彌沙塞部和醯五分律

THE FIVE-PART VINAYA OF THE MAHĪŚĀSAKA SCHOOL — VOLUME 2

VOLUME 2
Part 1: PRECEPTS FOR BHIKKHUS

Section 1: ON THE FOUR PARAJIKA DHARMAS (Continued)

The Buddha was staying at Vaisali. At that time, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus that cultivating the contemplation of impurity would yield great benefit and fruit. From then on, the bhikkhus all practiced that contemplation and became increasingly disenchanted with, ashamed of, and disgusted by their bodies. It was just as if a young man, innocent and pure, had bathed his body, perfumed it, and put on brand-new clothes, only to have three freshly dead newborn corpses suddenly hung around his neck, with blood and pus soiling his entire body and maggots crawling all over him. His suffering would be beyond imagination, and his sole remaining thought would be how to escape from that afflicted body. The bhikkhus’ disenchantment with and loathing of their bodies was likewise.

Among those bhikkhus, some killed themselves; some took turns killing one another; some hanged themselves; and some drank poison. One bhikkhu, having become disenchanted with his body, went to a Candala named Di-lan and said, “Please end my life for me, and I shall give you my robe and bowl.” Thereupon, for the sake of the robe and bowl, the Candala used a knife to sever that bhikkhu’s life.

With the knife covered in blood, Di-lan went to the Vagumuda River to wash it. Suddenly filled with remorse, he thought, “Today I have committed an unwholesome deed. Why, merely for a small gain, did I kill a precept-observing sramana? Heaven and earth will not pardon this offense.” At that moment, Mara of the Heaven of Self-Mastery knew his thought. As swiftly as a strong man might extend his arm, Mara sprang up from beneath the water and stood upon its surface, towering before Di-lan and praising him: “Excellent! You have obtained great benefit. By ending the life of a precept-observing sramana, you delivered one who had not yet been delivered. Your merit is immeasurable. The heavenly spirits have recorded this, and I have come to inform you.”

At once, the Candala developed a pernicious wrong view and rejoiced greatly, saying, “Now I shall deliver others who have not yet been delivered.” That Candala knew clearly the signs of one who was disenchanted with the body and one who was not. He thought, “When the knife is brought before ordinary bhikkhus who have not yet abandoned desire, their bodies tremble in fear. Such people are not disenchanted with their bodies, and I would gain very little merit by killing them. I should now seek those who have attained the fruits of the Path, who feel no fear.”

With this thought, he took a long knife in hand and went from room to room and from one walking-meditation ground to another, crying out in a loud voice, “Whoever wishes to attain extinction, I shall deliver him!” At that time, all the bhikkhus who were disenchanted with and weary of their bodies readily came forward and asked him to end their lives. On some days he killed ten, on others twenty, and on others as many as sixty. Because of these circumstances, the Sangha steadily diminished, and the venerable sravakas in particular disappeared one after another.

At that time, the Blessed One emerged from samadhi, rose, and went to sit in an open place, surrounded by the assembly. The Buddha surveyed the Sangha and asked Venerable Ananda:

“Why has the Sangha diminished so greatly today?”

Venerable Ananda said to the Buddha:

“At one time, the Blessed One taught the bhikkhus the contemplation of impurity. Having practiced it, the bhikkhus became disenchanted with and disgusted by these suffering bodies, and so they successively sought ruinous deaths from one another. Di-lan even cruelly killed as many as sixty practitioners of the holy life in a single day. For this reason, the Sangha has diminished so greatly today. Excellent, Blessed One! I beseech you to teach another wholesome Dharma path by which the bhikkhus may dwell securely in peace and happiness.”

The Buddha told Venerable Ananda:

“Go now and notify all the bhikkhus dwelling in dependence upon Vaisali to assemble in the lecture hall.”

The Venerable followed the instruction and summoned the bhikkhus to assemble. When they had gathered, he went to the Buddha and said:

“All have assembled. I respectfully invite the Blessed One.”

The Blessed One then rose from his seat, went to the lecture hall, and sat with dignified bearing upon the Dharma seat. He asked the bhikkhus:

“Did these events truly occur?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“Blessed One, they truly did.”

The Buddha reproached them in every way:

“You are foolish people who have acted contrary to the Dharma. Have you not heard me say that, to protect sentient beings, one must possess loving-kindness and patience? Why did you not remember this?”

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

“If anyone kills himself, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense.”

The Buddha further said:

“From now on, you should cultivate mindfulness of anapana, contemplate pure bliss, and contemplate joyful bliss. Through such contemplation, any evil that has arisen and these unwholesome states can be eliminated. For the sake of the ten benefits, I establish this precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu personally takes life and kills his own living body, that bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may not remain in communion.’”

At that time, many bhikkhus became gravely ill. Other bhikkhus came to visit and asked:

“Has the venerable one’s illness lessened? Is the pain severe?”

The sick bhikkhu replied:

“The illness will probably not abate, and the pain is exceedingly difficult to bear.”

The sick bhikkhu then pleaded with the other bhikkhus:

“Give me a knife or a rope; give me poison; give me food that will worsen my illness; or take me to the high bank of a river.”

Faced with this situation, the bhikkhus complied with the patient’s wishes. The sick bhikkhu used one of those means to end his life. After witnessing the sick man’s death, the bhikkhus were filled with remorse and reported the matter to Venerable Ananda. The Venerable went to the Buddha and related the entire affair. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked the bhikkhus:

“Did these events truly occur?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“Blessed One, they truly did.”

The Buddha reproached them in every way: “You are foolish people! What difference is there between personally ending someone’s life and handing him a knife so that he may kill himself? From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu personally ends a person’s life or takes up a knife and gives it to that person, he commits a parajika offense and may not remain in communion.’”

Again, a bhikkhu became gravely ill, and other bhikkhus came to visit him as described above. He asked them to give him a knife, rope, or poison. The bhikkhus said, “The Buddha does not permit us to give anyone implements with which to kill himself. However, we know a hunter, and for your sake we shall call him to come and end your life.”

The sick bhikkhu said, “Please call him for me at once.”

The other bhikkhu hurried to the hunter and said, “Friend! A bhikkhu is gravely ill and does not wish to live. If you end his life, you will gain great merit.”

The hunter said, “If killing living beings brings great merit, would not those who work in slaughterhouses gain exceedingly great merit?”

The bhikkhus thought to themselves, “We claim to possess compassion, yet now we tell someone else to kill. What difference is there?” At that time, all the bhikkhus became remorseful and went to tell Venerable Ananda. The Venerable accompanied them to the Buddha, and they fully related the matter to him. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked the bhikkhus, “Did you truly act in this way?”

The bhikkhus replied, “Blessed One, we truly did.”

After reproaching them in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “What difference is there between killing someone yourself and instructing another to kill? From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu personally kills or instructs another to kill, he commits a parajika offense and may not remain in communion.’”

There was also a bhikkhu who was gravely ill. The bhikkhus came to inquire after him as above, and then said to the sick bhikkhu: “Your observance of the precepts is complete, so you should receive the blessings of the heavenly realm. If you kill yourself, you will surely be reborn in heaven.

Why endure such unrelenting suffering?!” The sick bhikkhu said: “That may be so, but although there is such suffering, I cannot kill myself. Why? Because if I killed myself, I would not only commit a Thullaccaya offense, but would also be unable to continue extensively cultivating the holy life.” He further reproached them: “What difference is there between killing a person with one’s own hand and telling another to kill himself?

As bhikkhus, would you follow such evil karma?!” When the elder bhikkhus heard of this, they reproached them in every way, and then brought the bhikkhus before the Buddha and reported the entire matter to him. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked those bhikkhus: “Did you truly do this?” The bhikkhus replied: “Blessed One, it is true.” The Buddha reproached them in every way: “You foolish men!

