四分律

Thích Nguyên Chứng - Thích Đức Thắng

Revised and Annotated

CHAPTER XVI

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES^[1]

I. THE SEVEN METHODS OF SETTLING DISPUTES

1. Settlement by Vinaya in the Presence of the Parties

[913c19] The Blessed One was staying in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, Kāludāyin and the group of six bhikkhus went to bathe in the Ajiravatī River.^[2] After bathing, Kāludāyin came ashore and, without looking, put on a robe belonging to the group of six bhikkhus, thinking it was his own. Having put it on, he departed. When the group of six bhikkhus had finished bathing and came ashore, they did not see their own robe but saw Kāludāyin’s robe, and they immediately said, “Kāludāyin has stolen our robe.” They then performed an act of expulsion while he was absent.^[3]

When Kāludāyin heard of this, he became doubtful and went to the Blessed One. He bowed his head at the Blessed One’s feet, withdrew, and sat to one side. He then reported the entire matter in detail to the Blessed One. The Blessed One asked:

“With what intention did you take the robe?”

Kāludāyin replied:

“I thought it was my robe and therefore took it. I had no intention of stealing it.”

The Buddha said:

“In that case, you committed no offense. Nevertheless, one should not put on a robe without examining it. Nor should one perform a formal act while the person concerned is absent, such as an act of [914a1] censure, an act of banishment, an act of dependence, an act prohibiting entry into lay households, an act of suspension, or an act of expulsion. If such an act is performed, it is invalid, and one also incurs a duṣkṛta offense. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I establish settlement by Vinaya in the presence of the parties as a means of settling disputes.^[4] Settlement by Vinaya in the presence of the parties should be proclaimed in this way.

2. Settlement by a Verdict of Mindfulness

When the Blessed One was staying in Rājagṛha, Dabba Mallaputta^[5] had not committed any grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all said that he had committed a grave offense and asked him, “Do you remember committing a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya?” He did not remember committing any pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya offense, and so he replied, “I do not remember committing such a grave offense.” He then said to the bhikkhus, “Venerable ones, do not keep interrogating me.” But the bhikkhus continued to interrogate him without ceasing. He thought, “What should I do?” He then informed the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, I permit a verdict of mindfulness^[6] to be granted to Dabba Mallaputta by a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations.”

The procedure is as follows: Dabba Mallaputta should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee on the ground, join his palms, and say:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, Dabba Mallaputta, have not committed a grave offense. The bhikkhus say that I have committed a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked me, ‘Do you remember committing a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya?’ I do not remember committing a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, and therefore replied, ‘I do not remember committing such a grave offense. Venerable ones, you should not continually interrogate me.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus continued to interrogate me. Since I have no recollection of committing such an offense, I now come before the Sangha to request a verdict of mindfulness. May the Sangha grant me a verdict of mindfulness, out of compassion.”

He should make this request a second and a third time. Within the assembly, a person capable of carrying out the formal act should be appointed. On the basis of the foregoing matter, that person should make the motion:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Dabba Mallaputta has not committed a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all say that he has committed a grave offense of pārājika through sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked him, ‘Do you remember committing a grave offense of pārājika through sthūlātyaya?’ This bhikkhu does not remember committing a grave offense, and therefore replied, ‘I do not remember committing a grave offense.

Venerable ones, do not interrogate me.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus persisted in interrogating him and would not cease. This bhikkhu has no recollection of committing an offense and has now come before the Sangha to request a verdict of mindfulness. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents to grant this bhikkhu a verdict of mindfulness.

This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Dabba Mallaputta has not committed a grave offense of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya, yet the bhikkhus all say that he has committed a grave offense of pārājika through sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked him, ‘Do you remember committing a grave offense of pārājika through sthūlātyaya?’ This bhikkhu does not remember committing a grave offense, and therefore replied, ‘I do not remember committing a grave offense.

Venerable ones, do not interrogate me.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus persisted in interrogating him and would not cease. This bhikkhu has no recollection of committing an offense and has now come before the Sangha to request a verdict of mindfulness. Those venerable ones who consent to the Sangha’s granting Dabba Mallaputta a verdict of mindfulness should remain silent.

Anyone who does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the formal act.”

The same should be proclaimed a second and a third time.

“The Sangha has consented to grant Dabba Mallaputta the formal act of a verdict of mindfulness. Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

“From now on, I establish for the bhikkhus the verdict of mindfulness as a means of settling disputes. The verdict of mindfulness should be proclaimed in this way.”

3. Settlement by a Verdict of Past Insanity

The Blessed One was staying in Rājagṛha. At that time, there was a bhikkhu named Nanda^[7] who had become insane and mentally deranged. On many occasions he committed various offenses and acts unbecoming a śramaṇa; his speech was unrestrained, and in coming and going, entering and leaving, he did not conform to proper deportment.

After his mind had recovered, the bhikkhus said that he had committed grave offenses of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, and sthūlātyaya. The bhikkhus asked Nanda, “Do you remember committing grave offenses of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya?” He immediately replied, “Previously I was insane and mentally deranged. At that time, I repeatedly committed various offenses, and in coming and going, entering and leaving, I did not conform to proper deportment.

I did not intentionally act in that way; it was due to insanity. Venerable ones, you should not keep questioning me about that matter.” Nevertheless, the bhikkhus deliberately continued questioning him and would not cease. That bhikkhu thought, “What should I do?” He then informed the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha.

The Buddha said:

“I permit the Sangha to grant the bhikkhu Nanda a verdict of past insanity^[8] by a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations, according to the following procedure: The bhikkhu Nanda should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel with his right knee on the ground, join his palms, and say:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu Nanda, was insane and mentally deranged. At that time, I repeatedly committed various offenses, and in coming and going, entering and leaving, I did not conform to proper deportment.

Afterward, I recovered. The bhikkhus asked me, ‘Do you remember committing grave offenses of pārājika, saṅghāvaśeṣa, or sthūlātyaya?’ I replied, ‘Previously I was insane and mentally deranged. At that time, I repeatedly committed various offenses, and in coming and going, entering and leaving, I did not conform to proper deportment.

I did not act intentionally; it was due to my deranged mind. Venerable ones, do not keep questioning me.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus continued questioning me and would not cease. Now that I am no longer insane, I come before the Sangha to request a verdict of past insanity.

May the Sangha grant me a verdict of past insanity, out of compassion.”

He should make this request a second and a third time. Within the assembly, a person capable of carrying out the formal act should be appointed. On the basis of the foregoing matter, that person should make the motion:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu Nandi became insane and mentally deranged, committed many offenses, spoke incoherently, and in entering, leaving, coming, and going did not accord with proper deportment; afterward, he recovered. The bhikkhus asked Nandi, ‘Do you remember committing the grave offenses of parajika, sanghavasesa, or thullaccaya?’ He replied, ‘Previously, I was insane and mentally deranged.

Many times I committed offenses, spoke without restraint, and in entering, leaving, coming, and going did not accord with proper deportment. This was due to insanity; I did not act intentionally. Let the Elders not question me repeatedly.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus deliberately continued questioning him without cease.

