善見律毘婆沙

There are five ways of signaling an order to take something: first with the eyes, then with the hands, with the feet, by shaking the head, and by bodily movement. Whether an offense is committed when such gestures are used to signal an order to steal is as explained above.

If one orders another to take a certain object and that very object is taken, one commits a grave offense. If one orders another to take one object but a different object is taken, the person giving the order commits a minor offense, while the person who takes it commits a grave offense.

There were several bhikkhus: one teacher and three disciples. The first disciple was named Phật-Ðà-Lặc-Khí-Ða, the second Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða, and the third Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða. Seeing another person's property and intending to steal it, the teacher told Phật-Ðà-Lặc-Khí-Ða, “Tell Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða to tell Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða to go and take that object.”

When the teacher tells the first disciple to have it taken, he commits a Ðột-cát-la offense. When Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða conveys the message and Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða agrees, the teacher commits a Thu-lan-dá offense. If they go and move the object from its original place, all four—the teacher and the disciples—commit a grave offense.

The Dharma teacher said that not only do all four commit a grave offense, but even if a hundred thousand people pass the order from one to another, they likewise incur the offense.

Ordering another person is like the teacher telling Phật-Ðà-Lặc-Khí-Ða, “Go and tell Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða to tell Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða to go and take that object.”

Phật-Ðà-Lặc-Khí-Ða meets Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða but does not tell him, or does not see him, and instead goes to meet Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða and says, “Go and take that object.”

If the object is moved from its original place, the teacher commits a Ðột-cát-la offense; Ðàm-Ma-Lặc-Khí-Ða is guiltless; and the first and third persons commit a grave offense.

Having gone there, Tăng-Già-Lặc-Khí-Ða returns because he sees someone guarding it and cannot take the object, and he reports this to the teacher.

The teacher says, “Find some way to take it; do not let it go.”

The teacher commits a Ðột-cát-la offense.

Afterward, if the object is obtained, both teacher and disciple commit a grave offense. If the teacher orders the disciple to take it and the outcome is already certain, like an object thrown into the air that must fall to the ground, then as soon as he finishes speaking, the teacher commits a Ba-la-dy offense.

If, with a mind of theft, the teacher orders his disciple to steal, and afterward one, two, three, and so on up to six years pass, during which the teacher dies or returns to lay life, the teacher does not incur the offense, but the person who takes the object does.

Three years after the teacher gave the order to steal, the disciple still has not taken the object. The disciple has become deaf through illness, but the teacher does not know this. Later, the teacher regrets his order and tells the disciple not to take it, but because the disciple is deaf and does not hear, he still follows the former instruction and moves the object from its original place. Both teacher and disciple commit a grave offense. If the disciple is not deaf and says, “Very well,” and does not take it, neither teacher nor disciple commits a grave offense, but they commit a Ðột-cát-la offense. Here ends the section on ordering another to take (Ànattika nitthità).

The precept against stealing in the present case has five factors (Pancaàkàra), as stated in the original Vinaya text:

1- Another person's property (parapariggahita)

2- Perceiving it as another person's property (parapariggahitasasanni)

3- The object is valuable (parikkhàrassa garukabhàva)

4- Having a mind of theft (theyyacitta)

5- Moving it from its original place (thànàcàvana)

If the first or the second condition alone is present, one does not commit a grave offense; if both are present, one incurs Thu-lan-dá and Ðột-cát-la offenses.

There are six conditions: one does not perceive it as one's own; one does not perceive it as belonging to an intimate friend; one does not perceive it as temporarily borrowed for use; the object is valuable; one has a mind of theft; and one moves the object from its original place.

“Ownerless” means that it is not guarded by another person. If one perceives an object as discarded, perceives it as ownerless, perceives it as one's own, perceives it as temporarily borrowed for use, has no mind of theft, or perceives that there is no offense; or if one perceives another person's property as one's own and moves it from its original place, there is no offense. If the owner demands the object, however, it must be returned; if one does not make restitution, one commits a grave offense.

Regarding the perception that someone is an intimate friend, the Vinaya states that the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “There are five circumstances in which one may take the property of an intimate friend. They are:

1- The person is a familiar friend.

2- They share their food with one another.

3- The person has clearly given permission.

4- They live together.

5- The person will be pleased after the object is taken.”

“A familiar friend” means that they are pleased when they meet each other.

“They share their food with one another” means that they are so intimate that neither is possessive toward the other.

“Clearly given permission” means saying, “You may use my property as you wish, without needing to ask.”

“They live together” means that from now onward, throughout their lives, they use this property in common.

“The person will be pleased after the object is taken” means that, upon hearing that one has taken the object, its owner will be pleased.

Taking from an intimate friend also has three circumstances:

1- They live in intimacy with one another and are pleased when either takes the other's property.

2- They live and share their food together and are pleased when either takes the other's property.

3- They have said that they are pleased for the other to take their property.

If people live in intimacy with one another and are pleased when either takes the other's property, this is taking the property of an intimate friend.

Regarding property belonging to a layperson or one gone forth, if a bhikkhu is pleased before they take it but later regrets it for some reason, he still may not seize it back.

Again, there may be acquaintances who do not wish to give something but do not clearly say whether they give it or not. After the others have taken the property, if its owner becomes dissatisfied, he still may not take it back.

Again, an acquaintance may say, “If you need it, take my food and use it. When I need it, I will come and take it back.”

If discord later arises between them, the owner may come and take it back.

Borrowing for use means returning the property to its owner after using it. If the owner says it need not be returned and gives it outright, that is good; if the owner does not give it, it should be returned. The same applies to property belonging to the Sangha.

Property belonging to hungry ghosts (petapariggaha), beginning with that of the Four Heavenly Kings, also belongs to the category above. If a bhikkhu takes the property of ghosts or spirits, there is no offense. If Sakka, Lord of the Devas, or another deva creates a shop for trade, a bhikkhu who sees and knows this with the divine eye may take goods from it. Whether Sakka is possessive or not, and whether the bhikkhu returns the goods or not, there is no offense, because those goods are magically created.

If worldly people hang objects on trees and no one is looking after them, a bhikkhu who takes them commits no offense.

Regarding the property of animals, beginning with nāga kings, garuḍas, and so forth, if they transform themselves into human form, the case is the same as that of property magically created by Sakka.

If a tiger or lion kills and eats a deer or cow, a bhikkhu may not seize it. Why? If a tiger or wolf becomes enraged, it may kill the bhikkhu. After the animals have finished eating, the bhikkhu may drive them away and take the meat for food. If he obtains the meat and has a lay attendant roast it for him to eat, there is no offense.

Refuse-rag property is discarded property. If one regards an object in this way, there is no offense in taking it. If an owner comes and demands the property, the bhikkhu must return it; if he does not return it, he commits a grave offense.

The case of insanity has been discussed extensively in the Vinaya. At the beginning, before the rule was established, there was no offense. One who is insane does not incur an offense. Thereafter, the group of six bhikkhus were the first offenders (padabhàjaniyavannanà nitthità).

The Dharma teacher said: “You should clearly understand that, upon careful examination, the precept against stealing originates from the mind; the act constitutes evil karma and an offense in the world, and it is accompanied by three unwholesome feelings (samutthànan ca kiriya atho sanna sacttakam, lokavajjan ca kamman ca kusalam vedanà ya cà ti).”

“Origination” means that the act of taking something oneself arises from bodily and mental karma. Ordering another person to steal is an act arising from verbal karma. Taking something oneself and ordering another to do so arise from bodily, verbal, and mental karma together. “Action” means personally performing the deed. “An offense in the world” means an offense evil by its very nature. “Unwholesome” means acting with an evil mind. The three feelings are painful, pleasant, and neutral.

The Dharma teacher said: “The preceding section has fully explained the pārājika offense. The supplementary regulations begin with the group of six bhikkhus. The passages in the Vinaya that are easy to understand have already been explained; next I shall explain the difficult passages.

