彌沙塞部和醯五分律

DHARMAGUPTAKA FIVE-PART VINAYA — VOLUME 23

FASCICLE 23
Part 4: ON THE DHARMA FOR SETTLING DISPUTES AND KARMAVĀCANĀ

Section 1: ON THE DHARMA FOR SETTLING DISPUTES

The Buddha was staying in the city of Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikkhus disputed and litigated with one another. Bhikkhus disputed with bhikkhus, bhikkhus with bhikkhunis, bhikkhunis with bhikkhunis, and bhikkhunis with bhikkhus. At that time, Chanda abandoned the bhikkhus and supported the bhikkhunis. When litigation had not yet arisen, he stirred matters up and caused it to arise; when litigation had already arisen, he aggravated it further; when it had not yet been settled, he prevented it from being settled; and when it had already been settled, he caused it to arise again. The bhikkhus reported this matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and asked the bhikkhus:

– Is it true that you have acted in this way?

The bhikkhus replied:

– Blessed One, it is indeed true.

The Buddha reproached them in every way:

– What you have done is contrary to the Dharma and is not in accordance with the Way.

Having reproached them, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

– From now on, when a bhikkhu disputes with a bhikkhu... up to and including abandoning the bhikkhus and supporting the bhikkhunis, each such act constitutes a duṣkṛta offense.

There are four kinds of dispute:
1. Arising from speech.
2. Arising from admonition.
3. Arising from an offense.
4. Arising from a matter.
On account of these matters, the Buddha established for the bhikkhus the seven methods for settling disputes. When disputes arise, they may be settled by these methods:
1. When the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties should be conferred, the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties is to be conferred.
2. When the Vinaya procedure of mindfulness should be conferred, the Vinaya procedure of mindfulness is to be conferred.
3. When the Vinaya procedure of declaring one no longer insane should be conferred, the Vinaya procedure of declaring one no longer insane is to be conferred.
4. When the procedure based on one’s own acknowledgment should be conferred, the procedure based on one’s own acknowledgment is to be conferred.
5. When the procedure based on the decision of the majority should be conferred, the procedure based on the decision of the majority is to be conferred.
6. When the procedure of covering over as with grass should be conferred, the procedure of covering over as with grass is to be conferred.
7. When the procedure of dealing with one according to one’s original statement should be conferred, the procedure of dealing with one according to one’s original statement is to be conferred.
What is called a dispute arising from speech? If bhikkhus dispute with one another, some saying that something is Dharma while others say it is not Dharma; that it is Vinaya while others say it is not Vinaya; that it is an offense while others say it is not an offense; that it is grave while others say it is not grave; that it has a remainder while others say it has no remainder; that it is a gross offense while others say it is not a gross offense; that a karmavācanā is required for rehabilitation from the offense while others say that no karmavācanā is required; that it was taught by the Buddha while others say it was not taught by the Buddha;

or that it was established by the Buddha while others say it was not established by the Buddha—and thereby they become angry and revile one another—this is called a dispute arising from speech.
What is called a dispute arising from admonition? A bhikkhu admonishes another bhikkhu, saying: “Do you remember committing a pārājika offense? Do you remember committing a saṅghāvaśeṣa, sthūlātyaya, pāyantika, pratideśanīya, duṣkṛta, or offense of wrong speech?” The other bhikkhu is displeased and refuses to accept the admonition, thereby giving rise to a dispute. This is called a dispute arising from admonition.
What is called a dispute arising from an offense? A bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense, down to an offense of wrong speech. Moreover, because of a dispute, the parties rebuke one another, causing evil to issue forth through body, speech, and mind. This is called a dispute arising from an offense.
What is called a dispute arising from a matter? All acts of the Sangha, including karmavācanās and other necessary proceedings, may give rise to disputes. This is called a dispute arising from a matter.
Venerable Upāli asked the Buddha:

– Blessed One, by how many procedures is a dispute arising from speech settled?

The Buddha said:

– It is settled by the Vinaya procedure of settlement in the presence of the parties and by the decision of the majority.

He further asked:

– How is it settled?

The Buddha said:

– If a bhikkhu disputes with another bhikkhu over whether something is Dharma or not Dharma, and so forth, up to whether it was established by the Buddha or was not established by the Buddha, the Sangha should settle the matter in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching. If the other party says, “This is Dharma; this is the Buddha’s teaching,” and accepts that this is what must be acquiesced in, it is called settlement by the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties.

