善見律毘婆沙

The Dharma teacher said: What follows is an explanation of each phrase in the Vinaya. The word “designation” (name) in the Vinaya text does not refer to only one matter, but encompasses person, training, birth, personal name, clan name, precepts, monastery, conduct, and age. I shall now explain each of these matters clearly.

Person (puggala) means a particular person, whether tall, short, red-complexioned, dark-complexioned, fair-complexioned, stout, or thin. Training (yutta) means training in meditation, in affairs of the Sangha, or in learning. Birth means being born into a Khattiya, Brahmin, Vessa, or Sudda family (jacca—khattiya, brāhmana, vessa, sudda).

As for personal names, one may be named Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, or Sangharakkhita [nāma (Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, Sangharakkhita)]. As for clan names, one may belong to the Kaccāyana, Vāsettha, or Kosiya clan (gotta—Kaccāyana, Vāsettha, Kosiya). Precepts means the disciplinary precepts one undertakes and observes (sīla).

Monastery (vihārin) means the monastery in which one resides. Conduct (gocara—a place one frequents; almsfood) means one’s activities and living in accordance with one’s karma. Age (samp. thera) means being five, ten, twenty, or thirty years of age.

The word “designation” in the Vinaya text refers to the foregoing matters.

If one performs the conduct of a bhikkhu, one is called a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu is one who goes for alms, a mendicant. Whether or not he receives anything, he is still called a mendicant. This is the conduct of a virtuous person. Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples all practice the discipline of going for alms. Whether poor or rich, one who goes forth to train in the Way, relinquishing cattle, fields and gardens, household affairs, and occupations by which one earns a livelihood in the secular world, lives by going for alms and possesses no private property. Such persons must regard the lands within the four seas as their dwelling and are called bhikkhus.

Robes must first be cut into pieces (bhinnapatadhara) before being worn, so as to diminish their value. They are sewn back together with needle and thread, causing them to lose their smooth softness and become coarse and unattractive. These robes were formerly white and beautiful, but are now dyed with tree bark, thereby destroying their original color and making them appear old. A person who wears such robes is called a bhikkhu. Therefore, the Vinaya says that one who habitually wears these cut-up robes is called a bhikkhu.

At times, a novice is also called a bhikkhu (mendicant). For example, when a donor comes to invite the bhikkhus, although a novice has not yet received full ordination, he is nevertheless included among the bhikkhus. In this case, he is said to bear the designation “bhikkhu” (a bhikkhu in name).

The statement, “Venerable sir, I too am a bhikkhu…” refers to a bhikkhu by false designation.

The Dharma teacher said: “Why is he called a bhikkhu by false designation? For example, when the venerable Ānanda was walking at night, he saw a bhikkhu who had violated the precepts and asked: ‘Oh! Who is that?’”

The bhikkhu who had violated the precepts replied, “I am a bhikkhu.” This is called a false and untrue designation.

An ehi-bhikkhu is a “Come, bhikkhu.” A white-robed layperson might come and ask the Blessed One for permission to go forth. The Blessed One would examine that person’s faculties. If the necessary causes and conditions were complete and the person could be delivered, he would call out: “Come, bhikkhu!” Upon being addressed thus by the Buddha, that person’s hair and beard would fall away of themselves, and he would become a bhikkhu.

Here, “called” means that, from within his robe made of many pieces (rattapamsukūlantara), the Tathagata extended his golden-hued right hand and, in his Brahmā voice (Brahmaghosa), called: “Come! Practice the holy life for the complete ending of the source of suffering.”

Before the Buddha had finished speaking, that person had already become a bhikkhu and attained full ordination. He was fully provided with the three radiant kasāya robes, bright as red lotus blossoms; over his left shoulder he carried an earthen bowl the color of a blue-lotus stalk (nīluppala), together with a needle (cūsi), thread (bandhana), razor (vāsi), water-straining bag (parissāvana), and so forth. These eight requisites are the customary possessions of one gone forth. The Blessed One served as both preceptor and ordination teacher. The new bhikkhu naturally possessed complete and dignified deportment, approached the Buddha, bowed with his head and face at the Buddha’s feet, and then sat to one side.

The Dharma teacher said: “From the time the Blessed One attained awakening until he entered nirvana, how many ehi-bhikkhus were there?”

The answer was: “There were one thousand three hundred and forty-one such bhikkhus (1,341).”

Question: “What were their names?”

Answer: “There were the five belonging to the group of Aññāta-Kondañña. Next came Yasa, the merchant’s son, and his fifty-four close companions (sahāyaka). There were thirty Bhaddavaggiya youths. There were the one thousand former matted-hair ascetics (Purānajatila). The two chief disciples (Aggasāvaka) had two hundred and fifty followers. Angulimāla was one person. Thus, 1,341 persons are praised in the Vinaya.”

One thousand three hundred,

And forty-one persons,

Possessing great faith,

Personally encountered the Buddha.

The compassionate Tathagata

Extended his golden hand

And called in his Brahmā voice:

“Come, bhikkhu!”

Fully provided with robes and bowl,

They were delivered at the proper time.

Those of great wisdom were all likewise called ehi-bhikkhus; the designation was not confined solely to the ehi-bhikkhus listed above. There were also other ehi-bhikkhus, such as the three hundred in the group of the Brahmin Sela (Selabrāhmana), the one thousand in the group of Mahākappina, ten thousand people in the country of Kapilavatthu, and sixteen thousand who went forth together with the Pārāyanika Brahmins (Pārāyanikabrāhmana). They were all ehi-bhikkhus. These matters are related in the Sutta Pitaka, but the names of these persons are not given in the Vinaya Pitaka.

Attaining full ordination by taking refuge means attaining full ordination after reciting the formula of the Three Refuges three times. The Vinaya records the following means of attaining full ordination: by the summons “Come, bhikkhu”; by the Three Refuges; by receiving an instruction; by answering questions; by accepting the weighty principles (garudhammapatiggahana-upasampadā); through a messenger (dūtena-upasampadā); through an act with eight proclamations (atthavācika-upasampadā); and through a formal Sangha act consisting of one motion and three proclamations (ñatticatutthakamma-upasampadā).

The Dharma teacher said: “Full ordination through ‘Come, bhikkhu’ and through the Three Refuges has already been explained. The other cases are as follows:

“Attaining full ordination by receiving an instruction occurred in the case when the Buddha told Kassapa: ‘You should train thus: Toward elders, those of middle standing, and juniors alike, I shall maintain a sense of conscience and moral dread.’ The Buddha told Kassapa: ‘From this day onward, you should listen carefully to every wholesome Dharma, engrave it upon your bones, and inscribe it in your heart, thinking: “I am attending closely and inclining my ear to hear the Dharma.”’ The Buddha told Kassapa: ‘You should train in mindfulness of the body in this way and never neglect it. Kassapa, you should train thus.’”

Because the Venerable Kassapa received these instructions from the Buddha, he immediately attained full ordination. Kassapa’s attainment of full ordination occurred through the Buddha’s spiritual power.

Attaining full ordination through answering questions occurred in the case when the Buddha granted full ordination to Sopāka. At that time, while walking in meditation at the Pubbārāma monastery, the Buddha asked the novice Sopāka whether the designation of a bloated corpse (uddhumātakasaññā—one of the ten contemplations of impurity) and the designation of form were the same or different. When questioned concerning the ten kinds of impurity, Sopāka answered each question in turn. The Buddha immediately praised him, saying: “Excellent!” He then asked: “How old are you?”

