bhikkhus, one named Aśvajit and the other named Punarvasu.[14] In Kīṭāgiri they engaged in bad conduct and corrupted households. Their bad conduct was seen and heard by everyone.
Their corruption of households was seen and heard by everyone. They committed such bad acts as these: they themselves planted flowers and trees and had others plant them; they themselves watered them and had others water them; they themselves picked flowers and had others pick them; they themselves made garlands and had others make garlands; they themselves carried various flowers about and had others carry various flowers about.
When they went to the homes of laypeople who had sons and daughters, they sat together with them on the same couch, ate together from the same bowl, and drank together from the same cup. They sang, danced, played, and performed various entertainments. If others performed, they joined in with them.
They made musical sounds with their mouths, played stringed instruments and drums, played flutes or conch pipes, imitated the cries of peacocks and cranes, ran about, skipped on tiptoe, whistled, sang rowing songs, and imitated the playful calls of birds.
At that time, a large number of bhikkhus were traveling through the countryside from the country of Kāśī and arrived in Kīṭāgiri. Early in the morning, they donned their robes, took their bowls, and entered the city for alms. Whether advancing or stopping, their deportment was clearly composed.
Their eyes looked straight ahead; they lowered and raised their heads and bent and extended their limbs with calm deliberation. Wearing their robes and carrying their bowls, they walked looking straight ahead, their faculties undisturbed, as they sought alms in Kīṭāgiri. Seeing them, the householders said: “Who are these people who look straight ahead, neither jesting nor laughing, neither glancing from side to side nor mingling in amusement, and who do not even exchange greetings?
We should not give food to these people. They are unlike our ascetics Aśvajit and Punarvasu, who have no need to look straight ahead, but jest and laugh, glance this way and that, enjoy themselves together, and greet and comfort one another. Such people we shall give food.” Consequently, the bhikkhus in Kīṭāgiri had difficulty obtaining enough almsfood.
Those bhikkhus thought: “There are wicked long-resident bhikkhus in this place. Because wicked bhikkhus dwell here, good bhikkhus are shunned. They engage in bad conduct, such as planting various flowers and trees, up to serving as messengers for others.”
The bhikkhus then departed from Kīṭāgiri, traveled through the countryside, and returned to Śrāvastī. They went to the Blessed One, bowed with their heads at his feet, and sat to one side. The Blessed One then greeted the bhikkhus, saying:
“Have you been dwelling in harmony and happiness? Have you encountered hardship in obtaining food and drink?”
The bhikkhus said to the Buddha:
“The Sangha has been dwelling in harmony and happiness. We traveled through the countryside from the country of Kāśī and arrived in Kīṭāgiri.” They then related the entire matter to the Blessed One. At that time, the Blessed One rebuked them in countless ways, saying:
“What those men have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of ascetics, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma; they have done what ought not to be done. Aśvajit and Punarvasu, why did those men corrupt households and engage in bad conduct? Their corruption of households is seen and heard by everyone; their bad conduct is seen and heard by everyone. They engage in bad conduct such as planting various flowers and assorted trees, up to serving as messengers for others.”
The Blessed One then rebuked Aśvajit and Punarvasu and told the bhikkhus:
“I permit the Sangha to impose the karma of banishment upon Aśvajit and Punarvasu by a motion followed by three proclamations.”
It should be carried out as follows: After assembling the Sangha, an accusation should be made against Aśvajit and Punarvasu [891a1]. After the accusation has been made, they should be called upon to recollect the matter; after they have recollected it, the charges should be presented to them. A member of the assembly capable of carrying out the karma should then be appointed. In accordance with the matter stated above, he should make the motion as follows:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikkhus, Aśvajit and Punarvasu, while dwelling in the country of Kīṭāgiri, corrupted households and engaged in bad conduct. Their corruption of households was seen and heard by everyone. Their bad conduct was seen and heard by everyone. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents to impose the karma of banishment upon Aśvajit and Punarvasu, saying: ‘You have corrupted households and engaged in bad conduct. Your corruption of households is seen and heard by everyone. Your bad conduct is seen and heard by everyone. You must leave this dwelling place and may no longer remain here.’ This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikkhus, Aśvajit and Punarvasu, while dwelling in the country of Kīṭāgiri, corrupted households and engaged in bad conduct. Their corruption of households was seen and heard by everyone.