What difference is there between killing a person with your own hand and telling another to kill himself?” From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhu kills a person with his own hand or tells another to kill himself, he commits a Parajika offense and may not remain in communion.”

There was also a bhikkhu who was gravely ill. The bhikkhus came to visit him as above and likewise said to the sick bhikkhu: “With the holy life that you have established, when you die you will certainly receive the blissful fruit of the heavenly realm. Why do you not kill yourself so as to be reborn in heaven, instead of willingly enduring such unrelenting suffering from illness?” The sick bhikkhu said: “Even if that is so, I still cannot kill myself. Why? Because the Buddha has prohibited suicide; if I kill myself, I commit a Thullaccaya offense. Moreover, when I recover from this illness, I shall cultivate the holy life.”

At that time, in a certain country, there was also an outbreak of banditry. The householders suffered calamity, were separated from their own flesh and blood, and were overwhelmed by anguish. A bhikkhu said: “You have cultivated merit that will bring rebirth in heaven.

Why do you not kill yourselves, instead of willingly living in such sorrow and anguish over separation from your flesh and blood?” They replied: “Although we endure this anguish, we cannot kill ourselves. Why? Because only upon encountering suffering in the world does one learn to cultivate the path.” They further reproached him: “The path of the śramana is to show compassion and patience toward sentient beings.

Why, then, do you praise death and urge people to kill themselves? What difference is there between killing oneself and praising death?!” When the elder bhikkhus heard of this, they reproached the bhikkhus in every way, and then brought them before the Buddha and reported the entire matter to him. On account of this incident, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked those bhikkhus: “Did you truly do this?” The bhikkhus replied: “Blessed One, it is true.” The Buddha reproached them in every way: “What you have done is contrary to the Dharma.

What difference is there between killing oneself and praising death?”

From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhu, with regard to a human being or one having the semblance of a human being, either kills him himself, supplies a knife or poison with which to kill him, tells another to kill him, tells him to kill himself, extols death, or encourages death, saying: ‘Alas! Your life is so full of suffering. What is the use of living? Death is better than life’; and if, with an intent to kill, he gives rise to such a thought and, through any of the various forms of this matter, causes that person to die as a result, this bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense and may not remain in communion.”

From the time of entering the mother’s womb until the forty-ninth day, it is called “one having the semblance of a human being”; from after the forty-ninth day until emergence from the womb, it is called “a human being.” Personally taking up a knife, staff, poison, or the like to kill someone is called personally killing. When someone wishes to kill himself and seeks a means of doing so, and one gives him a knife or poison, this is called killing by means of something supplied by oneself.

Commanding another person is called telling another to kill. Telling another to kill himself means telling that person to cause his own death. Saying that death is better than life is called extolling and praising death.

Relying upon ghosts or spirits to kill according to one’s wishes is called killing in accordance with one’s intent and giving rise to an intent to kill.

Cases constituting an offense are: killing personally; commanding another to kill; successively commanding others; issuing a renewed command; indicating by signs; making statements; speaking while asleep; speaking to one who is asleep; speaking while intoxicated; speaking to one who is intoxicated; speaking while insane; speaking to one who is insane; speaking while mentally confused; speaking to one who is mentally confused; writing a letter; making signals; speaking with the hands; speaking by implication; when alone, perceiving oneself to be alone; when not alone, perceiving oneself to be alone; when alone, perceiving oneself not to be alone; speaking in jest; form, sound, odor, taste, and tangible objects; ưu ba đầu, ưu ba xà, and ưu ba hại.

– Killing personally: One personally takes up a knife, staff, or the like and kills another. If that person dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Commanding another: One commands someone to kill that person. If that person dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Successively commanding others: One orders person A to kill, but person A is unable to do so; one then orders person B to kill. If that person dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Issuing a renewed command: The first person accepts the command but is unable to kill, and returns to report this to the bhikkhu. The bhikkhu then commands another person to kill. If that person dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Indicating by signs: One points to the sun, moon, or stars and says to that person: “Your merit should cause you to be reborn there; you should kill yourself.” If he consequently dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Statements: One speaks of living as sinful and vile, while praising and extolling death. If that person consequently dies, one commits a Parajika offense.

– Speaking while asleep: While asleep, a bhikkhu speaks of something he had previously contemplated: “Your merit is complete; you may kill yourself.” After hearing this, that person waits until the bhikkhu awakens and asks: “Why did you say those words?” The bhikkhu replies: “While asleep, I wished you to obtain such a benefit, and therefore spoke in that way. Now that you are awake, you should likewise act according to those words. You may die according to what I have said.” If that person consequently dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

– Speaking to one who is asleep: One says to a sleeping person: “Your merit is complete; you may use a knife or the like to kill yourself.” Ghosts or spirits cause the sleeping person to hear this, and he immediately awakens and asks: “Why did you say those words?” The bhikkhu replies: “While you were asleep, I wished to bring you benefit, and therefore spoke those words. Now that you are awake, you should likewise act according to them. You may die according to what I have said.” If that person consequently dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

– Speaking while intoxicated: While intoxicated, a bhikkhu speaks of something he had previously contemplated: “Your merit is complete; you should use a knife or the like to kill yourself.” After hearing this, that person waits until the bhikkhu becomes sober and asks: “Why did you say those words?” The bhikkhu replies: “While intoxicated, I wished you to obtain benefit, and therefore spoke those words. Now that I am sober, I still say the same. You may die according to what I have said.” If that person consequently dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

– Speaking to one who is intoxicated: One says to an intoxicated person: “Your merit is complete; you may use a knife or the like to kill yourself.” After becoming sober, the person asks: “Why did you say those words?” The bhikkhu replies: “Because I wished to bring you benefit. While you were intoxicated, I said this, and now that you are sober, I still say the same. You may die according to what I have said.” If that person consequently dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

– Speaking while insane, speaking to one who is insane, speaking while mentally confused, speaking to one who is mentally confused, speaking while mentally afflicted, and speaking to one who is mentally afflicted are likewise all Parajika offenses.

– Writing a letter: A bhikkhu writes a letter telling a person to die. For each character he writes in the letter, he commits one Thullaccaya offense. When the letter reaches that person and the person consequently dies, the bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

– Making signals: A bhikkhu says to the person whom he has instructed: “Watch me. When I sit down, stand up, raise my hand, lower my hand, or say with my mouth that it is cold or hot, then kill that person.”

That person, seeing the sign given, then killed him. If the other person died, the offense was parajika.

• Speaking by hand: By words accompanied by hand gestures, he instructed someone to kill. That person acted accordingly and killed him. If the person died, the offense was parajika.
• Speaking indirectly: A bhikkhu used indirect words to instruct someone to kill. The other person acted accordingly and killed him. If the person died, the bhikkhu committed parajika.
• When alone, perceiving that one is alone, the offense is dukkata.
• When not alone, perceiving that one is alone, or when alone, perceiving that one is not alone, the offense is thullaccaya.
• Speaking in jest: A bhikkhu said playfully, “Your merit has been fulfilled; you may now kill yourself.” The other person asked, “Why do you say this?” The bhikkhu replied, “Although I spoke in jest before, I now truly mean it; you may kill yourself.” If the other person consequently died, the offense was parajika.
• Form: A bhikkhu performed an incantation to summon an evil and hideous spirit, causing a person to become terrified and consequently die. The offense was parajika.
• Sound: If a bhikkhu said, “Your parents and children have died, and your property has been destroyed,” intending thereby to make the other person grieve and then kill himself, and that person consequently died, the bhikkhu committed parajika.
• Odor: He mixed poison with various fragrances and caused the other person to smell them so that he would die. If the person consequently died, the offense was parajika.
• Taste: He mixed poison with food and caused the other person to eat it. If that person consequently died, the bhikkhu committed parajika.
• Touch: He killed by applying kapi poison to the other person’s body, causing him to die. The bhikkhu committed parajika.
• Upatou: He dug a concealed pitfall to kill any living being. If a human being fell into it and died, the offense was parajika; if a nonhuman fell into it and died, the offense was thullaccaya; if an animal fell into it and died, the offense was pacittiya.
• Upaja: He made a weak bed, covered it with a thin layer, and placed instruments for killing both above and below it, so that anyone who sat upon it would die. If a person consequently died, the bhikkhu committed parajika.
• Upahai: He used the venom of an insect to kill a person. If that person consequently died, the bhikkhu committed parajika.

