善見律毘婆沙

The general explanation for understanding the sensual desires discussed in the disciplinary text has been given. You should know that when an act is performed intentionally, then, according to the act, there will be worldly karma that is either meritorious or blameworthy.

“Arising” means that, according to the disciplinary text, rules arise from the six statements concerning discipline.

The Dharma teacher said: “This will be explained extensively later; now it is presented briefly. Subsequent rules arise based on six types of disciplinary rules. Some rules arise from four types.

Some rules arise from three types. Some rules arise from the kathina. Some rules arise from sheep’s wool.

Some rules arise from abandoning a responsibility (Atthikathinasamutthānaṃ, atthi elakalomosamutthānaṃ, atthi dhuramikkhepādisamutthānaṃ). Among these, some cases arise from doing. Some cases arise from not doing.

Some cases arise from both doing and not doing. Among these, in some cases one who knows is absolved of the offense, while in others one who knows is not absolved of the offense. In this rule, ‘one with awareness is absolved’ means that one who knows should be absolved.

In other cases, one is not absolved merely because one did not know. Again, there are rules concerning acts without intention and rules concerning acts with intention.

Question: “What does a rule concerning an act with intention mean?”

Answer: “Because the act is performed with intention, an offense is incurred.”

Question: “What is an act without intention?”

Answer: “Because the mind is not under one’s control, an offense is incurred. These are all worldly offenses. Offenses established by disciplinary rules are of two kinds; the characteristics of the offenses will now be presented.

“Performed with wholesome feeling” means that some rules concern bodily karma and some rules concern verbal karma.

Question: “What is bodily karma?”

Answer: “When an offense is committed through a bodily act, it is called bodily karma. When an offense is committed through an act of speech, it is called verbal karma. Again, there are wholesome rules and unwholesome rules.

Thirty-two wholesome, unwholesome, and neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome states of mind give rise to offenses. In the sensual realm there are eight wholesome states of mind, twelve unwholesome states of mind, and ten indeterminate states of mind. Among wholesome and indeterminate states of mind, there are two kinds of resultant consciousness.

Among these states of mind, when an offense is incurred through a wholesome state of mind, it is called a wholesome offense. The remaining cases are explained successively in the same manner. There are rules associated with three feelings, rules associated with two feelings, and rules associated with one feeling.

Among the three feelings, when an offense is incurred because of any of the three feelings, it is called an offense associated with three feelings. When an offense is incurred either through pleasant feeling or through neutral feeling, it is called an offense associated with two feelings. When an offense is incurred through painful feeling, it is called an offense associated with one feeling.

Thus, relying upon an indeterminate perception and acting intentionally, one commits an offense by nature through acting with wholesome feeling. Having understood these complexities, you should know from what kind of arising the pārājika offense originates: it arises from precisely one kind. Considered according to its factors, it has two factors.

It arises in dependence upon body and mind. Because an act is performed with those two factors, an offense is incurred; this is called the cause of the act. ‘Perception’ means an established perception; if there is no perception of sensual desire, one is absolved of the offense. The cases in which there is no offense are when one does not know, does not feel, does not experience, or takes no pleasure. ‘With intention’ means that an act is performed with a mind of sensual desire, after which an offense is incurred.

An offense by nature is a naturally blameworthy offense. If body and mind act together, an offense is then incurred. An act performed out of greed is called unwholesome.

When an offense is incurred through either of two states—pleasant or neutral feeling—it is called an offense associated with two feelings.”

The Dharma teacher said: “All the characteristics of offenses have been clearly explained above. You should understand them accordingly.”

The monkey, the Vajjiputtaka, the old man who went forth, and the deer.

(Makkhati Vijjputtā ca-pe-buddhapabbajito migo).

This verse is called an udāna. To make it easy for later masters of the Vinaya to remember, the Blessed One taught this verse to Upāli. You should carefully examine the characteristics of the offenses.

The case of the monkey and the Vajjiputtaka was the occasion for a supplementary disciplinary rule. “White-clad” means engaging in sexual intercourse with a layperson, one who wears white garments. “Grass garment” means the garment of non-Buddhist ascetics, made by binding grass together.

“Bark garment” means a garment made from stripped tree bark. “Plank garment” means using planks to cover the front and back as clothing. Kesa-kambala is a person who weaves human hair to make clothing.

Vāla-kambala means using the tail hair of the yak (Camaravāla) to weave clothing. Ulūkapakkha means joining hawks’ feathers together to make clothing. Ajinakkhipa means using the hide from a deer’s thigh, with the hair still attached, to make clothing.

Question: “In what case does one kill a person without incurring a pārājika offense?”

Answer: “When one originally intended only to enjoy the softness and had no intention to kill, one commits only a saṅghādisesa offense. The bhikkhunī Uppalavaṇṇā was originally the daughter of a wealthy householder in the country of Sāvatthī. For hundreds of thousands of kalpas in the past, this bhikkhunī had performed wholesome deeds and was therefore exceedingly beautiful and graceful. Her complexion was like an uppala blossom. Having become free from the afflictions, she grew even more beautiful and was therefore called the Lotus-Hued Bhikkhunī.

“Defiled” means that, from the time she was a white-clad laywoman until then, only at that time was she violated by a man.

“Sleeping on the bed” means that after going for alms, eating, and returning, she opened the door of her room and entered. Because it was dark, she did not see that a man was inside. This bhikkhunī removed her robes to rest. That brahmin emerged from beneath the bed and violated the bhikkhunī.

“Violated” means that he violated the physical integrity of the bhikkhunī.

“This bhikkhunī was pure and no longer had sensual defilement. She felt as though hot iron had touched her body and therefore did not transgress the rule. After committing the sexual act, the man departed. This earth can support Mount Sumeru, king of mountains, yet it could not bear the seven-foot body of that evil man. Therefore, the earth split open, and that evil man immediately fell into the Avīci hell, where he was caught in a net of flames.

“Upon hearing this, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus: ‘This bhikkhunī took no pleasure in it; therefore, she is said to be without offense.’

“On account of this incident, the Buddha spoke this verse:

Like a lotus in the water,

Like a mustard seed on a needle’s point,

Whoever is unstained by sensual desire,

That one I call a brahmin. — (Dhammapada 401).

“In the fourteenth passage, ‘the female faculty arose’ means that at midnight, while he was sleeping deeply, his masculine features, beard, and teeth disappeared, and he developed female characteristics. The Buddha permitted the person to retain the same preceptor and the same higher ordination as before, without needing to request another preceptor or receive higher ordination again. The rains-retreat seniority was to be counted from the time of the original ordination.

The Buddha permitted the person to go and live together with the bhikkhunīs and to retain the previous rains-retreat seniority. There is another matter here: if one has committed the offense of intentional emission of semen (Sukkavissaṭṭhi) and then undergoes a change of sex (Liṅgaparivattana), the offense ceases. If that person later becomes a man again, the offense still no longer remains.”

The Dharma teacher said: “This is an explanation passage by passage; what follows is an extensive explanation. Of the two sexes, the male sex is superior to the female sex. Why is this?

If a man has many offenses, he loses the male faculty and becomes a woman. If a woman possesses abundant virtue, she changes and acquires the male faculty. Thus, among these two faculties, one loses the male faculty through abundant offenses and becomes a man through abundant virtue.

Two bhikkhus lived together in one place to study, teach, and recite the scriptures. At midnight, one bhikkhu underwent a change of sex and became a woman. Thus, the two incurred the offense of sleeping together.

Upon discovering this, one of them became distressed, lamented, and wept to the other. His roommate should say: ‘Friend, do not grieve. Even for such an offense within the three realms, the Buddha has opened a way of release; any bhikkhu or bhikkhunī to whom this happens is not thereby barred from wholesome states.’

“After comforting the person in this way, he should say: ‘Friend, you should go and live with the community of bhikkhunīs.’

“If the bhikkhunī who has undergone a change of sex asks: ‘Venerable sir, are you acquainted with any bhikkhunī?’

“If he is, he should answer that he is; if he is not, he should answer that he is not.

“If the bhikkhunī who has undergone a change of sex says: ‘Please take me to the community of bhikkhunīs.’”

The bhikkhus living together with that bhikkhu should take this person and entrust her to bhikkhunis with whom they are acquainted. If there are no acquaintances, they should take her to a bhikkhuni monastery (Upassaya). When going, they must not go as a pair. They may go only if there are four or five bhikkhus, and they must carry a bright torch (jotika) and a staff (kattaradanda), compassionately accompanying her together to the bhikkhuni monastery. If the monastery is far away, beyond the village, and they must ford a river, they should remain together with the Sangha; then there is no offense.