Their bad conduct was seen and heard by everyone. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents to impose the karma of banishment upon Aśvajit and Punarvasu, saying: ‘You have corrupted households and engaged in bad conduct. Your corruption of households is seen and heard by everyone.
Your bad conduct is seen and heard by everyone. You must leave this dwelling place and may no longer remain here.’ Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s imposing the karma of banishment upon the two bhikkhus Aśvajit and Punarvasu should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.
This is the first proclamation.”
The second and third proclamations should be made in the same way.
“The Sangha has consented to perform the act of banishment against Assaji and Punabbasuka. Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
One against whom the act of banishment has been performed may not do five things: he may not confer full ordination upon another, and so forth, up to and including contending with virtuous bhikkhus.[16] The formal act should be performed in accordance with the procedure for the act of censure above, except for the passage, “recite the precepts in another assembly.”[17]
The Sangha performed the act of banishment against the two bhikkhus Assaji and Punabbasuka by a motion and three proclamations. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“There are cases involving three factors and five factors in which the act of banishment is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya, and the formal act is invalid, as explained above.[18] There are also cases involving three factors and five factors in which the act of banishment accords with the Dharma and the Vinaya, and the formal act is valid, as explained above.
“A bhikkhu who has been banished must not enter the boundary unbidden.” The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“He must not enter the boundary on his own. While remaining outside the boundary and before being summoned, he is permitted to send a trustworthy person to the Sangha to say: ‘Venerable Sangha, I ask to confess and repent. From this day forward, I shall reproach myself inwardly and shall not transgress again.’”
The bhikkhu Assaji then complied with the Sangha and no longer dared to oppose it. He came before the Sangha and requested that the act of banishment be revoked. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“If he has complied with the Sangha and no longer opposes it, he should come before the Sangha and request that the act of banishment be revoked. It should be revoked by a motion and three proclamations.
“There are five grounds on which the act of banishment should not be revoked: he confers full ordination upon another, and so forth, up to and including contending with virtuous bhikkhus.
“There are also five grounds on which the act of banishment should be revoked: he does not confer full ordination upon another, and so forth, up to and including not contending with virtuous bhikkhus.”
It should be revoked as follows: The banished bhikkhu should approach the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee touching the ground, join his palms, and say:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I am the bhikkhu named.... The Sangha imposed the act of banishment upon me. I have now complied with the Sangha and no longer dare to oppose it. I have come before the Sangha to request that the act of banishment be revoked. May the Sangha, out of compassion for me, revoke the act of banishment.”
He should speak thus a second and a third time.
The assembly should appoint one who is capable of carrying out the formal act. In accordance with the matter stated above, he should make the motion as follows:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... had the act of banishment imposed upon him by the Sangha. He has now complied with the Sangha and no longer dares to oppose it. He has come before the Sangha to request that the act of banishment be revoked. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents now to revoke the act of banishment against the bhikkhu named.... This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... had the act of banishment performed against him by the Sangha. He has now complied with the Sangha and no longer dares to oppose it. He has come before the Sangha to request that the Sangha revoke the act of banishment. The Sangha now revokes the act of banishment against the bhikkhu named.... Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s revoking the act of banishment against the bhikkhu named... should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.”
The second and third proclamations should also be spoken as above.
“The Sangha has revoked the act of banishment against the bhikkhu named.... Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
3. Dependence
The Blessed One was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time there was a bhikkhu named Sangha-suma,[19] who was foolish and ignorant and committed many offenses. He mingled with laypeople and associated with them intimately, in a manner not consonant with the Buddha’s Dharma. The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced asceticism, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame. They reproached the bhikkhu Sangha-suma: “You are foolish and ignorant and have committed many offenses. Why do you mingle with laypeople and associate with them intimately, in a manner not consonant with the Buddha’s Dharma?”
The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed with their heads at his feet, sat to one side, and fully reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One then assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, employing innumerable means, reproached the bhikkhu Sangha-suma:
“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the training. You have done what ought not to be done. Why do you mingle with laypeople and associate with them intimately, in a manner not consonant with the Buddha’s Dharma?”
Having reproached him, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:
“I permit the Sangha to impose the formal act of dependence[20] upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma by a motion and three proclamations.”