The mind of an ordinary person is always associated with desire and is never apart from it. If the noble ones did not base an offense upon bodily and verbal action, but imposed guilt solely according to the mind’s activity, no one could ever attain liberation. Therefore, when establishing precepts, the noble ones gave consideration to both body and mind.

Accordingly, the cases declared blameless in the Vinaya are those in which there is an intention to act but no action is performed by body or speech; thus they are called blameless. If the thought of stealing arises, it must be firmly restrained and the wholesome mind restored.

Touching an object so that it moves and leaves its former place... this matter is easy to understand.

Question: “Who stole it?”

Answer: “I stole it.”

The Buddha asked the bhikkhus: “What was in your minds?”

They replied: “We merely said so with our mouths, but had no intention to steal.”

The Buddha said: “If that is so, there is no offense.”

Possession by a ghost refers to the case in which a hungry ghost entered a corpse because it saw that the corpse had a fine robe.

Not heeding its words means that although the bhikkhu heard the hungry ghost say, “Venerable sir, do not take my fine robe,” he nevertheless took it.

Rose up means that when the hungry ghost saw the bhikkhu carrying the robe away, it caused the corpse to rise and run after him.

Closed the door means that because the monastery was near the charnel ground, this courageous bhikkhu, unafraid of ghosts and spirits, entered his room and closed the door.

Fell to the ground means that when the hungry ghost saw that the bhikkhu had closed the door, it said, “I cannot retain this robe.” It therefore abandoned the corpse, which fell to the ground, and departed. Thus, the phrase in the Vinaya, “fell to the ground and had not yet decomposed,” refers to a newly dead corpse. One must not take a robe from a newly dead corpse. Whoever takes it commits a dukkaṭa offense. If one takes it from a decomposed corpse, there is no offense.

Question: “What constitutes decomposition?”

Answer: “First, if a place has been torn by vultures or other creatures, ripped apart by beaks or claws, and so forth—even if the tear is only as small as the point of a needle—one may take the robe without offense. If the skin has not yet been broken, one is still not permitted to take it. If the corpse already had a wound or a burned and mangled area while the person was alive, the robe may be taken from the corresponding place without offense.

If the corpse has become swollen, decomposed, and putrid, the robe may be taken. If the corpse remains intact and a bhikkhu wishes to take the robe, he may ask the keeper of the charnel ground to take it for him. If there is no keeper of the charnel ground, he may ask someone else to take it for him.

If no one at all is present, the bhikkhu may use a small knife to make a wound in the corpse and then take the robe. From a corpse in such a condition, the bhikkhu may take the robe.”

Exchanging lots means that when the Sangha draws lots to distribute robes, a bhikkhu who, with the intention to steal, exchanges his lot for another person’s superior share commits the offense already explained above.

One who steals at night or by day when the owner is not looking is a petty thief. One who deceitfully prevents others from drawing the lot for a valuable object, or uses a counterfeit color-token to exchange it for another person’s property, practicing deception in the person’s very presence, is a great thief.

As for those possessing power—foremost among them being kings—if they use their own strength or rely upon others to oppress people and take their property, make scales weigh more heavily, use larger measures, and so forth, then with respect to the objects whose prescribed values were explained above, all such acts constitute theft.

Parikappa is of two kinds: first, determination regarding an object (Bhaṇḍaparikappa); second, determination regarding a place (Okāsaparikappa).

Determination regarding an object means that a bhikkhu wishing to steal enters a room for a robe, resolving, “If I obtain this robe, I shall take it, but I shall not take any other object.” This is called determination regarding an object.

Second, determination regarding a place means that a bhikkhu carries away another person’s property while resolving, “When I reach such-and-such a place, I shall take it.” This is called determination regarding a place.

Here ends the section on exchanging lots.

The Dharma teacher said: “The passages in sequence are already clear and need not be explained at length. Upon coming to a deserted, uninhabited monastery or house where there are fruit-bearing trees, a bhikkhu must strike the gaṇḍī to notify everyone. If there is no gaṇḍī, he must clap his hands three times. He may then take and eat the fruit without offense; if he does not do so, he commits theft.

“If a monastery outside a village has been abandoned because of bandits or savage beasts, causing the bhikkhus to flee into the village, and a visiting bhikkhu comes to that monastery, sees food and fruit there, and steals and eats them, the offense is determined according to the value of the fruit. The passages that follow are easy to understand.

“Stealing a bound pig means that people set a netted trap to catch a wild pig, and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, releases their pig. His offense is determined according to its value. If he releases it out of compassion, there is no offense, but he should compensate the owners according to its value.

If, with a compassionate mind, the bhikkhu attaches the value of the animal to the rope at the place where the pig is confined and only then releases it, there is no offense. If the pig sees the bhikkhu approaching, struggles until the rope breaks, and escapes, the bhikkhu is blameless. If the pig has not yet entered the trap and the bhikkhu drives it away, there is no offense.

If another person’s dog is chasing and biting a wild pig, and out of compassion the bhikkhu drives the dog away, allowing the pig to escape, there is no offense. If the owner demands its value, however, the bhikkhu should compensate him; if he does not, he commits an offense. If a trapped wild pig has gone without food for three or four days and lies still from exhaustion, and a bhikkhu feeds it with the intention to steal, then, after seeing that it has eaten and regained its strength, shouts loudly so that it becomes frightened, breaks through the net, and escapes, the bhikkhu commits a grave offense.

If he acts from compassion, he does not commit the offense, but he should compensate the owner for its value. If, upon seeing a wild pig caught in a net, a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, cuts part of the net without severing it completely and then shouts loudly, frightening the pig so that it charges through the cut portion and escapes, he commits the offense explained above. If, on seeing a wild pig entangled in a net, a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, places a knife or sword near the trap, or kindles a fire near it, intending that the pig drag the net across the blade and sever it, or that the fire frighten the pig into escaping, he commits the offense explained above.

If someone has deliberately dug a pit intending to catch animals such as pigs, deer, muntjacs, and so forth, and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, destroys the pit and its principal devices so that the animals cannot pass over it, he commits a grave offense. If the animals do not pass that way, there is no offense. If someone sets a trap near a monastery to catch animals, and a bhikkhu tells him, ‘Do not set traps near the monastery to catch animals,’ but he refuses to listen, the bhikkhu should speak to the landowner.

If the landowner gives permission, the bhikkhu may destroy the trap without offense. If deer and muntjacs damage a farmer’s crops, causing him to spread a net to protect the fields and to eat the deer he catches, but after the crops have been protected the owner intends to discard the net, a bhikkhu who breaks or opens it commits no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The passages that follow are easy to understand. If a person sets a fish trap to catch fish and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, opens it and lets the fish escape, his offense is determined according to their value. If he first makes an opening in the trap and afterward strikes the water to frighten the fish so that they swim out, he commits the offense.

If the fish do not swim out, he does not commit the offense, as explained above. If, with the intention to steal, he removes both the trap and the fish from the water, his offense is determined according to their value. If he places food or drink outside the trap as bait and the fish, seeing the bait, leap out, then if the owner demands compensation, the bhikkhu must compensate him according to their value.

If the trap contains no fish and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, opens or breaks it so that fish can freely enter and leave, then if the owner demands compensation, the bhikkhu must compensate him. If a bhikkhu moves another person’s fish trap to another place, whether or not he commits an offense is as explained above.”

Stealing jambu fruits or a jar of ghee is as explained above. If a bhikkhu steals ghee whose value has not yet reached one part—the value of five māsakas—but afterward regrets it and thinks, “I shall not take any more after this”; then on the following day he steals again, though still not enough to constitute one part, and once more regrets it and promises not to steal again; and if he continues in this way until he has taken an entire jar of ghee, he does not commit a grave offense, but incurs a Dukkaṭa or Thullaccaya offense. Again, if a bhikkhu steals oil in this manner, taking only one spoonful each day, but without any thought of remorse, and continues until the amount reaches one part, he commits a grave offense.