What is called “in the presence”? There are three kinds of presence: the presence of the Sangha, the presence of the individuals, and the presence of the Vinaya. What is called the presence of the Sangha? When the Sangha has assembled in harmony, this is called the presence of the Sangha. What is called the presence of the individuals? When the persons engaged in the dispute are present, this is called the presence of the individuals. What is called the presence of the Vinaya? Whatever Dharma, Vinaya, or teaching of the Buddha should be used to settle the matter is used to settle it; this is called the presence of the Vinaya. If the matter has been settled in this way and anyone reopens it, that person commits a pāyantika offense.
Furthermore, if a dispute arising from speech has been settled in this way, but the settlement does not satisfy the bhikkhus or cause them to accept it, then one, two, or three bhikkhus—or even an entire assembly—from another residence, who are intelligent, wise, and thoroughly understand the Prātimokṣa, should thoughtfully and responsibly come to settle the matter. Since this is a wholesome undertaking, they should come to settle it.

First they should approach that assembly. A bhikkhu who knows the Dharma should set forth the origins and details of the matter, after which he should request that the Sangha assemble. When the Sangha has assembled, it should say to the disputant: “Venerable sir, please withdraw.

We shall discuss your matter among ourselves.” After that bhikkhu has withdrawn, the Sangha should deliberate together. If that bhikkhu has truthfully requested us to settle the matter according to the Dharma and the Vinaya, we should together settle it according to the Dharma and the Vinaya. If that bhikkhu has not spoken truthfully, we must not settle it according to the Dharma and the Vinaya.
The disputing bhikkhus should also deliberate: “If the Sangha, in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya and in a manner appropriate to the matter, will settle our matter today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, we should fully present to the Sangha the origin and details of the matter and ask the Sangha to settle it.” The parties then enter the Sangha and present the entire matter. There are two positions the Sangha may put forward: some may say that it should be this way, while others may say that it should not be this way.

If no decision can be reached, the Sangha should say: “From among the proponents of these two positions, let each side invite four persons to serve as adjudicators.” After the Sangha has told each side of the disputing bhikkhus to invite four persons, the Sangha must appoint them by a motion followed by one proclamation. First, three persons from each side should be appointed twice by karmavācanā, and afterward the remaining two persons should be appointed.
One bhikkhu should proclaim:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints Bhikkhu... and Bhikkhu... as adjudicators to settle that dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha approve. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha now appoints Bhikkhu... and Bhikkhu... as adjudicators to settle that dispute in accordance with the Dharma and the Vinaya. Those elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.
“The Sangha has appointed Bhikkhu... and Bhikkhu..., and so forth, as adjudicators. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand and uphold this matter.”
This is called settling a dispute arising from speech by the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties.
At that time, the bhikkhus appointed an ignorant bhikkhu as an adjudicator and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “One endowed with five qualities should be appointed: he calmly takes note of the words of others; he does not become angry; he remembers well what others say; he carefully examines the meaning of their words; when questioned, he speaks, and when not questioned, he does not speak; and when speaking, he does not laugh.

One possessing the opposite of these five qualities should not be appointed. Again, one endowed with five qualities should be appointed: he does not act out of desire, anger, delusion, or fear, and he does not speak secretly. One possessing the opposite of these five qualities should not be appointed.

If one, two, or three bhikkhus have not been appointed by the Sangha, then even if they are intelligent and wise and sit upon a high seat, should they seek to disrupt the adjudication, the Sangha should ask them to leave.”

There was also a bhikkhu who, though he had recited and learned much, did not clearly understand the meaning and wished to cause confusion for those adjudicating the matter. The adjudicators should say: “The meaning of the sutra is not so.” Applying this method to settle the dispute is called settling it by the Vinaya in the Presence.

If, when this method is being used to settle the dispute, a bhikkhu says, “This matter should be settled by the words of the majority,” the Sangha should say: “What you say is good, but do you clearly understand the words of the majority?” If he says that he does not understand them clearly, each member of the Sangha should rebuke him: “You do not clearly understand the words of the majority; why, then, do you say that this matter should be settled by the words of the majority?” If the Sangha does not rebuke him, they all commit a Dukkata offense. If he says that he understands clearly, the Sangha should ask: “What manner of procedure is called the words of the majority?” He should answer: “The matter is settled by a formal act concerning the words of the majority.”

They should further ask: “How does one know which side has the majority?” He should answer: “Ballots should be cast.” The Sangha should then ask: “What you say is good, but do you clearly understand how many methods of casting ballots accord with the Dharma and how many do not accord with the Dharma?” If he says that he does not know, the Sangha should rebuke him as above. If he says that he knows, the Sangha should instruct him to state the ten improper and the ten proper methods of casting ballots.

What are the ten improper methods? Casting ballots over a minor matter; casting ballots without clearly understanding the issue; casting ballots without thoroughly investigating the root of the issue; casting ballots in support of what is contrary to the Dharma; casting ballots with the desire that those supporting what is improper should be more numerous; casting ballots while knowing that those supporting what is improper are more numerous; casting ballots in order to cause a schism in the Sangha; casting ballots while knowing that doing so will cause a schism in the Sangha; casting ballots without following a spiritual friend; and casting ballots when the Sangha is not in harmony. The opposites of these ten are the proper methods.