The formal act should be performed as follows: The Sangha should be assembled. Once the Sangha has assembled, an accusation should be made. After the accusation has been made, he should be called upon to recollect. After he has been called upon to recollect, the offense should be assigned. The assembly should appoint one who is capable of carrying out the formal act. In accordance with the matter stated above, he should make the motion as follows:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu Sangha-suma is foolish and ignorant and has committed many offenses. He mingles with laypeople and associates with them intimately, in a manner not consonant with the Buddha’s Dharma. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents to impose the formal act of dependence upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu Sangha-suma is foolish and ignorant and has committed many offenses. He mingles with laypeople and associates with them intimately, in a manner not consonant with the Buddha’s Dharma. The Sangha now performs the formal act of dependence upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma. Those venerable ones who consent to the performance of the formal act of dependence upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.”
The second and third proclamations should also be spoken thus.
“The Sangha has consented to perform the formal act of dependence upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma. Because the Sangha agrees, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
One upon whom the formal act of dependence has been imposed may not do five things: he may not confer full ordination upon another, and so forth, up to and including contending with virtuous bhikkhus.[21] This is how it should be done. The Sangha imposed the formal act of dependence upon the bhikkhu Sangha-suma by a motion and three proclamations. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“There are cases involving three factors and five factors in which the formal act of dependence may be performed, and cases in which the formal act of dependence may not be performed, as explained above.”
They performed the formal act of dependence by naming a locality. That locality was destroyed and its people rebelled. The Buddha said:
“The formal act of dependence must not be performed by naming a locality.”
They performed the formal act of dependence by naming a country. That country was destroyed and its people were scattered. The Buddha said:
“The formal act of dependence must not be performed by naming a country.”
They performed the formal act of dependence by naming a dwelling place. The people of that dwelling place caused its destruction. The Buddha said:
“The formal act of dependence must not be performed by naming a dwelling place.”
They performed the formal act of dependence by naming a person. That person might have broken the precepts, corrupted his views, violated proper deportment, been suspended, been expelled, or become liable to expulsion, and thus be unable to foster growth in the Dharma of the samana. The Buddha [892a1] said:
“The formal act of dependence must not be performed by naming a person.”
They performed the formal act of dependence by specifying the rains retreat. During that rains retreat, the person subject to the formal act attained wisdom. The Buddha said:
“The formal act of dependence must not be performed by specifying the rains retreat. Instead, it is permitted to say: ‘You shall take dependence and live under guidance.’”
At that time, the bhikkhu Sangha-suma went to a friendly bhikkhu who was learned, wise, and skilled in discourse, and while dwelling in a village requested instruction in the Vinaya. During the rains retreat, he attained wisdom, complied with the Sangha, and no longer dared to oppose it. He came before the Sangha and requested that the formal act of dependence be revoked. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“If the bhikkhu Sangha-suma complies with the Sangha, no longer dares to oppose it, comes before the Sangha, and requests that the formal act of dependence be revoked, it should be revoked by a motion and three proclamations.”
“There are five qualities for which the act of dependence must not be rescinded: conferring the higher ordination upon others, up to engaging in disputes with good bhikkhus.
“There are five qualities for which the act of dependence may be rescinded: not conferring the higher ordination upon others, up to not engaging in disputes with good bhikkhus. When these five qualities are present, the act of dependence should be rescinded.”
It should be rescinded as follows: The bhikkhu upon whom the act of dependence was imposed should approach the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee touching the ground, join his palms, and make this request:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named ..., was given the act of dependence by the Sangha. I have now conformed to the Sangha and come before it to request that the act of dependence be rescinded. May the Sangha, out of compassion for me, rescind the act of dependence.”
He should make the same request a second and a third time.
From among the assembly, a bhikkhu capable of performing the karman should be appointed. Based upon the matter stated above, he should make this motion:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named ... was given the act of dependence by the Sangha. That bhikkhu has conformed to the Sangha and no longer dares to transgress. He has now come before the Sangha to request that the act of dependence be rescinded. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent to rescind the act of dependence for the bhikkhu named .... This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named ... was given the act of dependence by the Sangha. He has now conformed to the Sangha and no longer dares to transgress, and he has come before the Sangha to request that the act of dependence be rescinded. The Sangha now gives the bhikkhu named ... the karman rescinding the act of dependence. Those Elders who consent to the Sangha giving the bhikkhu named ... the karman rescinding the act of dependence should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the karman.”