Upon reaching the bhikkhuni monastery, they should give the name of this bhikkhu whose sex has changed and ask whether the bhikkhunis know her. If they do, the bhikkhunis reply that they know her. The Sangha should tell them: “This bhikkhu has changed to the female sex. May the bhikkhunis compassionately care for this bhikkhuni.”

The community of bhikkhunis should reply: “Excellent! We shall have this bhikkhuni recite scriptures and listen to the Dharma together with us.”

After entrusting that bhikkhuni to them, the bhikkhus return to their own monastery.

The bhikkhuni whose sex has changed must conform to the community of bhikkhunis and must not act contrary to their wishes. If those bhikkhunis lack a sense of shame and moral dread and do not agree to assist her, she is permitted to go to another bhikkhuni monastery and seek a teacher upon whom to depend in order to study the scriptures and Dharma and to live in conformity with the discipline of bhikkhunis. This bhikkhuni whose sex has changed is permitted to ordain disciples and to accept others as dependents.

The bhikkhunis must not harbor resentment or discriminate between themselves and her. Any samaneras who were her disciples while she was a bhikkhu should be entrusted to other bhikkhus. As for the robes and bowl she had as a bhikkhu, their formal acceptance has lapsed, so she should accept anew a bowl and five robes in the presence of bhikkhunis.

Any additional robes and bowls beyond the number formally undertaken must be declared pure before being used. Seven-day medicine accepted while she was a bhikkhu loses its formal acceptance and should be accepted anew. If she changes sex precisely when the seven days for seven-day medicine she accepted have elapsed, she is permitted to use it for an additional seven days.

Donors she had while a bhikkhu are not lost now that she is a bhikkhuni. She is still permitted to take her share, as before, of all things donated in common while she was a bhikkhu. According to the disciplinary text (Paivana): If seven-day medicines such as ghee, oil, sugar, or honey have been accepted by someone and their allotted time has not yet expired, one who takes and uses them when an occasion arises commits an offense.

Let the wise reflect upon the meaning of this. These are the questions concerning one whose sex has changed.

“Acceptance” refers to whether it is lost or not lost. Through a change of sex, death, abandoning the path, returning to lay life, being robbed by bandits, or relinquishing with such intentions, the formal acceptance is said to be lost. Even if one has just accepted a single mango and then changes sex, that formal acceptance is lost.

Personal requisites that belonged to her while she was a bhikkhu may be taken along and used; even a private room or dwelling remains hers. If an item was formerly supplied by the Sangha, it should be returned to the Sangha. If previously, because she had rendered service to the Sangha, the Sangha intended to give her a fine room or bedding but had not yet done so, then when she has changed sex and become a bhikkhuni, the Bhikkhu Sangha should give it to her just as they would to a bhikkhu.

If she has committed a Sanghadisesa offense, she should be made to undergo the half-month Manatta discipline and then be rehabilitated. If a bhikkhu changes sex and becomes a bhikkhuni before completing the Manatta discipline, the community of bhikkhunis should have her undergo a half-month of Manatta and then rehabilitate her. If the Manatta discipline has already been completed and she then changes sex and becomes a bhikkhuni, they should rehabilitate her (abbhana).

If, before completing the half-month of Manatta, she changes sex again and becomes a bhikkhu, he should be made to undergo six nights of Manatta and then be rehabilitated. If the Manatta discipline has been completed and the person changes sex again, the Bhikkhu Sangha should rehabilitate him. The foregoing concerns cases in which a bhikkhu changes sex.

If a bhikkhuni who has acted as a go-between (sancaritta) conceals the offense without disclosing it and then changes sex and becomes a bhikkhu, there is no need to impose a penalty for concealment; he should merely be made to undergo six nights of Manatta and then be rehabilitated. If a bhikkhuni changes sex and becomes a bhikkhu while undergoing a half-month of Manatta, there is no need for him to continue the Manatta; he should be rehabilitated immediately. If she has completed the Manatta and then changes sex and becomes a bhikkhu, a formal act of rehabilitation should be performed for him. If he changes sex again and becomes a bhikkhuni, she should be made to undergo a half-month of Manatta and then be rehabilitated.

The Dharma teacher said: “Understand these matters clearly in the sequence given above.”

“Supple” means that this bhikkhu had formerly been a dancer, and therefore his spine was supple. “Long organ” means that this bhikkhu’s male organ was long.

Using clay to draw a figure or mold an image of a woman: a “figure” is a drawn image of a woman. A wooden female image is a piece of wood carved into the image of a woman. Making an image of a woman from gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, wax, or wood is in every case a Dukkata offense. If one makes an image with the intention of emitting semen, then if semen is emitted, it is a Sanghadisesa offense; if semen is not emitted, it is a Thullaccaya offense. Caressing a wooden woman is in every case a Dukkata offense.

“Handsome” means that this handsome bhikkhu was a native of Rajagaha. He had a handsome appearance and went forth out of faith, and therefore he was named Handsome. Seeing this bhikkhu walking along the royal road with his handsome appearance, a girl became lustful and wished to take the bhikkhu’s male organ into her mouth. This bhikkhu was an anagamin and therefore had no thought of pleasure and did not acquiesce.

The next sentence concerns other foolish bhikkhus who complied with the woman’s request. The Dharma teacher said: “These three verses are very easy to understand. ‘Mouth opened wide’ means that breath can be exhaled. If a bhikkhu engages in sexual intercourse in a mouth and makes contact with its four sides, it is a Parajika offense.

If there is no contact with the four sides or the tip, it is a Dukkata offense. If the tip of the organ is inserted past the teeth, it is a Parajika offense. If the organ is inside while the foreskin remains outside the teeth, it is a Parajika offense.

If the organ is outside the teeth but is uncovered by the foreskin, it is a Thullaccaya offense. Extending the tongue outside and making contact with another tongue for sexual gratification is a Thullaccaya offense. If another person inserts their tongue against one’s own tongue for sexual gratification, it is a Thullaccaya offense.

Licking a male organ with the tongue is a Thullaccaya offense. Having sexual intercourse with the throat or mouth of a severed corpse’s head is a Parajika offense. Engaging in sexual activity with the throat of a decapitated corpse is a Thullaccaya offense.

Regarding white bones (Atthikavatthumhi susànam gacchantassàpi dukkatam), if a bhikkhu merely forms the intention to go there, it is a Dukkata offense. If he gathers and joins the bones together, delights in their softness and smallness, acts with a lustful mind, and inserts his organ, then whether semen is emitted or not, it is a Dukkata offense. If he acts and emits semen as intended, it is a Sanghadisesa offense; if semen is not emitted, it is a Thullaccaya offense.

A female naga is a female dragon who transforms herself into the form of a woman, or a female kinnara. If a bhikkhu has sexual intercourse with any such being, it is in every case a Parajika offense. ‘Yakkha’ is a general designation for various kinds of spirits and demons. Petas are all kinds of hungry ghosts.

There are petas who undergo punishment for half a month and are free from it for half a month, during which time they are no different from heavenly beings. When they manifest a body that can be grasped, it is a Parajika offense. If they do not manifest visibly but can still be grasped, it is a Parajika offense.

If they neither manifest nor can be grasped, there is no offense. If these spirits and demons use their supernatural power to seize a bhikkhu and engage in sexual intercourse with him, the bhikkhu commits no offense.”

The Dharma teacher said: “The meaning can be understood by following the sequence of the text.”

“If the male organ is diseased” means that a growth of flesh, called a tumor, has arisen on the male organ. If he has sexual intercourse with a woman, whether sensation is present or absent, it is a Parajika offense.

“Placing it near the female organ” means that when this bhikkhu wished to have sexual intercourse with a woman, he felt remorse and therefore merely placed his male organ outside without inserting it into the female organ. This is a Dukkata offense.

“Beginning the sexual act” means grasping the hand or any part of the body without yet inserting the male organ into the female organ. This is a Dukkata offense. If it is inserted into the female organ, he incurs the grave offense.

When wishing to sleep, a bhikkhu must first close the door. Therefore, the Vinaya says: The Buddha told the bhikkhus that sleeping without closing the door refers to the case of entering meditation during the daytime. A bhikkhu entering meditation during the daytime should also close the door.