This bhikkhu is now no longer insane and has come before the Sangha to request the verdict of past insanity. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent now to grant the bhikkhu Nandi the verdict of past insanity. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu Nandi became insane and mentally deranged, committed many offenses, spoke incoherently, and in entering, leaving, coming, and going did not accord with proper deportment; afterward, he recovered. The bhikkhus asked Nandi, ‘Do you remember committing the grave offenses of parajika, sanghavasesa, or thullaccaya?’ He replied, ‘Previously, I was insane and mentally deranged.

Many times I committed offenses, spoke without restraint, and in entering, leaving, coming, and going did not accord with proper deportment. This was due to insanity; I did not act intentionally. Let the Elders not question me repeatedly.’ Nevertheless, the bhikkhus deliberately continued questioning him without cease.

This bhikkhu is now no longer insane and has come before the Sangha to request the verdict of past insanity. The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu Nandi the verdict of past insanity. Those Elders who consent to the Sangha’s granting the bhikkhu Nandi the verdict of past insanity should remain silent.

Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation of the formal act.”

The second and third proclamations should be spoken in the same way.

“The Sangha has consented to grant the bhikkhu Nandi the verdict of past insanity. Because the Sangha consents, it remains silent. Thus is this matter recorded.”

From now on, the bhikkhus are permitted to establish the verdict of past insanity in order to settle disputes. The verdict of past insanity should be pronounced in this way.

4. Discipline According to One’s Own Admission

The Blessed One was staying in the city of Campa, beside Lake Gaggara.^[9] At that time, on the full-moon day of the fifteenth, the Blessed [915a1] One was observing the uposatha. The Sangha sat surrounding him in an open place. When the first watch of the night had passed, Venerable Ananda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and said:

“The first watch of the night has passed. May the Blessed One please recite the precepts.”

The Blessed One remained silent. Venerable Ananda then returned to his seat. When the middle watch and the final watch had passed and the signs of dawn had appeared, Venerable Ananda again rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and said:

“Venerable Blessed One, the middle watch and the final watch have passed, the signs of dawn have appeared, and the Sangha has been seated for a long time. May the Blessed One please recite the precepts.”

The Buddha told Venerable Ananda:

“The assembly is impure. It is impossible for the Tathagata to perform the formal act of reciting the precepts in an impure assembly.”

Venerable Ananda remained silent and returned to his seat. At that time, the elder Moggallana thought, “Which member of the assembly is impure, causing the Tathagata to say, ‘The assembly is impure. It is impossible for the Tathagata to perform the formal act of reciting the precepts in an impure assembly’?”

The elder Moggallana then reflected and surveyed the assembly with his purified divine eye. He saw that impure bhikkhu seated not far from the Buddha. He was no samana, though claiming to be a samana; he did not practice the holy life, though claiming to practice the holy life.

He was one who had broken the precepts and committed evil deeds, was impure and devoid of wholesome qualities, held wrong views, and concealed the evils he had committed. He was like a tree hollow at its core: although it had branches and leaves outside, within it was empty and without solidity. Having seen him, Moggallana thought, “It was upon seeing this bhikkhu that the Blessed One said, ‘The assembly is impure.

It is impossible for the Tathagata to perform the formal act of reciting the precepts in an impure assembly.’” The elder Moggallana then rose from his seat, approached that bhikkhu, and said:

“Why will you not rise? The Blessed One knows you and has seen you. You should rise and leave this place! You should not sit here.”

Moggallana then took that bhikkhu by the hand and led him outside the gate. He returned and said to the Buddha:

“The assembly is now pure. May the Blessed One please recite the precepts.”

The Buddha said:

“Moggallana, you should not act in this way. On other occasions as well, you should not act in this way. Moggallana, that person must first be brought to admit the offense, and only afterward should the offense be adjudicated. If that person has not admitted the offense, it should not be adjudicated. From now on, for the bhikkhus I establish discipline according to one’s own admission for the settlement of disputes. Discipline according to one’s own admission^[10] should be pronounced in this way.”

When the Blessed One was staying in the country of Savatthi, the bhikkhus in Savatthi were disputing with one another. The Sangha investigated the offense in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

5. The Verdict of the Majority

At that time, the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi. The bhikkhus in Savatthi were disputing with one another. The Sangha investigated the offense in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddha then told the bhikkhus:

“The offense should be investigated by many persons, and the pronouncement should accord with the words of the majority who understand the Dharma. From now on, for the bhikkhus I establish the method of settling disputes by the verdict of the majority.^[11] It should be pronounced in this way, using the verdict of the majority.

6. The Formal Act of Censure at the Place of the Offense

When the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans, there was a bhikkhu named Elephant Strength,^[12] who delighted in debating with non-Buddhist ascetics. When closely questioned, his earlier statements contradicted his later ones. When questioned within the Sangha, he did the same: his earlier statements contradicted his later ones.

In the midst of the assembly, he deliberately uttered falsehoods. At that time, the non-Buddhist ascetics all criticized him, saying, “The Sakyaputta samanas have no sense of shame. They do nothing but speak falsely, yet claim that they understand the true Dharma.

When closely questioned, their earlier statements contradict their later ones. When questioned within the assembly, their earlier and later statements contradict each other, and they deliberately utter falsehoods. What true Dharma is there in this?” When the bhikkhus heard this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame criticized the Sakyaputta Elephant Strength, saying, “Why, when debating with non-Buddhist ascetics and being closely questioned, did your earlier statements contradict your later ones?

And why, when questioned within the Sangha, did you likewise allow your earlier statements to contradict your later ones?” The bhikkhus went to the Buddha, bowed their heads at his feet, and reported this matter. The Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the Sakyaputta Elephant Strength:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a samana, not the holy life, not conduct in harmony with the Way; you have done what should not be done. Why, when debating with non-Buddhist ascetics and being closely questioned, did your earlier statements contradict your later ones? And why, when questioned within the Sangha, did your earlier statements likewise contradict your later ones, while you deliberately uttered falsehoods?”

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

“The formal act of censure at the place of the offense^[13] should be imposed upon that bhikkhu by a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations.”

The procedure is as follows: Assemble the Sangha. Once the Sangha has assembled, make the accusation. After making the accusation, call the matter to his recollection. After calling the matter to his recollection, adjudicate the offense. Within the assembly, a person capable of performing the formal act should be appointed to make the following motion on the basis of the matter stated above:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, delights in debating with non-Buddhist ascetics. When closely questioned, his earlier words contradict his later words.

When questioned in the Sangha, he likewise contradicts his earlier words with his later words and deliberately speaks falsely. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha shall now confer upon Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, the formal act of finding him at fault, saying: ‘Tượng Lực, it is neither beneficial nor wholesome for you that, when cornered in debate, you speak in ways that contradict one another from beginning to end.

When questioned in the assembly, you likewise speak in ways that contradict one another from beginning to end and deliberately utter falsehoods.’ This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, delights in debating with non-Buddhist ascetics. When closely questioned, his earlier words contradict his later words.

When questioned in the Sangha, he likewise contradicts his earlier words with his later words and deliberately speaks falsely. The Sangha now confers upon Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, the formal act of finding him at fault, saying: ‘Tượng Lực, it is neither beneficial nor wholesome for you that, when cornered in debate, you speak in ways that contradict one another from beginning to end. When questioned in the assembly, you likewise speak in ways that contradict one another from beginning to end and deliberately utter falsehoods.’ Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s conferring upon Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, the formal act of finding him at fault should remain silent.

Whoever does not consent should speak. This is the first proclamation.”