One who possesses fourteen qualities should be appointed by the Sangha to administer the ballots: he knows the ten proper methods and does not act out of desire, anger, delusion, or fear. These are the fourteen qualities.

The Sangha should prepare two kinds of ballots, one representing what accords with the Dharma and the other what does not accord with the Dharma. It should be announced: “Those who maintain that it accords with the Dharma should take a ballot representing accordance with the Dharma; those who maintain that it does not accord with the Dharma should take a ballot representing nonaccordance with the Dharma.” After this announcement, the balloting should begin. The ballot administrator should personally collect the ballots and then go to a secluded place to count them.

If the ballots representing what does not accord with the Dharma are more numerous, he should have those persons rise, move away from where the others are seated, and speak to them privately: “These are the Buddha’s teachings, words of Dharma, and words of Vinaya. Venerable ones, you should abandon what is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha’s teachings.” After saying this, he should conduct the balloting again. If those supporting what does not accord with the Dharma are still more numerous, he should announce: “The Sangha is presently unable to resolve this matter. You may disperse as you wish, and it will be resolved later. It should not be resolved contrary to the Dharma.”

If those supporting what accords with the Dharma are more numerous, the matter should be settled by a motion followed by one proclamation. A bhikkhu should announce:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha will now settle this dispute by the words of the majority. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The Sangha will now settle this dispute by the words of the majority. Those elders who consent should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.

“The Sangha has settled this dispute by the words of the majority. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

This is called settling a verbal dispute by the words of the majority.

Venerable Upali again asked the Buddha:

“By how many procedures is a dispute arising from admonition settled?”

The Buddha said:

“It is settled by the Vinaya in the Presence, the Vinaya of Mindfulness, the Vinaya of Non-Delusion, and discipline according to the original statement.”

Venerable Upali again asked:

“How is it settled?”

The Buddha said:

“If a bhikkhu asks another bhikkhu, ‘Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?’ and that bhikkhu replies, ‘I do not remember,’ and when asked a second and a third time still answers as he did the first time, the Sangha should grant that bhikkhu the Vinaya of Mindfulness through a motion followed by three proclamations and should not punish him.

“The bhikkhu who was questioned should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, reverently bow at the feet of the Sangha, kneel, and declare:

“‘I, the bhikkhu named..., was approached three times by the bhikkhu named..., who asked me: “Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?” I replied that I did not remember. I have therefore come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya of Mindfulness. May the Sangha grant me the Vinaya of Mindfulness so that he will no longer question me repeatedly.’ He should make this request a second and a third time in the same way.

“The Sangha should carefully consider whether this bhikkhu has previously been deficient in the precepts and whether his conduct has accorded with the Dharma; whether his bodily, verbal, and mental actions have been pure; and whether he has delighted in training in the precepts. One bhikkhu should question him, then two or three bhikkhus, and then the Sangha, to determine whether there are any contradictions in his statements.

After considering the matter in this way, if the Sangha knows that this bhikkhu has previously been deficient in the precepts and possessed all manner of unwholesome qualities, it should not grant him this procedure. If the Sangha knows that he did not commit the Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense, it should grant him the Vinaya of Mindfulness through a motion followed by three proclamations. A bhikkhu should announce:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... has come before the Sangha and stated: “The bhikkhu named... approached me three times and asked: ‘Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?’ I replied three times that I did not remember. I have now come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya of Mindfulness. May the Sangha grant me the Vinaya of Mindfulness so that the other bhikkhu will no longer come and question me repeatedly.” The Sangha will now grant the bhikkhu named... the Vinaya of Mindfulness so that the other bhikkhu will no longer come and question him repeatedly. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, may the Sangha consent. This is the motion.

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... has come before the Sangha and stated: “The bhikkhu named... approached me three times and asked: ‘Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?’ I replied three times that I did not remember. I have now come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya of Mindfulness.

May the Sangha grant me the Vinaya of Mindfulness so that the other bhikkhu will no longer come and question me repeatedly.” The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu named... the Vinaya of Mindfulness so that the other bhikkhu will no longer come and question him repeatedly concerning this offense. Those elders who consent should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak.’ This should be proclaimed a second and a third time in the same way.

“‘The Sangha has granted the bhikkhu named... the Vinaya of Mindfulness. The Sangha consents and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.’

“This is called settling a dispute arising from admonition by the Vinaya in the Presence and the Vinaya of Mindfulness.