If a bhikkhu formed the thought, “I shall kill that person,” then upon arousing the intention he committed dukkata; when he devised the means, he committed thullaccaya; and if that person died, he committed parajika. If he killed a nonhuman, he committed thullaccaya; if he killed an animal, he committed pacittiya. The same applies to a bhikkhuni. A sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri commits dukkata.
There is no offense when one acts with a mind of loving-kindness and compassion, without any intention to kill.
Here ends the third rule.
The Buddha was staying at Vesali when there was a famine and almsfood was difficult to obtain. The bhikkhus entered the city on almsround but received no food. In view of such conditions, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus, “Each of you should go and spend the rains retreat wherever you have acquaintances. Do not remain here and suffer hunger and thirst.”
The bhikkhus obeyed. Some went to the country of Magadha, while others went to villages along the bank of the Vaggumuda River. Upon reaching the river, the bhikkhus assembled and discussed among themselves: “Almsfood is now difficult to obtain.

There are faithful people in these villages, so we should praise one another, saying: ‘That venerable one has attained the first dhyana, and I too have attained the first dhyana. That venerable one has attained the second dhyana, the third dhyana, the fourth dhyana, the four immeasurable states, and the four formless concentrations, and I too have attained them. That venerable one has attained the four foundations of mindfulness, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path and the three gates of liberation, and I too have attained them.

That venerable one has attained the eight liberations, the nine successive concentrations, the ten totality spheres, and the ten direct paths, and I too have attained them. That venerable one has attained the stage of one firm in faith, the stage of one firm in Dharma, the four fruits of the ascetic life, the three knowledges, and the six superknowledges, and I too have attained them.’ When the householders hear this, they will surely develop even greater reverence.

They will say to one another, ‘We have obtained great benefit and wholesome fortune, for persons who have attained the Noble Path are spending the rains retreat in our village.’ They will surely purchase delicious and nourishing foods and make offerings to us ascetics without deficiency, and we shall live in comfort.”
Having concluded their discussion, the bhikkhus entered the town and went to the homes of wealthy people, where they praised one another as described above. They also said, “You have obtained very great benefit. The field of merit of the Noble Sangha has now come to your village.” Hearing this, the householders were delighted and rejoiced at something they had never before encountered. They all reduced their own expenditures, set aside their sacrificial rites, and ceased giving alms to others, devoting everything solely to offerings for the bhikkhus.
It is the customary practice of all Buddhas that, at the two great assemblies at the end of spring and summer, bhikkhus from various places return to inquire after one another. When the bhikkhus who had spent the rains retreat in Magadha completed their retreat, they came to the Buddha thin, emaciated, and haggard. They bowed their heads at his feet and then withdrew to stand to one side. It is the Buddha’s customary practice, whenever bhikkhus arrive, to comfort them by asking, “Did you spend the rains retreat in harmony? Was almsfood easy to obtain? Was your journey very arduous?”
The bhikkhus replied, “We spent the rains retreat in harmony, and our journey was not very arduous, but almsfood was difficult to obtain.”
The Buddha then discoursed to them on various aspects of the wondrous Dharma, revealing its benefits amid their joy, and told them to dwell wherever they found suitable.
The bhikkhus who had stayed along the bank of the Vaggumuda River were stout, healthy, and well provided for. They came to the Buddha, bowed their heads at his feet, and then withdrew to stand to one side. As usual, the Buddha comforted them and inquired after them. The bhikkhus said, “We spent the rains retreat in harmony, almsfood was easy to obtain, and our journey was not arduous.”
The Buddha then asked, “There is now famine everywhere, and alms are difficult to obtain. Why do you alone say that they were easy to obtain?”
The bhikkhus said to the Buddha, “While we were staying there, because almsfood was difficult to obtain, we praised one another…,” and related the matter fully as described above.
The Buddha then asked, “Were the things with which you praised one another true or false?”
The bhikkhus said to the Buddha, “Some were true, and some were false.”
The Buddha rebuked their falsehood in every way: “What you have done is contrary to the Dharma and inconsistent with the path. Those who have gone forth should not act in this manner. It would be better to swallow a red-hot stone or drink molten copper than to consume the offerings of the faithful through false speech. Have you not heard me condemn the offense of false speech and praise in every way the virtue of refraining from falsehood? Why have you now, for the sake of material gain, falsely claimed to have attained superhuman states?”
The Buddha further rebuked the bhikkhus:
“In the world there are five kinds of great thieves:

• The first is one who commands from one hundred to one thousand people to ravage towns and villages, harm people, and seize their property.
• The second consists of bhikkhus who lead other bhikkhus wandering among the people and teach Dharma as a wrong livelihood.
• The third consists of evil bhikkhus who claim that the teachings spoken by the Buddha were composed by themselves.
• The fourth is an evil bhikkhu who does not practice the holy life but claims, ‘I practice the holy life.’
• The fifth is an evil bhikkhu who, for the sake of material gain, possesses no superhuman state yet claims that he does.

“This fifth kind of thief is called the greatest and most extreme thief among devas, humans, Maras, Brahmas, ascetics, and brahmins in the world. Why would you, merely for a little material gain, become such supreme thieves?”
Having rebuked them in this way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu, not knowing and not seeing a superhuman state—a full realization of the knowledge and vision of the Noble Ones—should claim, “I know thus; I see thus,” and at a later time, whether questioned or not questioned, wishing to be purified of the offense’

in order to become pure, he himself says: ‘I did not know, yet I said I knew; I did not see, yet I said I saw. I spoke falsely and deceitfully.’ This bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.”

The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time, there were many bhikkhus who had heard little, had not studied, had not inquired, and possessed no superhuman attainments, yet they believed, “I know, I see, I have realized.” Some time later, when they heard other bhikkhus discuss the states of attainment of the path, those who had not attained the path came to recognize clearly their mistaken belief that they had attained it. Filled with shame, they thought: “Formerly, although we had not attained the path, we said that we had attained it. Have we not committed a parajika offense?”

There was also a bhikkhu who had heard little, had not studied, had not inquired, and possessed no superhuman attainments, yet said of himself, “I know, I see, I have realized.” Later, after studying the sutras extensively, he became filled with shame and remorse and thought: “According to my present understanding of the Buddha-Dharma, formerly I had not attained the path, yet I said that I had. This was overweening conceit. Have I not committed a parajika offense?”

There was also a bhikkhu who had heard little, had not studied, had not inquired, and possessed no superhuman attainments, yet said of himself, “I know, I see, I have realized.” Later, he extensively cultivated the holy life and attained the fruit of the path. Out of shame, he then thought: “Formerly, although I had not attained the path, I said that I had. This was overweening conceit. Have I not committed a parajika offense?”