The Dharma teacher said: “The Vinaya speaks of not closing the door, but does not say that an offense is committed.”

Concerning sleeping with the door open, the Khandhaka says: The Buddha told the bhikkhus that one who wishes to enter meditation during the daytime should close the door before entering meditation. Whoever does not close the door commits an offense of dukkata.

Upali and the bhikkhus understood the Buddha’s intention... This is explained fully in the Vinaya.

This passage states that an offense is committed during the daytime, but no offense is committed at midnight. The meaning of this sentence follows the preceding passage.

The Dharma teacher said: “Some kinds of doors can be closed, while others cannot.”

Answer: “There are doors whose frames are made from tree branches or bamboo branches, after which door panels are fashioned according to the available conditions. If there is a socket beneath the door panel, there should be a pivot above to hold it in place. If the door panel is movable, a door like that of a cattle pen should be used, with two or three horizontal bars to close it.

For a door fitted with wheels beneath the panel so that it can be pushed, the door may be made from planks or bamboo, or it may consist of a bamboo screen or a cloth curtain. If one hand is holding an alms bowl while the other closes the door, there is no offense only when the door is a cloth curtain; in all other cases, an offense of dukkata is committed. When a bhikkhu enters meditation during the daytime, a movable door should be closed; if he does not close it, he commits an offense.

With other kinds of doors, he commits no offense if he enters meditation or sleeps without closing them.”

The Dharma teacher said: “A door with a socket below and a pivot above should be closed; if it is not closed, an offense is committed. When closing it, one should fasten the bolt. If there is no bolt, drawing the door shut and placing an object against it also constitutes closing it. If a closed door leaves a small opening at the top, it is still considered closed, provided the gap is too narrow for a person’s head to pass through. If several people, such as bhikkhus, novices, or elders, are outside, one may say, ‘Venerable ones, please keep watch,’ and then enter meditation without offense. If someone is walking in meditation or working outside, and one thinks, ‘This bhikkhu is keeping watch outside,’ one may sleep without offense.”

The Kurundatthakatha explains at length: It is also permissible to ask a male lay devotee to watch the door, but one must not ask a bhikkhuni or a woman. If the door panel or fastening is broken or absent, or if work is being done in front of the room so that the door should not be closed, one who sleeps with this understanding commits no offense. If there is no door, there is no offense.

If one enters meditation in an upper room that can be reached only by setting up a ladder, there is no offense. If the room does not require a ladder, one may close the door below and sleep without offense. When sleeping in a room, one should close its door.

If there is a small room behind a large room, one may close the door of the large room and sleep in the small room without offense. If one sleeps in the small room, closing only the door of the small room and not that of the large room entails no offense. If a room has two doors, both should be closed, and one may then sleep without offense.

If a building has three stories, with an elder dwelling on the lowest floor and bhikkhus sleeping on the middle and upper floors, one should think, ‘The elder is staying on the floor below; I may sleep,’ and there is no offense. If there is a gatekeeper, one should tell him, ‘Please watch the door.’ Having said this, one may sleep without offense. If there is neither an elder nor a gatekeeper, but one has informed bhikkhus, novices, or laypeople, one may sleep without offense.

If two persons go together on almsround, the one who returns first may think that the one returning later will close the door.

The Dharma teacher said: “If a door of the kind fitted into a socket, which can be opened and closed, is not closed, an offense is committed. With other kinds of doors, there is no offense. Even if there is a door that can be closed, if the room has no roof, no offense is committed by not closing it. If, after midnight toward dawn, one opens the door and falls asleep, there is no offense; even if one does not awaken until morning, there is no offense. If one awakens and then goes back to sleep, an offense is committed. If, when going to sleep without having closed the door, a bhikkhu thinks, ‘I shall sleep until morning and then awaken,’ he commits an offense.”

A bhikkhu traveling a long road may not be able to sleep until midnight. If he falls asleep while his feet are still on the ground and sleeps deeply without being aware of it, there is no offense. If he has already placed his feet upon the bed and then falls asleep unawares, there is an offense.

If a bhikkhu falls asleep while sitting without having closed the door, there is no offense. If he is walking in meditation inside the room, becomes overwhelmingly drowsy, and falls asleep on the ground without having closed the door, there is no offense. If he awakens and then sleeps again, there is an offense.

If a yakkha seizes a bhikkhu and forces him to sleep, and the bhikkhu complies, he commits an offense. The Kurunda clearly states: If one does not intentionally go to sleep, there is no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The Venerable Paduma maintained that whether one is aware or unaware, an offense is committed. The Bhikkhu Bharukacchaka maintained that Upali had not acted contrary to the Buddha’s intention and judged that there was no offense. After making this declaration, he asked the Buddha and was praised by him: ‘Excellent!’”

The Dharma teacher said: “The subsequent passages, in sequence, are easy to understand.”

The Licchavi youths: Licchavi was their clan name, and the youths were named according to their clan. Driven by lust, these youths seized a bhikkhu and compelled him to engage in sexual intercourse. Because of this unlawful act, their families fell into ruin.

An elderly man who had gone forth returned home to visit his former wife. This was a bhikkhu who had gone forth in old age and returned to visit her out of compassion. His former wife asked: “Venerable sir! There are many children, yet no one supports them. Venerable sir, please return to the household life.”

Seeing that the bhikkhu did not reply and realizing that he would not return to the household life, his former wife pushed him to the ground. The elderly bhikkhu was weak and had no strength, so he could only struggle with his limbs and could not escape. His former wife threw herself upon him and engaged in sexual intercourse, not getting off him until she was satisfied. This bhikkhu was a non-returner; because sensual desire within the three realms had been extinguished in him, he experienced no pleasure.

The account of the young deer (Migapotakavatthu) is entirely easy to understand. The foregoing completes the first part of the chapter on parajika (Pathamaparajikavannana nitthita).

Skillfully discerning every characteristic,

The Vinaya text conceals nothing;

Good at the beginning, the end, and the middle,

It is therefore called wholly good.

The Tathagata taught sentient beings;

The Vinaya is the supreme Dharma.

Out of compassion for sentient beings,

He therefore expounded the Vinaya Pitaka.

The Buddha taught the Dharma that has no second.

Among the causes of downfall, parajika stands foremost.

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling on Mount Gijjhakuta, in the city of Rajagaha. Rajagaha was the name of the realm.

Question: “Why was it called Rajagaha?”

Answer: “At the beginning of the aeon, the first two sacred kings, Mandhatu and Mahagovinda, built dwellings in this region; therefore, it was called Rajagaha, ‘the abode of kings.’”

There is another explanation: In this region, whenever a Buddha arises in the world and a wheel-turning monarch (Cakkavattin) appears, he establishes his realm here. When no sacred king appears, yakkhas rule this land. This is the region through which they travel.

It is also said that Mount Gijjhakuta was the dwelling place of the Buddha. Gijjha is the name for the vulture, and kuta means a mountain peak. After feeding, vultures flew up and perched upon the mountain peak; therefore, it was called Mount Gijjhakuta. Another Dharma teacher explained that a rock on the summit was shaped like a vulture; therefore, it was called Mount Gijjhakuta.

An assembly: As stated in the Vinaya text, three persons are an assembly, while more than three persons are called a Sangha. According to the wording of the suttas, however, three persons are called an assembly. Here the wording of the suttas is followed.

An acquaintance is someone known from living together in the same dwelling place, though without being intimate. A long-standing companion is a close friend with whom one shares food and clothing. Concerning Mount Isigili (Isigilipassa), “isi” means one who has gone forth, and “gili” means to swallow. It was so called because, at that time, five hundred Paccekabuddhas came to the country of Kāsi-Kosala. After going for alms, they entered this mountain and together entered meditative concentration, never emerging again. People saw the Paccekabuddhas enter the mountain but did not see them come out. Some said that this mountain always swallowed those who had gone forth. From then onward, the mountain was called Isigili.

They made thatched huts on this mountain, meaning that they made huts entirely of thatch. They entered the rains retreat together here, and all five hundred bhikkhus made their own huts of thatch. The first task upon entering the rains retreat was to make lodgings with palmyra leaves.

Why? Because the Tathagata had established a rule. The Buddha told the bhikkhus that if they wished to enter the rains retreat, they must first put their lodgings in order; whoever entered the rains retreat without lodging committed a dukkata offense.