“If a bhikkhu goes to another bhikkhu and asks, ‘Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?’ and that bhikkhu replies, ‘I do not remember. Formerly my mind was insane, distracted, and impaired by illness, and so I committed many acts unbefitting a śramaṇa,’ and when the other bhikkhu asks him three times he answers each time as he did the first, the Sangha should grant him the Vinaya of Non-Delusion and should not punish him. That bhikkhu should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, reverently bow at the feet of the Sangha, kneel, and declare:

“‘Venerable Sangha, please listen! I am the bhikkhu named.... The bhikkhu named... approached me three times and asked: “Do you remember committing the grave Parajika offense or a related Parajika offense?” I replied three times that I did not remember. Formerly my mind was insane, distracted, and impaired by illness, and so I committed many acts unbefitting a śramaṇa. I have now come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya of Non-Delusion. May the Sangha grant me the Vinaya of Non-Delusion so that the other bhikkhu will no longer come and question me repeatedly.’

Make the request thus three times. The Sangha should consider whether this bhikkhu formerly observed the precepts without deficiency and conducted himself in accordance with the Dharma; whether his bodily, verbal, and mental karma was pure; and whether he delighted in training in the precepts. One bhikkhu should question him, and then two or three bhikkhus and the Sangha should question him, to see whether there is any discrepancy in what he says. If the Sangha knows that this bhikkhu formerly committed evil deeds, it should not grant his request. If this is not the case, the Sangha should grant him the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion by a motion and three proclamations. One bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... has presented this matter to the Sangha: ‘That bhikkhu named... came to me three times and asked, “Do you remember committing the grave offense of parajika or an offense bordering on parajika?” Three times I replied, “I do not remember.” Formerly, because my mind was insane, distracted, and impaired by illness, I committed many acts unbecoming a samana. I now come before the Sangha to request the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion.

May the Sangha grant me the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion so that the other bhikkhu will cease repeatedly questioning me.’ The Sangha now grants him the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion so that the other bhikkhu will no longer question him about this offense. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... has presented this matter to the Sangha: ‘That bhikkhu named... came to me three times...’ and so forth, through: ‘The Sangha now grants him the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion so that the other bhikkhu will no longer question him about this offense.’ Those Venerable Ones who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.”

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

“The Sangha has granted the bhikkhu named... the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

This is called settling a dispute arising from admonition by means of the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties and the Vinaya procedure of non-delusion.

If a bhikkhu approaches another bhikkhu and asks, “Do you remember committing the grave offense of parajika or an offense bordering on parajika?” and the latter replies, “I do not remember,” but only after being questioned three times replies, “I remember committing a minor offense,” the first should ask him again, “You did not tell anyone even about the minor offense you committed, much less a grave offense. You should reflect carefully upon this!” The person concerned replies, “I have absolutely no recollection.” When questioned yet again, he finally replies, “I remember committing a parajika or an offense bordering on parajika.” Having replied thus, he then contrives to say, “I do not remember committing a grave offense;

I said it only in jest.” The Sangha should impose upon such a bhikkhu the disciplinary procedure based on his original statement.

The disciplinary procedure based on the original statement is of two kinds: one allows rehabilitation, and the other does not allow rehabilitation. Since that bhikkhu stated that he had committed a grave offense, the Sangha should impose upon him, by a motion and three proclamations, the lifelong procedure that does not allow rehabilitation. One bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu is named... That bhikkhu named... approached this bhikkhu and asked, ‘Do you remember committing the grave offense of parajika or an offense bordering on parajika?’ He replied, ‘I do not remember.’ When asked a second time, he likewise said that he did not remember.

Only after being questioned three times did he say, ‘I do not remember committing a grave offense, but I remember committing a minor offense.’ He was asked again, ‘You did not disclose even the minor offense, much less a grave offense. Now, do you definitely remember committing a grave offense or not?’ He still replied, ‘I do not remember.’ When questioned again, he also said that he did not remember... Only after being questioned for the sixth time did he say, ‘I remember committing the grave offense of parajika or an offense bordering on parajika.’ Having replied thus, he then contrived to say, ‘I do not remember committing a grave offense;

I said it only in jest.’ The Sangha now imposes upon him the karma procedure of discipline based on his original statement, from which he may never be rehabilitated throughout his life.

If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu is named... That bhikkhu named... approached him and asked, ‘Do you remember committing a grave offense...’ and so forth, through: ‘The Sangha now imposes upon him the karma procedure of discipline based on his original statement, from which he may never be rehabilitated throughout his life.’ Those Venerable Ones who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.”

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

“The Sangha has approved the imposition upon the bhikkhu named... of the karma procedure of discipline based on his original statement, from which he may never be rehabilitated throughout his life. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

This is called settling a dispute arising from admonition by means of the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties and the disciplinary procedure based on the original statement.

The Venerable Upali asked the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! By how many procedures is a dispute arising from an offense brought to an end?”

The Buddha taught:

“It is brought to an end by the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties, covering over as with grass, and voluntary acknowledgment.”

He asked again:

“How is it brought to an end?”