Concerning agreeing together to steal and the two kinds of leftover food in the refectory, the sequence is the same as that explained above regarding jambu fruits. Concerning the distribution of mangoes: when resident bhikkhus saw visiting bhikkhus arrive, they did not distribute any fruit to them. The visiting bhikkhus asked the lay attendant, “Are we entitled to a share?” Having said this, the visiting bhikkhus struck the gong on their own initiative and distributed the fruit, and both the resident and visiting bhikkhus ate together.

Therefore, it is stated in the Vinaya that the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “From now on, whenever food or drink is to be distributed, it should be shared; there is no offense in distributing food. If one tells the resident bhikkhus of one’s monastery that whenever fruit is available and visiting bhikkhus arrive, they should share it and partake together, there is no offense. If they wait until the visiting bhikkhus have departed and only then divide the food among the resident bhikkhus, they are called thieves (cora).” Therefore, when visiting bhikkhus arrive, the resident bhikkhus should inform them and strike the gong to invite them to partake of the fruit together.

If the resident bhikkhus do not do so, the visiting bhikkhus may strike the gong and distribute the fruit among everyone to eat, without offense.

If the resident bhikkhus have an orchard whose fruit is reserved to provide the four requisites, visiting bhikkhus may not strike the gong on their own initiative to distribute it or carry that fruit elsewhere. If resident bhikkhus have an orchard belonging to the Sangha but do not guard it and thieves take its fruit, then if the Sangha jointly establishes a rule forbidding the Sangha to eat the fruit, that rule has no validity. Only if the Sangha guards it does such a regulation become valid.

If a donor offers fruit trees to the Sangha for procuring robes or medicine, the Sangha may not divide the fruit among themselves for consumption. If a donor offers fruit trees to provide the four requisites, and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, diverts the fruit so that the Sangha may divide and eat it, his offense is determined according to its value.

If the Sangha uses funds donated by a benefactor for constructing lodgings for the Sangha to purchase food, it incurs a Thullaccaya offense and must make restitution. If funds are donated for making kāṣāya robes, they must be used to make kāṣāya robes. During a famine, because food and drink are difficult to obtain and the members of the Sangha already have complete sets of three robes, the Sangha may perform a formal act declaring that the funds intended for kāṣāya robes are to be used for food so that the Sangha may dwell in ease.

If the Sangha is in harmony and partakes of that food together, there is no offense. If a donor gives funds for the three robes but the Sangha has no lodging, the Sangha may perform a formal act to use them for constructing lodgings. If the Sangha is in harmony in using those lodgings, there is no offense.

If a donor offers valuables for constructing lodgings, they must be used for that purpose. If there is a famine and the Sangha lacks food, or if there is illness or war and the bhikkhus leave the monastery for another place, so that the monastery, lodgings, and fruit trees have no one to care for them, those valuables may be used to procure food and drink in order to preserve the residence. If the monastery contains many lodgings that, for want of repair, are falling into ruin, the sound ones should be retained, while the dilapidated ones may be dismantled and sold, with the proceeds used for food and drink in order to safeguard the residence.

If a benefactor donates the four requisites, they may not be used for another purpose. If their value is used to hire someone to guard the orchard, only thereafter may its produce be used.

If a bhikkhu passes through this orchard and sees coconut palms or palmyra palms bearing fruit, the orchard keeper may take the fruit and offer it to the Sangha, because he was appointed to guard it. Furthermore, if the orchard keeper apportions fruit to the Sangha according to a fixed quantity, the Sangha should accept and use only that quantity and may not use more than its allotted share. If, for the Sangha’s sake, the orchard keeper exchanges fruit for robes or other allowable articles and gives them to the Sangha, they may be accepted.

If there is much fruit, it is also proper to give some to the keeper. If a donor offers an orchard to provide funds for flowers, incense, and lamps as offerings to stupas and images, and for repairing the Sangha’s lodgings, a small portion of the proceeds may be taken to hire a keeper. If there is no income, property offered to the Buddha may be used to pay the keeper.

If there is no property belonging to the Buddha, property belonging to the Sangha may be used to pay the orchard keeper. If the orchard keeper sells fruit from the orchard, the matter is as explained above. Regarding ripe mangoes, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “You are permitted to accept those offered by the orchard keeper.”

The Dharma teacher said: “If the orchard is guarded, it is proper; if it is not guarded, it is improper.”

The Venerable Sumana said: “If the orchard keeper offers fruit to the Sangha every day, it is proper for him to offer it within the fixed allowance of fruit set aside as his payment; beyond that allowance, it is improper.”

The Venerable Paduma said: “If the orchard keeper has no written account, he may offer as much or as little fruit as he wishes for the Sangha to use. Furthermore, if children from the village watch over the Sangha’s orchard and bring fruit as an offering to the Sangha, the Sangha may partake of it. If the children take the fruit on their own initiative, fruit belonging to the Sangha or to the Buddha may not be eaten.

If someone has previously placed a small deposit to purchase fruit from the orchard, but the orchard keeper nevertheless brings fruit as an offering, the Sangha may partake of it. If the Sangha uses fruit to hire an orchard keeper, that person may offer his own share of fruit to the Sangha, but may not offer any portion that does not belong to him. If the Sangha has many fruit trees but hires someone to guard only one tree, only fruit from that tree that constitutes his payment may be offered to a bhikkhu; he may not take fruit from the Sangha’s other trees and offer it on his own initiative.”

Concerning timber, there is no offense in borrowing it for use. Timber belonging to the Sangha that is intended for building an uposatha hall, refectory, and so forth may be borrowed after informing the Sangha. If the Sangha’s timber or wooden articles have been left exposed to dew, wind, rain, and sun without being covered and are deteriorating, they may be taken and used to build a lodging.

If the Sangha later demands restitution for the value of the timber or wooden articles, compensation should be made according to the quantity used. If there are no articles or timber with which to make restitution, the bhikkhu may say, “These things belong to the Sangha; the Sangha may take them back and use them as it wishes.” If one is building a lodging but lacks windows and needs to borrow the Sangha’s timber, it must later be returned in full.

The same applies to other wooden articles.

Concerning water: when water is scarce and the Sangha must fetch it from one or two yojanas away, such water is precious, and anyone who steals it incurs an offense according to its value. One or two jars may be taken to water the Bodhi tree, for bathing, or for preparing dye. If the Sangha has established a rule forbidding anyone to take the water, and a bhikkhu attempts to steal it but fails to obtain any, then throws earth into the water, his offense is determined according to its value.

The resident bhikkhus may establish a strict rule forbidding others to use the water for bathing, washing, cooking, or dyeing. When they think no one else is watching, however, they secretly take and use it themselves. If visiting bhikkhus see that the resident bhikkhus have used it and follow their example, there is no offense.

If the Sangha has three ponds—one for drinking and cooking, one for bathing, and one for other purposes—and establishes a rule forbidding their uses from being interchanged, visiting bhikkhus must also observe this regulation and may not interchange their uses. If the Sangha has established no such rule, the ponds may be used as appropriate.

When there is a shortage of earth, the Sangha must transport earth for use. If a bhikkhu steals a portion of it, he commits a grave offense. The Sangha is permitted to take and use it.

After repairs to the Buddha’s shrine and the Sangha’s dwellings have been completed, if earth is needed, a bhikkhu should inform the Sangha and obtain permission to take and use it. If he does not inform the Sangha, it may also be exchanged for something to be used. The same applies to stone and charcoal.

Regarding thatch grass, whoever burns it without removing it from its original place commits a dukkata offense and must compensate according to its former value. If a field of thatch grass managed by the Sangha for roofing dwellings has no caretaker, another bhikkhu who wishes to look after it may use it, but it remains the Sangha’s field. If a bhikkhu who is using this Sangha field of thatch grass goes away and the field is burned, the Sangha should not hold him accountable.