The second and third proclamations are made in the same way.

“The Sangha has consented to confer upon Tượng Lực, son of the Sakyans, the formal act of finding him at fault. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”

From this time onward, for the sake of the bhikkhus, the method of settling disputes by finding the offender at fault was established. It should be stated in this way when finding the offender at fault.

7. As Though Covering the Ground with Grass

The Blessed One was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time the bhikkhus of Sravasti were disputing among themselves. Most of the bhikkhus had committed offenses against the precepts and acted contrary to the Dharma of a śramaṇa.

Everyone acted and spoke as he pleased, coming and going without restraint. The bhikkhus then thought: ‘Most of us have committed offenses against the precepts and acted contrary to the Dharma of a śramaṇa. Everyone acts and speaks as he pleases, coming and going without restraint.

If we do not ourselves properly inquire into this matter, this dispute may grow deeper and more serious. Even after months and years, we may be unable to settle it in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, thereby preventing the Sangha from dwelling in peace.’ The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“This dispute should be settled in the manner of covering the ground with grass.^[14]

“From this time onward, for the sake of the bhikkhus, the method of settling disputes in the manner of covering the ground with grass is established. It should be stated in this way, as though covering the ground with grass.”

II. THE FOUR KINDS OF DISPUTES

The Blessed One was in Kosambi. The bhikkhus of Kosambi were disputing among themselves.^[15] A bhikkhu disputed with a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu disputed with a bhikkhuni. A bhikkhuni disputed with a bhikkhu. A bhikkhuni disputed with a bhikkhuni. The bhikkhu Chanda abandoned the bhikkhus, supported the bhikkhunis, and took the side of the bhikkhunis. When the bhikkhus heard of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproached the bhikkhus. They then went to the Blessed One, bowed with their heads at his feet, sat to one side, and reported the entire matter to the Blessed One.

On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the bhikkhus in many ways:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in accordance with the teaching. [916a1] You have done what ought not to be done. Bhikkhus of Kosambi, why does a bhikkhu dispute with a bhikkhu? Why does a bhikkhu dispute with a bhikkhuni? Why does a bhikkhuni dispute with a bhikkhu? Why does a bhikkhuni dispute with a bhikkhuni? Why did the bhikkhu Chanda abandon the bhikkhus, support the bhikkhunis, and take the side of the bhikkhunis?”

After rebuking them in many ways, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“There are four kinds of disputes:^[16] disputes over speech, disputes over accusations, disputes over offenses, and disputes over proceedings.^[17]

“What is a dispute over speech?^[18]

“When a bhikkhu disputes with another bhikkhu, it gives rise to eighteen grounds of dispute: Dharma and non-Dharma, Vinaya and non-Vinaya, and so forth through what was spoken and what was not spoken.^[19] When, on the basis of such matters, they dispute with one another in words, leading the two sides into contention, this is called a dispute over speech.

“What is called a dispute over accusations?^[20]

“When a bhikkhu seeks to expose another bhikkhu’s offense, he raises an accusation on one of three grounds—what was seen, heard, or suspected—concerning a breach of the precepts, a corruption of view, or a breach of proper conduct. In thus seeking to expose one another’s offenses, he does not falsely seek partisan support or influence, nor does he flatter others to gain their favor. He may impose an act of recollection, or determine whether this matter is established or not established, and whether the accused is insane or has recovered from insanity. This is called a dispute over accusations.

“What is called a dispute over offenses?^[21]

“Committing any of the seven classes of offenses—parajika, sanghadisesa, and so forth through wrongdoing in speech—is called a dispute over offenses.

“What is called a dispute over proceedings?^[22]

“The proceeding required in a dispute over speech, the proceeding required in a dispute over accusations, and the proceeding required in a dispute over offenses—these are called disputes over proceedings.^[23]

“What are the roots of disputes over speech?

“Greed, anger, and delusion are roots. Non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion are roots. The Sangha is a root. The precepts^[24] are a root. A person is a root. The six grounds of dispute^[25] are roots. The eighteen matters that cause a schism in the Sangha^[26] are roots. These are called the roots of disputes over speech.

“What are the roots of disputes over accusations?

“Greed, anger, and delusion are roots. Non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion are roots. An act of the Sangha is a root. The precepts are a root. A person is a root. The three grounds for raising an accusation are roots. These are called the roots of disputes over accusations.

“What are the roots of disputes over offenses?

“Greed, anger, and delusion are roots. The Sangha is a root. The precepts are a root. A person is a root. The three grounds for raising an accusation are roots. The six origins of offenses^[27] are roots. These are called the roots of disputes over offenses.

“What are the roots of disputes over proceedings?

“Greed, anger, and delusion are roots. Non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion are roots. An act of the Sangha is a root. The precepts are a root. A person is a root. These are the roots of disputes over proceedings.

“Are disputes over speech wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? Disputes over speech may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

“Why is a dispute over speech called wholesome?

“A bhikkhu disputes with another bhikkhu with a wholesome mind, discussing Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. When they dispute with one another in this way, both disputing with wholesome minds, the dispute over speech is therefore called wholesome.

“Why is a dispute over speech called unwholesome?

“A bhikkhu disputes with another bhikkhu with an unwholesome mind, discussing Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. When, on the basis of such matters, they dispute with one another in words, leading to conflict, this is an unwholesome dispute over speech.

“Why is a dispute over speech called indeterminate?

“A bhikkhu disputes with another bhikkhu with an indeterminate mind, citing the eighteen matters—Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. When they dispute with one another in words concerning such matters, this is an indeterminate dispute over speech.

“Are disputes over accusations wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? Disputes over accusations may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

“Why is a dispute over accusations called wholesome?”

Here, bhikkhus, with wholesome minds, jointly investigate an offense involving a breach of precepts, a breach of views, or a breach of deportment, based upon the three grounds of accusation—seeing, hearing, and suspicion. Within this there are five qualities by which that person may be absolved of the offense, become one who has not transgressed, pure and undefiled, and not have an ill reputation spread abroad. Investigating an offense in such a manner, they deliberate together without improperly seeking the power of allies; they reassure the other person's mind, and when carrying out an accusation or an act of calling to recollection, they settle what should be settled and do not settle what should not be settled, without delusion, enabling that person to be freed from the offense.

This is called a wholesome accusation dispute.

Why is an accusation dispute called unwholesome?

Bhikkhus, with unwholesome minds, jointly investigate an offense involving a breach of precepts, a breach of views, or a breach of deportment, based upon the three grounds of accusation—seeing, hearing, and suspicion. Within this there are not the five qualities; they do not wish to enable this person to be absolved of the offense, but wish this person to be guilty, defiled, and impure, and wish an ill reputation concerning this person to spread abroad.

Investigating an offense in such a manner, they deliberate together without improperly seeking the power of allies, yet they do not put the other person's mind at ease. When an accusation or an act of calling to recollection is carried out against that person, they settle what should not be settled and do not settle what should be settled; being deluded, that person is not freed from the offense. This is called an unwholesome accusation dispute.

What is called an indeterminate accusation dispute?

Bhikkhus, with indeterminate minds, jointly investigate an offense involving a breach of precepts, a breach of views, or a breach of deportment, based upon the three grounds of accusation—seeing, hearing, and suspicion. Investigating an offense in such a manner, they deliberate together without improperly seeking the power of allies; they reassure the other person's mind, and when carrying out an accusation or an act of calling to recollection, they settle what should be settled and do not settle what should not be settled, without delusion, enabling that person to be freed from the offense. This is called a wholesome accusation dispute. This is called an indeterminate accusation dispute.