The Buddha taught:

“A bhikkhu approaches another bhikkhu, bares his right shoulder, kneels, joins his palms, and says, ‘Venerable One! I, named..., have committed such-and-such an offense. I now come before you, Venerable One, to confess it.’ The other bhikkhu should ask, ‘Do you yourself see the offense?’ He replies, ‘I myself see the offense.’ He should further ask, ‘Do you wish to confess it?’ He replies, ‘Yes, I wish to confess it!’ The other bhikkhu says, ‘Henceforth, you should not commit it again.’”

This is called settling a dispute arising from an offense by means of the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties and voluntary acknowledgment.

If one bhikkhu approaches two bhikkhus, three bhikkhus, or a large assembly of bhikkhus, or if two bhikkhus up to a large assembly of bhikkhus approach one bhikkhu up to a large assembly of bhikkhus, the procedure is likewise. If bhikkhus quarrel, revile one another, and commit evil karma by body, speech, and mind, and afterward think, “We have quarreled, reviled one another, and committed evil karma by body, speech, and mind.

May we now go before the Sangha, have our offenses removed, and perform the confession procedure of covering over as with grass?” these bhikkhus are permitted to have their offenses removed before the Sangha. The Sangha should grant them, by a motion and one proclamation, the confession procedure of covering over as with grass. All the disputing bhikkhus should assemble before the Sangha, bare their right shoulders, remove their footwear, kneel, and declare:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! We quarreled with one another, reviled one another, and committed evil karma by body, speech, and mind. Afterward we conceived this thought: ‘We quarreled with one another, reviled one another, and committed evil karma by body, speech, and mind. May we now remove our offenses before the Sangha by the confession procedure of covering the ground with grass?’ We now come before the Sangha to request the confession procedure of covering over as with grass.”

After making this request three times, they should extend both hands down to their knees, bow low to the ground, turn toward the officiating bhikkhu, and single-mindedly express their willingness to receive the karma procedure. The officiating bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikkhus quarreled with one another, reviled one another, and committed evil karma by body, speech, and mind. Afterward they conceived this thought: ‘We quarreled with one another, reviled one another, and committed evil karma by body, speech, and mind. May we now remove our offenses before the Sangha by the confession procedure of covering the ground with grass?’ They have now come before the Sangha to request the confession procedure of covering over as with grass. The Sangha now grants them the confession procedure of covering over as with grass. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! These bhikkhus quarreled with one another, reviled one another...” and so forth, through: “The Sangha now grants them the confession procedure of covering over as with grass. Those Venerable Ones who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.

“The Sangha has granted these bhikkhus the confession procedure of covering over as with grass. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

This is called settling a dispute arising from an offense by means of the Vinaya procedure in the presence of the parties and covering over as with grass.

What is meant by “covering over as with grass”? Those bhikkhus do not recount again the original cause of the dispute, and the Sangha likewise does not inquire again into the origin of the matter.

The Venerable Upali asked the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! By how many procedures is a dispute arising from a matter brought to an end?”

The Buddha taught:

– According to the dispute, the seven procedures are to be used to bring it to an end. If one bhikkhu goes to another bhikkhu and uses what is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and contrary to the Buddha’s teaching to settle a dispute, saying: “This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha’s teaching,” and if it is thus applied to settle the dispute, this is called an unlawful settlement. If one bhikkhu goes to two bhikkhus, and so forth up to the Sangha, or if two bhikkhus, and so forth up to the Sangha, go to one bhikkhu, and so forth up to the Sangha, it is likewise. If one bhikkhu goes to one or two bhikkhus and uses what accords with the Dharma, accords with the Vinaya, and accords with the Buddha’s teaching to settle a dispute, saying: “This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha’s teaching,” and if it is thus applied to settle the dispute, this is called a lawful settlement. If one bhikkhu goes to two or three bhikkhus, and so forth up to the Sangha, or if two bhikkhus, and so forth up to the Sangha, go to one bhikkhu, and so forth up to the Sangha, it is likewise.

Section 2: ON THE PROCEDURES OF SANGHA ACTS

The Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti. At that time, a bhikkhu intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense. He did not conceal it, but did not know what he should do. He asked the bhikkhus, but the bhikkhus also did not know, so they reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and told the bhikkhus: “When a bhikkhu commits a Sanghadisesa offense such as this and does not conceal it, I now permit the Sangha, by a motion and three proclamations, to grant that bhikkhu six nights of Mānatta.” The offending bhikkhu should bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, reverently bow at the feet of the Sangha, kneel, and make this declaration:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. I now come before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta. May the Sangha grant me six nights of Mānatta.” He should make this request three times. One bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. He now comes before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta. The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu six nights of Mānatta. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen...” and so forth, through the words: “The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu six nights of Mānatta. Those Elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.” The same proclamation should be made a second and a third time.