If that bhikkhu comes and asks the Sangha to allot it to him, it should be allotted to him. If it has already been allotted and he has been assigned to protect it, yet the bhikkhu asks for more, the Sangha should give him more. If the Sangha has no use for it, others may use it as they wish.

If the Sangha has entrusted the thatch grass and tree stumps to a caretaker and later wishes to use them, it should tell the caretaker that there is no longer any need to look after them and that they are to be left for the Sangha.

The first concerns beds... There are seven matters that are easy to understand. Regarding stone pillars, wooden pillars, and other kinds of pillars... any bhikkhu who steals them incurs an offense according to their value.

The first concerns a meditation dwelling belonging to the Sangha that has no caretaker and whose walls have consequently fallen into disrepair. Any bhikkhu who steals its various posts or wooden implements is convicted according to their value, because they are property of the Sangha, whether or not members of the Sangha are residing there at the time.

If bandits arise in a wilderness region and the Sangha abandons the monastery to escape danger, the matter is as stated above: there is no offense in borrowing and using those articles. If that bhikkhu goes away or dies, the borrowed articles should be returned to the Sangha. The matter of minor articles used in a monastery is also easy to understand.

If a bhikkhu borrows a bed, stool, blanket, or curtain belonging to the Sangha and sees a visiting elder arrive, he should give it to that elder. If the article is lost or damaged, he need not compensate for it. If he travels elsewhere, he should entrust it back to the Sangha.

If it was for his personal use and he gives it to an elder, then if it is lost, he must compensate for it. If this bhikkhu has borrowed the aforementioned articles from another monastery and, as he is about to return them, another bhikkhu asks to borrow them, he should tell him: “I wish to return these articles to that monastery.” The other bhikkhu says: “Leave them here; I shall take them there and return them.”

If they are lost, the borrower must compensate for them.

In the country of Campā. Beginning with three kinds of gruel, sesame, beans, rice, or together with ghee, milk, curds, granulated sugar, and honey.

In the city of Rājagaha, there was delicious soup and bean gruel.

The Dharma teacher said: “The sequence is easy to understand. Ajjuka is a kind of fruit.”

When bandits in the country of Bārāṇasī seized and carried someone away, this bhikkhu used his supernormal power to examine the donor’s house. Seeing that the donor’s young child had been captured by the bandits, he used his supernormal power to go and recover the child; he committed no offense.

How did he employ supernormal power (iddhi)?

The bhikkhu used his supernormal power to cause the child to see his own house and thus enter it, while the bandits could see neither the child nor this magically created house; the child thereby escaped.

The Dharma teacher said: “These two matters are easy to understand. Here ends the explanation of the second pārājika in the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary (Samatapàsàdikaya vivayasamvannàya dutiyapàràjikavannanà).”

Concerning the Third Purifying Rule

The Buddhas have taught it with perfect clarity;

It is called pārājika.

It will now be explained at length;

Let us listen attentively.

At that time, the Buddha was staying in the lofty pavilion in the Great Wood at Vesālī (Vesàli Mahàvana).

Vesālī was the name of the country. Because the name was feminine (Itthilinga), it was so called. The city was densely populated and had been expanded three times.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall relate the origin of the city of Vesālī. Long ago, the chief queen of the king of Bārāṇasī became pregnant. When she knew that she was pregnant, she informed the king.

The king immediately ordered attendants to serve her according to her wishes. When the day of delivery came, the queen entered the birthing chamber. Persons endowed with merit give birth in the early morning; likewise, in the early morning, this queen gave birth to a lump of red flesh resembling a hibiscus flower, while another queen gave birth to a child of golden complexion.

Seeing that the other queen had borne an extraordinarily beautiful child, this queen was deeply ashamed and thought: ‘If the king sees that the other queen’s child is beautiful while I have given birth only to a lump of flesh without arms or legs, he will surely despise me.’ After thinking this, the queen placed the lump of flesh in a jar and covered it with a thin sheet of gold bearing an inscription in vermilion stating that this object had been born of the queen of the king of Bārāṇasī.

She then affixed the royal seal, wrapped the outside in gold leaf bearing a clear inscription, and ordered someone to cast it into the river.

Protected by spirits, the jar was not sunk by the wind and waves. At that time, an ascetic lived in dependence upon cattle herders by the riverbank. Early one morning, when he went to the river to bathe, he saw the jar and thought: ‘I should retrieve this jar.’ When the jar drifted near, the ascetic picked it up.

Seeing the clear inscription upon the gold sheet together with the royal seal, he opened it and looked inside. When he saw the lump of flesh within, he thought: ‘This lump of flesh has been here for a long time, yet it does not stink or decay. There must be something extraordinary about it.’ He carried the jar back to his dwelling and carefully set it aside.

Half a month later, the lump of flesh divided into two pieces. Seeing this strange occurrence, he placed them together in a proper place. Half a month later, five fleshy appendages grew from each of the two pieces.

After another half month, one piece of flesh became a boy of golden complexion, and the other became a girl of silvery-white complexion. Seeing this, the ascetic loved them dearly and regarded them as his own children. Through the power of his loving-kindness, milk flowed from his two thumbs, one thumb feeding the boy and the other the girl.

As the milk entered the bellies of the two children, it was like clear water entering a maṇi jewel, transparent both within and without. The ascetic named them Licchavi Children (meaning ‘of the same skin’). Raising the two children caused the ascetic great hardship.

Every day he had to go into the village to seek alms for himself and the two children, returning only late in the afternoon.

Seeing that the ascetic was enduring such hardship because of the two children, the cattle herders approached and said: “Venerable sir! One who has gone forth should devote himself solely to practicing the Path. Why neglect your cultivation on account of these two children? Please entrust them to us to raise.”

The ascetic said: “Excellent!”

Afterward, they returned home. The following morning, the cattle herders and their companions repaired the roads, hung banners and pennants, scattered flowers, and beat drums as they went to the ascetic’s dwelling to receive the two children.

When they arrived, they said to the ascetic: “It is time for us to take these two children.”

The ascetic replied: “Very well.”

The ascetic further entrusted them with these instructions: “These two children possess immeasurable merit. Take meticulous care of them and nourish them with milk, curds, raw and cooked butter, and ghee. When these two children have grown to maturity, have them marry each other. Find a good, broad, and level region in which to settle, establish the boy as king, and make the girl his queen.”

Having received the ascetic’s instructions, the cattle herders returned together to their dwelling place. The two children gradually grew up and went outside to play with the children of the cattle herders. On one occasion, these two children trod upon the feet of the other children, causing them to cry and complain to their parents: “Those two children without parents stepped on our feet.”

The parents replied:

“Children, move away.”

Therefore, this place of play was called Bạt-xà, meaning “move away.” When the two children both reached the age of sixteen, the cattle herders saw that they had grown up and that the land there was level and extended for one hundred yojanas, so they built houses in its center. They arranged for the young man and young woman to become husband and wife; at the same time, they honored the husband as king and the wife as queen.

Later, the queen became pregnant and gave birth to twins, one boy and one girl; she gave birth in this manner sixteen times. Seeing that the number of princes and princesses had greatly increased, the cattle herders built additional houses and ponds around them for the thirty-two children to inhabit. As this continued, the region expanded until it was three times its original size, and so it was called Vesali.

This was the origin of that city.

The gabled hall was in the Great Forest. This forest had not been planted by anyone; its trees grew naturally from the city of Kapilavatthu as far as the Snow Mountains, and it was therefore called the Great Forest.

The gabled hall (Kūṭāgārasālā), shaped like a wild goose (haṃsavaṭṭaka), was built in the Great Forest, fully furnished with every convenience, and offered to the Buddha.

“By various means he praised the contemplation of impurity” means by the conditions for contemplating the impurity of the body.

What is impurity?