Is an offense dispute wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? An offense dispute is either unwholesome or indeterminate.

Why is an offense dispute called unwholesome?

An intentional transgression by an ordinary person or a trainee^[28] is called an unwholesome offense dispute.

Why is an offense dispute called indeterminate? An unintentional transgression by an ordinary person or a trainee, or an unintentional transgression by one free from attachment,^[29] is called an indeterminate offense dispute.

Is a procedural dispute wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? A procedural dispute may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate.

Why is a procedural dispute called wholesome?

A bhikkhu, with a wholesome mind, carries out a formal act^[30] in a verbal dispute, carries out a formal act in an accusation dispute, or carries out a formal act in an offense dispute. This is called a wholesome procedural dispute.

Why is a procedural dispute called unwholesome? With an unwholesome mind, one carries out a formal act in a verbal dispute, carries out a formal act in an accusation dispute, or carries out a formal act in an offense dispute. This is called an unwholesome procedural dispute. The same applies to the indeterminate: if it is done with an indeterminate mind, it is an indeterminate procedural dispute.

Speech and verbal dispute; verbal dispute and speech; verbal dispute and dispute involving speech.^[31]

There may be speech that is itself a verbal dispute; speech that is not a verbal dispute; a verbal dispute that is itself speech; speech that is itself a dispute; speech that is not a dispute; a dispute that is itself speech; or a dispute that is not speech.

What is a case in which speech is itself a verbal dispute?

Bhikkhus quarrel with bhikkhus concerning the eighteen matters: Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. Quarreling with one another in words in such a manner, they come into conflict, and the two sides are not in harmony. This is called a case in which speech is itself a verbal dispute.^[32]

What is a case in which speech is not a verbal dispute?^[33]

A father quarrels with his son, or a son with his father; a son quarrels with his mother, or a mother with her son; an elder brother quarrels with a younger brother, or a younger brother with an elder brother; an elder sister quarrels with a younger sister, or a younger sister with an elder sister; or other people quarrel with one another.^[34] This is called a case in which speech is not a verbal dispute.^[35]

What is a verbal dispute that is itself speech?

Bhikkhus quarrel with bhikkhus concerning the eighteen matters: Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. Quarreling with one another in words in such a manner, they come into conflict, and the two sides are not in harmony. This is called a verbal dispute that is itself speech.^[36]

What is speech that is itself a dispute?^[37]

Bhikkhus quarrel with bhikkhus concerning the eighteen matters: Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. Quarreling with one another in words in such a manner, they come into conflict, and the two sides are not in harmony. This is called speech that is itself a dispute.^[38]

What is speech that is not a dispute?^[39]

A father quarrels with his son, or a son with his father; a son quarrels with his mother, or a mother with her son; an elder brother quarrels with a younger brother, or a younger brother with an elder brother; an elder sister quarrels with a younger sister, or a younger sister with an elder sister; or other people quarrel with one another.^[40] This is called speech that is not a dispute.

What is a dispute that is itself speech?^[41]

Bhikkhus quarrel with bhikkhus concerning the eighteen matters: Dharma or non-Dharma, and so forth through what was spoken or what was not spoken. Quarreling with one another in words in such a manner, they come into conflict, and the two sides are not in harmony. This is called a dispute that is itself speech.^[42]

What is a dispute that is not speech?

Apart from verbal disputes, the other matters of dispute—such as accusation disputes, offense disputes, and procedural disputes—are called disputes that are not speech.

Accusation and accusation dispute; accusation dispute and accusation; accusation dispute and dispute involving accusation.

(These four propositions are explained reciprocally in exactly the same way as the four propositions concerning verbal disputes above, and therefore are not written out. That is to say: an accusation is itself an accusation dispute. Offense disputes and procedural disputes are likewise explained reciprocally.)^[43]

III. SETTLEMENT OF MATTERS OF DISPUTE

1. The Principle of Presence

[917a1] If one bhikkhu, in the presence of another bhikkhu, speaks pleasing words in order to admonish or expel him, but those words are contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha's teaching, and the other says: ‹This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; it ought to be put into practice.› If the matter of dispute is settled in this way, it is an unlawful settlement of a dispute, resembling the presence procedure but contrary to the Dharma.

The same applies when one bhikkhu acts in the presence of two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The same applies when two bhikkhus act in the presence of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The same applies when three bhikkhus act in the presence of one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The same principle applies when the Sangha acts for one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

If one bhikkhu, in the presence of another bhikkhu, speaks pleasing words in order to admonish him, in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha's teaching, and the other says: ‹This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching; Venerable, you should uphold and accept it.› If the matter of dispute is settled in this way, it is a lawful settlement of a dispute through the presence procedure.

Here, what is called presence? It is the presence of the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the persons.^[44]

What is the presence of the Dharma? It is the Dharma accepted and upheld for the settlement of the dispute.

What is the presence of the Vinaya? It is the Vinaya accepted and upheld for the settlement of the dispute.

What is the presence of the persons? It is the presence of the persons who communicate through speech and deliberation.

If, after a matter of dispute has been settled, any bhikkhu raises it again, he commits a pācittiya offense.^[45]

For a bhikkhu who arrived afterward or was newly ordained, it is called an initial dispute;^[46] if he raises it again, he commits a pācittiya offense.

The same applies when one bhikkhu acts for two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha. The same applies when two bhikkhus act for one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha. The same applies when three bhikkhus act for one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The Sangha speaks to a bhikkhu with kind and wholesome words of instruction, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. That bhikkhu says: “This is the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching; you should uphold and accept it.” If the dispute is thereby brought to an end, this is the lawful settlement of a dispute through the Vinaya in the presence of the parties.

What is meant by “in the presence”? It means the presence of the Dharma, the person, the Sangha, and the boundary.^[47]

What is the presence of the Dharma? It is the Dharma that is upheld for the settlement of the dispute.

What is the presence of the Vinaya? It is the Vinaya that is upheld for the settlement of the dispute.

What is the presence of the person? It means that the persons concerned engage in verbal discussion and deliberation.

What is the presence of the Sangha? Those participating in the same karman assemble harmoniously in one place; those who do not attend convey their consent, and those present who are qualified to object do not object.

What is the presence of the boundary? The karman is performed within the prescribed boundary.

If a dispute has already been brought to an end, anyone who revives it commits a pacittiya offense. If a newly arrived or newly ordained bhikkhu regards it as an initial dispute and revives it, he commits a pacittiya offense. Anyone who, after giving consent, later regrets it commits a pacittiya offense.^[48]

The same applies when the Sangha acts for two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

2. Settlement of a Verbal Dispute

i. The Vinaya in the Presence of the Parties

1. At that time, Venerable Ananda^[49] rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and addressed the Buddha:

“Venerable Blessed One, by how many principles may a verbal dispute be settled?”

The Buddha told Venerable Ananda:

“A verbal dispute is settled by two principles: settlement through the Vinaya in the presence of the parties and the use of the majority’s decision.”

Venerable Ananda again asked:

“Is there a case in which a verbal dispute may be settled by the single principle of the Vinaya in the presence of the parties, without using the majority’s decision?”