“The Sangha has granted this bhikkhu named... six nights of Mānatta. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

That bhikkhu should go before the Sangha each day, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, reverently bow at the feet of the Sangha, kneel, and make this declaration:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. I came before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta, and the Sangha granted me six nights of Mānatta. I have now completed (so many days) of Mānatta, with (so many days) remaining. May the Venerable Sangha acknowledge and bear witness to this.” After completing six nights of Mānatta, he should go before the Sangha and request the procedure of Abbhāna, declaring as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. I came before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta, and the Sangha granted me six nights of Mānatta. I have now completed six nights of Mānatta and come before the Sangha to request the procedure of Abbhāna. May the Sangha grant me the procedure of Abbhāna.” He should make this request three times. One bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. He came before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta, and the Sangha granted him six nights of Mānatta. That bhikkhu has completed Mānatta and now comes before the Sangha to request the procedure of Abbhāna. The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu named... Abbhāna. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen...” and so forth, through the words: “The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu the procedure of Abbhāna. Those Elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.” The same proclamation should be made a second and a third time.

“The Sangha has granted the bhikkhu named... the procedure of Abbhāna. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

There was a bhikkhu who intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. He did not know what he should do, so he asked the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus also did not know, so they reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and told the bhikkhus: “I now permit the Sangha, by a motion and three proclamations, to grant this bhikkhu one night of Parivāsa.” The offending bhikkhu should go before the Sangha and make this declaration:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. I now come before the Sangha to request one night of Parivāsa. May the Sangha grant me the procedure of one night’s Parivāsa.” He should make this request three times. One bhikkhu should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. He now comes before the Sangha to request one night of Parivāsa. The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu the procedure of one night’s Parivāsa. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, let the Sangha approve. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! This bhikkhu named... intentionally emitted semen...” and so forth, through the words: “The Sangha now grants the bhikkhu named... the procedure of one night’s Parivāsa. Those Elders who approve should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.” The same proclamation should be made a second and a third time.

“The Sangha has granted the bhikkhu named... one night of Parivāsa. The Sangha approves and therefore remains silent. Thus do I understand this matter.”

After that bhikkhu had completed one night of Parivāsa, he should go before the Sangha to request Mānatta... and so forth, through the procedure of Abbhāna. The Sangha should grant these in the same manner as above.

There was a bhikkhu who intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. He went before the Sangha to request Mānatta, but during the six nights he committed the offense again and likewise did not conceal it. He did not know what he should do, so he asked the bhikkhus.

The bhikkhus also did not know, so they reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Bhikkhu Sangha and told the bhikkhus: “I now permit that bhikkhu to go before the Sangha again and request Mānatta. The Sangha should also, by a motion and three proclamations, grant that bhikkhu Mānatta again.

After that bhikkhu has completed six nights of Mānatta, he should again go before the Sangha and request the original Mānatta. The Sangha should also grant it by a motion and three proclamations.” That bhikkhu should again go before the Sangha and request:

“I, the bhikkhu named..., formerly intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. I went before the Sangha to request Mānatta, and the Sangha granted me Mānatta. During those six nights, I committed the offense again and did not conceal it. I now come before the Sangha to request Mānatta. May the Sangha grant me Mānatta again.” He should make this request three times. In accordance with his request, one bhikkhu should grant it by a motion and three proclamations. After completing the six nights, that bhikkhu should again go before the Sangha to request the original six nights of Mānatta, saying:

“I, the bhikkhu named..., formerly intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and did not conceal it. I went before the Sangha to request Mānatta. During those six nights, I committed the offense again and did not conceal it, and again went before the Sangha to request six nights of Mānatta. I have now completed six nights of Mānatta and come before the Sangha to request the original six nights of Mānatta. May the Sangha grant me the original six nights of Mānatta.” He should make this request three times. In accordance with his request, one bhikkhu should grant it by a motion and three proclamations.

After that bhikkhu has observed the original six nights of Manatta, he should request the act of Abbhana as above. The Sangha should likewise grant it to him as above.
A certain bhikkhu intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. The Sangha granted him one night of Parivasa. During that period he committed the offense again and likewise concealed it for one night.

Not knowing what to do, he asked the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus also did not know, so they reported the matter to the Buddha. On account of this matter, the Buddha assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and told the bhikkhus: Now this bhikkhu is permitted to come before the Sangha again and request one night of Parivasa.

The Sangha should also grant him one night of Parivasa by a motion and three proclamations. After he has observed one night of Parivasa, he must again come before the Sangha and request the original one night of Parivasa. The Sangha should also grant him permission to observe it by a motion and three proclamations.

That bhikkhu should come before the Sangha and request one night of Parivasa, saying: I, the bhikkhu named..., previously intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. I came before the Sangha and requested one night of Parivasa, and the Sangha granted me one night of Parivasa. During that period I committed the offense again and likewise concealed it for one night.

I now come before the Sangha again to request one night of Parivasa. May the Sangha again grant me one night of Parivasa. He should make this request three times.