Therefore, when entering the rains retreat, it was best if lodging was already available. If none was available, they had to ask someone else to make it; they were not permitted to enter the rains retreat without lodging. Why?

Because all Buddhas of the past accepted lodgings. After the bhikkhus had finished making their lodgings, they entered the three-month rains retreat and diligently cultivated the three trainings day and night.

The Venerable Dhaniya was the first person to commit the second pārājika offense. Dhaniya was his name. His family made its living by producing pottery.

Bhikkhu Dhaniya built a thatched hut in a secluded place. “At the end of the rains retreat” means after the Pavāraṇā ceremony at the beginning of the moonless fortnight. To dismantle the thatched hut means to take it apart piece by piece without damaging it, then bind the materials together and hang them securely from a tree branch.

Why? So that anyone wishing to remain could use this thatch to build a hut. When departing, they would say: “If any monastery needs it, or if another bhikkhu takes it to build a hut, it may be used as needed.” Why was this said?

Because it was difficult for bhikkhus dwelling in the wilderness to find timber and grass with which to build huts, so the materials were bound securely or stored away. After dwelling in the wilderness, when a bhikkhu departed, he also had to dismantle the hut, arrange and bind the materials, and hang them up so that termites would not damage them and fellow practitioners could use them later. Having done so, the bhikkhus departed and traveled at will through various countries.

The Elder Dhaniya, son of a potter, remained there. Three times, wood gatherers, thinking that the hut was unoccupied, dismantled it and carried it away. Considering that, as one skilled in pottery, this matter would not be difficult for him, Bhikkhu Dhaniya mixed clay and built a house whose window frames and doorway were all made of clay, with only the door leaf made of wood.

He coated the outside with red clay and fired this earthen house using timber, firewood, cow dung, and grass. After being thoroughly fired, the house was red like fire; when struck, it rang like a bell, and when the wind blew through its windows, it sounded like music.

The Buddha asked the bhikkhus:

“What is that thing which is so red?”

The Buddha knew but deliberately asked. Why? For the purpose of establishing a rule.

The bhikkhus replied: “Blessed One, that is the house, red like fire, belonging to Dhaniya, the potter’s son.”

The Buddha rebuked this bhikkhu in countless ways:

“Why does this foolish man, devoid of loving-kindness and compassion, destroy living beings?”

Loving-kindness means to go before compassion with the sense of protecting and supporting. Compassion means that, because another is suffering, one’s mind is moved; this is called compassion. Not destroying means not harming the lives of living beings. Through foolishness, he dug up earth, kneaded it into clay, and burned it with fire, thereby killing living beings.

Therefore, the Vinaya says: “You are a fool. In the future, living beings will say that while the Buddha was still in the world, bhikkhus slaughtered living beings in this way and were without offense.” Therefore, it was necessary to prevent them from forming such a thought.

...After rebuking Dhaniya, the Tathagata told the bhikkhus: “From now onward, you must not mix clay to build a house. Whoever violates this commits a dukkata offense.”

The Buddha established this rule because of the building of an earthen house, but Bhikkhu Dhaniya was not guilty because he was the first offender. The Buddha taught that all subsequent violators would incur a dukkata offense, and anyone dwelling in such a house would incur the same offense. In building a house, it is permitted to mix thatch with clay; if it is made entirely of clay, an offense is incurred.

The bhikkhus replied: “Very well!”

The Buddha said: “Go and demolish that house.”

Having heard the command, the bhikkhus went to the house and demolished it with sticks and stones. This was the originating circumstance involving Bhikkhu Dhaniya.

The Dharma master said: “I shall explain the events in sequence as follows:

“At that time, during the day, while absorbed in meditation beside the house, Bhikkhu Dhaniya heard the sound of the bhikkhus demolishing the earthen house and asked:

“‘Alas! Venerable ones, why are you demolishing my house?’

“The bhikkhus replied: ‘The Blessed One ordered us to demolish it.’

“On hearing this, Dhaniya had to obey the command and said: ‘If the Buddha has ordered it to be done, then it is right.’”

The Dharma master said: “Bhikkhu Dhaniya built the house from his own materials; why did the Buddha order it to be demolished?”

The answer is: “The Buddha ordered it to be demolished because this house was impure and had been made according to the practices of non-Buddhist ascetics (Titthiyadhaja). Another reason was that he had no loving-kindness and compassion for living beings and therefore built the house of clay. If a bhikkhu knowledgeable in the Vinaya sees other bhikkhus acting unlawfully and contrary to the Vinaya in this way, he may demolish what they have made and incurs no offense. When it is demolished in this way, the owner of the property may not say: ‘Venerable sir, you have destroyed my house; compensate me with something of equal value.’

“If a bhikkhu makes a parasol from palmyra leaves, decorates its inside and outside in five colors, and binds it with beautiful silk cords, that parasol is improper. If only the two colors red and yellow are used, and silk cords are tied inside and outside and fastened securely to the handle for firmness rather than ornamentation, it is permitted. It is not permitted to carve or inlay images of birds, animals, and the like upon the parasol handle. Nor is it permitted to carve designs such as a crescent moon, a jar, a spade, or an eye-covering. It is permitted to carve a circular form into the parasol handle for securely fastening a cord.

“According to the prescribed method of making a kāṣāya robe, it must not be sewn in a centipede pattern, embroidered with decorative designs, or sewn in a chain-link pattern. Backstitching may be used. If making button cords, they may be made with four corners but not sixteen corners.

Buttons must not be made in the form of a mallet, an elephant, or a crab’s eye. According to the prescribed method for the corner of a kāṣāya robe, it should have a button and a hook cord, but these must not protrude conspicuously. Starch must not be used to stiffen a kāṣāya robe.

If starch has already been prepared, it may be used to prevent dust and dirt from adhering. When dyeing, perfumed water, oil, and glue must not be used. After dyeing has been completed, tinduka fruit and jewel fruit must not be used to starch and iron the robe until it becomes glossy.

During dyeing, the robe must not be trodden with the feet, rubbed with the hands, or beaten inside the dyeing pot. It must not be struck with the hands but should be gently and gradually kneaded by hand. If a cord is used to tie the corner of the kāṣāya robe, it should be tied where the water can drain away and removed after the robe has been dyed.

The Vinaya says that the Buddha told the bhikkhus: ‘I permit the use of a cord to tie the corner of a kāṣāya robe.’ The Dharma master said: ‘It is good to tie not only the corner but also the side of the robe so that the dye will be even. If one holds it in only one place, the robe cannot be dyed evenly.’ A robe must be cut into panels before it may be worn.”

Regarding the rules for bowls and bowl-related articles, they must not be carved either inside or outside. If carvings are already present, they should be removed. When firing a bowl, it must not be given the color of maṇi; it should be made the color of oil. A bowl must not be engraved, but grooves resembling teeth may be made. If it is to keep out water, a cover may be made to cover the entire mouth and sides of the bowl, but strange figures must not be engraved upon it. Places for fastening a cord may be made on the lid and below the rim.

As for the rule concerning the making of a waist belt, one or two cords may be twisted together. It must not be fashioned in the form of crab’s eyes, nor may its two ends be tied into tassels shaped like a dove or the mouth of a makara (makaramukha). Its ends must not be fashioned like the heads of weapons, nor may beautiful decorative patterns be woven into it, except for patterns of fish bones, kha trees, and la flowers. The end may be beautifully woven, but it must not have more than four tassels. If a single cord is used, it should be tied in one loop and then wound around. It may be folded into two or three lengths for tying, but it must not be made into the eightfold cord. Two knots shaped like jars are permitted at the end of the cord.

A medicine container must not be engraved with figures of men or women, two-footed or four-footed beings, đảo cự flowers, or cow dung. If one obtains a container engraved with such figures, the figures should be scraped away. A cord or thread may be used to tie it securely. If the container is square, round, octagonal, sixteen-sided, and so forth, two or three rings may be made on its bottom or lid to facilitate fastening a cord.

A medicine pestle must not be of an attractive color; the same applies to its pouch.

Door locks and their pouches must not be of attractive colors; it is best that they be of a single color. Figures of animals must not be carved upon them.

A razor must not bear animal figures in relief; a case may be made for it. A knife for scraping the fingernails and toenails may be made with a clasp in the middle and shaped like an awl.

A fire-making implement must not be carved with decorative patterns; only a ring may be made on it.

When making a needle, it should be held with tongs and placed in the furnace so that it does not fall, and it must not be engraved with various designs.