After thinking in this way, the bhikkhus went to the Venerable Ananda and asked him about the matter. The Venerable Ananda accompanied the bhikkhus to the Buddha and related the entire matter to him. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and, taking each case in turn, asked the bhikkhus:

“Did you truly act in this way?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“Blessed One, it is indeed true.”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“There are five kinds of persons who declare superhuman attainments: first, one who is foolish; second, one whose mind is confused; third, one who pursues evil; fourth, one who has overweening conceit; and fifth, one who truly possesses them. If one who is foolish, whose mind is confused, who has overweening conceit, or who truly possesses superhuman attainments declares, ‘I have realized them,’ there is no parajika offense.”

From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows:

“If any bhikkhu, not knowing and not seeing a superhuman attainment constituting a complete noble realization, should claim, ‘Thus do I know; thus do I see,’ and if at a later time, whether questioned or not, wishing to be freed from the offense and to become pure, he should say, ‘I did not know, yet I said I knew; I did not see, yet I said I saw. I spoke falsely and deceitfully,’ then, except in the case of overweening conceit, this bhikkhu commits a parajika offense and may no longer live in communion.”

“Not knowing and not seeing” means not knowing and not seeing a superhuman attainment. All essential supramundane states, such as the meditative absorptions, samadhis, liberations, right attainments, and fruits of the noble paths, are called superhuman attainments. When one has fully accomplished the Buddha’s teaching concerning suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the path, with nothing further to seek, this is called complete noble realization.

To say of oneself, “I see and know such a Dharma, and such a Dharma sees and knows me,” is called claiming, “Thus do I know; thus do I see.” After a month or even a year, someone may ask: “How did you attain the path? Where did you attain it? From whom did you attain it?

Through what Dharma did you attain it?” Or, without being questioned by anyone, he may disclose the offense he has committed in order to seek purity of precepts, purity of mind, purity of view, and purity from doubt, saying: “I did not know or see suffering, its arising, its cessation, or the path, yet I said that I knew and saw them. This was false and deceitful speech.” Although he makes such a disclosure, he nevertheless commits a parajika offense.

Cases constituting an offense: There are two kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense. The first is when one has previously formed the thought: “I am about to falsely claim that I have attained a superhuman state.” The second is when, while speaking, one has the thought: “I am now falsely claiming that I have attained a superhuman state.” There are also three kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the two kinds stated above, and the third, when one has the thought: “I have falsely claimed that I attained a superhuman state.” There are also four kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the three kinds stated above, and the fourth, when one speaks of a superhuman state on the basis of a divergent view.

There are also five kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the four kinds stated above, and the fifth, when one speaks of a superhuman state on the basis of a divergent perception. There are also six kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the five kinds stated above, and the sixth, when one speaks of a superhuman state on the basis of divergent acceptance. There are also seven kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the six kinds stated above, and the seventh, when one speaks of a superhuman state on the basis of divergent delight.

There are also eight kinds of cases constituting a parajika offense: the seven kinds stated above, and the eighth, when one fails to answer in accordance with the question concerning the superhuman state of which one has spoken.

There are four kinds of ignoble speech and four kinds of noble speech. Ignoble speech consists of saying one has seen when one has not seen, saying one has heard when one has not heard, saying one has understood when one has not understood, and saying one knows when one does not know. Noble speech consists of saying one has seen when one has seen, saying one has heard when one has heard, saying one has understood when one has understood, and saying one knows when one knows.

There are also eight kinds of ignoble speech and eight kinds of noble speech. Ignoble speech consists of saying one has seen when one has not seen, saying one has not seen when one has seen, saying one has heard when one has not heard, saying one has not heard when one has heard, saying one has understood when one has not understood, saying one has not understood when one has understood, saying one knows when one does not know, and saying one does not know when one knows. The opposites of the foregoing are called the eight kinds of noble speech.

There are also sixteen kinds of ignoble speech and sixteen kinds of noble speech. Ignoble speech consists of saying one has seen when one has not seen; saying one has heard when one has not heard; saying one has understood when one has not understood; saying one knows when one does not know; saying one has not seen when one has seen; saying one has not heard when one has heard; saying one has not understood when one has understood; saying one does not know when one knows; saying one has no doubt about what one has seen when one does have doubt; saying one has no doubt about what one has heard when one does have doubt; saying one has no doubt about what one has understood when one does have doubt; saying one has no doubt about what one knows when one does have doubt;

saying one has doubt about what one has seen when one has no doubt; saying one has doubt about what one has heard when one has no doubt; saying one has doubt about what one has understood when one has no doubt; and saying one has doubt about what one knows when one has no doubt.

The opposites of the foregoing are called the sixteen kinds of noble speech.

If a bhikkhu claims before a person that he has attained a superhuman state, and that person understands him, he commits a parajika offense; if that person does not understand him, he commits a sthulatyaya offense. If he speaks to a nonhuman being, he commits a sthulatyaya offense; if he speaks to an animal, he commits a duskrta offense. The same applies to a bhikkhuni. A siksamana, sramanera, or sramaneri commits a duskrta offense.

There is no offense when one speaks truthfully.

Section 2: ON THE THIRTEEN SANGHADISESA DHARMAS

The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time, the Elder Udayin was consumed by the fire of lust. His body became emaciated and his strength declined. Only by using his hand to emit impurity did he obtain ease and pleasure. Another bhikkhu had also become thin and ill. Seeing him, Udayin asked:

“Why have you lost so much strength?”

The bhikkhu replied:

“Venerable sir, I am consumed by the fire of lust, and thus I have become like this.”

Udayin said:

“Formerly, I too was like this. Only by using my hand to emit impurity was I able to dwell in ease and pleasure. If you adopt my method, you too will be the same.”

The bhikkhu said:

“What you have done is contrary to the Dharma, is not pure conduct, violates the way of a sramana, and does not accord with the right path. In every way, the Blessed One has censured sensual desire, perceptions of sensual desire, sensations of sensual desire, and the fire of sensual desire; and he has praised those who abandon perceptions of sensual desire, eliminate sensations of sensual desire, and extinguish the fire of sensual desire. He has said that the fire of sensual desire is like a red-hot bone and like poison. Why, then, do you now use your hand to emit impurity, accept the faithful offerings of donors, and even teach others to do this?”

After reproaching him, they led him together before the Buddha and related the matter. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked Udayin:

“Did you truly act in this way?”

Udayin replied:

“Blessed One, it is indeed true.”

The Buddha likewise reproached him in every way, as above, and then told the bhikkhus:

“For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be

spoke as follows: “If a bhikkhu deliberately causes himself to emit semen, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.”

At that time, bhikkhus who went to sleep with unsettled minds dreamed and emitted semen. Upon awakening, the question arose: “In a dream I also had intention, moved my body, and emitted semen. Have I not committed a Sanghadisesa offense?” Consequently, some disclosed the offense, some underwent manatta, some requested rehabilitation, and some directly reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and asked them:

– Is it true that this happened to you?

The bhikkhus replied:

– Venerable Blessed One, it is indeed true!

The Buddha reproached them in various ways:

– You should not sleep with distracted minds. Whoever sleeps with a distracted mind commits a dukkata offense.

Sleeping with a distracted mind has five faults:

Sleeping with an undistracted mind has five benefits:

While sleeping, there are five causes for the sexual organ to become erect:

The Buddha further told the bhikkhus:

– Those who have not yet abandoned sensual desire and who sleep with minds distracted by anger and delusion will certainly emit semen. Although one may not yet be able to abandon sensual desire, if one sleeps with the mind established in mindfulness, one will not incur those faults.

From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhu deliberately causes himself to emit semen, except in a dream, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.”

Deliberately causing oneself to emit semen means forming the intention and moving the body so as to cause semen to be emitted.

Sanghadisesa: This offense still leaves a slight opportunity for rehabilitation. That opportunity is to seek rehabilitation from the Sangha, through which the offense may be removed.