He replied: “I am seven years old.”

The Buddha told Sopāka: “You have answered these questions correctly and with an upright mind, like one endowed with omniscience. I permit you to receive full ordination.” This is called attaining full ordination through questions and answers.

Attaining full ordination by accepting the weighty principles occurred when the bhikkhuni Mahāpajāpatī accepted and undertook the eight weighty principles and thereby attained full ordination. Attaining full ordination through a messenger occurred when the courtesan Aḍḍhakāsī sent a messenger.

“Receiving full ordination through eight proclamations” means that, after the bhikkhuni Sangha has performed the motion and three proclamations for the female candidate, the bhikkhu Sangha again performs the motion and three proclamations for her; only then does she receive the precepts. Therefore, it is called receiving full ordination through eight proclamations.

Receiving full ordination through a motion and three proclamations is the procedure currently used by bhikkhus, including the case of receiving full ordination through eight proclamations.

The Dharma teacher said: “Based on the Vinaya text, I shall explain the matter above. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: ‘I permit you to receive full ordination by reciting the Three Refuges.’ Thus, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to receive full ordination in that manner.”

Good (Bhadra—virtuous) means not evil. In this life, ordinary persons who cultivate wholesome qualities, up to and including those who attain the fruit of arhatship, are all called good persons. One who is perfected in morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation (sīla, samādhi, paññā, vimutti, vimutti-ñāṇadassana), possessing all five of these factors in their entirety, is called a good person.

Genuine (Sāra—the essential, valuable part): morality is the supreme essence and is therefore called genuine. Just as white cloth, when dyed blue, is thereafter called blue cloth, so too is a genuine bhikkhu called genuine by virtue of morality. One who has completely eliminated the defilements and attained arhatship through the destruction of the taints is also called a true person.

A trainee (sekha) is an ordinary person or one of the seven classes of noble trainees who are training in the three trainings; such a person is called a bhikkhu trainee. One beyond training (asekha) is one who has transcended the stage of training and reached the highest fruition. From that point onward, there is nothing further to learn, and the taints no longer exist; therefore, such a one is called beyond training.

An assembled Sangha of bhikkhus is a Sangha consisting of at least five members. More than five may be assembled according to whether the requirement is greater or smaller.

“Consent should be obtained” means obtaining the consent applicable at that time. When the Sangha is harmonious and no one is under suspension, they jointly and harmoniously perform the formal act.

A motion and three proclamations means one motion and three proclamations (tīhianusāvanāhi ekāya ñattiyā).

A lawful formal act means carrying out the formal act in accordance with the Dharma.

Unassailable (akuppa—unshakable) means that there is no fault in the persons performing the formal act.

“That which wholesome minds cannot invalidate” means that, because there is nothing blameworthy, it is called unassailable.

Good means performing the formal act and properly following the Tathagata’s instruction.

Full means acquiring the distinguishing marks of one of higher status; it also means attaining that status.

Question: What are the distinguishing marks of one of higher status?

Answer: The appearance of a bhikkhu is the mark of one of higher status. Because one obtains this higher status through a motion and three proclamations, this is called receiving full ordination through a motion and three proclamations. I shall explain the motion and three proclamations; the other parts will be explained later.

Apalokana (Apalokanakamma; translated into Chinese as announcing each minor matter to the assembly), a formal act by a motion alone, a formal act by a motion and one proclamation, and a formal act by a motion and three proclamations: these formal acts are employed in sequence from beginning to end in the Khandhaka (the sectional portion) and the Parivāra (the appendix). I shall explain them extensively. “Explained herein” means explaining them sequentially so that readers may easily understand the difficult passages from the first pārājika through to the final section.

Herein, “the assembled Sangha” refers to bhikkhus who have received ordination through a motion and three proclamations. If any bhikkhu commits an impure act, he incurs a pārājika offense, while all the others continue to be called bhikkhus—that is, bhikkhus who, together with other bhikkhus, dwell lifelong within the disciplinary code.

The discipline means that which must be learned. Training (sikkhā) comprises three trainings: higher morality, higher mind, and higher wisdom (adhisīla, adhicitta, adhipaññā).

Question: What is higher morality?

Answer: “Higher” means unsurpassed. Morality means training and is also called the unsurpassed training.

– Higher mind is the resultant mind, the mind of meditative concentration.

– Higher wisdom is the practice through which one clearly knows results.

Question: What is training? What is the higher training? What is mind? What is higher mind? What is wisdom? What is higher wisdom?

Answer: The Five Precepts and the Ten Precepts constitute training. Whether or not a Buddha appears, these precepts always exist in the world. When a Buddha appears, the Buddha and the disciples instruct others in these disciplinary principles.

During a period when no Buddha has appeared, Paccekabuddhas, ascetics and brahmins who believe in karma and Dharma, wheel-turning monarchs, and great bodhisattvas (kammavādin ca dhammika samaṇabrāhmaṇa, cakkavattin, mahārājan, mahābodhisatta) instruct people in these disciplinary principles. Having themselves attained wisdom, they then teach other ascetics and brahmins. Those who gain merit by observing these rules of training, upon death, are reborn among devas or human beings and enjoy various delights; therefore, this is called training in morality.

The Pātimokkha is the supreme training. Among all forms of light, sunlight is king. Among all mountains, Mount Sumeru is the greatest.

Among all the disciplinary trainings in the world, the Pātimokkha is supreme. This Dharma exists only when the Tathagata appears; if no Buddha appears, no being can establish it. The Buddha uses this supreme training in morality to restrain evil deeds of body, speech, and mind.

It may be said that whoever undertakes and maintains this training enters the path and its fruit; therefore, it is called the higher training. “Mind” means the eight meritorious minds of the sensual realm and the eight states of worldly meditative concentration. Higher mind transcends all these worldly states of mind.

Only when a Buddha appears can this mind be cultivated; therefore, it is called higher mind. This is the supramundane mind of the path and its fruit. Whoever possesses this mind no longer performs impure acts.

Wisdom means that, with regard to cause and result, through wisdom one knows karma to be the cause and its recompense to be the result; therefore, it is called wisdom. Whether or not a Buddha appears, this principle exists. After appearing in the world, the Buddha and the disciples teach this Dharma to others. During a period when no Buddha has appeared, ascetics and brahmins who believe in karma and Dharma, wheel-turning monarchs, and great bodhisattvas also teach this principle to others. Thus did Ankura hold a great almsgiving (Mahādāna) for ten thousand years; thus did the brahmin Velāma, Vessantara, and other wise persons hold great almsgivings, fulfill meritorious qualities, and gain rebirth in the heavenly realm, where they enjoyed delights.

Higher wisdom is the clear understanding of the three characteristics in the cycle of suffering: suffering, emptiness, and non-self. Because higher wisdom surpasses the other two qualities, higher training and higher mind, it is called higher wisdom. This higher wisdom exists only when a Buddha appears in the world.

The wisdom of the path and its fruit is also called higher wisdom. Therefore, if a bhikkhu who undertakes the three trainings commits an impure act, he incurs a pārājika offense. Undertaking the Pātimokkha within the three trainings is called observing it for life.

