善見律毘婆沙

There is a bhikkhu who thoroughly knows the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka—being a Suttantika, Abhidhammika, and Vinayadhara—yet does not seek fine food and drink, desiring only to sustain his body. He observes the precepts purely, teaches the Dharma to others, is fully endowed with proper deportment, and inspires joy in people. Going from village to village and from country to country, he is respected by everyone and causes the Buddha-Dharma to flourish. Such a bhikkhu makes the Buddha-Dharma shine brightly. An evil bhikkhu hears and learns the teaching from such a bhikkhu, then expounds what he has learned to others in gentle words and with a clear voice.

Question: When everyone delights in listening and praises him, saying, “Venerable sir, you expound the sublime Dharma exceedingly well. From whom did you learn it?”

Answer: “I know it by myself; I did not learn it from anyone.”

Thus this person praises himself.

The Tathagata, throughout four incalculable periods and one hundred thousand eons, fully cultivated the paramitas. Only through such diligent and arduous exertion did he realize this sublime Dharma. Yet an evil bhikkhu steals this Dharma and relies upon it in pursuit of material gain and offerings; he is therefore called the second great robber.

There is also another great robber. Suppose there is a bhikkhu who diligently and fully observes the precepts and attains the fruit of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, or even arhatship. Another bhikkhu, an ordinary person who observes the precepts purely, falsely accuses those noble ones of having committed a parajika offense because he is jealous of their practice, while proclaiming himself to be pure. One who thus slanders the noble ones and steals the noble Dharma is called the third robber.

A valuable object is as explained under the precept against stealing: stealing an object worth five masakas is called taking a valuable object.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus that there are five kinds of valuable property that must not be given away. The Sangha must not give them away; a group must not give them away; and an individual must not give them away. Whoever gives them away commits a thullaccaya offense. These five are: first, a monastery garden; second, land; third, objects made of iron; fourth, objects made of wood; and fifth, objects made of clay. These valuable properties must not arbitrarily be given to others.

The Buddha taught the bhikkhus that there are five kinds of property that must not be divided, whether by the Sangha or by an individual. The first is a monastery garden, and so forth. Whoever divides them commits a thullaccaya offense.

The Dharma teacher says: Whether they may or may not be divided is explained clearly in the Khandhaka and will be discussed fully later; here it is presented only in brief.

Taking them to gain favor means taking this valuable property to please laypeople, hoping thereby that they will not give offerings and material support to anyone else. Thus one steals it and supplies it to laypeople with the intention of flattering them. This is the fourth kind of robber.

Giving valuable property to laypeople is called othagaya—bringing defilement into a layperson’s household. Because one creates the cause for the offense of othagaya, one commits a dukkata offense and should be expelled from the Sangha community.

Again, there is a bhikkhu who treats property belonging to the Sangha as though it were his own. If, after using it, he gives it to someone, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he takes it with the intention to steal, the offense is determined according to its value. This is the fifth great robber.

There are no robbers worse than these kinds of robbers.

The gain of the noble Dharma: this Dharma is extremely subtle. One may steal gold, silver, jewels, and treasures, but one must not steal this Dharma. Therefore, the Vinaya text says concerning the gain of the noble Dharma, “One claims to possess it oneself”—that is, though one does not possess the gain of the noble Dharma within oneself, one declares, “I have attained the gain of the noble Dharma”...

Question: Here, the Dharma is not taken away from its original place, so why is this called robbery?

Answer: He is not merely called a robber. Why? Because by false and untruthful speech he obtains abundant material gain and offerings, using that device to acquire them.

Therefore, the Vinaya says: The Buddha declared, “Bhikkhus, one who steals the food and drink of others is called a great robber.” Why? Because he is not truthful. Falsely claiming, “I am an arhat,” he steals the noble Dharma of another and declares that he himself has realized it.

It is like a hunter wishing to kill a herd of deer. If he approaches in human form, the deer will see him and flee. He therefore covers his body with trees and grass.

Although his body is not trees or grass, he appears in the form of trees and grass. Seeing him thus, the deer think that he is vegetation, draw near, and are killed by him. An evil bhikkhu is just the same: though he is not an arhat, he falsely claims to be one and assumes the outward appearance of an arhat.

Faithful donors believe him to be genuine and offer him fragrant and delicious food. Just as hunters disguise themselves to deceive a herd of deer, such a bhikkhu disguises himself to defraud donors of their food and drink. Therefore, the Vinaya contains this verse:

Outwardly clad in the kasaya robe,

Inwardly performing impure deeds;

Those who have committed evil deeds,

At death fall into hell.

Better to swallow a red-hot iron ball and be burned to death

Than, having broken the precepts, to consume the faithful donors’ alms. — (Dhammapada 307–308)

“Outwardly wrapping the kasaya around the neck” means wearing the kasaya upon the shoulders. Outwardly such persons display the appearance of noble ones, yet inwardly they possess nothing. They are like a vessel beautifully decorated on the outside but containing filth within. Being thus false, it is of no use whatsoever. An evil bhikkhu is just the same.

Why, in the second verse, did the Tathagata say that it would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball than to eat food offered by donors? Because swallowing a blazing iron ball would burn and destroy one’s entrails and cause death, yet it would not on that account send one to hell. Therefore, he taught in this way.

After reproaching the bhikkhus of Vaggumuda, the Buddha told the bhikkhus that when reciting the precepts they should proclaim as follows: “Whatever bhikkhu speaks falsely and untruthfully...” After completing the principal formulation of the fourth parajika rule, the Buddha added the supplementary provision excluding overestimation, adhimana. Thus the Buddha laid down the supplementary provision for the bhikkhus. In this supplementary provision, it means that one has not seen, yet believes that one has seen.