It means that from head to foot there are the head, hair, nails, sinews, flesh, pus, blood, feces, urine, saliva, and so forth; impurities flow from seven openings. This is stated in brief; as for the rest, you should understand it yourselves.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“You should clearly contemplate each part within this body, which is but a fathom high. It contains nothing precious, such as pearls, coral, maṇi gems, or fragrant substances such as gośīrṣa sandalwood. It contains only foul and impure things, beginning with the hair of the head and the hair of the body.”

The contemplation of the hair of the head has five aspects: color, shape, odor, length, and location. The same applies to the hair of the body. The Dharma teacher said:

“I have explained this in brief; it is explained more extensively in the Khuddaka Nikāya.”

Thus, every part of the body has five objects of contemplation.

Concerning the teaching on impurity, the Tathagata taught impurity in many ways, beginning with the internal and external contemplation of a swollen corpse. Internal contemplation concerns one’s own body; external contemplation concerns another person. Contemplating in this way brings benefit.

Therefore, the Tathagata praised the five factors that eliminate five factors, together with three wholesome qualities and the complete ten characteristics; this is called the first jhāna. By means of the first jhāna, the mind is brought under control and made pliant through vipassanā meditation. Through this contemplation, one eradicates the defilements and realizes the fruit of arhatship.

By what causes and conditions are the ten characteristics fulfilled? First, the mind is separated from the defilements. Second, it enters right concentration.

Third, the mind is unwavering and exceedingly pure. Fourth, it is completely tranquil. Fifth, it is one-pointed and does not give rise to other states.

Sixth, it is unified. Seventh, the five faculties are joyful. Eighth, diligent effort remains fixed on a single object.

Ninth, energy increases. Tenth, complete accomplishment is attained.

Of the jhāna described through these qualities, what constitutes the middle of the first jhāna, and what constitutes its conclusion?

When entering the first jhāna, supreme purity is the beginning, complete equanimity is the middle, and joy and bliss are the conclusion.

Question: Supreme purity is the beginning of the first jhāna; how many characteristics does this purity have?

Answer: Purity has three characteristics. First, because the mind is freed from the defilements, it is pure. Second, through purity, it enters jhāna. Third, having entered jhāna, it abides therein. These are the three characteristics of supreme purity in the first jhāna.

Question: Complete equanimity is the middle stage of the first jhāna; how many characteristics does this stage have?

Answer: It has three characteristics. First, the purified mind relinquishes. Second, it abides in tranquility. Third, it remains fixed in one place. These are the three characteristics of complete equanimity in the first jhāna.

This concerns the wholesome qualities in the final stage of jhāna. What are joy and bliss in the first jhāna?

They consist in abandoning. How many characteristics does abandoning have? It has four characteristics: first, it does not transgress the states that arise together with it; second, the five faculties are unified in the single flavor of joy and bliss; third, the conditions are sufficient for the arising and development of a mind of joy and bliss; fourth, there is advancement.

These are the four concluding characteristics belonging to joy and bliss in the first jhāna. Therefore, in the discourse on jhāna, this is called the final stage of the wholesome. With a mind thus genuine and pure, possessing the three characteristics and complete with the ten characteristics, one fully possesses the joy and bliss of meditative contemplation through ardent effort, wholehearted mindfulness, and perfect wisdom.

He instructed and praised those who entered concentration on impurity. As explained above, they continued to contemplate, discern, and remain one-pointed and undistracted; therefore, the Tathagata earnestly praised the practice and explained its benefits. What are its benefits? The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“A bhikkhu who constantly contemplates impurity thereby causes his mind to withdraw from sensual desire, relinquish sensual desire, and become repelled by sensual desire. Bhikkhus, just as a chicken feather placed near a fire is scorched and curls up, unable to straighten again, so a bhikkhu who constantly contemplates by means of the practice of impurity sees the defilement of sensual desire, and his mind takes no pleasure in approaching it.”

One day, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“I wish to enter a secluded place and dwell alone for half a month. Do not allow anyone else to come and see me, except the person who brings food. One who delights in cultivating merit should not engage in much conversation. Therefore, bhikkhus, permit only one person to bring food to me. Apart from that person, no bhikkhu or lay devotee may come.”

Why did the Tathagata issue this command?

With his divine eye, he saw that in the past five hundred hunters had gone together into a desolate forest and killed deer. Through the force of this karma, they fell into the three evil destinies and endured much suffering for a long time. Only afterward were they released, and because of a small amount of merit from the past, they were now born as human beings, went forth, and received full ordination. The old karma of these five hundred bhikkhus had not yet been exhausted, and during that half-month they would kill one another and instruct others to kill. Seeing that this evil karma had come to fruition and that even the Buddhas could not deliver beings from their karma, the Tathagata entered seclusion for half a month.

Among these five hundred were ordinary beings, stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and those on the path to arhatship. Those belonging to the noble Sangha were close to bringing birth and death to an end, but the ordinary beings still remained in samsara. Therefore, the Tathagata taught the ordinary beings the contemplation of impurity. Through contemplating impurity, they became disenchanted and detached from sensual craving, and after death they were reborn in heaven. Those who did not become detached from sensual craving would not be reborn in a wholesome realm after death.

The Buddha thought: “These five hundred bhikkhus followed me into the homeless life, hoping that through me they might be reborn in a wholly wholesome realm. Therefore, out of compassion, I should teach them the contemplation of impurity so that they may be reborn in a wholesome destination; I am not teaching them to die.”

The Buddha further thought: “If bhikkhus die every day and the Sangha comes to tell me, ‘Today one bhikkhu died,’ or ‘Two, three, four, five,’ and so on, up to ‘Ten bhikkhus died,’ while I am unable to use spiritual power to save them, this would bring no benefit to either me or them. Therefore, I shall enter a secluded place.”

Thus, the Vinaya text says:

“The Buddha told the bhikkhus, ‘I wish to go to a secluded place. Therefore, do not allow anyone else to enter; permit only one person to bring food.’”

The Tathagata wished to prevent doubt and disparagement expressed in such words as: “The Buddha is the Omniscient One, yet he could not prevent his śrāvaka disciples from killing one another; how, then, could he prevent anyone else?”

Someone replied:

“At that time, the Buddha had entered meditative concentration, and no one came to report the matter to him, so he did not know. Had he known, he would have prevented them and not allowed them to kill one another.”

Ashamed means that, upon contemplating their own bodies as foul and impure, they felt ashamed of and despised themselves, becoming disenchanted with these bodies. It is like a young man or woman of sixteen years who delights in purity, adorns the body, and bathes clean with scented water. After applying various fragrant oils and putting on fine, beautiful, costly garments, a snake’s carcass or a dog’s carcass is then hung around the neck. On seeing this loathsome, impure object, the person hastily casts it away at once. The bhikkhus were likewise disenchanted with these bodies, and thus used knives to kill one another.

They said to one another:

“Venerable sir, please help me.”

The reply was:

“I shall help you.”

Thus, in succession, they killed one another. The deer-staff ascetic: Deer-Staff (Migalandika) was his name. “Ascetic” means that he bore the appearance of an ascetic: his head was shaved, but a small lock of hair (cūḷa) was left upon it; he wore discolored robes, with one cloth covering his body and another draped over his shoulder; he entered the monastery, depended upon the bhikkhus, and lived on leftover food.

The bhikkhus approached the deer-staff ascetic and said:

“Good sir, please come to my aid.”

Such words were spoken by ordinary worldlings, not by noble ones.

Blood flowed everywhere (Lohitaka) means that the flowing blood stained his hands, feet, and knife.

He went to the Vaggumudā River (Vaggumukā). People in the world said that this river could cleanse human beings of their sins.

The deer-staff ascetic thought, “I shall go to the Vaggumudā River to wash away my sins.”

Doubt and remorse (Vippatisārakukkucca): after death, all the bhikkhus lay on their right sides, their bodies motionless. Seeing this, Deer-Staff became deeply troubled, remorseful, and self-reproachful, thinking, “I have accomplished no further good or beneficial deed, but have only added to my evil.”