Furthermore, bhikkhus may differ in ethnicity, country, village, clan, and name, yet because they dwell together in one residence and undertake the same disciplinary training, they are said to dwell in communion. If they do not violate the Pātimokkha, this is called lifelong observance.

“The discipline has deteriorated but is not lost” means that one has not renounced the discipline, although the marks of discipline have declined, and one has not told another person about it. If the discipline has declined and one tells another person but does not renounce the discipline, the discipline is still not lost.

The Dhamma teacher said: “Why does it not speak of relinquishing the precepts, but instead speak of the decline of the precepts? As stated in the Pātimokkha, one must not sleep together for more than two or three nights, for doing so constitutes an offense. Because the wording is concise, the Buddha taught it in this way.

The decline of the precepts is likewise. Therefore, the Pātimokkha states that the wording must be complete before the Dharma may be expounded. Thus, the meaning of relinquishing the precepts is already sufficiently clear; why is it necessary to speak of decline?

It is like a king without attendants, without a crown or jeweled necklaces as adornments, and lacking all majesty: when people look upon him, they do not regard him as complete. Therefore, the decline of the precepts is spoken of first, and afterward the non-relinquishment of the precepts. Because these two statements accord with each other, they are called well expressed.

There are cases in which the precepts decline but are not relinquished, and cases in which the precepts do not decline but are relinquished. When one feels weary of the training precepts and no longer wishes to observe them, this is called the decline of the precepts. ‘Dejection’ means becoming weary and no longer taking delight in the Buddha-Dharma; or saying, ‘I shall return home today,’ or ‘I shall return home tomorrow’; or going by this road or by that road; or sighing and lamenting, with one’s mind distracted and no longer stable.

This is called dejection.

“To wish to abandon the life of a śramaṇa means wishing to abandon the outward form of a bhikkhu.

“Disgust means regarding the outward form of a bhikkhu as exceedingly shameful, seeing the appearance of a bhikkhu as one sees foul excrement, and taking delight in the appearance of a layperson.”

The Dhamma teacher said: “The sequential exposition in the Vinaya is easy to understand, as in the statement: ‘From now on, I abandon the Buddha.’

“‘Very well! I shall abandon the Buddha...’ means uttering the words so that another person understands. This is a decline of the precepts, but not a relinquishment of the precepts.”

The Dhamma teacher said: “Apart from the decline of the precepts, one also says: ‘I abandon the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, the training precepts, the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, my preceptor (upajjhāya), my teacher (ācariya), my fellow resident (saddhivihārika), my pupil (antevāsika), my teacher’s pupil, one who shares my preceptor (samānupajjhāyaka), and one who shares my teacher and preceptor (samānācariyaka)...’

“These fourteen statements mark the beginning of the decline of the precepts.

“‘...Now I am a white-clad layperson, an upāsaka, a monastery attendant (ārāmika), a novice, a non-Buddhist ascetic (titthiya), a lay disciple of non-Buddhist ascetics (titthiyasāvaka), no longer a śramaṇa, and not a son of the Sakyan...’

“These eight statements are all consequences of the cause that brings about the decline of the precepts. By combining these twenty statements, there are one hundred and ten (two) statements, called the decline of the precepts. Next, beginning with the statement, ‘I remember my mother...,’ there are seventeen statements.

“Fields (khetta), first of all, are rice fields.

“Land (vatthu) is a place that produces sweet fruits, vegetables, food, and leaves.

“Occupations and crafts (sippa) mean working as a potter or engaging in trade.

“To begin with, ‘remembering home’ means thinking, ‘I have parents, so from now on I must return to care for them,’ followed by nine statements. As above: ‘...I have a mother and must return to care for her because she raised me...,’ followed by sixteen statements.

“‘One who practices the holy life eats once a day and sleeps only once; this is exceedingly difficult to do...,’ followed by eight statements.

“‘I am incapable; I cannot endure it; I am unhappy...’—there are as many as fifty statements. There are also one hundred and ten statements, making one hundred and sixty statements.”

The Dhamma teacher said: “The sequence concerning the decline of the precepts has now been explained. You should yourselves understand the statements concerning the relinquishment of the precepts that follow.”

“Bhikkhu...” The Dhamma teacher said: “This statement is easy to understand in sequence: ‘I abandon the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, the training precepts, the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, my preceptor (upajjhāya), my teacher (ācariya), my fellow resident (saddhivihārika), my pupil (antevāsika), my teacher’s pupil, one who shares my preceptor (samānupajjhāyaka), and one who shares my teacher and preceptor (samānācariyaka)...’

“These fourteen statements are all declarations of abandonment, uttered so that another person understands. One wishes to leave the Dharma and depart from the community of bhikkhus, and therefore speaks so that another person understands. Suppose someone intends to say, ‘My Buddha is abandoned,’ but when opening his mouth instead says, ‘I abandon the Buddha.’ He does not speak in the language of India as intended, but uses another language to express, ‘My Buddha is abandoned, my Dharma is abandoned...,’ and so forth through ‘my fellow resident.’ It is as stated in the Vinaya: someone who has attained the complete benefit of the noble ones intends to say, ‘I am about to enter the first jhāna,’ but mistakenly says, ‘I enter the second jhāna.’ This is the same as the preceding case.

This person wishes to abandon the status of a bhikkhu and therefore speaks in this way. If the listener understands these words, the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished. This person falls from the Tathāgata’s Dharma into the state of a white-clad layperson, just as Sakka, Brahmā, or Māra might lose his station (Sakkattā ca Brahmattā ca cutasatto viya cuto va hoti sāsanā).

“Whoever says, ‘I have abandoned the Buddha,’ ‘I shall abandon the Buddha,’ or ‘I am abandoning the Buddha’ speaks respectively in the past, future, and present tenses. If one sends a messenger, writes a letter, or makes hand gestures to convey this to another person, it does not constitute relinquishment of the precepts. If one speaks falsely and deceitfully, without truth, or conveys it by hand gestures, one commits a grave offense.

This case is different: if someone wishes to relinquish the precepts, first forms the intention to utter the words, and then speaks to another person according to the proper sequence, the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished. If he speaks to one person and that person clearly understands, the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished. If that person does not understand, but someone nearby does, the relinquishment of the precepts is not accomplished.

If he speaks to two people and one understands while the other does not, the relinquishment of the precepts is nevertheless accomplished. If both understand, the relinquishment of the precepts is also accomplished. If he speaks to hundreds or thousands of people at once and someone understands, the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished.

“If a bhikkhu is overcome by lust and wishes to tell a fellow resident but is afraid, and therefore enters a secluded place and loudly says, ‘From now on, I abandon the Buddha; clearly understand my intention,’ and at that time someone nearby understands that this bhikkhu wishes to relinquish the precepts and leave the Tathāgata’s Dharma, then the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished. If no one, either before or afterward, understands what the bhikkhu said, his words are merely ordinary worldly speech and do not constitute relinquishment of the precepts.

If they do not understand immediately when the bhikkhu speaks, but only after some time reflect upon it and clearly understand, the relinquishment of the precepts is not accomplished. The same applies to aimless speech and harsh words uttered regarding offerings: because they are spoken in anger, they are untrue words uttered in an abnormal state. If, at that very moment, others pay attention and understand, the speaker incurs an offense.