A knife for splitting tooth-cleaning sticks must not be engraved; it should be made only of iron.

The handle of an axe may be four-sided or eight-sided.

A staff (kattaradanda) must not be made from beautiful wood. It may be reinforced with three or four rings, and its end should be rounded.

An oil container may be made from a bamboo tube, a gourd, or hardwood, but it must not be fashioned in the form of a man or woman.

Beds, bags for holding belongings, ground coverings, sandals worn during walking meditation, seat covers, brooms, refuse baskets, dyeing troughs, water-straining vessels, foot-rubbers, bathing stones, bowl racks, bowl stands, bowl lids, palmyra leaves, and fans (Mancapitha, Bhisibimbohana, Bhummattharana, Pàdapunchana, Cankamanabhisi, sammujjani, Kacavarachaddanaka, Rajanadonikà, Pàniyanlunka, pàniyaghata, pàdakathalikà, phalakapithaka, valàyadharaka, dandadhàrika, pattapidhàna, Ttàlavantavìjana)—these articles, by contrast, may be made large and carved with appropriate designs.

The doors and windows of dwellings may be made from the seven kinds of precious substances, or from crystal. Tables and chairs may be arranged within a dwelling, except in an obstructive dwelling.

Question: What is an obstructive dwelling?

Answer: It is a dwelling built in a place under the authority of a powerful king or within another person’s designated boundary. One should tell the owner of the dwelling, “A dwelling must not be built here.” If he stubbornly refuses to listen, he should be told again, “It is improper to build here, because it will obstruct us when we hold the Invitation Ceremony or recite the Patimokkha.” Even if the structure is already present, he must not be permitted to establish a dwelling there.

If, after being told three times, he still persists in building it, the conscientious and scrupulous bhikkhus among the community, if numerous, should dismantle the dwelling, leaving only the Buddha shrine and the Bodhi tree. After dismantling it, they must not use the materials, but should stack and store them in order and deliver them to the bhikkhu who owns the dwelling; they may take the remaining thatching grass. If he takes it, that is good.

If he does not, the thatching grass will decay or may be burned by malicious persons; therefore, there is no offense in dismantling it. Consequently, the bhikkhu who owns the dwelling may neither reproach them nor demand compensation.

After his earthen dwelling had thus been dismantled, Dhaniya wished to rebuild it and therefore went to see the forest keeper. After searching for a long time without finding him, Dhaniya went to see the keeper of the timber in the city. The keeper of the timber said, “This belongs to the king and is kept for the defense of the realm. It is to be used when some place in the city falls into disrepair, in preparation for an emergency, in case of fire, if an enemy attacks, for the construction of implements of war, or for other necessary purposes. Therefore, all this timber must be carefully guarded.”

“Cut into sections” means that Dhaniya, on his own authority, cut it into pieces and used the root portions or the upper portions as he pleased. Vassakāra was the name of a brahmin minister of Magadha who directed the affairs of the kingdom and was exceedingly wealthy.

“Passed by” means that this chief minister went to inspect the timber in the city.

“Bhane” refers to a noble minister.

“Called quietly” means that the brahmin ordered the timber keeper to be bound and brought before the king.

This brahmin approached the king and reported, “Is it true that Your Majesty gave the timber to Dhaniya?”

Because the king replied that he had not given it, the chief minister had that man bound. Seeing the timber keeper bound, Dhaniya became anxious and troubled, thinking, “That man has been arrested and bound by the king because he gave me the timber. I should therefore go and rescue him.” Thus, day and night, Dhaniya sought a way to help him.

Why was this? Because the timber keeper sent word to Dhaniya, saying, “Venerable sir! Before I am put to death, come quickly and explain the matter. If I have already been killed, your coming will be useless. Venerable sir, please go before the king and remind him: ‘When Your Majesty first ascended the throne, you proclaimed that any ascetic or brahmin who needed grass, wood, or water might use it freely.’ These were the king’s own words. Does the king remember them?”

(Dhaniya approached the king and said:) “When Your Majesty first ascended the throne, you had the drum beaten and proclaimed that ascetics and brahmins might freely use grass, wood, and water. Therefore, I took the king’s timber.”

The king replied, “Previously, I gave that permission to conscientious and scrupulous ascetics and brahmins, not to shameless persons such as you. My words permitted the taking of ownerless things in the wilderness; they did not refer to things that have an owner.”

“He escaped because of his fleece” means that one who has gone forth wears the saffron robe like a fleece. Why is this said? Suppose a wise man in the world wished to eat a great deal of mutton but had no means of obtaining it, and therefore devised a plan to acquire the meat. He marked the head of a relative’s sheep with beautiful wool that was tethered before the gate, indicating that it was to be slaughtered. People gathered to watch. Coveting the sheep’s beautiful fleece, they competed to exchange things of great value for it, and because of this the sheep escaped death. The bhikkhu Dhaniya was likewise spared punishment because he wore the saffron robe.

In the king’s presence, everyone censured Dhaniya. “Censured” means that they said he was not an ascetic, glared at him angrily, and made his conduct known to everyone, declaring that it was not the conduct of an ascetic and not the conduct of a son of the Sakyan.

“The holy life” is the unsurpassed practice. (The following four sentences are connected.)

There was a former minister who thoroughly understood the king’s ancient laws and who had now gone forth to cultivate the path. Therefore, the Blessed One questioned him.

The Dharma teacher asked: “The Buddha is the Omniscient One. He clearly knows the characteristics of offenses, whether grave or light, under the precepts established by the Buddhas of the past and future. Why, then, did he question the bhikkhu who had formerly been a minister?”

Answer: The Buddha asked him because, if He had not first discussed the matter but had established the pārājika rule concerning one pāda, worldly people would have criticized Him, saying, “The merit of a bhikkhu’s observance of the precepts is immeasurable, like the sky and the earth; why, then, did the Buddha establish such a grave offense for merely one pāda?”

The Buddha examined the matter with wisdom so that the precept might endure and everyone might accept it with confidence; therefore, He discussed and considered it together with the former minister.

According to worldly law, one who steals one pāda may be executed, imprisoned, or banished. Why did the Buddha not permit harm to be inflicted upon one who had gone forth?

Because one who has gone forth may not take even a blade of grass, the Buddha examined the matter with wisdom and instituted the prohibitory precept so that no one might criticize it. Therefore, the Buddha and the former minister who had become a bhikkhu established the precept on the basis of worldly law.

“Observing everyone” means that, seeing the former minister-bhikkhu not far from Him, the Buddha asked him: “According to the law of King Bimbisāra, for stealing property of what value is a person imprisoned, banished, or executed?”

Magadha is the name of the country. Seniya means fully provided with men, elephants, and chariots. Bimbisāra is the king’s name. “Banished” means being sent to another country. The Dharma teacher said: The following passages are easy to understand.

Five māsakas constitute one pāda. At that time in Rājagaha, twenty māsakas constituted one kahāpaṇa, and one quarter of a kahāpaṇa was five māsakas. You should understand it accordingly. This kahāpaṇa was that used according to the ancient system, not the kahāpaṇa of the present day. The first to use the kahāpaṇa was King Rudraka. The Buddhas of the past also established the pārājika rule on the basis of this one pāda. The Buddhas of the future will do likewise. All Buddhas establish pārājika offenses in the same way, and there are only four such rules.

Therefore, after rebuking Dhaniya, the Buddha used the aforementioned pāda as the basis for establishing the second pārājika rule. As stated in the Vinaya: After the second pārājika rule had been established, the subsequent regulation concerning the washing place was an additional provision arising afterward. As explained above, the Buddha had established the rule for the bhikkhus.

This was the second formulation and did not differ from the preceding one. You should understand it yourselves; to repeat it would be tedious. Difficult passages will be explained later.

“At the washing place” means the place where cloth, after being washed, was spread out to dry. A washerman is one who washes cloth. Late in the afternoon, the washermen gathered the pieces of cloth, tied them into bundles, and carried them into the city.

Because they were hurried and in confusion, they could not see clearly. Taking advantage of this confusion, the group of six bhikkhus stole one bundle.

A village means either an inhabited settlement or a wilderness place (arañña). Although this has been explained clearly in the Vinaya, I shall explain it again. A village consists of separate houses, as in the village of Malla.

A place containing even one hut (kuṭikā) is also called a village; it should be understood thus. An uninhabited place is a dwelling place of yakkhas, or a place where people come to reside temporarily for some purpose and then depart. It may be enclosed by a fence made of earth, or even by trees and grass.