“No good or benefit” means, “I cannot dwell in happiness.” Thus he sighed repeatedly:

“No benefit, no benefit.”

“Creating evil karma” means that the deer-staff ascetic thought, “A human body is difficult to obtain, yet I have killed bhikkhus who fully observed the precepts. I am exceedingly evil.”

At that time, a wrong-viewed earthbound spirit (mārakāyika), one of Māra’s retinue, thought, “If I speak in this way... it will accord perfectly with Māra’s intention.”

Adorned with jeweled necklaces, the spirit used supernatural power to walk upon the water, approached Deer-Staff, and said:

“Ascetic Deer-Staff, what you have done is excellent. You have delivered those who had not yet been delivered.”

This was a foolish earth spirit, and so it said that those who died had been delivered.

While deeply sorrowful, the deer-staff ascetic heard these words and thought, “This spirit possesses great supernatural power, and since it speaks thus, I must certainly have gained great benefit.”

Having thought this, Deer-Staff washed his knife, entered the monastery, went from room to room, and called out:

“Whoever has not yet been delivered, let me deliver him.”

On hearing this, those who had not attained the path felt their hair stand on end and their hearts tremble. Those who had attained the path contemplated the body as impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self, and therefore felt no fear. Each day Deer-Staff killed one bhikkhu; on some days he killed three, four, or five, and he continued in this way until five hundred bhikkhus had been killed.

After emerging from seclusion (paṭisallānā vuṭṭhito), the Buddha knew that five hundred bhikkhus had died. He emerged from meditative concentration and, although he knew clearly, questioned them as though he did not know. Why? Because he wished to teach the Dharma. He asked Ānanda:

“Previously the bhikkhus were very numerous. Why are there so few now? Every day the bhikkhus used to come three times to inquire about the teaching, but now they no longer do so. Have they gone to other countries?”

At that time, Ānanda did not know that this was the result of karma from a former life (kammavipāka) created by the five hundred bhikkhus; he saw only that they had killed one another because of their contemplation of impurity.

After answering according to his understanding, Venerable Ānanda said:

“Excellent, Blessed One! Please teach another, easier contemplation through which arhatship may be realized. Just as the great ocean has many small rivers flowing into it, so too the Buddha-Dharma has many methods, such as the ten recollections, the ten kasiṇas, the fourfold analysis of the great elements, and the brahmavihāras, which are fundamental practices leading to nirvana (Mahāsamuddaṃ orohanatitthāni viya hi aññāni pi dasānussati dasakasiṇa catudhātuvavatthānabrahmavihāra-ānāpānasatippabhedāni bahūni nibbānarohanakammaṭṭhānāni santi). I beseech the Blessed One to teach these methods to the bhikkhus.”

At that time, wishing to teach the bhikkhus other contemplative practices, the Buddha summoned Ānanda. This begins with the events during their residence at Vesālī. At Vesālī, all the bhikkhus living within a radius of one gāvuta, half a yojana, or one yojana assembled in the lecture hall (upaṭṭhānasālā). Ānanda personally went to summon those who were nearby, while he sent young bhikkhus (daharabhikkhu) to summon those who were far away. Within a short time (muhutta), all the bhikkhus had assembled in the lecture hall.

Ānanda approached the Buddha and said:

“Blessed One, now is the time to teach the Dharma to the bhikkhus.”

Knowing this, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“Previously, I taught the contemplation of impurity for the realization of arhatship. From now on, I shall teach you another method.”

–

This is the practice of mindfulness of ānāpāna (Ānāpānasati—mindfulness of breathing), which is discussed in the Vinaya text. I shall now fully explain the wording and meaning of this unsurpassed meditation practice taught by the Buddha to the bhikkhus. Pay close attention and listen so that you may retain it.

“To these bhikkhus in the present”: the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“It is not only by cultivating the contemplation of impurity that the defilements can be eradicated; this contemplation of breathing also eradicates the defilements.”

The Dharma teacher said:

“I shall explain it extensively in due sequence. Ānāpāna means inhalation and exhalation. As taught in the sutta: the characteristic of inhalation is not the characteristic of exhalation, and the characteristic of exhalation is not the characteristic of inhalation. Be mindful of the in-breath; be mindful of the out-breath. Through mindfulness of inhalation and exhalation, the mind becomes concentrated. Mindfulness of the in-breath and out-breath is itself right concentration. You should clearly understand the meaning in this way.”

“Repeated contemplation” means nurturing right mindfulness and causing it to increase.

“To practice repeatedly” means contemplating again and again until reaching a state of excellent purity.

Question:

“What is the meaning of these two practices?”

Answer:

“They are not the same, because ānāpāna causes the mind to cease being agitated, whereas contemplation of impurity often makes the mind unsettled. Why? Because it produces disenchantment. The Vinaya text says: ‘This practice is exceedingly peaceful and sublime; it increases and produces enduring ease. From the very moment the resolve is first aroused, one is already free from disturbance.’ Therefore, the Tathagata praised this practice as exceedingly excellent and peaceful, subtle in quality, bringing joyful ease to body and mind, and easy to penetrate.

“The arising of the Dharma means that it does not remain stagnant or become obscured, but causes evil states to be eliminated very swiftly, enabling one to attain the four paths and fruits according to one’s capacity. It is like a rainless fortnight in mid-spring, when elephants, horses, people, and cattle trample the ground and send dust flying throughout the sky. In the fifth month, at the beginning of summer, heavy rain and strong winds leave not the slightest trace of dust in the air. The contemplation of ānāpāna eradicates the defilements just as rain clears away dust.”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“With regard to the meditative concentration of mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānasati-samādhi), how should one contemplate, maintain right mindfulness, and practice in order to understand the cultivation of mindfulness of breathing? Bhikkhus, one who, with wholesome intent, goes forth to train in the Way and dwells in a secluded place, beneath a tree, or in a mountain forest is dwelling in a place conducive to tranquility.”

Question: “What does ‘conducive to tranquility’ mean?”

Answer: “It means keeping far away from noisy places. It is like a cowherd who has a calf that must suckle its mother’s milk from birth until it grows. When the cowherd wishes to obtain the mother cow’s milk, he must tie the calf to a post.

Remembering the milk, the calf continually pulls at the rope and stamps its feet. Because the rope is strong and the post is firm, the calf cannot escape and must lean against the post and breathe. The bhikkhu is like the cowherd; the mother cow is like the village; the mind is the calf; the milk is the five sensual pleasures; the post is the wilderness (arañña); and the tether is the practice of mindfulness of breathing.

All meditative concentration on mindfulness of breathing is a practice honored by Buddhas, arhats, and pratyekabuddhas. If one does not keep away from villages and settlements, it is difficult for the cultivation of mindfulness of breathing to bear fruit. When a meditating bhikkhu has thoroughly mastered this concentration, he penetrates the fourth jhāna and takes it as the basis for contemplating suffering, emptiness, and non-self.

When his contemplation is accomplished, he realizes the fruit of arhatship. Therefore, for the sake of those who cultivate meditation, the Buddha prescribed dwelling in the wilderness.

“The Buddha is like a master of geomancy (vatthuvijjācariya) who, when wishing to build a city or establish a kingdom, must clearly distinguish the auspicious and inauspicious characteristics of the terrain and report to the king: ‘This land is excellent; a kingdom may be established and villages built here.’ The king then obtains great benefit. Following his counsel, the king establishes the kingdom and villages and rewards the master of geomancy.

“The Buddha is likewise. Clearly knowing the various spheres of meditation, he tells those cultivating meditation, ‘Through this practice, meditative absorption can readily be attained.’ Hearing and practicing according to the Buddha’s teaching, those meditators successively realize the fruit of arhatship and praise the Buddha, just as the king thanks the master of geomancy. Meditators are like a lion that conceals itself deep in the forest to watch for wild animals. Whenever an animal comes near, the lion immediately leaps out, catches it, and devours it. In the same way, a bhikkhu dwelling in the wilderness watches for each fruit of the path—stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship—and successively attains each of these stages. An ancient verse says:

Just as the lion king,

Concealed within the mountain forest,

Watches for beasts that venture near,

Then swiftly catches and devours them,

So too are the Buddha’s disciples:

Dwelling secluded in tranquil places,

They cultivate the unsurpassed path

And realize the fruits of asceticism.