If they remain doubtful and understand only much later, the speaker does not incur an offense.

“The Buddha told the bhikkhus: ‘Those whose precepts have declined and who speak as described above thereby relinquish the precepts. If their precepts have not declined and they say, “May laypeople accept me; I wish to become a layperson; I am a layperson; I have become a layperson,” this does not constitute relinquishment of the precepts. But if one says, “Today I shall have laypeople receive me,” and makes the listener clearly understand that the speaker deliberately uttered this—whether in a common language of India or in a language other than an Indian language—then, if the listener clearly understands, the relinquishment of the precepts is accomplished.’”

The Dhamma teacher said: “Following this sequence, it begins with ‘upāsaka,’ followed by seven statements, eight statements, fourteen statements, and twenty-two statements... ‘Of what use are these teachings to me? The Buddha is of no benefit to me.’ I have stated these four sentences; you should understand them yourselves. Although the wording is extensive, the meaning is the same.”

The Dhamma teacher said: “I cannot explain everything. You should examine the sequence in the Vinaya and understand it yourselves.”

The Dharma teacher said: “The Venerable Upāli stated that the Buddha has one hundred appellations; the Dharma is likewise, and the other expressions are likewise. I shall explain them briefly... For example, if one says: ‘I now renounce the Buddha and relinquish the precepts; I renounce the Perfectly Enlightened One; I renounce the One of Supreme Wisdom (Anantabuddhi); I renounce the One of Supreme Enlightenment (Anomabuddhi); I renounce the One of the Wisdom of Bodhi (Bodhipaññāna); I renounce the One Free from Delusion (Vigatamoha); I renounce the One Who Has Penetrated All Things.’ Thus, when one explicitly speaks using any particular appellation of the Buddha, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

“One may also say that one renounces the Dharma. In this case, even without explicitly stating an appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. For example, one may say: ‘I renounce the Dharma that is well expounded and discerningly taught (Svākkhāta dhamma); I renounce the Dharma visible here and now (Sandiṭṭhika); I renounce the Dharma transcending time (Akālika); I renounce the Dharma that invites one to come and see (Ehipassika); I renounce the Dharma that leads onward (Opanayika); I renounce the Dharma to be personally known by the wise (Viññūhi dhamma).’ One may further say: ‘I renounce the unconditioned Dharma (Asaṅkhata); I renounce the Dharma of dispassion (Virāga); I renounce the truth of cessation (Nirodha); I renounce the deathless ambrosial Dharma (Amata dhamma);

I renounce the Long Discourses; I renounce the Short Discourses; I renounce the Brahmajāla; I renounce the Sūtra of the Original Beginning; I renounce the Saṃyukta; I renounce the Aṅgulimāla Sūtra; I renounce the Collection of Birth Stories (Jātaka-nikāya); I renounce the Abhidharma; I renounce wholesome and meritorious dharmas (Kusaladhamma); I renounce dharmas that are neither meritorious nor unmeritorious (abyākata dhamma—the indeterminate dharmas); I renounce the foundations of mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna); I renounce right exertions (sammappadhāna); I renounce the bases of spiritual power (iddhipāda); I renounce the faculties (indriya); I renounce the powers (bala); I renounce the factors of enlightenment (bojjhaṅga); I renounce the path (magga); I renounce the fruit (phala);

I renounce nirvana; I renounce the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dharma (Dhammakkhandha).’ If one explicitly states appellations such as these, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

“‘I renounce the Sangha...’ Although this statement does not explicitly give an appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. Likewise, one may say: ‘I renounce the Sangha that practices well; the Sangha that practices uprightly; the Sangha that practices in accordance with the true way; the Sangha that practices harmoniously; I renounce the Sangha of the four pairs; I renounce the Sangha of the eight individuals; I renounce those worthy of offerings; I renounce those worthy of reverential offerings with joined palms;

I renounce the unsurpassed field of merit (anuttara puññakkhetta) that is rightly called the Sangha.’ These statements also constitute relinquishment of the precepts. ‘Now I relinquish the precepts.’ Although this statement does not explicitly give an appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

If one says that one relinquishes them using such designations as: ‘I relinquish the bhikkhu precepts; I relinquish the bhikkhuni precepts; I relinquish the higher training, the higher mind, and the higher wisdom,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I relinquish the bhikkhu discipline; I relinquish the bhikkhuni discipline; I relinquish the first, second, third, and fourth pārājika rules; I relinquish the saṅghādisesa rules; the thullaccaya rules; the pācittiya rules; the pāṭidesanīya rules; the dukkaṭa rules;

the dubbhāsita rules—the subtle offenses.’ Explicitly naming these classes of precepts also constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I relinquish the Pātimokkha.’ Although this statement does not explicitly give an appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

Explicitly stating such appellations as, ‘I relinquish the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha; I relinquish the Bhikkhuni Pātimokkha,’ also constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. Saying, ‘I relinquish the training rules,’ also constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I relinquish the bhikkhu training, the bhikkhuni training, the first, the second, and so forth through the training of the Pātimokkha; I relinquish the training of Perfect Enlightenment; I relinquish the training of Supreme Wisdom; I relinquish the training in wisdom; I relinquish the training in freedom from ignorance’—and so forth in the sequence given above.

“‘I now renounce the preceptor who admitted me into the monastic life at such-and-such a place... and conferred full ordination upon me at such-and-such a place... I renounce that person.’ Thus, if one renounces one’s preceptor by explicitly stating the preceptor’s appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I now renounce my ācariya.’ Although this statement does not explicitly give an appellation, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

For example, one may say: ‘The person who admitted me into the monastic life, the person who instructed me, the person upon whom I depend for my studies—I renounce that person.’ If one explicitly states an appellation of one’s ācariya, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I renounce my disciple,’ although this statement does not explicitly give an appellation, the precepts are nevertheless relinquished.

Or one may say: ‘The person whom I admitted into the monastic life, upon whom I conferred full ordination, whom I allowed to go forth, and whom I enabled to attain full ordination—I now renounce that person.’ Renouncing a disciple by such appellations constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I now renounce the disciple who calls me his ācariya’ also constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. For example: ‘The person whom I allowed to go forth, whom I instructed, and who studied under me—I renounce that person.’ Because the appellation is explicitly stated,

it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I now renounce my fellow student in the precepts’ constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘The person whom my teacher admitted to full ordination and who attained full ordination from my teacher—I renounce that person.’ If one explicitly states an appellation of a fellow student, it also constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

If one says, ‘I renounce my fellow student under the same ācariya,’ this too constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. For example: ‘The person whom my ācariya admitted into the monastic life and upon whom he conferred full ordination, who studied under that ācariya, and whom my ācariya instructed and taught—I renounce that person.’ Thus, if one explicitly states an appellation of a fellow student under the same ācariya, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

If one says, ‘I renounce all my fellow students,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘Whoever studies the same kind of concentration and the same kind of wisdom as I do, I renounce that person.’ Thus, explicitly stating an appellation of all one’s fellow students constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

“If one says, ‘I am now a layperson,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am returning to my former way of life; I shall become a merchant, till the fields, raise cattle, and enjoy the five sensual pleasures,’ then explicitly describing oneself by such lay designations constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am now a male lay follower,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I am a male lay follower’—said a second time and a third time. ‘I observe the five precepts,’ or, ‘I observe the ten precepts.