A cattle encampment is a place where cattle are kept; a settlement of one, two, or three houses is also called a village. A temporary encampment of merchants is a place where merchants traveling on foot, carrying burdens, or journeying in carts reside; this too is called a village. Cities and rural settlements are likewise called villages.

The expression “the precinct of a village” (gāmūpacāra) is used to clarify the boundary of the wilderness. “Standing at the village gate” (indakhīle ṭhita) means that the village in the country of Anurādhapura has two village gates. Beyond those two gates lies the wilderness region.

If there is no gate, the place where a gate would be constructed may also be called the gate. This is the Abhidhamma method concerning the wilderness.

An ordinary person means one who is neither exceptionally strong nor weak. “Throwing a stone” means throwing it with all one’s strength. The point where the stone first lands is counted, not the place to which it rolls. If a house in the village has no fence, the place where water falls from the eaves around the house is treated as the point from which the stone is thrown. The Dharma teacher explained that the distance of a stone’s throw is as far as an old woman standing in the doorway can throw a basket of refuse or a pestle. Another Dharma teacher explained that, if a dwelling has no fence, a stone is thrown outward from the midpoint between the supports at the two ends of the house; from the place where it lands inward is reckoned as the precinct of the house.

Question: If that village settlement was formerly very extensive but has now become smaller, how far does its precinct extend?

Answer: Standing where water falls from the roof, a person of ordinary strength throws a stone outward. From the place where the stone lands inward is the precinct of the house within the village. The wilderness boundary extends outward from the village gate for five hundred bow-lengths; this is called the smallest wilderness boundary.

The Dharma teacher said: I have finished explaining this meaning. The five kinds of boundaries relating to dwellings, villages, and village precincts should be explained, for they restrain wicked bhikkhus. In any of these five places, if someone takes property that has an owner, worth one pāda—five māsakas—with the intention to steal, he commits a pārājika offense. “Taking what has not been given” means that, in regard to another person’s property, such as clothing or food, which has not been given by bodily gesture or speech, one arbitrarily takes with one’s hand or appropriates an amount worth one pāda.

“Not relinquished” means that the owner has not relinquished it in his mind. Property left in an open place is also called “not relinquished.” Taking things from such a place is called stealing. This theft is precisely the offense in question.

The Dharma teacher said: I shall explain only the meaning of the words in this rule concerning theft. Stealing includes dispossessing, moving, taking delivery, carrying away step by step, removing from its place, and acting by prior agreement.

Question: What is dispossessing?

Answer: When a bhikkhu seeks to dispossess someone of a garden or woodland, while the dispute is still in progress he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he causes the owner of the garden to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If the owner makes a firm decision to concede defeat, the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.

Question: What is moving?

Answer: A bhikkhu carries another person’s property on his head. If he touches or strokes it with the intention to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he causes the object to move, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When he lowers it onto his shoulder, he commits a pārājika offense.

Question: What is taking delivery?

Answer: Suppose a bhikkhu accepts another person’s property for safekeeping. When the owner comes to retrieve it, the bhikkhu replies: “I did not accept any property from you for safekeeping.” Upon completing this statement, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

If he causes the owner to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When the owner says, “I no longer want that property,” the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.

Question: What is carrying away step by step?

Answer: If a bhikkhu, wishing to steal an object, carries it away himself, he commits a thullaccaya offense with the first step and a pārājika offense with the second step. What is removing an object from its place?

Answer: It is lifting an object from the ground. If a bhikkhu touches and grasps an object with the intention to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he causes it to move, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he takes it away from its original place, he commits a pārājika offense.

Question: What is acting by agreement?

Answer: It is when a bhikkhu makes an agreement, saying, “I shall go to such-and-such a place and take that object away.”

If he reaches the place and takes the object, with one foot inside the object’s boundary and the other foot outside it, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

If both feet are outside the boundary, he commits a pārājika offense.

In passing a customs station, if he carries goods past the place where duty is collected without paying the duty, then, when one foot has crossed while the other remains within the boundary of the customs station, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When both feet have passed beyond the customs station, he commits a pārājika offense.

The Dharma teacher said: This explanation concerns numerous kinds of property. If a single object is taken as the subject, the first case applies, for example, to a female slave or an owned animal that one appropriates. By analyzing, in relation to a single object, the six cases of dispossessing, moving, taking delivery, carrying away step by step, removing from its original place, acting by agreement, and passing a regulated checkpoint, there are as many as twenty-five propositions.

As stated above, the second pārājika has been explained very fully. Why? Because this precept is exceedingly difficult to understand completely. As stated in the Vinaya, theft constitutes a pārājika only when all five factors are present. The first is that the object has an owner... These are the five factors.

The Dharma teacher said: “Thus the details have been explained. Select any one factor. There are five, or perhaps six, details. If so, they would not amount to twenty-five.”

Answer: “It is not so.”

Why? If one selects a single case of taking another person’s property, all five factors must be present. You should understand it accordingly.

The ancient Dharma teachers said: “This second pārājika rule is exceedingly difficult to understand, and therefore its difficult points must be explained. For that reason, I have analyzed it into these twenty-five cases. You should examine them carefully.”

Question: “What are those five factors?”

Answer: “First, five concerning various kinds of objects; second, five concerning a single kind of object; third, five concerning taking with one’s own hand; fourth, five concerning the employment of means; and fifth, five concerning theft.”

Question: “Why do the five concerning various kinds of objects and the five concerning a single kind of object contain only the details of seizing, touching, lifting, and removing from the original place?”

Answer: “This was explained earlier; you should understand it for yourself. Because the detail of an appointed time and that of a place must also be included, there are six. Both the critical place and the place where an object is thrown possess all these factors. Therefore, in the third statement, the five factors also include the five details concerning various kinds of objects.”

Question: “The five details concerning a single object of value have already been explained. What are the five details of taking with one’s own hand?”

Answer: “Taking with one’s own hand also has five forms: first, taking with one’s own hand; second, instructing another person to take; third, throwing; fourth, taking if possible; and fifth, the owner’s intention to relinquish.”

Question: “What is taking with one’s own hand?”

Answer: “Personally seizing another person’s property is called taking with one’s own hand. ‘Instructing’ means that if a bhikkhu tells another person, ‘Go and take that object,’ this is called instructing another to take it. ‘Throwing’ means throwing an object outside while at a customs station in order to evade the duty. If the object is of great value, one commits a pārājika offense. In meaning, this is the same as the critical place mentioned above. ‘Taking if possible’ means instructing a person: ‘As for that... object, if you can obtain it, take it; otherwise, let it be.’ That person then departs in accordance with the instruction.

If he succeeds in stealing the object, the person who sent him commits a pārājika offense. If the person who was sent takes it when an opportunity arises, this is called taking if possible. ‘Intention to relinquish’ means having the thought of abandoning the object...; the place... has this meaning, and this is called the intention to relinquish.

The five meanings concerning the initial employment of means are: first, the initial means; second, acting in accordance with that means; third, deciding upon that means; fourth, carrying it out; and fifth, knowing clearly. Instructing another person to do it is the initial means; you should understand this clearly for yourselves. The cause that moves an object from its original place is called acting in accordance with the means. The final three parts are clearly explained in the Vinaya.

What are the five cases of theft? They are: first, taking by stealth; second, taking by force; third, taking through extortion; fourth, taking by concealment; and fifth, taking by manipulating lots. These are called the five methods.

There was a bhikkhu who distributed kāṣāya robes to the Sangha. With a mind of theft, he switched another person’s token for the distribution of kāṣāya robes to his own advantage. I refer here to manipulating tokens used in distributing goods.

These are called the five cases of theft. Thus, five cases each possessing five factors make twenty-five; you should understand them for yourselves. When a dispute arises concerning any of the five groups and their five cases above, a wise Vinaya master should not hastily adjudicate the matter.

He should first examine those five factors and only then render judgment. As the verse of the ancient masters says:

When speaking of a matter past,

At the proper time apply the five dharmas;

Clearly examine the five points—

The wise should understand them for themselves.