The Buddha told Ananda:

“There is.”

Ananda asked:

“What case is that?”

The Buddha taught:

“If one bhikkhu, in the presence of another bhikkhu, speaks kind and wholesome words of instruction, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, and the other says: ‘This is the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching; you should uphold and accept it,’ the dispute is thereby settled. Ananda, this is called the settlement of a verbal dispute by one principle, without using the majority’s decision.”

“In the presence”: the meaning is as explained above.

The same applies when one bhikkhu acts for two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The same applies when two bhikkhus act for one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha. The same applies when three bhikkhus act for one bhikkhu, two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha. The Sangha speaks to one bhikkhu with kind and wholesome words of instruction, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. That bhikkhu says: “This is the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching; you should uphold and accept it.” Ananda, through this the dispute is brought to an end. This is the settlement of a verbal dispute by the single principle of the Vinaya in the presence of the parties, without using the majority’s decision.

“In the presence”: the meaning is as explained above.

The same applies when the Sangha acts for two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or the Sangha.

The Buddha further told Ananda:

“If a disputing bhikkhu cannot accept the Sangha’s formal act of settling the dispute in this manner, and he hears that at a certain dwelling there is a capable Sangha and a capable senior elder who is wise, then because of this dispute that bhikkhu goes to that dwelling. If, on the way, he encounters someone capable of bringing the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, Ananda, this is the settlement of a verbal dispute by the single principle of the Vinaya in the presence of the parties, without using the majority’s decision. Here, the expression ‘in the presence’ has the same meaning as explained above.”

2. If the disputing bhikkhu does not, on the way, encounter anyone capable of bringing the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, he should go to that Sangha and say before the wise senior elder: “This dispute of mine arose in this manner and truly originated from such a cause. The Sangha performed such a formal act to settle it, but I could not accept it, and therefore I have come to the Elder.

It would be good if the Elder would settle this dispute for me in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. If the Elder can settle this dispute for us in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, we shall relinquish this dispute before the Elder. If the Elder cannot settle this dispute in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, we shall continue disputing at will, causing the offense to become ever graver.

If this dispute is not settled in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, the bhikkhus will live without peace.” The disputing bhikkhu should thus relinquish the dispute before the Sangha. The Sangha should say to that disputing bhikkhu:

“Elder, if the dispute arose in this manner, truly originated from such a cause, and the Sangha there settled the dispute in such a manner, then, if you can relate it truthfully, we shall judge for ourselves whether we are able to settle this dispute. If the Elder’s dispute arose in this manner and truly originated from such a cause, and that Sangha settled the dispute in such a manner, but it is not explained truthfully, then, Elder, this dispute will grow graver day by day and will be contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha’s teaching. If this dispute is not brought to an end, the bhikkhus will be unable to live in peace.

“The Sangha should accept the dispute for adjudication in this manner. Having accepted it, the Sangha should render a judgment. If the disputing bhikkhu is junior, it should say: ‘Please go outside for a short while so that we may deliberate together and judge this matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.’ If the disputing bhikkhu is a senior elder, the Sangha should itself withdraw to another place to deliberate together and judge the matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

The Sangha should reflect thus: ‘If we judge this matter within the Sangha, we fear that other matters may arise, causing wholesome and unwholesome words from both sides to continue without end. Let us assemble separately in one place with those who possess wisdom and deliberate together to judge this matter.’”

The Buddha told Venerable Ananda:

At that time, the Sangha should make the following motion to adjudicate the matter:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! If it is the appropriate time for the Sangha, and the Sangha approves, the Sangha will now gather those who possess wisdom to adjudicate this matter separately together. This is the motion.”

“After making the motion in this manner, they should deliberate together and render judgment.”

A bhikkhu possessing ten qualities should be appointed to join the separate adjudication of this matter.^[50] The ten qualities are: 1. He is fully endowed with moral discipline; 2. He is learned; 3.

He has memorized both divisions of the Vinaya; 4. He comprehends extensively [918a1] the meaning of the Vinaya; 5. He is skilled in the use of language, argues clearly, and is capable of asking and answering questions in a manner that pleases the other party; 6.

When a dispute arises, he is capable of bringing it to an end; 7. He is impartial; 8. He is free from anger; 9.

He is free from fear; 10. He is free from delusion. One possessing these ten qualities should be appointed to join the separate assembly for adjudicating the matter.

If, among the bhikkhus adjudicating the matter, there is one who cannot recite the precepts and does not know the Vinaya concerning the precepts, and therefore does not speak in accordance with the true meaning but instead speaks what is contrary to the Dharma, the Sangha should make a motion requiring that bhikkhu to leave. The motion should be as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named ... is unable to recite the precepts, does not know the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, abandons the correct meaning, and speaks what is contrary to the Dharma. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents that this bhikkhu now be sent out. This is the motion.”

After making the motion thus, they should have him leave. The Buddha told the Venerable Ananda:

Among the bhikkhus sitting in judgment, there may be one who recites the precepts but does not recite the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, and therefore abandons the correct meaning and can speak only a little of the text. The Buddha told the Venerable Ananda that the Sangha should make a motion to send this bhikkhu sitting in judgment away. The wording of the motion is as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named ... recites the precepts but does not recite the Vinaya pertaining to the precepts, and therefore abandons the correct meaning and can speak only a little of the text. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents that this bhikkhu now be sent out. This is the motion.”

After making the motion thus, they should have him leave. If among the bhikkhus sitting in judgment there is a Dharma teacher^[51] in attendance who abandons the correct meaning and uses the force of rhetoric to overwhelm others, the Buddha told the Venerable Ananda:

The Sangha should make a motion to send this bhikkhu out. The wording of the motion is as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu who is a Dharma teacher, named ..., abandons the correct meaning and uses the force of rhetoric to overwhelm others. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha consents that this bhikkhu now be sent out. This is the motion.”

They should make the motion thus and then have him leave.

If among the bhikkhus sitting in judgment there is one who recites the precepts, recites the Vinaya, accords with the correct meaning, and speaks in accordance with the Dharma, the Buddha told Ananda that the Sangha should, in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, support this bhikkhu. If the Sangha there settled that dispute in a manner not in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, then the Sangha here should now settle that dispute in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

If the Sangha there has already settled that dispute in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, then the Sangha here should also approve the matter. At that time, the Sangha here should say to the disputing bhikkhu: ‘If the Sangha there has already brought this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, then we here also accept that this dispute has been properly settled.

We too shall now perform the procedure for settling the dispute in precisely the same way.’

If by acting thus the dispute can be brought to an end, then, Ananda, this is a dispute over words settled by one method, namely, the Vinaya procedure of presence, without using the decision of the majority.

The meaning of presence—Dharma through the boundary—is as stated above.

If a dispute has been settled in accordance with the Dharma and someone subsequently reopens it, that person commits a pacittiya offense, as stated above.

3. If the disputing bhikkhu does not comply with the second Sangha’s performance of this procedure to settle the dispute, and he hears that at a certain dwelling place there are many bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Matrika, that disputing bhikkhu should go to those bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Matrika. If, while on the way, that bhikkhu is able to bring the dispute to an end, then, Ananda, this is called a dispute over words settled by one method—the Vinaya procedure of presence—without using the decision of the majority.