There are ten kinds of semen:

If one forms the intention and moves the body wishing to emit semen of a blue color, but instead emits semen of a yellow color, or any color through honey-colored, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If one forms the intention and moves the body wishing to emit semen of a yellow color, or any color through honey-colored, but instead emits semen of another color, the same applies.

There are ten purposes for which forming the intention, moving the body, and emitting semen all constitute a Sanghadisesa offense: first, to experiment; second, to cure an illness; third, for the sake of one’s complexion; fourth, for the sake of strength; fifth, for pleasure; sixth, as an offering; seventh, in order to be reborn in heaven; eighth, for a sacrificial assembly of non-Buddhist practitioners; ninth, for seed; and tenth, for the worship of fire.

There are five circumstances in which forming the intention, moving the body, and emitting semen all constitute a Sanghadisesa offense:

An internal form means one’s own body.

An external form means another person’s body.

Empty space means moving the body in empty space.

Wind means doing so while facing against the wind.

Water means doing so while facing against the flow of water.

There are another five circumstances in which forming the intention, moving the body, and emitting semen constitute a Sanghadisesa offense:

If one forms the intention but does not move the body and does not emit semen, or forms the intention and does not move the body but emits semen, in either case one commits a dukkata offense. If one forms the intention and moves the body but does not emit semen, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one does not form the intention but moves the body and does not emit semen, or does not form the intention and does not move the body but emits semen, in either case there is no offense.

If one emits semen while asleep, then upon awakening forms the intention and moves the body, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one moves the body while asleep, then upon awakening forms the intention and emits semen, one commits a dukkata offense. If one forms the intention while asleep, then upon awakening does not move the body but emits semen, there is no offense.

A samanera commits a dukkata offense.

The first precept is concluded.

The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time, the Elder Udayin, consumed by the fire of sensual desire, thought: “The Blessed One has prohibited deliberately causing oneself to emit semen. I shall now arrange to make physical contact with women so as to enjoy the pleasure of their softness.” Udayin therefore swept and cleaned his room, beautifully arranged the bed and seats, and then took a small stool and sat in an open place.

At that time, some women came to visit the grounds and said to Udayin, “We have come here wishing to see the dwellings.” Udayin replied, “Sisters, you may look around as you please.” Udayin then led them into his room, closed the door, opened the window, and touched them in various ways: grasping them, embracing them, squeezing them, stroking them, lifting them up, setting them down, carrying them astride his shoulders, or carrying them on his back.

Among them, those who enjoyed it said, “Why do you not perform the principal act instead of doing these ancillary things?” Udayin said, “The Buddha does not permit me to perform that principal act.”

Those who did not enjoy it angrily said, “Until now, this place has been called a place of safety, but it has instead become a place of terror. Even fire blazing up in water would not compare with this strange occurrence. A householder living at home would still be ashamed to do such a thing; why, then, does a bhikkhu commit such an evil deed?”

They immediately returned home, and each of them denounced and disparaged what had happened. Those lacking faith who took no delight in the Buddha’s teaching freely criticized and reviled them: “We householders make physical contact with women, and the Sakyan ascetics do likewise. Their heads have been shaved in vain; how, then, are they any different from us?

They do not practice the conduct of ascetics; they destroy the Dharma of ascetics.” Such ill repute spread throughout the land. There was also a brahmin who took his wife to visit the grounds. In due course, they came to Udayin’s room and said, “My wife and I wish to enter and see the dwelling.” Udayin said, “You may not both enter at the same time.

You may enter one before the other.” The brahmin said, “If we may not enter together, let my wife enter first.” The wife entered the room, and Udayin again subjected her to all the various kinds of physical contact described before. Only after a very long time did the woman emerge from the room. Her husband asked her, “What were you doing that took so long?

Do you not wish to go and see the other dwellings?” His wife said, “Enough! Enough! Do not speak of it anymore.

I entered only one room and barely escaped alive. Would you have me endure the same ordeal while viewing the other rooms?!” Her husband asked the reason, and his wife related the facts exactly as they had occurred. At once, the brahmin denounced him, saying, “What an evil deed!

Why would a Sakyan ascetic act in this way?” He entered the city of Sravasti and, at crossroads, marketplaces, villages, and throughout every remote alley and lane, loudly proclaimed: “A Sakyan ascetic has improperly touched my wife.” Those who had no faith in the Buddha’s teaching freely reviled the Sakyan ascetics, saying, “They commit such evil conduct; why do they call themselves pure practitioners of the holy life?” When the elder bhikkhus heard this, they reproached Udayin in various ways and then reported the entire matter to the Buddha.

On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and asked Udayin:

– Is it true that you acted in this way?

Udayin replied:

– Venerable Blessed One, it is indeed true.

The Buddha sternly reproached him and then told the bhikkhus:

– For the sake of ten benefits, I shall lay down a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be stated as follows: “If a bhikkhu, impelled by sensual desire and with a perverted mind, makes physical contact with a woman—whether grasping her hand, stroking her hair, grasping any part of her body, rubbing or touching her, and delighting in her softness—he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.”

Impelled by sensual desire and with a perverted mind means directing the mind toward sensual desire and giving rise to an intense intention, through which the act is brought about, transforming a wholesome or indeterminate state into an unwholesome state.

Woman: A female person, including a newborn infant.
Touching: Touching any place on the body, by any manner of stroking or feeling, even so much as a single strand of hair. There are five circumstances in which a bhikkhu who touches the body of a woman commits Sanghadisesa: she is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, she lives as a woman, his mind is lustfully attached to women, and, out of intimate affection, he strokes or touches her, experiences the contact, and accepts it; the same applies even to touching her hair.

In five circumstances, touching a woman constitutes a Thullaccaya offense: she is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, she lives as a woman, and, without intimate affection, he strokes or touches her, experiences the contact, and accepts it; the same applies even to touching her hair. The same applies when a woman touches a bhikkhu. In five circumstances, touching a woman is not an offense: she is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, she lives as a woman, his mind is lustfully attached to women, but there is no intention of intimacy; when any such woman seizes the bhikkhu, the bhikkhu endeavors to free himself, and although he experiences the sensation and contact, he does not accept it; the same applies even to contact with her hair.

Furthermore, in the cases of a woman perceived as a woman, a woman about whom there is doubt whether she is a woman, a woman without sexual organs perceived as a woman, and an intersex person perceived as a woman, touching constitutes Sanghadisesa. If a woman is perceived as a man or as a pandaka, touching constitutes Thullaccaya. If a man is perceived as a man, there is doubt whether he is a man, or a man is perceived as a pandaka, touching constitutes Dukkata.

If a man is perceived as a woman, a sexless man, or an intersex man, touching constitutes Thullaccaya. The same applies to a pandaka. If a sexless person is perceived as sexless, there is doubt whether that person is sexless, a sexless person is perceived as intersex, or a sexless person is perceived as a woman, touching constitutes Sanghadisesa.

If a sexless person is perceived as a man or as a pandaka, touching constitutes Thullaccaya. The same applies to an intersex person. If a bhikkhu and a woman touch each other when neither is clothed, it constitutes Sanghadisesa.

If he touches a clothed woman, it constitutes Thullaccaya. If a woman takes hold of an unclothed bhikkhu, it constitutes Sanghadisesa; if she takes hold of a clothed bhikkhu, it constitutes Thullaccaya. If a bhikkhu and a woman, both clothed, take hold of one another, it constitutes Dukkata.

If a bhikkhu takes hold of a woman’s garment and the woman lets the garment go to the bhikkhu, it constitutes Thullaccaya. If a woman takes hold of a bhikkhu’s robe and the bhikkhu does not let the robe go to her, it constitutes Dukkata. If a bhikkhu touches a dead female, who is no longer a woman, it constitutes Thullaccaya.