I am now a male lay follower.’ Thus, explicitly designating oneself as a male lay follower constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am now a monastery attendant,’ the precepts are immediately relinquished. One may say: ‘I now serve as an attendant to the Sangha; I now distribute gruel, rice, wood, and fruit.’ The use of such designations of a monastery attendant constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

Saying, ‘I shall become a novice,’ constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. ‘I shall become a young novice, a junior novice.’ Explicitly using such designations of a novice constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

“Saying, ‘I am now a non-Buddhist ascetic,’ constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. One may say: ‘I shall become a Nigaṇṭha; an Ājīvaka; a Tāpasa; a Paribbājaka; a Paṇḍaraṅga.’ The use of such designations of non-Buddhist ascetics constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am a male lay follower of the non-Buddhist ascetics,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. For example: ‘I am a male lay follower of the Nigaṇṭhas; a male lay follower of the Ājīvakas; a male lay follower of the Tāpasas; a male lay follower of the Paribbājakas; a male lay follower of the Paṇḍaraṅgas.’ Explicitly stating such designations of non-Buddhist ascetics constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am not a śramaṇa,’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

“For example, one may say: ‘I have broken the precepts; I commit evil deeds; I practice things that conceal defilement and impurity; though not a śramaṇa, I claim to be a śramaṇa; though not living the holy life, I claim to live the holy life; inwardly I am filled with putrefaction.’ If one explicitly states such designations relating to a śramaṇa, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts. If one says, ‘I am no longer a son of the Sakyans (Asakyaputtiya),’ it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

One may say: ‘I am not a son of the Perfectly Enlightened One; not a son of the One of Immeasurable Wisdom; not a son of the One of Unhindered Wisdom; not a son of the One of the Wisdom of Bodhi; not a son of the Valiant One; not a son of the One Free from Delusion; not a son of the One of Unobstructed Penetration; not a son of the Supremely Victorious One.’ If one explicitly states such appellations of a son of the Sakyans, it constitutes relinquishment of the precepts.

Through this cause, this indication, and this means, if one uses an appellation of the Buddha and speaks in this manner, each such statement becomes a cause for relinquishment of the precepts. If one does not explicitly state an appellation of the Buddha but speaks only using the remaining terms, it does not constitute relinquishment of the precepts.”

The Dharma teacher said: Thus I have clearly explained the characteristics of renouncing the training. As for the aforementioned cases in which the training is not renounced, there should be no doubt. I have extensively explained the renunciation of the training, taking a person as the cause: either because of a person the renunciation of the training is accomplished, or because of a person it is not accomplished.

The Dharma teacher said: The root text of the Vinaya states: The Buddha told the bhikkhus, “What does not constitute renunciation of the training?” Statements beginning with those made in a deranged state, whether through madness caused by a yakkha or through delirious speech, and other cases in which the training is renounced with a deranged mind, do not constitute renunciation. If, with an exceedingly joyful intention, one renounces the training before an insane person, but that insane person does not understand the training, the renunciation is not accomplished. A person whose mental disposition is abnormal is likewise considered as one afflicted by a yakkha.

The Dharma teacher said: One who is mad as though possessed by a yakkha, as well as one who speaks deliriously, incurs no offense; this will be explained clearly later. Renouncing the training with an unstable mind does not constitute renunciation. For example, if one is in such intense anguish, suffering as though a knife were cutting into the body and causing one to become faint, and therefore utters words renouncing the training, the renunciation is not accomplished.

If one declares the renunciation of the training to a person in extreme anguish, but because that person is suffering, they do not understand the statement, the renunciation is likewise not accomplished. If one declares the renunciation of the training to a deity, from an earth deity up to an Akanitthadevatā, the renunciation is not accomplished. If one declares the renunciation of the training to an animal, such as a mahoraga, garuḷa, kinnara, elephant, monkey (mahoraga, garula, kinnara, hatthin, makkata), or any other kind of animal, the renunciation is not accomplished.

If an insane person declares the renunciation of the training to another insane person, because there is no understanding, the renunciation is not accomplished.

The Dharma teacher said: When one directs the renunciation of the training toward deities, they know it immediately because their merit is great. Because they possess rebirth with three roots (tihetupatisandhika), they understand quickly. If this person changes his mind and wishes to renounce the training, the deities already know it clearly.

In order to safeguard against the ease with which the human mind changes, the Buddha did not allow the training to be lost in this way. Therefore, the Buddha did not permit the renunciation of the training before deities, but did not prohibit it before human beings. There are cases in which it is permitted and cases in which it is not; there are cases regarded as equivalent and cases regarded as not equivalent.

If one speaks to a layperson or declares the renunciation of the training to someone who clearly understands that renunciation, the renunciation is accomplished. If the other person does not understand, the renunciation is not accomplished.

The Dharma teacher said: I shall explain the meaning of this. “Noble speech” (Ariyaka) means the language used by noble people. It is the language of Magadha (Magadhabhāsā).

Those in border regions, such as the country of Andha-Damila, do not understand the language of Magadha. Different countries have different languages, and therefore their people do not understand one another’s speech. Consequently, when it is necessary to instruct them, if you speak the language of Magadha but they do not understand, you must first teach them to understand it.

Words spoken in jest, spoken hastily, or spoken by mistake—such as saying, “I renounce the Buddha”—when uttered foolishly in this way, do not constitute renunciation of the training. Even if a wise person speaks hastily or misspeaks, it does not constitute renunciation of the training. If one does not wish to renounce the training but speaks of renunciation, it is like a person reading the Vinaya, listening to the Vinaya, reciting the Vinaya, or teaching the Vinaya while speaking about renouncing the training.

Uttering such words does not constitute renunciation of the training. One may wish to speak to another person but does not do so, although signs of a decline in the training have already arisen, and therefore thinks, “I now renounce the training,” but does not utter the words. This is wishing to speak without speaking.

Speaking to a foolish person, an extremely aged person, an image of a person made of clay or wood, or a village child, or going to a place but not speaking, does not constitute renunciation of the training.

The Dharma teacher said: In brief, if one employs any effective means beginning with the statement, “I renounce the Buddha,” the renunciation of the training is accomplished. If one speaks otherwise, lacking this specific detail, the renunciation of the training is not accomplished.

The Dharma teacher said: Beginning with the performance of an impure act, I shall explain its meaning. As stated in the Vinaya, what is an impure act?

Answer: It is the doing of an unwholesome deed, a deed that good people do not perform, an act of a wild and foolish person. As stated in the Vinaya, a grave offense may arise from the act of drawing water in a secluded place where only two persons are present. The meaning of this evil practice is that, beginning with drawing water (Odakantika), it leads to the two touching each other upon a sandy bank and culminates in a grave offense; therefore it is called impure conduct.

A concealed place is a place devoid of people, where two persons can engage in an impure act.

Question: What does it mean to engage in an impure act?

Answer: When both persons desire and delight in it, or when both partake of sensual pleasure, this is called engaging in an impure act. As stated in the Vinaya, if one places the external part of a male body against the external part of a female body, or vice versa, or places the male organ into the female organ, and it enters a moist place inaccessible to the wind by even the measure of a single sesame seed (Ekatilabijamattampi vātena asamphutthe allokāse paveseti), one commits a pārājika offense.