Here the Vinaya procedure of presence is explained. What constitutes presence? It is the presence of the Dharma, the Vinaya, the person, the Sangha, and the boundary. The meaning is as stated above.

After the dispute has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, whoever subsequently reopens it commits a pacittiya offense, as stated above.

If that disputing bhikkhu is unable, while on the way, to bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, he should go to the many bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Matrika and say: “Venerable Elders, this dispute of mine arose from such a cause and in such a manner. In truth, it arose because of that. The Sangha performed such a procedure to settle the dispute.

A second Sangha also performed such a procedure to settle the dispute. I did not comply, and so I have come to the Venerable Elders. It would be good if the Venerable Elders could bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

Before the Venerable Elders, I shall relinquish this dispute. If the Venerable Elders cannot bring this dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, we shall continue disputing, causing the offense to become still graver. If this dispute is not settled in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, the bhikkhus will dwell without peace.”

That disputing bhikkhu should go before the many bhikkhus and relinquish this dispute.

Those many bhikkhus should say to the disputing bhikkhu: “If the Venerable Elder truthfully explains this dispute exactly as it arose, stating the actual cause from which it arose and how the second Sangha settled the dispute and brought the contention to an end, and, after explaining it, relinquishes the dispute, we shall assess for ourselves whether we are capable of settling it. If the Venerable Elder does not speak truthfully, the dispute will continue, causing the offense to become still graver. If the contention is not brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, the bhikkhus will dwell without peace.”

“Ananda, those many bhikkhus should perform the procedure thus to accept the dispute for adjudication. Having accepted the dispute, they should decide it. If the disputing bhikkhu is junior, they should say to him: ‘Teacher, please go outside and wait for a short while.

We need to deliberate and judge the matter.’ If he is a senior bhikkhu, they themselves should withdraw elsewhere to deliberate and judge the matter together. If the Sangha there did not bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, and the second Sangha likewise did not bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching, then the many bhikkhus should bring the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching.

If the Sangha there settled the dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the second Sangha also settled it in accordance with the Dharma, then the many bhikkhus should also accept that decision and should say to the disputing bhikkhu: ‘We also accept the settlement of the dispute made by that second Sangha.’

“Ananda, this is a dispute over words settled by one method, namely, the Vinaya procedure of presence, without using the decision of the majority.”

Here, presence means the presence of the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the person; the meaning is as stated above. After the contention has been brought to an end in accordance with the Dharma, if anyone subsequently reopens it, that person commits a pacittiya offense, as stated above.

The same applies when one goes to two bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Matrika. The same also applies when one goes to a single bhikkhu who upholds the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, through to one who upholds the Matrika.

ii. Decision of the Majority

At that time, the bhikkhus in the country of Sravasti were disputing with one another. The Sangha at Sravasti brought the dispute to an end in accordance with the Dharma. The disputing bhikkhus did not accept the Sangha’s settlement of the dispute. They heard that at a certain dwelling place there were, as stated above, many bhikkhus, as stated above. The same applies to two bhikkhus and to one bhikkhu, as stated above.

The disputing bhikkhus did not accept the Sangha at Sravasti’s settlement of the dispute. Eventually, a bhikkhu went to the Buddha, bowed his head at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and fully reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha then assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, by innumerable means, rebuked those disputing bhikkhus, saying:

“What you have done is wrong; it is not proper conduct, not the Dharma of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, not a practice in accord with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to have been done. You foolish men, when the Sangha at Śrāvastī settled the dispute in accordance with the Dharma, why did you not accept it? Even when a single bhikkhu settled the dispute, why did you not accept it?”

a. Conducting the śalākā procedure

1. After reproaching them in innumerable ways, the Blessed One instructed the bhikkhus to settle this dispute by the opinion of the majority, through the procedure of distributing śalākās. A person should be appointed to distribute the śalākās by a formal motion and second announcement.

One who possesses the following five qualities should not be appointed to distribute the śalākās: being partial, prone to anger, fearful, deluded, and not knowing whether the procedure has or has not been carried out. One who possesses these five qualities should not be appointed to distribute the śalākās. One who is impartial, not prone to anger, not fearful, not deluded, and knows whether the procedure has or has not been carried out—[919a1] one who possesses these five qualities should be appointed to distribute the śalākās.

In the assembly, one capable of performing the karma procedure should be appointed and, based on the matter above, should make the motion:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha shall appoint the bhikkhu named... to distribute the śalākās. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints the bhikkhu... to distribute the śalākās. Those elders who consent to the Sangha’s appointment of the bhikkhu named... to distribute the śalākās should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.

“The Sangha has approved the appointment of the bhikkhu... to distribute the śalākās. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I record this matter.”

2. There are three ways of conducting the śalākā procedure: openly, secretly, and by whispering in the ear.^[52]

a. What is called open voting?

Those bhikkhus think: ‘In the assembly there are many bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma, but their preceptors and ācāryas all act in accordance with the Dharma.’ The śalākā procedure should therefore be conducted openly. Those bhikkhus think: ‘Most members of the assembly act contrary to the Dharma, but the senior elders are wise, uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Mātṛkā, and all speak in accordance with the Dharma.’ The śalākā procedure should therefore be conducted openly.

The bhikkhus think: ‘We do not know whether, in this dispute, those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous or those who speak contrary to the Dharma are more numerous. However, their preceptors and ācāryas all act in accordance with the Dharma.’ Those bhikkhus should conduct the śalākā procedure openly. The bhikkhus think: ‘We do not know whether, in this dispute, those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous or those who speak contrary to the Dharma are more numerous.

However, the senior elders are wise, uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, uphold the Mātṛkā, and all speak in accordance with the Dharma.’ Those bhikkhus should conduct the śalākā procedure openly. Those bhikkhus think: ‘In this dispute, those who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous.’ The śalākā procedure should therefore be conducted openly.

The procedure is to be carried out as follows: two kinds of śalākās should be made, one split and one left whole. After making the śalākās, an announcement should be made: ‘Those who hold this view should take a whole tally. Those who hold the other view should take a split tally.’ When the distribution of the śalākās has been completed, they should be taken elsewhere and counted.

If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, the presiding bhikkhu should announce the result and bring the dispute to an end. If the bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma are fewer, he should pay homage,^[53] then rise and depart. Afterward, a trustworthy person should be sent to the Sangha at another bhikkhu residence to say: ‘At that residence, bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma are more numerous.

It would be well, Elder, if you went there. If the bhikkhus who speak in accordance with the Dharma become more numerous, that dispute will be settled and much merit will be gained.’ On hearing this, that bhikkhu should go. If he does not go, he shall be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma.

“Ānanda, if the dispute is settled by carrying out the procedure in this way, it is said that a verbal dispute has been settled by two methods of settlement: the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties and the opinion of the majority.”

Here, “in the presence of the parties” means in the presence of the Dharma, the Vinaya, the persons, the boundary, and the Sangha. The meaning is as explained above. Here, what is meant by “using the opinion of the majority”? It means relying on the words of the greater number—those who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Mātṛkā.

If a dispute has already been settled in accordance with the Dharma and someone subsequently reopens it, that person commits a pācittiya offense, as explained above.

b. What is called secret voting?