The same should be proclaimed a second and a third time.
“The Sangha has consented to give the bhikkhu named ... the karman rescinding the act of dependence. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
4. Reconciliation
The Blessed One was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana, together with five hundred bhikkhus, were traveling through the country of Kasi and arrived at Macchikavana.[22] The Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana were then staying in the Ambataka Grove.[23] The householder Cittala[24] heard that the two Venerables, while traveling through the country, had arrived at Macchikavana and were presently staying in the Ambataka Grove.
The householder went to the Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana, bowed with his head at their feet, and sat to one side. The Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana taught him various Dharma teachings for his instruction, causing him to rejoice. After hearing the Dharma taught and expounded by the Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana and rejoicing in it, the householder said, “May the Venerables and the Sangha accept my invitation to a meal tomorrow.” The Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana accepted by remaining silent.
Knowing that the Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana had accepted, the householder rose from his seat, paid homage, and departed.
Upon returning home, the householder prepared all kinds of the finest and most nourishing foods and drinks in the world, lacking nothing whatsoever.
At that time, a resident bhikkhu named Sudhamma[25], who lived in the Ambataka Grove, thought, “I shall go to the householder Cittala’s home to see what kinds of food and drink he is preparing for the visiting bhikkhus and what kinds he is preparing for the resident bhikkhus.”
The resident bhikkhu Sudhamma then went to the householder’s home and entered the place where the food was being prepared to inspect it. He saw that they had fully prepared all kinds of the finest foods and drinks in the world, lacking nothing whatsoever. Having seen this, he said, “The householder has prepared different kinds of food and drink for the visiting bhikkhus and for the resident bhikkhus.”
He then became jealous and angry and spoke these harsh words:
“Among all the foods and drinks the householder has prepared are every kind of the finest food and drink in the world, lacking nothing whatsoever. Only one thing is missing: sesame candy.[26]”
The householder Cittala then said:
“Venerable Sudhamma, you bear within yourself many treasures, such as the faculties, powers, factors of awakening, meditative concentrations, and right attainments, yet you utter such harsh and abusive words! Venerable Sudhamma, when I have prepared such fine and nourishing foods and drinks, what use would I have for sesame dregs?”
The householder continued:
“I shall now offer an analogy. Those who are wise understand through analogies. Suppose there were a country in which there were no chickens, and a traveling merchant brought a hen there. Because there was no rooster, that hen mated with a crow. The hen laid an egg and hatched a chick. It neither crowed like a chicken nor cried like a crow, and therefore it was called a crow-chicken.[27] In the same way, Venerable Sudhamma, you bear within yourself many treasures, such as the faculties, powers, factors of awakening, meditative concentrations, and right attainments, yet you utter such harsh and abusive words! Venerable Sudhamma, when I have prepared such fine and nourishing foods and drinks, what use would I have for sesame dregs?”
The bhikkhu Sudhamma said:
“Householder, you have insulted me. I now wish to leave!”
The householder said:
“Venerable Sudhamma, I have neither spoken maliciously nor insulted the Venerable. Please remain here happily at Macchikavana. We shall provide robes, blankets, bedding, food and drink, and medicines for treating illness.”
Sudhamma again said:
“Householder, you have insulted me. I shall leave!”
The householder asked:
“Where does the Venerable wish to go?”
The bhikkhu Sudhamma replied:
“I wish to go to the Blessed One in the country of Sravasti.”
The householder said:
“Whatever was said between you and me, report it truthfully to the Blessed One, without adding or omitting anything. Why? Because you will return to this place again.”
The bhikkhu Sudhamma then took his robe and bowl and went to the Blessed One. He bowed with his head at the Blessed One’s feet and sat to one side. The Blessed One greeted him kindly by asking:
“Are the bhikkhus dwelling there in ease? Do they experience no hardship in obtaining food?”
Sudhamma replied:
“They dwell there in ease and suffer no hardship on account of food and drink.”
He then reported fully to the Blessed One the events and the householder’s words, neither adding nor omitting anything. The Blessed One reproached the bhikkhu Sudhamma in countless ways, saying:
“What you have done is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to proper conduct, contrary to the way of a sramana, contrary to pure conduct, and contrary to harmonious practice. You have done what ought not to be done. Sudhamma, that householder is a faithful donor who performs many beneficial deeds and supports the Sangha. Why did you insult him with such base words?”