“‘At the foot of a tree’ (rukkhamūlagata) means sitting or practicing walking meditation beneath a tree.

“‘An empty dwelling’ (suññāgāragata) means any other tranquil dwelling apart from the foot of a tree and the wilderness; all such places are called empty dwellings. Weather suitable for the body is conducive to cultivating mindfulness of breathing. Therefore, the Vinaya says: ‘Sitting cross-legged’—this indicates the cultivation of mindfulness of breathing and is readily understood.

“‘Sitting cross-legged’ is readily understood.

“‘Sitting upright’ means keeping the eighteen vertebrae of the spine aligned while allowing the sinews, vessels, and skin to remain relaxed. If one sits with the muscles held rigid, one quickly becomes fatigued and falls away from meditation.

“‘Establishing mindfulness before oneself’ (parimukhaṃ) means directing right mindfulness toward the meditation practice and placing it before oneself.

“‘Breathing in and breathing out’ means that, after sitting stably cross-legged, the bhikkhu, mindful and fully aware, attends to the in-breaths and out-breaths as follows: he clearly knows when breathing long, and clearly knows when breathing short. By clearly knowing whether the breath is long or short, his mind becomes tranquil and is no longer distracted; because it is undistracted, right mindfulness is accomplished. Because mindfulness and wisdom arise, he clearly knows the long and short breaths. Just as one can discern the first breath, whether long or short, of an infant newly emerged from the womb, so can the meditator discern the breath.

“How does he know? Just as water flows according to whether an object is long or short, so elephants and snakes, because their bodies are large and long, have correspondingly long breaths, while a frog, because its body is short, has a short breath. A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation is likewise: by means of this analogy, he knows whether the breath is long or short.

Through right mindfulness, bliss arises in the mind; because of this bliss, the in-breaths and out-breaths become long and subtle. The mind becomes peaceful and blissful through the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the more peaceful and blissful it becomes, the gentler and longer the breaths become. Because of bliss, the mind becomes joyful; as its joy increases further, the breath becomes increasingly subtle and difficult to distinguish, advancing toward equanimity of mind.

These are the nine modes (nava ākārā); you should understand them.

“‘Clearly knowing the whole body, I breathe out; clearly knowing the whole body, I breathe in’: he clearly knows the entire body of the in-breath and out-breath. He clearly knows the long and short breaths and their beginning, middle, and end; with a mind clearly aware of this knowing, he knows the breath before and after. Furthermore, there is a bhikkhu cultivating meditation who sees the out-breath as though it were scattering dust.

Clearly seeing it in the present, he sees the beginning of the out-breath but does not see its middle or end; though wishing to see its middle and end, his mind cannot perceive them. Again, when breathing out, he may see only the breath at its middle and not its beginning or end. Again, when he sees the out-breath at its final stage, he does not see its beginning or middle.

“Yet another bhikkhu clearly sees the breath in all three stages—beginning, middle, and end—because his mind is free from weariness. One who attains this is skilled in the practice of breathing in and breathing out.

“One who trains in this meditation without resting or stopping, constantly contemplating the in-breaths and out-breaths, guards the three kinds of karma of body, speech, and mind. This is called training in morality. The concentrated mind is called training in concentration. Clearly discerning morality and concentration is called wisdom. These are the three trainings. With regard to this field of contemplation, one uses right mindfulness to cause the mind to follow the practice in which one has trained and continuously maintains it in this way thereafter.

“One who trains diligently in this manner will bring the in-breath and out-breath to cessation. The coarse aspect of the out-breath and in-breath ceases. ‘Cessation’ means the cessation of abiding in the coarse aspect. What is ‘coarse’?

When a bhikkhu first enters meditation, his body and mind are weary, so his in-breaths and out-breaths are coarse and heavy, filling both nostrils; he also breathes in and out through the mouth, and thus the breath is coarse. When the body and mind are no longer weary, the breath gradually becomes lighter and subtler, and the bhikkhu may become uncertain and think, ‘Do I still have in-breaths and out-breaths?’ It is like a person climbing a high mountain: his body and mind become weary, and his breathing is heavy.

But when he descends the mountain and reaches level ground where there is a pond and a large tree, he bathes in the pond and then rests beneath the tree’s shade, either sleeping or sitting at ease. His body and mind become cool and refreshed, and his breathing becomes gentle and subtle. A bhikkhu who has just entered concentration is likewise: when his body and mind have not yet been tamed, his in-breaths and out-breaths are coarse and heavy.

Why is this? Because he lacks right mindfulness. Mindfulness becomes subtle because the body and mind have been tamed.

As a verse says:

Because body and mind are greatly wearied,

The breath is coarse and heavy.

“The first jhāna is coarse (oḷārika); the second jhāna is subtle (sukhuma); the third jhāna is subtler still; and the fourth jhāna is concentration. In relation to the fourth jhāna, the third jhāna is coarse, while the fourth is called subtle. This is the point at which breathing ends. If one does not hold the breath in awareness, the in-breaths and out-breaths are coarse; if one holds the in-breaths and out-breaths in awareness, the breath is subtle. ‘Not holding’ means letting the breath go. ‘Holding the breath’ means that, from the beginning of the fourth jhāna, only the mind is sustained; upon entering the fourth jhāna, there are no longer any in-breaths or out-breaths. This is called the practice of samatha, meditative tranquility.”

The practice of vipassana (insight meditation) does not apprehend the very coarse aspect of the in-breath and out-breath. Contemplation of the four great elements is subtle; contemplation of subtle upadana-rupa (upādārūpapariggahe sukhuma—the subtle apprehension of derived material form) concerns the coarse material form—the five faculties and the five objects, according to the translator—produced by the four great elements.

Again, one contemplates all subtle material form, while the coarse material form is that produced by the four great elements. Again, one contemplates the subtle immaterial, while all derived material form is coarse. Again, one contemplates subtle materiality and immateriality, while the immaterial that is produced is coarse.

Again, one contemplates subtle causes and conditions, while the materiality and immateriality produced by them are coarse. Again, one contemplates subtle causes and name-and-form, while what is produced by causes and conditions is coarse. Again, one contemplates the subtle signs of vipassana, while what is produced by causes and name-and-form is coarse.

Minor vipassana is subtle, while what is produced by contemplation of the signs of vipassana is coarse. Great vipassana is subtle, while what is produced by minor vipassana is coarse. According to the foregoing sequence, what comes first is subtle, and what follows becomes progressively coarser.

Coarse and subtle passaddhi (tranquillity, free from fatigue) are explained in the Patisambhida.

Question: How does one train in the cessation of the out-breath and the in-breath? What is the out-breath? What is the in-breath?

Answer: Mindfulness of the body includes the in-breath. One trains in the cessation of the out-breath and the in-breath; thereby, body and mind do not sway, contract, or tremble, but become tranquil and exceedingly subtle, as though the body were no longer present. This is called training in the cessation of the in-breath and the out-breath.

When the breath is thus established, if mindfulness of anapana has not yet been accomplished, contemplation has likewise not yet been accomplished; and if wisdom has not yet been accomplished, one can neither enter this concentration nor emerge from it. If training in the cessation of the in-breath and the out-breath is accomplished, the established breath no longer arises; this is called the complete opening of wisdom.

One who enters this state can also emerge from it.

How is this known? It is like striking an object made of bronze: at first it produces a loud sound, which thereafter gradually diminishes. Having clearly remembered the loud sound, one subsequently also clearly retains in the mind the sound as it gradually diminishes.