The female organ (Itthinimitta) has four sides and the central part (passa), making five. All five of these places are grounds for the arising of an offense. The male organ also has four sides, while the tip has a covered and an exposed part.

Of these six parts, if any one part makes contact, a pārājika offense is committed. Whether the concealed part is bent like a finger, whether the tip is exposed, or whether it is raised or lowered, an offense is committed in every case. If dead flesh has grown on the male organ so that no pleasurable sensation is felt, a dukkaṭa offense is committed; if pleasurable sensation is felt, a pārājika offense is committed.

If one inserts hair from the male organ or a fingertip into the female organ, a dukkaṭa offense is committed.

The Dharma teacher said: This is engaging in an impure act. Why is this explained? These are unwholesome words, but when the elders hear this discussion of impurity, they should take care not to be alarmed. This is the moral shame and moral dread of an ascetic, and therefore one should direct one’s whole heart toward the Buddha. Why? Out of compassion for us, the Buddha—the sovereign of this world—renounced sensual desire and attained purity. Because he had compassionate concern for us, he established the precepts of the Vinaya and therefore uttered these coarse words.

Whoever contemplates the virtues of the Tathagata in this way will have no thought of disparagement. If the Buddha had not spoken of these matters, how could we know what constitutes a pārājika offense, a thullaccaya offense, or a dukkaṭa offense? If a Dharma teacher expounds this to others, the listener and the speaker are permitted to cover their faces with fans.

They must take care not to laugh with their teeth exposed or laugh loudly. Whoever laughs should be expelled. Why?

The Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, out of compassion for sentient beings, spoke these words from his golden mouth. You should arouse moral shame and moral dread and listen; why then would you laugh? Therefore, such a person should be expelled.

“Even with an animal” is the final statement: one commits a pārājika offense even with an animal, how much more so with a woman.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain this in sequence. There are beings with legs and beings without legs. Those without legs include snakes; those with two legs include chickens and even garudas; those with four legs include cats and dogs; and among the large, elongated kinds are pythons and snakes.

If one makes contact with any one of the three places of these large creatures, even to the extent of a sesame seed, one commits a pārājika offense. With small creatures for which such an act cannot be performed, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. With fish, including the various kinds of fish, turtles, soft-shelled turtles, loaches, and shellfish, if one violates any of the three places mentioned above, one likewise incurs an offense.

In this matter there is a slight distinction. If one encounters the mouth of a very large shellfish and inserts the male organ into its mouth, but it does not enter fully and merely makes contact as with a sore, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one makes contact with the three places of chickens, crows, pheasants, vultures, and so forth, according to the circumstances one commits either a pārājika or a thullaccaya offense.

If one violates the three places of cats, foxes, dogs, and so forth, one incurs the offenses stated above.

“Pārājika means downfall and defeat. This is an offense of a bhikkhu. As stated in the Vinaya, the Buddha said to Ānanda: ‘Because of the Vajjiputtaka, I have established the pārājika precept. Any bhikkhu who performs such an act commits a pārājika offense.’ This is what is called pārājika.”

The Dharma teacher said: “Whoever violates this precept is called one who has committed pārājika. Therefore, in the Parivāra there is a verse:

I teach the pārājika;

You should listen attentively.

Fallen, lost, and no longer complete,

Contrary to the true Dharma,

One may no longer dwell in communion;

Therefore it is called pārājika.

“This means that one who commits a pārājika offense is called fallen and is also said to have fallen away from the Tathagata’s Dharma. He is no longer a son of the Sakyan, and is no longer complete in the Dharma of a bhikkhu; therefore it is called pārājika. ‘May no longer dwell in communion’ means that he may no longer participate in communal acts as before.”

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain that offense in sequence. The Sangha shares four acts: within the consecrated boundary, the Sangha assembles in harmony and performs the four formal acts; this is called sharing the same acts. What are called the five acts of the Pātimokkha means that when the Sangha recites the Pātimokkha together in one place, a shameless person may not enter. He may not enter and participate in the affairs of the Sangha with the community, but is expelled; therefore he is said to be unable to dwell in communion. Hence the root Vinaya states that he may not participate in the uposatha or perform formal acts of the Sangha. A bhikkhu who has committed a pārājika offense may not dwell in communion with the Sangha.

“Thus the sequence of the clauses of the precept has been presented. In order to distinguish clearly the different places in which an offense is committed, the Tathagata concluded with this clause. The insertion of one organ into another organ does not apply only to a woman, but to all females.

If a woman is made of gold or silver, this does not constitute an improper place. If it is indeed a place, an offense is committed. I shall explain: ‘A female has three’ means the three types of female organ.

A woman has three passages, which are places where an offense may arise; a paṇḍaka has three types and has two organs; and a man has three types, all of which fall under pārājika. Men and women together have twelve places; this is also easy to understand. The two organs of a paṇḍaka will be explained later.

“A woman has three organs, and a female animal likewise has three; a female nonhuman being has three organs, making nine organs in all. A paṇḍaka alone has two organs; among humans, nonhuman beings, and animals, these together make nine organs. A human paṇḍaka, a nonhuman paṇḍaka, and an animal paṇḍaka each have two, making six organs altogether. Human males, nonhuman males, and animal males together have six. The total is thirty organs. If two organs make contact even to the extent of a sesame seed for the performance of an impure act, one commits a pārājika offense. If it is not done with a mind of lust, this offense is not constituted.

“Therefore the Vinaya says: ‘A bhikkhu without a mind of lust.’ This refers to the beginning. ‘Bhikkhu’ here refers to a bhikkhu who performs the sexual act. The fecal passage is the anus. If a bhikkhu engages in sexual intercourse through the fecal passage and inserts the organ even to the extent of a sesame seed, he incurs a pārājika offense.

If he does not initiate the act himself but tells another person to perform it upon him, and while it is being done he assents to and delights in it, he likewise incurs the offense stated above. This is an intentional act; one does not incur the offense through some other circumstance. Suppose one who has gone forth is forced by another person to perform an impure act.

If that bhikkhu does not assent to or delight in it, but single-mindedly guards the precepts, he does not commit an offense. If afterward he delights in it, he commits a pārājika offense.

“An enemy may bring a woman with the intention of ruining a bhikkhu, or may entice him with food. On coming to the bhikkhu, friends or relatives may say: ‘Venerable sir, this is our undertaking; we ask the venerable one to consent to it.’ At midnight they bring a woman, awaken the bhikkhu, or seize the bhikkhu’s hands, feet, and head, and then place the woman’s female organ or fecal passage upon the bhikkhu’s organ. If the bhikkhu experiences pleasure throughout all three stages, he commits a pārājika offense, whether or not semen is emitted.

He must not say: ‘Because an enemy restrained me, I committed no offense.’ If his mind experiences pleasure during any of the four stages, he commits an offense. First, when the organ begins to enter; second, when the organ is inside; third, when it is withdrawn; fourth, when pleasure is experienced. If he does not experience pleasure when the organ first enters, but experiences pleasure while it is inside or being withdrawn, he commits a pārājika offense.