One bhikkhu should, in accordance with his request, grant it by a motion and three proclamations. After he has observed one night of Parivasa, he should again come before the Sangha and request the original one night of Parivasa, saying: I, the bhikkhu named..., previously intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. I came before the Sangha and requested one night of Parivasa.

During that period I committed the offense again and again concealed it for one night. I also came and requested one night of Parivasa from the Sangha. The Sangha granted me one night of Parivasa, and I have now observed that one night of Parivasa.

I now come before the Sangha to request the original one night of Parivasa. May the Sangha grant me the original one night of Parivasa. He should make this request three times.

One bhikkhu should, in accordance with his request, grant him permission to observe it by a motion and three proclamations. After that bhikkhu has observed the original one night of Parivasa, he should request permission to observe six nights of Manatta as above. After observing Manatta, he should again request Abbhana as above.

In every case the Sangha should grant permission to perform the observance by a motion and three proclamations as above.
A certain bhikkhu intentionally emitted semen, thereby committing a Sanghadisesa offense, and concealed it for one night. As above, the Sangha granted him one night of Parivasa. During that period he committed the offense again and likewise concealed it for one night.

The Sangha again granted him one night of Parivasa as above. When he had completed it, the Sangha likewise granted him the original one night of Parivasa as above. When he had completed it, the Sangha again granted him six nights of Manatta as above.

During that period he committed the offense again but did not conceal it, so the Sangha again granted him six nights of Manatta as above. After he had observed the six nights, the Sangha again granted him the original Manatta as above. When he had completed it, he was then granted Abbhana as above.

If a bhikkhu commits one or even many Sanghadisesa offenses and conceals them for two or many nights, when the Sangha grants Parivasa, it should count only the longest period of concealment and grant Parivasa according to that number of days. If, after the Sangha has granted Parivasa, he commits the offense again and conceals it, the Sangha should grant him further Parivasa according to the number of days. If he does not conceal it, the Sangha should grant him six nights of Manatta as above.

After he has again completed Parivasa and then Manatta, the Sangha should again grant him the original Parivasa as above. After the original Parivasa has been completed, it should grant him six nights of Manatta. If he commits the offense again during that period, the Sangha should again grant him six nights of Manatta.

When he has completed the observance, the Sangha should again grant him the original Manatta as before, and then grant him Abbhana as above.
A certain bhikkhu committed two Sanghadisesa offenses and concealed both for one night, but came before the Sangha and said that he had committed one offense and concealed it for one night. The Sangha granted him one night of Parivasa. After observing one night of Parivasa, remorse arose in his mind: I actually committed two Sanghadisesa offenses; why did I say only that I had committed one offense and concealed it for one night?

He came before the Sangha and reported: I actually committed two Sanghadisesa offenses and concealed both for one night. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said: Permit him another night of Parivasa.

That bhikkhu should make a complete statement three times in requesting it. One bhikkhu should, in accordance with his request, grant him permission to observe it by a motion and three proclamations.
A certain bhikkhu committed one Sanghadisesa offense and concealed it for two nights, but came before the Sangha and said that he had concealed it for one night. The Sangha granted him one night of Parivasa. After completing one night of Parivasa, remorse arose in his mind: In fact, I concealed it for two nights; why did I say one night? He again came before the Sangha and stated the truth of the matter. The bhikkhus reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha said: Permit the Sangha to grant him another night of Parivasa. That bhikkhu should state the matter clearly and fully, as above, in making his request. The Sangha should likewise, in accordance with his request, grant him permission to observe it by a motion and three proclamations.
A certain bhikkhu committed a Sanghadisesa offense, concealed it, and then renounced the training. Later he again went forth and received full ordination, and on that very day disclosed his former offense. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said: Parivasa should be granted according to the number of days that bhikkhu concealed the offense before renouncing the training.
A certain bhikkhu committed a Sanghadisesa offense, did not conceal it, and renounced the training before observing Manatta. Afterward he again received full ordination and then concealed the offense. The matter was reported to the Buddha. The Buddha said: In accordance with that bhikkhu’s offense, Parivasa should be granted according to the number of days after his reordination during which the observance remained unperformed.
If a bhikkhu commits two Sanghadisesa offenses, conceals one and does not conceal the other, and then renounces the training; afterward receives full ordination again; then conceals the offense that he formerly did not conceal, while not concealing on this occasion the offense that he formerly concealed, the number of days of Parivasa to be granted should be determined by tracing the number of days that bhikkhu concealed the offense before renouncing the training together with the number of days he concealed it afterward, beginning from his reordination.

If a bhikkhu commits a Sanghadisesa offense, conceals it, and then renounces the training; afterward receives full ordination again and conceals it once more, Parivasa should be granted according to the number of days that bhikkhu concealed it before and after. If a bhikkhu commits a Sanghadisesa offense, does not conceal it, and then renounces the training; afterward receives full ordination again and likewise does not conceal it, he should be granted six nights of Manatta.