As to the basis (vatthu): if one says, ‘I wish to take this object,’ then, once the words are spoken, an offense has been incurred. One should examine whether this object has an owner or is ownerless. One should examine whether the owner has formed the intention to relinquish the object and must ascertain this very clearly. If the owner has not intended to abandon it and another takes it, the taker’s offense should be determined according to the Vinaya. If the owner intended to abandon it, then the person who stole it, though the object would otherwise entail a pārājika offense, must return it to the owner. This is the principle that must be applied.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain the circumstances as follows. Long ago, King Bhātiya made offerings to the Great Stupa. A bhikkhu came from the south. He had a robe measuring seven cubits, which he placed over his shoulder before entering the monastery to pay homage. At that time, the king and the great assembly entered the monastery, driving the people aside. The crowd was forced to one side, and amid the noisy jostling and pushing, the robe fell and was lost. Having been pushed outside, the bhikkhu thought: ‘The people are in such disorder that my lost robe cannot be found.’

“Therefore, he formed the intention to abandon that robe.

“Later, another bhikkhu arrived. Seeing the robe, he took it with the intention to steal. After taking it, he became remorseful: ‘I am no longer a śramaṇa. I have lost my precepts, and therefore I must return to lay life.’

“He went to a Vinaya master and asked him about the matter. This Vinaya master, named Cūḷasumana, thoroughly understood the characteristics of the Vinaya and was foremost among Vinaya masters. Having approached him, the offending bhikkhu bowed with his head at the master’s feet, related what had happened, and asked: ‘Have I committed an offense?’

“The Vinaya master understood that this bhikkhu had taken the robe after the great assembly’s ceremony. Knowing that his offense could be remedied, he said to him: ‘Can you bring the owner of the object here? If its owner can be found, I shall help you!’

“The offending bhikkhu replied: ‘How could that person be found now?’

“The Vinaya master replied: ‘Go everywhere and make inquiries.’

“The offending bhikkhu went through all five great monasteries but still could not find the owner of the object, so he returned and asked the Vinaya master. The Vinaya master asked: ‘From which direction did that large assembly of bhikkhus come?’

“He replied: ‘From the south.’

“The Vinaya master said: ‘First record the dimensions and color of the robe; then go to each monastery and inquire.’

“Obeying his instruction, the offending bhikkhu went everywhere making inquiries. He found the owner of the object and brought him to the Vinaya master. The Vinaya master asked the bhikkhu who owned it: ‘Elder, is this your robe?’

“He replied: ‘Yes, Venerable Sir!’

“He asked: ‘Where did you lose it?’

“The bhikkhu then related what had happened before.

“The Vinaya master asked: ‘Did you intend to abandon that object?’

“He replied: ‘I had already intended to abandon it.’

“He then asked the bhikkhu who had taken the robe: ‘Where did you take this robe?’

“He replied: ‘I took this robe at that place and at that time.’

“The Vinaya master said: ‘If you took it without an intention to steal, there is no offense. If you took it with an unwholesome intention, you incurred a dukkaṭa offense. You must first confess it, and then the offense will be cleared.’

“The Vinaya master then told the bhikkhu who had owned the object: ‘With a mind of relinquishment, give the robe to this bhikkhu.’

“He replied: ‘Excellent!’ When the offending bhikkhu heard the Vinaya master speak in this way, he was like a person who had obtained ambrosia, and both his body and mind were filled with joy.

The Dharma teacher said: “This is called examining the basis.”

‘Time’ means the time when the robe was taken. At one time such a robe may be expensive, while at another it may be inexpensive. Therefore, the offense is determined according to whether the robe’s price was high or low when it was taken. The Dharma teacher said: “These words are difficult to understand. I shall provide an example. On the island in the midst of the sea, a bhikkhu obtained a beautifully shaped and well-proportioned coconut shell. He cut and fashioned it into a bowl that everyone greatly admired. This bhikkhu regularly used the bowl for drinking water.

“One day, the bhikkhu went to Cetiyagiri and left this object in the monastery on the island in the midst of the sea. Another bhikkhu came to the island and entered the monastery. Seeing the bowl, he stole it and took it to Cetiyagiri.

“Seeing that person using his coconut-shell bowl to eat gruel, the bhikkhu who owned the bowl asked: ‘Elder, where did you obtain this bowl?’”

This bhikkhu replied:

“I obtained this object on the island.”

The bhikkhu who owned the object said:

“This is not yours. It is mine, and you stole it.”

The bhikkhu who owned the object brought the other bhikkhu before the Sangha to have the matter adjudicated, but no one could resolve it. They went together to the Great Monastery and sounded the drum. After the community dwelling near the stupa had assembled, the Vinaya masters deliberated together upon the case, but still could not settle it.

At that time, in the monastery there was a bhikkhu and Vinaya master named Godha, who was thoroughly versed in skillful means. He asked:

“Where did this bhikkhu obtain this coconut-shell basin?”

He replied:

“I obtained it on the island.”

Godha asked:

“How much is this object worth?”

He replied:

“In that place, after eating all the coconut flesh, people throw away the shell or use it as firewood. It has no value at all.”

He asked the bhikkhu who owned the object:

“How much is this coconut shell that you are holding worth?”

He replied:

“After people had eaten all the flesh and drunk all the water, they discarded the shell. A bhikkhu picked it up and made it into a basin. It is worth only about one masaka.”

Venerable Godha said:

“Thus, since it is not worth five masakas, there is no commission of the grave offense.”

Hearing this, the community praised him, saying:

“Excellent! Such an adjudication is most skillful.”

At that time, King Bhatiyarajan left the city gate and came to the monastery to pay homage. Hearing the bhikkhus loudly exclaiming, “Excellent!” he asked his attendant:

“What is that sound?”

The official related the matter to him. Upon hearing it, the king was greatly delighted and ordered a proclamation to be made by the beating of a drum:

“From this time onward, whenever any renunciant has a matter of doubt, let him go to Venerable Godha for adjudication, for this venerable one renders judgments in exact accordance with the Vinaya.”

The Dharma master said:

“Thus, value is assessed by examining the circumstances of the place. Some objects have a high value when new but a low value when old.”

Question:

“How can something have a high value when new but a low value when old?”

Answer:

“For example, a new iron bowl that remains intact and is not perforated is valuable; after it becomes perforated and leaks, it loses its value. Therefore, value must be assessed according to the time.”

Articles of use are personal implements such as knives and machetes. When new, they are valuable; when old, they lose their value.

The Dharma master said:

“If a bhikkhu steals another person’s knife or machete, the owner of the implement should be asked how much he paid for it.

“If he replies, ‘Venerable sir, I bought this object for one part,’ he should be asked:

“‘Have you used it yet?’

“He may reply:

“‘I have used it for only one day to split tooth-cleaning sticks.’

“Or he may say that it was used to split firewood for firing bowls, and thus it has become an old object. Similarly, a pestle used to grind eye medicine and a door lock are old; broken rice that has been heated once or twice, or crushed by bricks, is also called old. Cloth that has been washed once in water, draped over the shoulder, wrapped around the head, or used to wrap sand is also called old.

Ghee or oil that has been transferred into another vessel and into which insects or ants have fallen is also called old. Likewise, a lump of sugar that was formerly hard but later became soft, even to the point of having been touched with a finger, is also called old. When a bhikkhu is accused of the offense of stealing another person’s property, you should question the owner of the property carefully.

An object that has not yet been used is valuable; once used, it loses value. This should be understood. Regarding these five points, the Dharma master said: ‘Examine them with complete clarity before adjudicating the matter, and determine the offense according to the gravity or lightness of the circumstances.’”

The above is the explanation of the Chapter on Taking Away.

Supplement: (This passage has been collated with the Yuan- and Song-dynasty editions)... If one object is taken as the subject of discussion, then the first case concerns taking it from a resident or from an owned animal: making preparations, lifting it, walking away, removing it from its original place, making an agreement, and passing beyond a designated place. Thus, with respect to one object, analysis according to the six cases above produces as many as twenty-five statements. As stated above, the second parajika has been explained in great detail. Why? Because this precept is extremely difficult to understand fully.

As stated in the Vinaya, theft must possess all five factors before it constitutes parajika. The first is that the object has an owner... These are the five factors.

The Dharma master said:

“The details have thus been set forth; select one factor. There may be five or six factors. If this is so, they do not amount to twenty-five.”

Answer:

“It is not so. Why? If one selects the case of taking another person’s property, all five factors must be present. You should understand it accordingly.”

The ancient Dharma masters said:

“This second parajika rule is extremely difficult to understand; therefore, its difficult points cannot be left unexplained. For this reason, I have analyzed it into these twenty-five cases. You should contemplate them.”

Question:

“What are the five factors?”