If he does not experience pleasure when the organ enters or while it is inside, but experiences pleasure when it is withdrawn, he commits a pārājika offense. If he experiences no pleasure during any of the four stages, he does not commit an offense. ‘Experiences no pleasure’ means that it is as though the organ were inserted into the mouth of a venomous snake or into fire. Therefore the Vinaya says: ‘If, while it is being inserted and withdrawn, he experiences no pleasure, he does not commit a pārājika offense.’

“Thus, a bhikkhu practicing meditation contemplates suffering, emptiness, and non-self, without regard for body or life. When surrounded by women, he regards himself as surrounded by fire, and he regards the five sensual pleasures as five sharp blades wielded by bandits to inflict harm. In such a case there is no offense.

The foregoing is the section on the four matters. The four matters having thus been clarified, when an enemy brings a woman to a bhikkhu, an offense is committed not only with regard to the fecal passage, but also with regard to the urinary passage or the mouth. Furthermore, when an enemy brings a woman, it may be a woman who remains awake throughout the night, or he may bring a woman who is intoxicated, insane, deranged, or dead, or the corpse of a woman not yet eaten by wild beasts.”

The Dharma teacher said: “‘Not yet eaten’ means that the female organ has not been eaten. Or he may bring the corpse of a woman whose female organ has decayed to a greater or lesser extent. This applies not only to the female organ, but likewise to the fecal passage and the mouth. It applies not only to a woman, but also to a female animal, when a greater or lesser portion of any of those three places remains after decay. It also applies when a greater or lesser portion remains of the two organs of a man or the two organs of a paṇḍaka. Thus there are these four kinds.”

The Dharma teacher said: “A woman has three passages; the three passages are common to four cases (?). For a woman who is not asleep, there are three for four; for an intoxicated woman, three for four; for an insane woman, three for four; for a deranged woman, three for four; for the corpse of a woman with much remaining, three for four; for the corpse of a woman with little remaining, three for four; and for the corpse of a woman with very little remaining, three for four.

Altogether there are twenty-seven (?). Female nonhuman beings and female animals are likewise; combining the three classes of females gives eighty-one (?). The two organs of a paṇḍaka are treated in the same way as those of a woman, giving a total of eighty-one (?).

A paṇḍaka and a man each have three places, giving a total of fifty-four (?). Nonhuman males and animal males each have two organs, giving a total of fifty-four (?). Thus, together with all the cases concerning women, there are 270 places.

This meaning is easy to understand. I shall explain the meaning of the phrase ‘a greater or lesser portion remains.’”

In the country of Sihala, there were two Vinaya masters who studied under the same acariya. One was named the Venerable Upatissa, and the other was named the Venerable Phussadeva. These two Dharma masters guarded the Vinaya Pitaka as though dwelling in a place of danger.

Upatissa had disciples of very great wisdom. The first was the Venerable Mahapaduma, and the second was named Mahasumma. Mahasumma studied the entire Vinaya nine times.

Although Mahapaduma, together with Mahasumma, heard the Vinaya nine times, Mahapaduma studied it separately another nine times and thus became highly proficient. After studying the Vinaya nine times, the Venerable Mahasumma left his acariya, crossed the river, and took up residence elsewhere. Hearing that the Venerable Mahasumma had crossed the river to reside separately, Mahapaduma reflected: “The Vinaya master here is highly accomplished.

While that teacher is still present, this other venerable has gone to dwell at another residence—he is indeed courageous. While the teacher is still living, I should come every year to hear the Vinaya Pitaka and its commentaries. One should not study only once; only one who recites it until thoroughly proficient may be called a Vinaya master who reveres the Vinaya.”

One day, the Venerable Upatissa and Mahapaduma, as the leaders, were teaching five hundred disciples. While they were seated explaining the passages in the Parajika section, a disciple asked his teacher: “Venerable sir! If more than half of the organ remains, one commits a Parajika offense, and if less remains, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. What, then, if exactly half remains, and what offenses are incurred?”

The teacher replied: “Elder! When the Tathagata laid down the Parajika rule, he established it comprehensively. If an act falls within the scope of Parajika, the offense is adjudged as Parajika.

This is an offense according to the nature of the world, not an offense arising merely from the formulation of the rule. If an act involving exactly half remaining constituted a Parajika offense, the Buddha would already have established it as such. This is not found under Parajika but only under Thullaccaya.

In the case of a corpse, when more than half remains intact, the Buddha adjudged the offense as Parajika; when less remains, he adjudged it as Thullaccaya. One incurs a Thullaccaya offense and not a Parajika offense because only a small portion of the organ remains. A corpse should be understood to be without life; yet if the flesh of the organ, such as the outer skin and sinews, still remains, one commits Parajika.

“If the flesh has decomposed and the skin is gone, but the shape still remains and the male organ can be inserted, one commits the grave offense. If the organ is completely destroyed, its shape no longer remains, and it is flat like a wound, one commits Thullaccaya. If it has been eaten by dogs and the organ is no longer present on the corpse, and one engages in sexual intercourse with the flesh at that place, one commits Dukkata.

If a corpse has been entirely mutilated by animals but the three places remain and sexual intercourse can be performed in them, one commits the grave offense. If less than half remains, one commits Thullaccaya. If, with lustful intent, one inserts the organ into the eye, nose, ear, foreskin, or a wound on a living person as small as a sesame seed, one incurs a Thullaccaya offense.

At other places, such as the armpit, one incurs a Dukkata offense. If, with lustful intent, one acts upon a corpse that is exuding fluid, an act at a Parajika place constitutes Thullaccaya, while an act at a Thullaccaya place constitutes Dukkata. If one acts upon a place entailing Dukkata, the offense is adjudged according to the act committed.

If the corpse is swollen and foul-smelling, surrounded by bluebottle flies, with pus issuing from its nine openings, so that it is difficult to approach, an act at a Parajika place constitutes Thullaccaya, an act at a Thullaccaya place constitutes Dukkata, and sexual intercourse at any place entailing Dukkata constitutes Dukkata. Engaging in sexual intercourse with the nostril of an animal such as an elephant, horse, cow, donkey, camel, or buffalo constitutes Thullaccaya.

An act involving the eyes, ears, wounds, or other places of those animals constitutes Dukkata. If the animal is dead and already exuding fluid, an act at a Parajika place constitutes Thullaccaya; at a place entailing Dukkata, one incurs an offense according to the gravity of the particular case. If the corpse has become swollen, one incurs Dukkata, as stated above.

Regarding the foreskin of a man, whether out of delight in its softness and smoothness or acting with lustful intent, if two men grasp each other’s male organs, they incur Dukkata.

“If one grasps the female organ with lustful intent, one incurs Thullaccaya. The foregoing is drawn from the Great Commentary (Mahaatthakatha). If a bhikkhu, with lustful intent, grasps a female organ or engages in mutual kissing, he incurs Thullaccaya. Through whom did this occasion arise?”

Answer: “Through the group of six bhikkhus. At that time, the six bhikkhus were on the bank of the Aciravati River. While crossing the river together with cattle, they grasped the horns and, with lustful intent, rubbed themselves against the area between the horns or against the hairy area beneath the ears adjoining the back. The details cannot all be related. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: ‘If one rubs against something with lustful intent, one commits a Thullaccaya offense.’ All such circumstances should be examined and understood so that this meaning is not lost. What does it mean not to lose this meaning?