After reproaching Sudhamma, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:
“I permit the bhikkhus to perform for the bhikkhu Sudhamma, by a motion and three proclamations, the karman prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople.[28]
“When a bhikkhu has five qualities, the karman prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople must not be performed: he does not respect his parents; he does not respect sramanas; he does not respect brahmins; and he does not firmly observe what should be observed. When these five qualities are present, the Sangha must not impose upon him the karman prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople.[29]
“When a bhikkhu has five qualities, the karman prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople should be performed: he respects his parents, sramanas, and brahmins, and firmly observes without abandoning what should be observed. When these five qualities are present, the Sangha should perform the karman prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople.”
“A bhikkhu possessing ten qualities should be subjected to a karman prohibiting him from entering lay households: he reviles and abuses a lay household with harsh words; employs means to cause a lay household to suffer loss; acts to its detriment; causes it to lose its dwelling place; creates strife among laypeople;[30] disparages the Buddha before laypeople; disparages the Dharma; disparages the Sangha; [893a1] insults laypeople with contemptible words; or, having made a proper promise to laypeople, fails to fulfill it.[31] A bhikkhu possessing these ten qualities should be subjected to a karman prohibiting him from entering lay households.
“There may be nine qualities, eight qualities, down to the single quality of reviling and abusing a lay household with harsh words; he should be subjected to a karman prohibiting him from entering lay households.”
It should be carried out as follows: The Sangha is to be assembled. Once the Sangha has assembled, an accusation is to be made. After the accusation has been made, he is to be called upon to recollect the matter. After he has been called upon to recollect the matter, the offense is to be assigned. One among the assembly who is capable of performing the karman should be appointed to make the following motion in accordance with the matter stated above:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu Good Dharma has reviled the householder Citrāla with base and evil words, although that householder is a faithful donor who regularly provides alms and offerings to the Sangha. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha will now perform a karman prohibiting the bhikkhu Good Dharma from entering lay households. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The householder Citrāla is a faithful donor who regularly provides alms and offerings to the Sangha, yet the bhikkhu Good Dharma has reviled him with base words. The Sangha now performs a karman prohibiting the bhikkhu Good Dharma from entering lay households. Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s performing a karman prohibiting the bhikkhu Good Dharma from entering lay households should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.” The same is to be said a second and a third time.
“The Sangha has approved the conferral upon the bhikkhu Good Dharma of the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
Once that bhikkhu has been subjected to the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households, there are five things he may not do: he may not confer full ordination upon another, and so forth, up to and including that he may not engage in disputes with well-behaved bhikkhus. It should be done in this manner.
The Sangha then performed for the bhikkhu Good Dharma, by a motion and three proclamations, the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“There are procedures involving three qualities and procedures involving five qualities by which a karman prohibiting entry into lay households is contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya, and the karman is invalid, as stated above.[32]
“There are procedures involving three qualities and procedures involving five qualities by which a karman prohibiting entry into lay households accords with the Dharma and accords with the Vinaya, and the karman is valid, as stated above.”
The Buddha permitted the appointment of a messenger to go to the householder Citrāla’s home and, on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma, apologize to the householder Citrāla. The messenger was to be appointed by a karman consisting of a motion and one proclamation. A messenger possessing eight qualities should be appointed: 1. He is learned. 2. He speaks skillfully. 3. He himself clearly understands. 4. He understands the intentions of others. 5. He duly receives the words of others. 6. He is capable of remembering them. 7. He makes no omissions. 8. He clearly understands the meaning of wholesome and unwholesome speech. One possessing these eight qualities should be appointed as a messenger. The Buddha then spoke this verse:
In the presence of the wise,
He speaks without error,
Neither adding nor omitting,
And forgets none of his instructions.
His words cannot be refuted;
What he hears does not unsettle him.
A bhikkhu possessing these qualities
Is capable of serving as a messenger.