If a bhikkhu commits a Sanghadisesa offense and then becomes a samanera, becomes insane, becomes mentally deranged, becomes mentally incapacitated by illness, or is subjected by the Sangha to an act of censure for refusing to acknowledge an offense, an act of censure for refusing to make amends, or an act of censure for refusing to relinquish an evil wrong view, all such cases are as explained in the section on renouncing the training.
If a bhikkhu commits a known number of Sanghadisesa offenses, whether the same offense or different offenses, conceals them, and then renounces the training, but after receiving ordination again does not conceal them; or formerly did not conceal them and renounced the training, but after receiving ordination again conceals them; or formerly concealed half and did not conceal half, and, after receiving ordination again, either does not conceal what he formerly concealed or conceals what he formerly did not conceal; or conceals them both before and after: in every case, the procedure for observing Parivasa is as stated above.

If he does not conceal them either before or after, the granting of six nights of Manatta is likewise as stated above. If he becomes a samanera... up to being subjected to an act of censure for refusing to relinquish an evil wrong view, it is likewise the same. If a bhikkhu renounces the training while observing Parivasa and afterward receives full ordination again, the days of Parivasa previously completed should be counted, and he should observe only enough additional days to complete the required period.

He should be made to complete the observance. The same applies to the original Parivasa. If he becomes a samanera... up to being subjected to an act of censure for refusing to relinquish an evil wrong view, it is likewise the same.

If a bhikkhu renounces the training while observing Manatta, then after receiving full ordination again the days already completed should likewise be counted, and the same applies to observing the original Manatta. If he becomes a samanera... up to being subjected to an act of censure for refusing to relinquish an evil wrong view, it is likewise the same. If a bhikkhu has completed Parivasa and the original Parivasa but, before Manatta has been granted, renounces the training, then after receiving full ordination again he should be made to observe Manatta.

If one has performed Ma-na-đỏa and then performed the
original Ma-na-đỏa, but has not yet been granted the A-phù-ha-na procedure, and afterward receives the full
ordination again, one should be granted the A-phù-ha-na procedure. If one becomes a novice... up to and including the case in which the Yết-
ma for not abandoning wrong and evil views has been performed, it is likewise. If a bhikkhu commits a Tăng-già-
bà-thi-sa offense, knows the number of offenses committed, knows the number of days they were concealed, approaches the Sangha in accordance with the Dharma
to request probation, approaches the Sangha in accordance with the Dharma to request Ma-na-đỏa, approaches the Sangha in accordance with the Dharma
to request reinstatement from the original day, and approaches the Sangha in accordance with the Dharma to request the A-phù-ha-na procedure, and the Sangha grants each of these
in accordance with the Dharma, such a person is called purified. If the Sangha does not grant
any one of these matters in accordance with the Dharma, such a person is called unpurified. There were two bhikkhus
who committed Tăng-già-bà-thi-sa offenses: one bhikkhu knew that he had committed the offense, while the other bhikkhu
did not know that he had committed it; both concealed their offenses. This was reported to the Buddha. The Buddha said: The one who knew that he had committed the offense
should be given probation; the one who did not know that he had committed it should be given Ma-na-đỏa. The same applies to
remembering and not remembering. There were two bhikkhus who committed Tăng-già-bà-thi-sa offenses
and concealed them. One bhikkhu considered it to be a particular offense, while the other bhikkhu was uncertain about the offense,
saying at times that it was a Ba-la-di offense, at times that it was a Thâu-lan-giá offense... up to an offense of wrong speech. This was reported
to the Buddha. The Buddha said: The one who has determined the offense should be given probation; the one who has not
determined which offense it was should be given Ma-na-đỏa. Some bhikkhus died either while undergoing
probation, while performing Ma-na-đỏa, or while undergoing the A-phù-ha-na procedure.
The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha: “Did those venerable ones die while fully observing the precepts, or did they
die having broken the precepts?” The Buddha said: “They all died while fully observing the precepts.” There was a bhikkhu who committed
Tăng-già-bà-thi-sa offenses but did not know the number of offenses, nor did he remember whether he had
concealed them for a long or short time. This was reported to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “Beginning from the time he remembers having committed the offenses,
give him probation.” The same applies in cases of doubt. Some bhikkhus concealed their offenses from
everyone; some bhikkhus concealed them from one person but did not
conceal them from another. Some bhikkhus concealed them in one place but did not
conceal them in another. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “Concealment from everyone is called
concealment. If one conceals the matter from an upadhyaya or acharya because one fears hearing the rebuke of such a venerable person,
that concealment is not called concealment; concealing it from other people is called concealment.
If, in this country, one does not wish people to know because many people know and respect one,
such concealment is not called concealment; concealing it in another place
is called concealment.”

THE FIVE-PART VINAYA OF THE MAHISASAKA SCHOOL