“If one intends to place one mouth against another mouth, but the case does not possess the character of lust because there was originally no lustful intent, one incurs Dukkata. If one experiences pleasurable feeling and delights in softness and smoothness, touching mouth to mouth constitutes Sanghadisesa. Touching the outside of the female organ with the male organ constitutes Sanghadisesa. Touching the outside of the organ of a female animal with the male organ constitutes Thullaccaya. If the contact is made out of delight in softness and smoothness, it constitutes Dukkata.

“In total, there are 269 cases. The four categories have now been explained. Thus, for the protection of those who follow the precepts, the Blessed One taught 274 categories.

The Tathagata wished to forestall evil bhikkhus in the future from claiming that engaging in sexual intercourse after covering the male organ with an object was without offense. Therefore, the Buddha set forth this matter to protect the true Dharma and to prevent the 274 cases described above from arising in the future, distinguishing them through fourteen kinds of barriers. Enemies may bring a woman in order to corrupt a bhikkhu who practices purity.

They use the passage of excrement, the passage of urine, and two mouths, together with the following two modes, to violate the bhikkhu. First, there is that which has a barrier and that which has no barrier. ‘Having a barrier’ refers to the woman’s three passages, while ‘having no barrier’ refers to the bhikkhu’s organ.

“The Dharma master said: ‘I shall analyze this matter. “Having a barrier” means that at one of the woman’s three passages, an object such as a leaf, cloth, cured leather, beeswax, lead, or iron is used to form a barrier over the female organ.’

“The Dharma master said: ‘A barrier may consist of any suitable material. Whether that which has a barrier and that which has no barrier enter one another; whether the case is without a barrier against that which has a barrier, without a barrier against that which has no barrier, or with a barrier against that which has a barrier—if the act is performed with lustful intent, one commits a Parajika offense. If the act falls within Parajika, one incurs Parajika; if it falls within Thullaccaya, one incurs Thullaccaya; and if it falls within Dukkata, one incurs Dukkata.

If one covers the female organ with an object and performs the sexual act upon that object, one incurs Dukkata. If one ties an object to the male organ and inserts the end of that object into the female organ, one incurs Dukkata. If one rubs the two objects against each other, one incurs Dukkata.

If one places a bamboo or copper tube in the female organ and engages in the sexual act within that tube, then, if there is contact with flesh, one commits Parajika. If the tube is split on both sides, allowing contact with the flesh, it is Parajika. If a jointed bamboo tube covers the tip of the male organ, but the remaining portion on all four sides comes into contact with the flesh of the female organ, it is Parajika.

If the organ remains inside the tube without contacting flesh, it is Dukkata. Thus you now understand all the characteristics of these offenses. The foregoing concerns the four kinds of barriers.’

Thus the four kinds of obstruction have been clearly explained. It is not only in the case where enemies bring a woman to a bhikkhu; when they bring a bhikkhu to a woman, too, there are cases where there is penetration and where there is no penetration, as explained above. This concludes the explanation of the four acts committed by enemies. Why is this so? Because only enemies of a bhikkhu would act in this manner. Or the king may be the foremost enemy. I shall explain. These enemies bring to the bhikkhu persons such as a woman, a robber, a lustful man who delights in sexual intercourse, a heedless person who delights in sensual pleasure, or Caṇḍāla bandits—bandits who habitually take human hearts as offerings to ghosts and deities.

Why is this? These bandits refuse to plow fields or cultivate crops to support their wives and children, living solely by plundering villagers and merchants for their possessions. When Caṇḍāla bandits go out to rob, they often labor in vain because villagers and merchants have protection, and so the bandits cannot seize anything. A bhikkhu dwelling in a secluded place has no one to protect him and is therefore easily robbed. After capturing a bhikkhu, they reflect that killing him would incur grave guilt. Wishing instead to destroy his virtuous observance, they bring a woman to him so that he will break the precept.

The Dharma teacher said: “This is as in the four cases explained above. It was previously stated in brief that a woman has three passages for sexual intercourse; this will now be explained clearly so that no doubt remains. One passage is inserted into another passage.”

Question: “What does it mean for one passage to be inserted into another passage?”

Answer: “A woman has three passages, and the male organ is inserted into any one of these three. In a case where two passages have become joined as one, it may be inserted through the urinary passage and withdrawn through the anal passage, or inserted through the anal passage and withdrawn through the urinary passage. It may be inserted through the urinary passage, but because there is a wound beside that passage, it is withdrawn through the wound. ‘Through a non-passage’ means that it is inserted through a wound and withdrawn through the urinary passage.

If it is inserted through a non-passage or withdrawn through a non-passage, it is a pārājika offense. It is a thullaccaya offense when two wound-openings have become joined as one and it is inserted through the first wound and withdrawn through the second.”

Next, I shall discuss two cases in which, if one is unaware and experiences no pleasure, no offense is committed. If a sleeping bhikkhu is aware and experiences pleasure, he may not say, “I was asleep.” If he says that he was unaware and felt nothing, the one making that statement is absolved of the offense, while the second person is expelled and returned to lay life. The sleeper should be asked, “Did you experience pleasure?” If he experienced pleasure, it is a pārājika offense.

If he acted intentionally, there is no need to ask. Thus the case involving an offense has been clarified. In the case where there is no offense because of unawareness, the bhikkhu is so deeply asleep that he is unaware, like one absorbed in meditative concentration, knowing absolutely nothing; he is therefore guiltless.

As stated in the Vinaya, a bhikkhu said: “Venerable Blessed One, I was unaware of that matter.”

The Buddha said: “Bhikkhu, if you were not awake and were unaware, there is no offense.” To be awake yet without sensation means that one knows because one is awake, but feels no pleasure; therefore there is no offense. As stated in the Vinaya: “Venerable Blessed One, I was awake, but I experienced no pleasure.”

The Buddha said: “Bhikkhu, if you were awake but experienced no pleasure, there is no offense.” There are two kinds of madness: first, internal madness; second, external madness. External madness is like having diseased blood throughout the body: when the illness arises, sores erupt over the entire body and the whole body convulses, but it ceases when treated with medicine. If the illness is internal, derangement arises; the person no longer knows what is grave and what is slight, and medicine cannot cure it.

One afflicted by madness of this kind commits no offense. Loss of reason means that the mind has been altered as though by a yakṣa. There are two cases.

First, a yakṣa manifests a form and terrifies a person, causing that person to lose reason. Second, a yakṣa places its hand into a person’s mouth and churns the five internal organs, causing that person to lose reason. One who has lost reason through either of these two causes commits no offense.

A person afflicted by such madness and loss of reason grasps fire as though grasping gold, and upon seeing excrement, scoops it up as though scooping sandalwood powder. If such a mad person violates a precept, there is no offense. As for a person who is sometimes deranged and sometimes lucid, if the act is committed while lucid, an offense is incurred.

A sick person commits no offense during the period of illness. “The beginning” means the first such act, as in the case of Sudinna, who did not incur a pārājika offense. In other cases, such as the monkey and the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhu, a pārājika offense is incurred.

Thus the explanation of the root text of the Vinaya is complete (Padabhàaniyavannanà nitthità).

Commentary on the Vinaya: The Goodly Seen

—Fascicle Seven—