Ānanda was fully capable of fulfilling these eight qualities: he listened well, spoke well, clearly understood matters himself, understood the intentions of others, duly received the words of others, was capable of remembering them, made no omissions, and clearly understood the meaning of wholesome and unwholesome speech. The Buddha permitted the Sangha to appoint Ānanda as messenger to apologize to the householder Citrāla on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma. He was to be appointed by a karman consisting of a motion and one proclamation, as follows: One among the assembly who was capable of performing the karman should be appointed to make the following motion in accordance with the matter stated above:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha approves the appointment of Ānanda as messenger to apologize to the householder Citrāla on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints Ānanda as messenger to apologize to the householder Citrāla on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma. Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s appointment of Ānanda as messenger to apologize to the householder Citrāla on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.
“The Sangha has approved the appointment of Ānanda as messenger to apologize to the householder Citrāla on behalf of the bhikkhu Good Dharma. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”
After the Sangha has appointed the messenger, the appointed person should go to the householder’s home and offer this apology: “The Sangha has subjected the bhikkhu Good Dharma to a disciplinary act of censure.”[33] If the householder accepts the apology, that is well. If he does not, the householder should be brought to a place where he can see but cannot hear.[34] The bhikkhu subjected to the karman should then be placed where the householder can see but cannot hear, and should be made to confess and repent in accordance with the Dharma.
Afterward, the messenger should go and tell the householder: “That bhikkhu previously committed an offense. He has now confessed and repented. His offense has been removed.” If the householder accepts the apology, that is well.
If he does not, the offending bhikkhu himself should go and apologize.[35]
After the Venerable Ānanda heard the Blessed One give these instructions, he led the bhikkhu Good Dharma to the householder Citrāla’s home and offered the apology to the householder: “The Sangha has subjected that bhikkhu to a disciplinary act of censure.” The householder Citrāla then accepted the apology.
Thereafter the bhikkhu Good Dharma became compliant with the Sangha and dared not oppose it. He went before the Sangha and requested the revocation of the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:
“If the bhikkhu Good Dharma has become compliant with the Sangha, dares not oppose it, and requests the revocation of the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households, it should be revoked by a karman consisting of a motion and three proclamations.
“There are five qualities for which the karman prohibiting entry into lay households should not be revoked: he confers full ordination upon others, and so forth, up to and including that he engages in disputes with well-behaved bhikkhus.
“There are five qualities for which the karman prohibiting entry into lay households should be revoked: he does not confer full ordination upon others, and so forth, up to and including that he does not engage in disputes with well-behaved bhikkhus. When he possesses these five qualities, the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households should be revoked.”
It should be revoked as follows: The person subjected to the karman should come before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee touching the ground, join his palms, and say:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named ..., have been subjected by the Sangha to a karman prohibiting me from entering lay households. I have now become compliant with the Sangha and dare not oppose it. I have therefore come before the Sangha to request the revocation of the karman prohibiting me from entering lay households. May the Sangha compassionately revoke for me the karman prohibiting me from entering lay households.”
He should make this request a second and a third time in the same manner. One among the assembly who is capable of performing the karman should be appointed to make the following motion in accordance with the matter stated above:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named ... was subjected by the Sangha to a karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. That bhikkhu has become compliant with the Sangha and dares not oppose it. He has now come before the Sangha to request the revocation of the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha approves; the Sangha will now revoke for him the karman prohibiting him from entering lay households. This is the motion.”
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! That bhikkhu named... was subjected by the Sangha to an act of kamma barring him from visiting lay households. That bhikkhu has conformed to the Sangha and has not dared to act contrary to it. He has now come before the Sangha to request the revocation of the act of kamma barring him from visiting lay households. The Sangha now revokes, for the bhikkhu named..., the act of kamma barring him from visiting lay households. Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s revoking, for the bhikkhu named..., the act of kamma barring him from visiting lay households should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first motion of the kamma.”
The same is said for the second and third times.
“The Sangha has consented to revoke, for the bhikkhu named..., the act of kamma barring him from visiting lay households. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”[36]
Notes:
[1] Campā 瞻波. Pali: Campā, the capital of the kingdom of Aṅga. See Ch. V, Hides, the account of Soṇa; n. 1.
[2] Kāsi 伽尸; above, it is transcribed as Già-sa. See Ch. IX, section 4, the account of Dīghāyu and n. 15.