Then the sound grows fainter and disappears altogether, yet it remains recorded in the mind. The out-breath and the in-breath are likewise: coarse at first and subtle afterward. One notes that they are coarse at the beginning and become progressively subtle.

When they have become subtle, the breath is no longer present, yet it remains remembered in the mind; because of that remembrance, the mind becomes concentrated. Thus, one attains concentration by means of the breath as wind. Once the mind has become concentrated, through practice one accomplishes contemplation of the in-breath and the out-breath.

Thus, concentration upon the in-breath and the out-breath is accomplished. Through the realization described above, a wise person enters and emerges from this concentration. Therefore, the Vinaya says that after the out-breath and the in-breath have ceased, they may subsequently arise in accordance with mindfulness; hence this is called following contemplation.

Clearly knowing the in-breath and the out-breath is not following mindfulness, nor is following mindfulness itself the in-breath and the out-breath. By means of these two phenomena, one clearly knows and contemplates this body and thereby realizes the fruit of arhatship. One who is beginning to learn meditation should train in the following sequence: a bhikkhu, with a wholesome mind, must safeguard the purity of the four kinds of precepts.

Purity is threefold:

First, not transgressing the precepts.

Second, confessing and making amends if one inadvertently transgresses them.

Third, not allowing them to be corrupted by the defilements.

Having thus safeguarded the purity of the precepts, one accomplishes right mindfulness and should at the same time prepare a shrine room for the Buddha, establish the precinct of the Bodhi tree, prepare a bathing room for the preceptor and acariya, and build an observance hall. In the section on constructing dwellings among the eighty-two khandhakas, these four kinds of construction are mentioned (cetiyangavatta-bodhiyanganavatta-upajjhāyavatta-ācariyavatta-jantāgharavatta-uposathāgāravatta-dvevīsatikhandhakavattāni-cuddasavidhamahāvatta).

Whoever carries these out is skilled in observing the precepts. Any bhikkhu who delights in training in these precepts should observe them fully. A bhikkhu may say, “I observe the precepts fully, without breach or deficiency,” yet if he does not reflect, “I shall die; therefore, I will abandon other useless activities and apply myself diligently and devotedly to observing the precepts,” it is impossible for such a bhikkhu to possess the precepts in full.

A bhikkhu who skillfully observes the precepts is perfected in morality. Through perfection in morality, he attains concentration. Why?

As stated in the discourse, the Buddha told the bhikkhus that if a person does not train perfectly in morality, it is difficult for that person’s morality to become complete. There is a verse:

Monastery, family, gains and honors,

Community, and building are five;

Travel, relatives, illness,

Study, and psychic powers make ten.

Only after one is able to abandon these ten attachments (dasa-palibodhā—the ten impediments to awakening) can one enter concentration. The meditation subject is of two kinds. The first is universal meditation (sabbatha kammatthāna). The second is a personally maintained meditation subject (parihāriya kammatthāna).

Question: What is universal meditation?

Answer: First, toward the Sangha of bhikkhus one cultivates great compassion, mindfulness of death, and contemplation of impurity. How does a bhikkhu possessing loving-kindness begin the contemplation of loving-kindness? When beginning the contemplation, the bhikkhu must contemplate one sphere at a time. First, he contemplates the Sangha of bhikkhus; next, he contemplates devas and human beings; then he contemplates the very wealthy; next, ordinary people; and thereafter all sentient beings everywhere.

Question: Why must loving-kindness toward the Sangha of bhikkhus be contemplated first?

Answer: Because they live together. If loving-kindness pervades the entire community of bhikkhus, they will live in happiness.

Question: Why must loving-kindness toward the devas be contemplated?

Answer: For the sake of protection. If loving-kindness pervades all the devas, the devas will practice wholesome Dharma with gentle minds.

Question: Why must loving-kindness toward the very wealthy be contemplated?

Answer: So that they may practice wholesome Dharma.

Question: Why must loving-kindness toward ordinary people be contemplated?

Answer: Because they practice the same Dharma together and thus do not harm one another.

Question: Why must loving-kindness toward all sentient beings be contemplated?

Answer: So that they may be free from suffering and calamity.

Question: Why must one be mindful of death?

Answer: To strengthen one’s concern for oneself and thus be free from indolence.

Contemplation of impurity is a noble contemplation. By contemplating this impurity, one becomes free from sensual desire and all unwholesome states. Because sensual desire is the root, the contemplation of impurity must be held in esteem; for it establishes wholesome states and is therefore called universal meditation.

Among the thirty-eight meditation subjects (aṭṭhatiṃsārammaṇāni), whichever one freely cultivates and practices continuously is called one’s personally maintained meditation subject. Here, mindfulness of anapana is undertaken as the personally maintained meditation subject.

The Dharma teacher said: I shall now explain this briefly. Whoever wishes to understand it clearly should consult the full account in the Abhidhamma commentary, the Visuddhimagga.

Having thus maintained pure morality and severed the impediments (upacchinnapalibodha), one enters anapana concentration. By relying upon anapana concentration, one penetrates the four jhanas and thereafter contemplates suffering, emptiness, and impermanence. Having contemplated in this way, one should go and question an arhat. If there is no arhat, one should question a non-returner. If there is no non-returner, one should question a once-returner. If there is no once-returner, one should question a stream-enterer. If there is no stream-enterer, one should go and question one who has attained jhana.

Question: Why must one question such persons?

Answer: Because they have attained jhana and can therefore guide us easily.

It is like following an elephant’s footprints: one can easily find the path without losing the way. Those who have attained the path and attained jhana are likewise. Why? Because they can instruct us with ease.

The Dharma master said: “I shall first explain the initial stage of cultivation. A bhikkhu, dressed neatly and simply, keeping no superfluous possessions and fully endowed with dignified deportment, goes to see the teacher. Upon arriving, the practitioner must perform his duties (vatta) entirely in accordance with the teacher’s wishes. In due course, out of compassion, the teacher should impart five matters for him to receive. They are: receiving, questioning, beginning, maintaining, and the sign.

– Receiving means being given the meditation subject to undertake.

– Questioning means being permitted to inquire about it in due sequence.

– Beginning means entering into the practice of meditative concentration.

– Maintaining means firmly sustaining the meditation subject.

– The sign means discerning the characteristics of meditative concentration.

These are the five parts.

At the outset, these five parts must be received, for they prevent bodily fatigue and do not weary the teacher who gives instruction. Because these five parts are easy to remember and easy to practice, they are taught first.

After receiving these five parts, if the teacher’s dwelling is suitable, one should remain there; if it is unsuitable, one should go elsewhere. A person without wisdom should stay no farther than one yojana from the teacher. A person with wisdom may stay farther away. It is best to avoid the eighteen kinds of dwelling places (atthārasesanāsana). There are five kinds of dwelling places that should be accepted (pañcasenāsana). After accepting one, one should bring all minor tasks to an end and, after the midday meal, rest for a short while. When the midday rest is over, one should recollect the Triple Gem and gladden the mind. One must follow the teacher’s instructions and not forget them. One must clearly bear this ānāpāna practice in mind.

The Dharma master said: “I have explained it briefly. It is discussed more extensively in the Abhidharma; you should investigate it for yourself.”

Bearing it in mind consists of counting, following, touching, establishing, observing, turning back, purification, and reviewing them (gaṇanā anubandhanā ṭhapanā sallakkhaṇā vivaṭṭanā pārisuddhi tesañ ca paṭipassanā).

– Counting means beginning with the numbers one and two.

– Following means continuously attending to the in-breaths and out-breaths.

– Touching means the place where the breath makes contact as it enters and leaves.

– Establishing is the path.

– Purification is the fruit.

– Reviewing means the characteristic of the Dharma.

For a beginner, one should first clearly attend in the mind to the method of counting, beginning with a small series from one to five and then counting again; one must not count only to three or four. The larger series is counted from one to ten and then begun again; one must not stop at eight or nine.

Commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapāsādikā.

– Fascicle Ten -