The bhikkhus think: ‘In this dispute, the bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, but their preceptors and ācāryas do not act in accordance with the Dharma. If we conduct the śalākā procedure openly, we fear that the bhikkhus will take their śalākās in conformity with their preceptors and ācāryas.’ Those bhikkhus should conduct the śalākā procedure secretly. Some think: ‘In this dispute, the bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous.

Yet in that assembly there is a senior elder renowned for wisdom, who upholds the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, and upholds the Mātṛkā, but abides in what is contrary to the Dharma. If we conduct the śalākā procedure openly, the bhikkhus will follow that senior elder of the assembly, who is renowned for wisdom yet abides in what is contrary to the Dharma, and take their śalākās accordingly.’ Therefore, the bhikkhus should conduct the śalākā procedure secretly.

The same applies in the two cases where the relative numbers are unknown. The śalākā procedure should be conducted in this way.

With either of these two methods, after the dispute has been settled in accordance with the Dharma, anyone who reopens it incurs a pācittiya offense, as explained above in the section on conducting the śalākā procedure openly.

c. What is the śalākā procedure conducted by whispering in the ear?

Those bhikkhus think: ‘The bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, but their preceptors and ācāryas speak contrary to the Dharma.’ They should conduct the śalākā procedure by whispering in the ear. Those bhikkhus think: ‘In this dispute, the bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma are more numerous, but the senior elder in the assembly who is renowned for wisdom abides in what is contrary to the Dharma, even though he upholds the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, and upholds the Mātṛkā.’ Those bhikkhus should conduct the śalākā procedure by whispering in the ear. The same applies in the two cases where the relative numbers are unknown.

Two kinds of śalākās should be made, one split and one whole, and it should be announced: ‘Those who hold this view should take a whole tally. Those who hold the other view should take a split tally.’ When the śalākās are distributed, the seats should be arranged with spaces between them. One person may pass between two others, screening one from the other, and whisper: ‘Preceptor, fellow disciple of the same preceptor, ācārya, fellow disciple of the same ācārya, your close friend and good companion has taken the... śalākā.

It would be well if you also took the... śalākā, out of compassion! If the bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma become more numerous and the dispute is settled, much merit will be gained.’ After the śalākās have been distributed, they should be taken aside and counted. From this point onward, after the dispute has been settled in accordance with the Dharma, anyone who reopens it commits a pācittiya offense, as explained above.

b. Improper śalākā voting

There are ten improper ways of taking śalākās: 1. Taking a śalākā without clearly understanding the matter; 2. Taking a śalākā without following good companions; 3. Taking a śalākā with the desire to make those who act contrary to the Dharma more numerous; 4. Taking a śalākā while knowing that bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma are more numerous; 4. Taking a śalākā with the desire to cause the Sangha to split; 6. Taking a śalākā while knowing that the Sangha will split; 7. Taking a śalākā contrary to the Dharma; 8. Taking a śalākā as part of a separate faction; 9. Taking a śalākā because of a minor transgression; 10. Taking a śalākā without standing by one’s own view.

What is meant by taking a śalākā without clearly understanding the matter?

It means not having mastered or clearly understood this dispute, and not knowing whether it accords with the Dharma or is contrary to the Dharma, and so forth, up to whether it is what was taught or was not taught. This is taking a śalākā without clearly understanding the matter.

What is meant by taking a śalākā without being together with good companions?

It means not associating with learned bhikkhus who uphold the Dharma, uphold the Vinaya, and uphold the Mātṛkā, regarding whether something accords with the Dharma or is contrary to the Dharma, and so forth, up to whether it is what was taught or was not taught. This is taking a śalākā without being together with good companions.

What is meant by taking a śalākā so as to make the bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma more numerous?

That bhikkhu thinks: ‘In this dispute, there are many bhikkhus who act in accordance with the Dharma. I shall now take a śalākā in support of what is contrary to the Dharma, so as to make the bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma more numerous.’ This is called taking a śalākā so as to make the bhikkhus who act contrary to the Dharma more numerous.

What is meant by taking a śalākā while knowing that many bhikkhus act contrary to the Dharma?”

That bhikkhu thought: ‘In this dispute, the bhikkhus who are not in accordance with the Dharma are in the majority. I shall cast a ballot together with those who are not in accordance with the Dharma.’ This is called knowing that the bhikkhus who are not in accordance with the Dharma are in the majority and casting a ballot.

What is meant by casting a ballot with the intention of causing a schism in the Sangha?

He conceived this thought: ‘In this dispute, the bhikkhus who are in accordance with the Dharma are in the majority. I shall now cast my ballot with the faction that is not in accordance with the Dharma, thereby causing the Sangha to be divided.’ This is casting a ballot with the intention of causing a schism in the Sangha.

What is meant by casting a ballot while knowing that the Sangha will be divided?

That bhikkhu knows that the bhikkhus who are not in accordance with the Dharma are in the majority, yet casts his ballot for his companions who are not in accordance with the Dharma. This is called casting a ballot while knowing that the Sangha will be divided.

What is meant by casting a ballot contrary to the Dharma?

In a motion with one proclamation and one resolution, or one proclamation and three resolutions, the proclamation is one thing while the resolution is another. This is called casting a ballot contrary to the Dharma.

What is meant by casting a ballot in a factional assembly?

Within the same boundary, when the Sangha act is performed, not everyone is assembled; proxy consent is not obtained from those whose consent should be obtained; and one who is present and entitled to object does object. This is called casting a ballot in a factional assembly.

What is meant by casting a ballot because of a minor offense?

One casts a ballot either thinking that an offense has been committed, or because an offense was committed unintentionally, or because the intention to act in that way arose. This is called casting a ballot because of a minor offense.

What is meant by casting a ballot contrary to one’s own view?

One holds one view but gives assent to another and casts a ballot accordingly. This is casting a ballot contrary to one’s own view.

These are called the ten ways of casting a ballot contrary to the Dharma. There are also ten ways of casting a ballot in accordance with the Dharma. (These are the opposites [920a1] of the ten foregoing ways of casting a ballot contrary to the Dharma.)^[54]

c. Adjudication of Matters

There are five kinds of adjudicators:^[55] one who does not act bodily but acts verbally; one who does not act verbally but acts bodily; one who acts neither bodily nor verbally; one who acts both bodily and verbally; and one who is free from partiality, anger, fear, and delusion.

What is a person who does not act bodily but acts verbally? It is one who displays no bodily sign but speaks and gives instruction. Such a person does not act bodily but acts verbally.

What is a person who does not act verbally but acts bodily?

It is one who displays a bodily sign but does not speak or give instruction. Such a person does not act verbally but acts bodily.

What is a person who acts neither bodily nor verbally?

It is one who displays no bodily sign and neither speaks nor gives instruction. Such a person acts neither bodily nor verbally.

What is a person who acts both verbally and bodily?

It is one who displays a bodily sign and speaks and gives instruction. Such a person acts both bodily and verbally.

Among these, the person who is free from partiality, anger, fear, and delusion is foremost and supremely honored. From milk comes curd; from curd comes butter; and from butter comes ghee, which is supreme and beyond compare. In the same way, the person who is free from partiality, anger, fear, and delusion is supremely honored and excellent, beyond compare. These are the five kinds of adjudicators.^[56]

Notes:

^[1] Cf. Pali, Cūḷavagga 4, Samathakkhandhakaṃ, Vin. ii. 73. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 23, “Methods for Settling Disputes” (T22n1421, p. 153c); Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 35, “Methods Concerning Disputes” (T23n1435, p. 251a).