[3] Vāsabha village 聚落 婆娑婆. Note how these place-names are read according to the Chinese text: “in the city of Campā, in the country of Kāsi, in Vāsabha village” 在瞻波城伽尸國婆娑婆聚落. Compare the Pali, Vin.i. 312: ... Campāyaṃ viharati... tena kho pana samayena Kāsīsu janapade vāsabhagāmo hoti, “The Buddha was residing at Campā. At that time, in the territory of Kāsi, there was a village named Vāsabha.”
[4] In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 30, this bhikkhu is named Cộng Kim 共金. Pali, Vin.i. 312: Kassapagotta.
[5] This is probably equivalent to the Pali tantibaddho, which Horner translates as “attached to the tradition,” meaning firmly bound to the duties traditionally required at that residence. The Chinese translation of the Southern Tradition renders it as “steward” and notes that this is a person who manages affairs within the residence, such as a Ma-ma-đế or Đế-đế-đà-la. The Chinese text understands tanti (“a binding cord”) figuratively as “continuity like the flow of a stream!”
[6] “Bhikkhus who have not yet come as visitors” 未來客比丘. Compare the Pali: kinti anāgatā ca pesalā bhikkhū āgaccheyyuṃ, “How might agreeable bhikkhus who have never come here be induced to come?”
[7] “Without fact or cause” 無事無緣. Pali: avatthusmiṃ akāraṇe, without any basis and for no reason.
[8] The Chinese translation is imprecise. It should be corrected to the four kinds of kamma: unlawful by a faction, lawful by a faction, unlawful by a united Sangha, and lawful by a united Sangha.
[9] Original Chinese: “completing the quorum” 滿數.
[10] Reperforming the kamma 重作羯磨.
[11] Mahāvagga IX has five kinds of Sangha, four of which are as in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. The fifth is a Sangha of more than twenty bhikkhus.
[12] Pali: āpatti daṭṭhabbā, an offense that must be seen; an offense that one must oneself see and acknowledge.
[13] Pali, Vin.i. 322: āpattiyā adassane ukkhipati, an act of suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense.
[14] Pali: āpatti paṭikātabbā, an offense requiring confession and rehabilitation.
[15] Pali: āpatti daṭṭhabbatā; see n. 12 above.
[16] Ha 呵, that is, criticism. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has già 遮, meaning to obstruct. Here it means preventing the performance of an act of kamma. Pali: saṅghamajjhe paṭikkosanā, an objection or veto raised in the midst of the Sangha.
[17] Mahāvagga IX, Vin.i. 328: a bhikkhu fond of causing disputes (bhaṇḍaka-bhikkhu) is subjected by the Sangha to an act of censure (tajjanīyakamma, the censuring kamma).
[18] Mahāvagga IX, ibid.: A censured bhikkhu goes to another residence. The Sangha there knows that the act of censure was not properly performed and wishes to perform it again correctly.
[19] The censured bhikkhu then goes to yet another residence.
[20] The thirteen cases enumerated among the impediments to receiving full ordination. See the chapter on ordination.
[1] Compare the Pali, Cullavagga I, Kammakhandhakaṃ, Vin.ii. 1.
[2] Trí Tuệ 智慧 and Lô-hê-na 盧醯那. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 31: Bàn-trà 般茶 and Lô-già 盧伽. Vin.ii.1: Paṇḍuka-lohitaka, a group of bhikkhus led by Paṇḍuka (read as Paṇḍita in Chinese) and Lohitaka.
[3] Censure 呵責, that is, reprimand. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has “the severely admonishing kamma” 苦切羯磨. Pali: tajjanīya-kamma.
[4] The procedure progresses as follows: bringing a charge 作舉, causing recollection 憶念, assigning the offense 與罪, and making the motion. According to the Pali, Cūḷavagga I (Vin.ii. 2): codetabba, the charge is to be stated; sāratabba, he is to be made to recollect and confirm it; āpattiṃ āropetabba, the offense is to be determined; ñāpetabba, the motion is to be announced, proclaiming the disciplinary measure.
[5] Evasive speech 異語; see Part I, Ch. V, Pācittiya 12.
[6] Matters belonging to the seven methods for settling disputes.
[7] “Bowing one’s head and accepting the offense” 伏首罪, submitting and admitting the offense. Pali: āpattiṃ āropetvā, having determined the offense.
[8] Pali: adesanāgāmaniyā āpatti, an offense that does not entail confession.
[9] Above it says, “does not bow his head and accept the offense.” See n. 19.