Taking hold of a female animal constitutes Dukkata. For a samanera, it constitutes Dukkata.
The second rule is concluded.
The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time, the Elder Udayin, consumed by the fire of lust, thought: “The Blessed One has prohibited intentionally emitting semen and touching a woman’s body. I should now devise another means: I shall speak lewd words to women in order to seek pleasure in sensual desire.” With this thought, Udayin swept and cleaned his room and then sat in an open place.

When a woman came to view the grounds, he led her into his room and closed the door, as previously described. Inside the room, Udayin spoke lewdly to the woman, brazenly asking: “What are your hands, feet, calves, wrists, waist, belly, neck, breasts, head, face, fingernails, hair, and passages for excrement and urine like?” He would also say: “Young lady, your hands and feet, down to your passages for excrement and urine, are ugly in every respect!” He would also say: “Young lady, your hands and feet, down to your passages for excrement and urine, are beautiful in every respect!” He would further ask: “When your husband has intercourse with you, how does he caress you?

If you comply with my wishes, I will give you jewels. If you need anything, let me know. All the deities bear witness to my sincerity.” On hearing this, some women were pleased and others displeased, reacting as previously described.

When the elder bhikkhus heard of this, they reproached him in every way and reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked Udayin:
“Did you truly do this?”
Udayin replied:
“Blessed One, I did.”
After reproaching him, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:
“For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu, driven by lust and with his mind perverted, addresses a woman with lewd words concerning sexual intercourse, he commits Sanghadisesa.’”
Cases constituting an offense are: disparaging, praising, soliciting, asking, asking again, and instructing. There are five conditions under which a bhikkhu who speaks lewd words to a woman commits an offense: she is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, she lives as a woman, his mind is lustfully attached to women, and, out of intimate affection, he speaks to her, from disparagement and praise through instruction. If she clearly understands, he commits Sanghadisesa; if she does not clearly understand, he commits Thullaccaya.
Disparaging: He disparages a woman’s three places as small or large, or as ugly in form and appearance. Praising: He praises a woman’s three places as neither small nor large, and as beautiful in form and appearance. Soliciting: He approaches a woman and asks for her three places, saying: “If you can give them to me, I can act according to your wishes.” Wishing: “I wish to obtain your three places; whoever obtains your three places is blessed and happy.” Asking: He asks, for example: “With regard to your three places, where does your husband engage in sexual intercourse?

What does he do, and when?” Asking again: He asks, for example: “Does your husband not do this with your three places?” Instructing: He teaches, for example: “If you use your three places to satisfy a man’s wishes, you will win that man’s affection.” The cases of a woman perceived as a woman, through an intersex person perceived as intersex, are all as stated above. There are also five other means: sending a messenger, writing a letter, making signs, gesturing with the hands, and speaking words with an analogous meaning.

If she clearly understands, he commits Thullaccaya; if she does not clearly understand, he commits Dukkata. If a bhikkhu speaks lewd words face-to-face with a woman and she understands, he commits Sanghadisesa; if she does not understand, he commits Thullaccaya. If he speaks lewd words to a female nonhuman being, he commits Thullaccaya.

If he speaks lewd words to a female animal, he commits Dukkata. For a samanera, it constitutes Dukkata.
The third rule is concluded.
The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time, the Elder Udayin, consumed by the fire of lust, thought: “The Buddha has already laid down prohibitions against intentionally emitting semen, touching a woman’s body, and speaking lewd words to a woman. I should now praise to women the offering of their bodies in order to seek pleasurable gratification.” Udayin again swept and cleaned his room and did everything as above.

Then, inside the room, he said to a woman: “Young lady! Your offerings to sramanas and brahmins, even to those who have entered meditative absorption and attained the four fruits of the path, cannot equal the offering of sexual intercourse to one who observes the precepts.” On hearing this, some women were pleased and others displeased... up to the statement that the Buddha reproached him in every way, as described above.

After reproaching him, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:
“For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu, driven by lust and with his mind perverted, praises to a woman the offering of her body, saying, “Young lady, an offering of sexual intercourse is the foremost offering,” he commits Sanghadisesa.’”
If, by various means, he speaks in praise of offering the body for sexual intercourse, each utterance constitutes Dukkata. If he says, “Nothing equals offering sexual intercourse,” each utterance constitutes Thullaccaya. If he says, “An offering of sexual intercourse is the foremost offering,” he commits Sanghadisesa. There are five conditions for praising the offering of one’s own body: she is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, she is a woman who lives as a woman, his mind is lustfully attached to women, and, out of intimate affection, he says: “An offering of sexual intercourse is the foremost offering,”

if that person understands clearly, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if he does not understand clearly, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. Regarding a woman, perceiving her as a woman, up to one possessing both sexual organs, perceiving that person as possessing both sexual organs; sending someone, up to speaking in a similar manner; speaking face-to-face with a woman; addressing a female nonhuman being or a female animal—all are as stated above. A novice commits a Dukkata offense.
Here ends the fourth rule.

– The Buddha was staying in the city of Sravasti. At that time there was a householder named Kaludayin, who was intelligent, keen-witted, and skilled in resolving people's doubts. In the city of Sravasti, whenever any matter arose, even a marriage, everyone would come to seek his counsel. If Kaludayin said it could be done, they did it; if he said it could not be done, they did not. If the outcome was good, they would say: “It was thanks to Kaludayin that they obtained this result. What should we do so that Kaludayin may be as happy as we are?” If the outcome was bad, they would likewise say: “It was because of Kaludayin that we have come to such a plight. How can we make Kaludayin suffer as we do?” Thus, praise and blame concerning Kaludayin filled the entire country. Later, out of faith, Kaludayin went forth to learn the Way. Those needing his counsel increased day by day and month by month, and even King Prasenajit personally came to consult him about affairs of state. Expressions of delight and anger resounded twice as loudly as before.

At that time there was a widow whose daughter was the most beautiful woman in the region. Many men came to seek her hand in marriage, but the widow refused them all. She said that if anyone wished to marry her daughter, he must reside permanently in her household as a son-in-law; only then would she give her daughter to him.
Now there was a wealthy brahmin whose riches were beyond measure. He said to the widow: “If you allow your daughter to marry my son, she will live happily.”
The widow gave the same reply as before.
Having been refused, the brahmin made inquiries among the people to learn who regularly visited the widow's house.
Someone told him: “The samana Kaludayin frequently visits that house.”
The brahmin then invited Kaludayin to his home and regularly made offerings to him. After they had become close, the brahmin presented the matter to him: “I wish to obtain the daughter of Lady... as a wife for my son. Venerable Sir, please speak on my behalf.”
Kaludayin then put on his robe, took up his bowl, and went to the widow's house. The widow came out at once, paid homage, and greeted him. Kaludayin said: “Could you give your daughter in marriage to the son of Mr. ___? His family is wealthy, and your daughter will certainly live happily.” The widow gave the same reply as before.
Kaludayin again said: “If you do not give this daughter in marriage and, when she grows older, the opportunity passes her by, she will no longer obey you. Why lose both your daughter and a good son-in-law?”
Upon hearing this, the widow agreed. Kaludayin returned to the prospective bridegroom's family with the good news. The marriage was concluded. After entering her husband's household, the young woman endured many hardships, so she wrote a letter asking her mother to speak to her husband's family and request that she be given some respite.
Her mother told her: “Kaludayin must be asked to speak about this matter.”
The following day, Kaludayin came to the widow's house. She told him of all her daughter's sufferings and said: “It was through the Venerable Sir that this marriage came about. Venerable Sir, please go and speak on my behalf.”
Kaludayin replied: “Your daughter lacks merit, and that is why she has encountered such suffering. If she possessed merit, how could matters have come to this? The discipline of a samana does not permit me to concern myself with such affairs of laypeople.”
The widow immediately reviled him: “Formerly you concerned yourself with people's affairs, but now you say you know nothing of them. An evil man like you will come to no good in the end!” She screamed abuse in every way, using exceedingly bitter words to insult Kaludayin.
When the neighbors heard her, they all came to dissuade her, saying: “It is because your daughter has little merit that she endures so much suffering. What has that to do with this samana, that you should revile him so harshly?”
The widow said: “You know nothing. It was because this samana persuaded me to give my daughter in marriage that my child now suffers so greatly.”
Then those who lacked faith in the Buddha's Dharma all spoke sarcastically: “You trusted a samana, so it serves you right that your daughter suffers! If anyone still trusts their words, let this be a lesson in what such trust brings!”
People further reviled them: “We are householders, and matchmaking is something we commonly do. The samanas, the sons of the Sakyan, do the same. Since they perform such ordinary worldly deeds, what difference is there between them and us, apart from their shaven heads and robes of dull color?”
This ill repute spread far and wide. When the elder bhikkhus heard of it, they rebuked Kaludayin in every way and then went together to the Buddha and reported what had happened. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked Kaludayin:

– “Did you truly do this?”

Kaludayin replied:

– “Yes, Blessed One, it is true.”

After rebuking him in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

– “For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If any bhikkhu acts as a matchmaker, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’”

At that time, wealthy men in the city of Sravasti wished to engage in illicit relations with mature unmarried women in the city. They were ashamed to express their wishes themselves and could find no one to act for them, so they said to the group of six bhikkhus: “Venerable Sirs, could you speak to them on our behalf? Whatever you require, we shall provide.

Whether for a day and a night, or even for a single meeting, what would the price be?” The group of six bhikkhus then went to the women and explicitly conveyed the matter stated above. Those who saw or learned of this conduct all spread the report: “The samanas, the sons of the Sakyan, claim to cultivate the pure life. Why, then, do they now engage in this evil occupation?

The culmination of disgrace is to cooperate with those who practice sexual misconduct; they are no householders. These samanas have not the slightest sense of shame!”
When the elder bhikkhus heard this, they rebuked them in every way and brought them before the Buddha, reporting the matter to him. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked the group of six bhikkhus:

– “Did you truly do this?”

The group of six bhikkhus replied:

– “Yes, Blessed One, it is true.”

After rebuking them in every way, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

– “From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu acts as a matchmaker or facilitates an illicit liaison, conveying a man's intention to a woman or a woman's intention to a man, even if only for a single meeting, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.’”

There are ten classes of men and ten classes of women. The ten classes of women are: one protected by her parents, one protected by her elder brothers or sisters, one protected by relatives, one under her own protection, one protected by the Dharma, one who acts according to her own wishes, one who has accepted clothing, one bound by a mutual pledge, one who has a husband, and one who serves as a messenger of agreement.

“Protected by her parents” means a woman who has parents, whose parents possess the authority to arrange her marriage and decide for her. The same applies to one protected by elder brothers or sisters, or by relatives. “Under her own protection” means that she is independent: she herself decides whom she accepts or does not accept.

“Protected by the Dharma” means that, in accordance with the true Dharma, she has gone forth to cultivate the pure life. “Acts according to her own wishes” means that she follows her own preference. “Clothing” means that she has accepted clothing from another person.

“Bound by a mutual pledge” means that she has exchanged a promise with someone. “Has a husband” means a married woman. “Serves as a messenger of agreement” means accepting a person's written message and conveying an agreement for a day, a month, or even a single meeting.

The ten classes of men are likewise.
If a bhikkhu accepts a request from a man protected by his parents, he commits a Dukkata offense. If he speaks to a woman protected by her parents, up to a woman who serves as a messenger of agreement, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If she does not consent and he returns to report this, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If she agrees to marry and he returns to report this, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If a bhikkhu accepts the words of a man protected by his parents and speaks to a woman protected by her parents, and the woman says: “You may speak to my parents,” and the bhikkhu takes these words back to convey

words, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If a man under the protection of his parents further asks the bhikkhu to speak to the parents of that woman, and he accepts this request, he commits a Dukkata offense. If he speaks to the woman’s parents but they do not consent, and he returns and reports this, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; if they consent and he returns and reports this, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If he accepts the request of a man under the protection of his parents and speaks to a woman under the protection of her elder brothers, elder sisters, or relatives, it is likewise. This applies in the same way up to accepting the request of a betrothed man and speaking to a woman under the protection of her parents, and up to speaking to a betrothed woman. If a bhikkhu accepts the request of a woman under the protection of her parents, up to that of a betrothed woman, and speaks to a man under the protection of his parents, up to a betrothed man, it is likewise.

There are six modes of communication: speaking oneself, sending another to speak, communicating by letter, having one person send another to speak, speaking indirectly, and making signs. If a bhikkhu personally accepts a request, personally speaks to the other party, and personally returns with the reply, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If a bhikkhu personally accepts a request, sends someone to speak to the other party, and has that person bring back the reply, in every case he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If he personally accepts the request and proceeds up to making signs to the other party and receiving the reply through signs, it is likewise. If a bhikkhu accepts a request communicated by signs, it is likewise.

If a bhikkhu acts as a matchmaker for either the man’s side or the woman’s side, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If he acts for a human man as matchmaker with a nonhuman female, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he acts for a human man as matchmaker with a female animal, he commits a Dukkata offense.

The same applies when acting for a woman. If he acts for a nonhuman male as matchmaker with a human woman, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he acts for a male animal as matchmaker with a human woman, he commits a Dukkata offense.

If he acts for a woman as matchmaker with a pandaka, he commits a Dukkata offense. If a bhikkhu procures a woman for a man or a man for a woman for prolonged service, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. The same applies to a bhikkhuni.

A sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri commits a Dukkata offense. There is no offense when it is done to bring about reconciliation.

Here ends the fifth rule.

The Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhus in the village of Atavi solicited materials for building dwellings. They asked householders for carts, or the value of carts; they asked for laborers, or the value of labor; and they asked for every kind of timber, bamboo, and reed. The householders became thoroughly weary of them and avoided them whenever they saw a bhikkhu. When the bhikkhus could no longer obtain anything by asking, they themselves began cutting down trees, clearing grass, and digging earth for building materials.

A venerable bhikkhu personally cut down a tree belonging to a deity. As the deity’s young child was playing in the tree, one of the child’s fingers was severed. The tree deity was overwhelmed with grief, and an evil thought arose in him: he wanted to strike the bhikkhu. But he immediately reconsidered: “This bhikkhu possesses great spiritual authority. If I strike him and accidentally kill him, I will certainly fall into prolonged darkness and undergo manifold suffering.” The deity then thought, “The Blessed One is now dwelling in this city. I should go and report this matter to him, and I will practice according to whatever the Buddha teaches.” The deity immediately went to Jetavana and reported the whole matter to the Buddha. The Buddha at once praised the tree deity:

“Well done! Well done! You have given rise to such a wholesome thought! This bhikkhu truly possesses great spiritual authority. Had you struck him, you would certainly have undergone a painful retribution.”

The Buddha further told the tree deity:

“In that region there is a very large tree that does not yet belong to anyone. You may go and dwell there.”

Having accepted this instruction, the tree deity departed. Because of this incident, while journeying on tour, the Buddha gradually made his way to the village of Atavi.

Early in the morning, the Elder Mahakasyapa donned his robe, took his bowl, and entered the village for alms. Because of the foregoing matter, all the householders avoided him when they saw him. The Elder found this strange and asked some travelers about it. They replied, “The bhikkhus here have been insatiably soliciting materials to build dwellings. The people of the village have been deeply troubled and distressed; that is why they avoid the Venerable One when they see him.” After taking his meal, the Venerable Mahakasyapa returned to the Buddha and reported the matter to him. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and asked them:

“Is it true that you have acted in this way?”