Answer:

“First, five concerning various kinds of objects; second, five concerning a single kind of object; third, five concerning one’s own hand; fourth, five concerning the employment of means; and fifth, five concerning stealing.”

Question:

“Regarding the five concerning various kinds of objects and the five concerning a single kind of object, why do these two classes of objects include only the details of taking away, touching and lifting, and removing from the original place?”

Answer:

“This was stated earlier; you should understand it for yourself. Since the details of an appointment and a location must also be included, there are six. Both a designated place and a place to which something is thrown possess all these factors. Therefore, in the third statement, among the five factors, the various kinds of objects also have five details. The single kind of object possessing value has already been explained with its five details.”

Question:

“What are the five details concerning taking with one’s own hand?”

Answer:

“Taking with one’s own hand also has five: first, taking with one’s own hand; second, telling another person to take it; third, throwing it; fourth, being permitted to take it; and fifth, the owner’s intention to abandon it.”

Question:

“What is taking with one’s own hand?”

Answer:

“Taking another person’s property away with one’s own hand is called taking with one’s own hand. Giving an order means that if a bhikkhu tells another person, ‘Take that object,’ this is called telling another person to take it. Throwing means throwing an object outside while within a customs station in order to evade the tax.

If the object is of great value, the offense of parajika is committed. In meaning, this resembles the important place described above. Being permitted to take it means instructing someone: ‘As for that object..., if you can obtain it, take it; otherwise, let it be.’ That person departs in accordance with the instruction.

If he succeeds in stealing the object, the person who sent him commits parajika. If the person who was sent takes it whenever the opportunity arises, this is called being permitted to take it. The intention to abandon means having the thought of abandoning the object... at the place....

This meaning is called the intention to abandon. The five meanings concerning the initial employment of means are: first, the initial means; second, acting in accordance with those means; third, being resolved upon those means; fourth, carrying them out; and fifth, clearly knowing. Instructing another person to act is the initial means; you should understand this clearly for yourselves.

The cause of moving an object from its original place is called acting in accordance with the means. The latter three are clearly explained in the Vinaya.”

Question:

“What is throwing with all one’s strength?”

Answer:

“Throwing a stone means throwing it with all one’s strength. The place where the stone first lands is counted, not the place to which it rolls. If a village has no fence, the place where water falls from the eaves around the house is taken as the point from which the stone is thrown. The Dharma master explained that, when an old woman stands within the doorway and throws out a basket of dung or a pestle, the place it reaches marks the distance of a stone’s throw. Furthermore, the Dharma master explained that if a dwelling has no fence, one should stand directly midway between the supporting posts at the two ends of the house and throw a stone outward; from the place where it lands back toward the house is reckoned as the precinct of the house.”

Question:

“If that village was formerly very extensive but has now become smaller, how large is its boundary?”

Answer:

“Standing at the place where water falls from the roof, a person of ordinary strength throws a stone outward. From the place where the stone lands back toward the village is reckoned as the village boundary. The wilderness boundary extends from the village gate outward for five hundred bow-lengths; this is called the smallest boundary.”

The Dharma Master said: “I have finished explaining this meaning. One should now speak of the five kinds of boundaries: the boundary of a dwelling, the boundary of a village, and the village boundary established to restrain evil bhikkhus. In these five places, if an object has an owner and someone takes an amount worth five māsakas with the intent to steal, he commits a pārājika offense. ‘Taking what has not been given’ means that, regarding another person’s property, such as robes or food, which has not been given by any bodily or verbal indication, one takes a portion with one’s own hand or appropriates it. ‘Not relinquished’ means that the owner has no intention of relinquishing it.

Property left in an open place is also said not to have been relinquished. Taking objects found there is called stealing. Stealing is precisely this offense.

The Dharma Master said: “I shall explain only the meanings of the terms in this precept against stealing. Stealing means dispossessing, carrying away, lifting, proceeding step by step, removing from the original place, and acting according to an agreement.”

Question: “What is dispossessing?”

Answer: “If a bhikkhu dispossesses someone of a grove or garden, while the dispute is still in progress he commits a dukkaṭa offense; if he causes the owner of the garden to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If the owner of the garden decides to concede defeat, the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is carrying away?”

Answer: “A bhikkhu carries another person’s object upon his head. If he touches or strokes it with the intent to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense; if he moves the object, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if he lowers it onto his shoulder, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is lifting?”

Answer: “Suppose a bhikkhu accepts an object entrusted to him by another person. When the owner comes to reclaim it, the bhikkhu replies: ‘I did not receive any object entrusted by you.’ Once he has said this, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he causes the owner to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When the owner says, ‘I no longer want that object,’ the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is proceeding step by step?”

Answer: “If a bhikkhu wishes to steal an object and carries it away together with another person, on taking the first step he commits a thullaccaya offense; on taking the second step, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is removing from its place?”

Answer: “It means lifting an object from the ground. If a bhikkhu touches and grasps the object with the intent to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he disturbs the ground, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if he takes the object away from its original place, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is an agreement?”

Answer: “Suppose a bhikkhu makes an agreement, saying, ‘I shall go to such-and-such a place... and take that object away.’ If he reaches the place and takes the object, with one foot within the object’s boundary and the other outside the boundary, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If both feet have gone outside the boundary, he commits a pārājika offense. When passing a tax station, if he carries an object past the place where tax is collected without paying the tax, with one foot having crossed and the other remaining within the boundary of the tax station, he commits a thullaccaya offense; when both feet have passed beyond the tax station, he commits a pārājika offense.”

The Dharma Master said: “This is the exposition concerning instructing another to take various kinds of property. The third is throwing; the fourth is permitting one to take; the fifth is having the intention to relinquish.”

Question: “What is taking with one’s own hand?”

Answer: “It means personally using one’s hand to take another person’s property. ‘Instructing another’ means that a bhikkhu instructs someone, saying, ‘Take that object....’ ‘Throwing’ means that, within the grounds of a tax station, one throws a valuable object outside in order to evade the tax; this constitutes a pārājika offense. This case is similar to passing through an important checkpoint.... ‘Permitting one to take’ means instructing someone: ‘You may take that object...; if you cannot obtain it, let the matter rest.’ That person complies with the instruction and goes to carry it out.

If he succeeds in stealing the object, the person who sent him commits a pārājika offense. ‘Not relinquished’ means that the owner has not mentally relinquished the object; an object in an open place is likewise said not to have been relinquished. Taking any such object is called stealing, and the thief incurs an offense.”

The Dharma Master said: “I shall explain only the meanings of the terms in this precept against stealing. Stealing means dispossessing, carrying away, lifting, proceeding step by step, removing from the original place, and acting according to an agreement.”

Question: “What is dispossessing?”

Answer: “If a bhikkhu dispossesses someone of a grove or garden, while the dispute is still in progress he commits a dukkaṭa offense; if he causes the owner of the garden to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If the owner of the garden decides to concede defeat, the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is carrying away?”

Answer: “A bhikkhu carries another person’s object upon his head. If he touches or strokes it with the intent to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense; if he moves the object, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if he lowers it onto his shoulder, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is lifting?”

Answer: “Suppose a bhikkhu accepts an object entrusted to him by another person. When the owner comes to reclaim it, the bhikkhu replies: ‘I did not receive any object entrusted by you.’ Once he has said this, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he causes the owner to waver, he commits a thullaccaya offense. When the owner says, ‘I no longer want that object,’ the bhikkhu commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is proceeding step by step?”

Answer: “If a bhikkhu wishes to steal an object and carries it away together with another person, on taking the first step he commits a thullaccaya offense; on taking the second step, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is removing from its place?”

Answer: “It means lifting an object from the ground. If a bhikkhu touches and grasps the object with the intent to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he moves the object, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if he takes the object away from its original place, he commits a pārājika offense.”

Question: “What is an agreement?”

Answer: “Suppose a bhikkhu makes an agreement, saying, ‘I shall go to such-and-such a place... and take that object away.’ If he reaches the place and takes the object, with one foot within the object’s boundary and the other outside the boundary, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If both feet have gone outside the boundary, he commits a pārājika offense. When passing a tax station, if he carries an object past the place where tax is collected without paying the tax, with one foot having crossed and the other remaining within the boundary of the tax station, he commits a thullaccaya offense; when both feet have passed beyond the tax station, he commits a pārājika offense. The Dharma Master said: ‘This concerns many kinds of property.’

Commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapāsādikā.

– Fascicle Eight -