[10] The person who is the object of the kamma is not present. Pali: asammukhā kataṃ.
[11] In the groups of three, the phrase “Again, there is...” is not repeated. That is, all three factors are present: causing recollection, a kamma performed according to Dharma, and a united Sangha.
[12] That is, there has been a violation of the regulations stated above.
[13] Ky-ly-na 羈離那. Above, it is transcribed as Kỳ-liên. See Part I, Ch. II, Saṅghādisesa 12. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has “the country of Black Mountain” 黑山國. Pali, Vin.ii. 9: Kiṭāgiri, Mount Kiṭā.
[14] A-thấp-tỳ and Phú-na-bà-sa. For the account of these two bhikkhus, see Part I, Ch. II, Saṅghādisesa 12. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: Mã Tú and Mãn Tú 馬宿滿宿. Pali: Assaji-Punabbasuka.
[15] The banishment kamma 擯羯磨. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has “the expulsion kamma” 驅出羯磨. Cūḷavagga I (Vin.ii. 10): pabbājjaniyakamma, the act of banishment.
[16] As in the censuring kamma above.
[17] Chinese: “except for reciting the precepts in another assembly” 除餘眾中說戒. There is no such provision in the censuring kamma above. There are, however, similar provisions: he may not recite the precepts; and if, in the Sangha, he is asked about the meaning of the Vinaya, he may not answer. See the passage above, p. 87.
[18] See the censuring kamma.
[19] Tăng-sô 僧芻. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: Thi-việt 施越. Vin.ii. 7: Seyyasaka.
[20] The kamma of dependence 依止羯磨. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 31 gives three kinds of persons who must be placed under dependence: one corrupt in morality, one corrupt in views, and one corrupt in deportment. Vin.ii. 8: Nissayakamma.
[21] See the censuring kamma.
[22] Mật lâm 密林. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: Ma-xoa-chỉ-đà 磨叉止陀. Pali: Macchikāsaṇḍa, a town in the country of Kāsi.
[23] A-ma-lê 阿摩梨. Pali: Ambāṭakārāma.
[24] The householder Chất-đa-la 質多羅居士. Pali: Cittagahapati. He was the original owner of Ambāṭaka Grove and later donated it to the Sangha.
[25] Thiện Pháp. Pali: Sudhamma.
[26] Sesame dregs 胡麻滓. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya has “sesame delight balls” 胡麻歡喜丸. Pali: tilasaṅgulikā, cakes or sweets made from sesame seeds.
[27] Chinese: black chicken 烏雞.
[28] Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: 下意羯磨, the humbling kamma, requiring him to apologize to the householder. Cūḷavagga I (Vin.ii. 18): paṭisāraṇīyakammaṃ—gahapati khamāpetabbo, as in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya.
[29] Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 31 (T23n1435, p.225a05): Before performing the humbling kamma, it should be examined whether the householder’s statement is true, whether the bhikkhu was capable of doing that deed, and whether that bhikkhu will consent to humble himself.
[30] Vin.ii. 18: deliberately causing a householder to lose gains (alābhāya); deliberately causing him loss or harm (anatthāya); deliberately causing him to lose his dwelling (anāvāsāya); abusing the householder (akkosati); and dividing one householder from another (gihī gihīhi bhedeti).
[31] Pali, ibid., gihīnaṃ dhammikaṃ paṭissavaṃ na saccāpeti, failing to fulfill a lawful promise made to householders.
[32] See the section on the censuring kamma.
[33] Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: If the householder accepts the apology, he is told to go to a place within sight but beyond hearing. Then the offending bhikkhu confesses a dukkaṭa offense to the bhikkhu appointed by the Sangha, while remaining visible to the householder.
[34] The Ten Recitations Vinaya: If the layperson is unwilling to accept this, the Sangha shall appoint two bhikkhus. If the layperson then consents, they shall likewise instruct the offending bhikkhu to depart as stated above; afterward, in the presence of the layperson, the bhikkhu shall confess the duṣkṛta offense before the two bhikkhus appointed by the Sangha.
[35] The Ten Recitations Vinaya: If the layperson still does not consent, the Sangha shall instruct that bhikkhu to withdraw and reside at another dwelling place, if the layperson possesses influence with the civil authorities.
[36] End of Fascicle 44.
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.
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.