The bhikkhus replied:

“Blessed One, it is true.”

The Buddha reproached them in many ways and said:

“You should cultivate fewness of desires and contentment. You should not make so many insatiable requests.”

The Buddha further told the bhikkhus:

“In a past life, a seer dwelt in a stone cave beside the Ganges River. At that time, every day a naga king emerged from the water, circled the seer seven times, and bowed his head up and down to show his reverence. Later, the seer went wandering among the people, leaving his disciple to look after the cave. As before, the naga came every day to show his reverence, but the disciple was so terrified that he became severely weak and emaciated.

“At that time, I was practicing the bodhisattva path and journeying along the banks of the Ganges. When I witnessed this, I asked the reason, and the seer’s disciple disclosed the truth to me. I then asked, ‘Do you now wish never to see that naga again?’ The disciple replied, ‘That is so.’ I asked, ‘Have you noticed anything beneath the naga’s neck?’ The disciple said, ‘There is a mani jewel.’ I told him, ‘When the naga comes, place your palms together toward him and express this wish: “I now need the mani jewel beneath your neck. Please give it to me.”’

“The seer’s disciple remembered my instruction. As soon as the naga emerged from the water, he asked it for the precious jewel. On hearing the request for the precious jewel, the naga stood completely motionless and remained silent. The seer’s disciple then spoke this verse to the naga king:

“The naga replied in verse:

“The Blessed One then cited this former event and spoke this verse:

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“The naga king, undergoing the natural result of his karma, was still displeased to hear the sound of a request. Household loders today must labor painfully and arduously before they acquire their wealth. Why do you fail to understand this and continue to make requests again and again?”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Formerly, when I was dwelling in the city of Sravasti, a bhikkhu came to me after completing the rains retreat. I asked him, ‘Where did you spend the rains retreat? Was your retreat peaceful? Was almsfood easy to obtain? Was your journey tiring?’

“That bhikkhu replied, ‘I spent the rains retreat in a forest on the slopes of the Snow Mountains. The retreat was peaceful, almsfood was easy to obtain, and the journey was not tiring. My only concern was that the birds made a great commotion at night, so I could not maintain focused mindfulness while seated in meditation.’

“I asked that bhikkhu, ‘Would you still like to enjoy dwelling in that forest?’

“The bhikkhu replied, ‘Blessed One, I like it very much.’

“I said, ‘Return to that place. At dusk, when the birds fly back, place your palms together toward them and say, “I now need your wing feathers; please give them to me.” Say the same thing at midnight and again in the latter part of the night.’

“That bhikkhu acted according to my instruction. Throughout the night, the birds discussed among themselves: ‘Now’

“This bhikkhu asks this of us. Should we give it to him or not?” They all said, “We cannot give it,” and then flew away, never to return.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Even birds dislike hearing the sound of requests; how much more so human beings!”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“In a past age, there was a king named Kasi who delighted in giving alms and providing for the poor and distressed. At that time, there was a brahmin whom the king greatly cherished and esteemed, but who had never come to ask the king for anything. The king then spoke this verse:

The brahmin replied in verse:

The king again spoke in verse:

The brahmin replied in verse:

“When the king heard this verse concerning the virtuous person, his heart was filled with joy. He immediately presented the virtuous brahmin with one royal bull and one thousand other cattle.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Although the relationship between the king and the brahmin was exceedingly close, it was still difficult for such extensive requests to arise. How much more inappropriate is it, then, to make many requests of householders who have no affection or reverence for you?”

The Buddha further told the bhikkhus:

“Long ago, there was a son of a distinguished family named Ratthapala. His parents dearly loved him, yet after going forth he never asked them for anything. Astonished, his parents asked their son in verse:

“Ratthapala replied in verse:

“Bhikkhus, although Ratthapala was dearly loved by his parents, he used his going forth as a reason not to return and ask them for anything. How much more inappropriate is it, then, to make so many requests of householders who have no close relationship with you?”

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

“For the sake of ten benefits, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus. From now on, this precept shall be recited as follows: ‘If a bhikkhu personally solicits materials to build a dwelling for himself, without a donor, it must conform to the prescribed dimensions: twelve Buddha-spans in length and seven Buddha-spans in width. He should invite the bhikkhus to designate the site. The bhikkhus must designate a site that is unobstructed and has an approach. If he does not invite the bhikkhus to designate the site, or if he builds beyond the prescribed dimensions, he commits a Sanghavasesa offense.’

Personally solicits: A bhikkhu goes to others and asks on his own behalf.

Dwelling: A place where one may walk, stand, sit, and lie down, conducting oneself in accordance with the four deportments.

Without a donor: There is no person who makes an offering.

For himself: For himself personally, not for another person and not for the Sangha.

Invite the bhikkhus to designate the site: This means inviting bhikkhus who know the Dharma and uphold the Vinaya to designate a site for him.

The bhikkhus should designate a site that is unobstructed and has an approach: An obstructed site is one at a crossroads; a place where many people gather and amuse themselves; a place of prostitutes; a marketplace; a place where cattle roam; a place frequented by lions, tigers, wolves, or other wild beasts; a riverbank eroded by water; a place with a great tree that is venerated; a place with fine fields or gardens; a burial ground; a place too near to or too far from a village; or a place with a dangerous approach. Such places are called obstructed sites. A place free from all the foregoing dangers is called an unobstructed site.

A site with an approach: A place surrounded by a road on which carts can travel. Such a place is called a site with an approach. A place that has any of the aforementioned obstructions is a site without an approach. When designating a site, the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu, ‘Venerable, you should not build at this place.’ If the site has none of the aforementioned obstructions and is surrounded by an accessible road, the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu, ‘Venerable, you may select this place for construction.’ The bhikkhu concerned must go before the Sangha and request the designation of a building site. He should bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, kneel, place his palms together, and make this formal request before the Sangha:

‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named _, am personally soliciting materials to build a dwelling for myself, without a donor. I now come to request that the Sangha designate a site. May the Sangha here present designate a site for me.’

He should make this request three times. The Sangha should appoint one bhikkhu to make the formal motion:

‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. This bhikkhu named is personally soliciting materials to build a dwelling for himself, without a donor, and has now come to request the Sangha to designate a site. The Sangha will now designate for the bhikkhu named a site that is unobstructed and has an approach. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent. This is the motion.

‘Venerable Sangha, please listen. This bhikkhu named is personally soliciting materials to build a dwelling for himself, without a donor, and has now come to request the Sangha to designate a site. The Sangha will now designate for the bhikkhu named a site that is unobstructed and has an approach. Let those elders who consent remain silent; anyone who does not consent should speak.

‘The Sangha has designated for the bhikkhu named _ a site that is unobstructed and has an approach. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. This matter shall be carried out accordingly.’

If the Sangha designates an obstructed site without an approach, the Sangha commits a dukkata offense. The same applies if the dwelling is erected on such an obstructed site. If he does not invite the bhikkhus to designate a site, then from the moment he conceives the plan to build, through marking out the plot and making a preliminary inspection of the ground, each action constitutes a dukkata offense. If he carefully prepares the ground for the foundation, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When the dwelling is completed, he commits a Sanghavasesa offense. If it is made of various metals, silver, or precious jewels, or constructed of tiles or bricks, or even built on land belonging to the Sangha, each case constitutes a thullaccaya offense. A samanera commits a dukkata offense.

The sixth precept is concluded.

THE FIVE-PART VINAYA OF THE MAHISASAKA SCHOOL