^[2] A-di-la-bạt-đề 阿夷羅跋提. Pali: Aciravatī, a river in Kosala that flowed before the palace of King Pasenadi.

^[3] Conviction for a pārājika offense.

^[4] Settlement of a dispute through sammukhā-vinaya 現前毘尼滅諍. Pali: sammukhāvinayo, settlement through presence. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 73).

^[5] See Part i, Ch. ii, Saṅghādisesa 8 and 9.

^[6] Sati-vinaya 憶念毘尼. Pali: sativinayo, settlement through recollection. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 74).

^[7] Above he is called the bhikkhu Na-đề(-do).

^[8] Amūḷha-vinaya 不癡毘尼. Pali: amūhavinayo, settlement through freedom from delusion. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 80).

^[9] Già-cừ 伽渠; in the preceding sections, Già-già. Pali: Gagga.

^[10] Settlement by acknowledgment 自言治. Pali: paṭiññātakaraṇa, adjudication by one’s own acknowledgment. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 83).

^[11] Decision according to the words of the majority 用多人語. Based on the majority opinion. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: determining the character of the offense. Pali: yebuyyasikā, decision according to the majority. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 84).

^[12] See Part i, Ch. v, Pācittiya 1.

^[13] The act of placing the offense upon the more culpable party 作罪處所. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: settlement according to the original statement 本言治. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: determining the character of the offense. Pali: tassapāpiyyasikā. Cf. Cūḷavagga iv (Vin. ii. 85).

^[14] Covering over with grass 如草覆地. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: spreading grass over the ground 草布地. Pali: tiṇṇavatthārako.

^[15] See the preceding Kauśāmbī Chapter.

^[16] Dispute 諍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: matter 事. “Dispute” is itself a “matter”; the two words derive from the same Sanskrit root. Pali: adhikaraṇā. Cf. Cūl. iv (Vin. ii. 88). A matter under discussion or contention; the subject or focus of a dispute.

^[17] The four matters of dispute: see the explanations and notes below.

^[18] Verbal dispute 言諍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: a matter of contention 鬥諍事. Pali: vivādādhikaraṇa, a dispute arising from disagreement in words.

^[19] See above, n. 16, Ch. ix, p. 64.

^[20] Accusatory dispute 覓諍. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: dispute over admonition 教誡. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: an unfounded matter 無根事. Pali: anuvādādhikaraṇa, a dispute concerning admonition or accusatory statements.

^[21] Dispute concerning an offense 犯諍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: matter concerning the commission of an offense 犯罪事. Pali: āpattādhikaraṇa, a dispute concerning the classification of an offense.

^[22] Dispute concerning a matter 事諍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: a matter of regular practice 常所行事. Pali: kiccādhikaraṇa, a dispute concerning duties.

^[23] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 23 (T22n1421, p. 154a25): disputes concerning the procedures for performing Sangha acts and regular daily duties are disputes concerning matters. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 35 (T23n1435, p. 251b16): matters of regular practice—disputes concerning the various Sangha acts, the uposatha, the invitation ceremony, and the Sangha’s daily duties.

^[24] Boundary 界 means the established monastic boundary.

^[25] Six roots of dispute 六諍. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: six roots of contention 六鬥諍本. The six roots of disputes. Pali, ibid., cha vivādamūlāni: kodhano (anger), makkhī (hypocrisy), issukī (envy), maccharī (miserliness), saṭho (deceitfulness), pāpiccho (evil desires), sandiṭṭhiparāmāsī (obstinate attachment to views). Cf. Saṅgītiparyāya 15 (p. 431a16).

^[26] See

^[27] Cf. Pali, Vin. ii. 90, cha āpattisamuṭṭhānā, the six origins of offenses: an offense arising solely from the body; arising solely from speech; arising from both body and speech; from both body and mind; from both speech and mind; and from body, speech, and mind together.

^[28] The seven kinds of trainees, namely, the seven classes of noble trainees, from one practicing for stream-entry through one practicing for arhatship.

^[29] This refers to the fruition of arhatship, belonging to the class of noble ones beyond training.

^[30] Cf. Pali, Vin. ii. 91: when the Sangha performs a Sangha act with a wholesome mind, this is called a wholesome dispute concerning a duty (kiccādhikaraṇaṃ kusalaṃ).

^[31] Four alternatives concerning the intersecting relationship between verbal contention and a matter of dispute. Pali (Vin. ii. 91): vivādo vivādādhikaraṇaṃ (verbal contention is itself a verbal dispute); vivādo no adhikaraṇaṃ (verbal contention is not a matter of dispute); adhikaraṇaṃ no vivādo (a matter of dispute is not verbal contention); adhikaraṇañceva vivādo ca (it is both a matter of dispute and verbal contention).

^[32] Pali, ibid., vivādo vivādādhikaraṇaṃ.

^[33] Pali: vivādo no adhikaraṇaṃ, an argument that is not a matter of dispute.

^[34] Pali, ibid., sahāyopi sahāyena vivadati, a companion argues with a companion.

^[35] These people argue with one another, but it does not lead to conflict and therefore does not become a matter of dispute. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: contention that is not a matter of dispute—the bhikkhus argue with one another, but it has not yet developed into conflict.

^[36] The same as the first case: verbal contention is itself a verbal dispute. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Pali do not distinguish it separately from the first case.

^[37] Not mentioned in the Pali, ibid.

^[38] The same as the first case. The Pali and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya do not distinguish it separately.

^[39] Pali: vivādo na adhikaraṇa, a dispute is not a legal case.

^[40] As in the second case. The Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya does not treat it separately.

^[41] Pali: adhikaraṇaṃ no vivādo: these are a legal case concerning admonition, a legal case concerning an offense, and a legal case concerning a formal act.

^[42] As in the first and third cases.

^[43] A minor annotation in the original Chinese text.

^[44] The three factors of presence.

^[45] Bhikkhu, pācittiya 66.

^[46] Only a legal case settled in one's absence is not accepted for that reason.

^[47] The four factors of presence.

^[48] Bhikkhu, pācittiya 76.

^[49] The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya and the Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya: Upāli asks.

^[50] Cf. Pali, Vin. ii. 95: bhikkhu ubbāhika, a bhikkhu appointed to adjudicate a case is endowed with ten qualities. Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya 35 (T23n1435, p. 252c15): a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities may be appointed as an adjudicator, called Wu-hui-jiu-luo 烏迴鳩羅.

^[51] Pali, Vin. ii. 96: dhammika, a Dharma teacher who is not well versed in the Vinaya Piṭaka.

^[52] Three methods of distributing voting sticks, as in Pali, Vin. ii. 98: tayo salākaggāhe gūḷhakaṃ, sakaṇṇajappakaṃ, vivaṭakaṃ.

^[53] The Ming edition reads: “performing homage.” The Korean edition reads: “creating disorder” 作亂. The Song edition reads: “performing disorderly homage.”

^[54] A minor annotation in the original Chinese text.

^[55] The original Chinese reads: “an impartial adjudicator” 平當人. Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya 35 (T23n1435, p. 252c10): Wu-hui-jiu-luo 烏迴鳩羅. Pali: Ubbāhika. See note 49 above.

^[56] End of fascicle 47.