Though one has not seen with the eye of wisdom, one believes that one has attained arhatship and therefore thinks one has seen. Thus, one has not reached something but believes one has reached it, and has not attained something but believes one has attained it. “Not attained” means not having attained the truth of the Path.

“Believing it to be true” means believing that one possesses the eye of wisdom and has therefore seen the truth.

Overestimation means that one says, “I have attained the gain of the noble Dharma,” and conceit consequently arises; it is also called excessive conceit. Because of this conceit, one thinks to oneself, “Regarding the Dharma of arhatship, I have accomplished what had to be done.” What is this conceit? Through the power of samatha and vipassana—Samathavipassanabala, the power of tranquility and insight—the defilements are temporarily suppressed; this is called conceit. If one later encounters objects of sensual desire again, the defilements arise once more. Only such a person does not commit the offense.

Question: In whom does conceit arise, and in whom does it not arise?

Answer: Conceit does not arise in an arhat disciple because the path and fruit have been attained and all defilements have been extinguished. Through examination with the eye of wisdom, there can be no case of mistaking the unattained for the attained owing to doubt.

What is doubt? It is, for example, uncertainty as to whether one has attained stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and so forth. Therefore, regarding the four paths and fruits, such conceit does not arise, nor does any other conceit arise. Why does conceit not arise in one who has broken the precepts? Because such a person has no share in the gain of the noble Dharma. Likewise, one who practices meditation but delights in sleeping and working does not give rise to this conceit.

Conceit arises in one who first observes the precepts fully and then enters meditative concentration. After attaining meditative concentration, before discerning name-and-form, he begins to enter insight meditation, fully possessing the three perceptions, with a mind of great vigor. He may attain samatha, or for twenty or thirty years no defilements may arise in him through the power of practicing vipassana, and he thinks: “I have attained the path of stream-entry, once-returning, or non-returning.” This is superior conceit.

If he maintains samatha well, then not merely for twenty or thirty years, but even for eighty or one hundred years, his defilements may not arise. He then develops superior conceit and says: “I have attained arhatship.” Therefore, to eradicate superior conceit, the Tathagata prohibited false speech and the untruthful claim of having attained the noble attainments.

Question: What are the noble attainments?

Answer: They are said to consist in entering the Dharma of emptiness and attaining the wisdom-eye through meditative concentration, liberation, and samadhi. Thus, beginning with meditative concentration and extending to all the foregoing states, these are called noble attainments. An evil bhikkhu claims these states as his own or says that he himself has attained them. To possess perfect knowledge and vision concerning the noble attainments means clearly knowing, through wisdom as though seeing with one’s own eyes, both mundane and supramundane phenomena. The wisdom-eye is the threefold knowledge through wisdom.

Question: Are wisdom and the eye one or different?

Answer: They are one. Wisdom is the eye, and the eye is wisdom.

Question: If so, why is it not simply called wisdom? Why is it necessary to speak of an eye? Likewise, there would be no need to call it wisdom; it could simply be called an eye.

Answer: It is not so. Because wisdom resembles an eye, it is called the wisdom-eye, for the physical eye itself is not wisdom.

“To speak to a man or woman concerning a superhuman state”: this phrase specifies only the person to whom the statement is made. It does not refer to devas, Maras, Brahmas, yaksas, hungry ghosts, or animals.

“I know thus; I see thus”: this phrase states the basis of the matter. “I know thus; I see thus”—beginning with states of meditative concentration. If one declares, “I see and know thus,” and makes another person understand this false claim, whether or not one is examined by others, one incurs the offense.

At the very moment one claims attainment, one commits a parajika offense.

Once the offense has been committed, it makes no difference whether one is examined or voluntarily tells others, or whether neither occurs.

Therefore, the text of the Vinaya says: “Whether examined or not examined.”

Question: What does it mean to be examined?

Answer: One may ask: “Venerable sir, when did you attain meditative concentration, liberation, samadhi, and the right path?” Or one may ask: “Venerable sir, did you attain the three perceptions of suffering, emptiness, and non-self through samadhi or through insight? Was it through the form sphere or the formless sphere, through internal form or external form? At what time did you attain it: in the early morning, at noon, or in the evening?” One may also ask about the place of attainment: “Did you attain it in the open air, beneath a tree, in a forest dwelling, or in a secluded place?”

After asking in this way, one further asks: “If the defilements have been eradicated, how many have been eliminated, and how many remain?”

“By which path were the defilements eradicated: by the path of stream-entry or by the path of once-returning?”

Any bhikkhu who has attained a superhuman state will be able to answer each question. One who has not attained it will become confused by the questions and be unable to answer. One who has truly attained sees that state clearly, as though viewing something in the palm of his hand. He answers clearly concerning the time and place of attainment, and whether it occurred by day or by night.

After he has answered, one further asks him: “Which of the four paths and fruits have you attained, and how many defilements have you destroyed?”

The respondent must answer each question clearly. One further asks: “What state have you attained: the state of a stream-enterer or that of a once-returner?”

The respondent must speak correctly concerning each state. If there is even the slightest discrepancy, he should not be believed. Why? If an intelligent and wise bhikkhu has studied under a teacher the meaning of every doctrinal phrase, he will make no mistake.

Further questions are then asked, such as: “How did you begin the practice?” If he does not answer each question correctly, it means that he has not fully attained the noble attainments, and he should be expelled. If his answers accord with the noble path, if he has long cultivated morality, concentration, and wisdom, has not been indolent, is diligent and never retreats, and is not attached to the four requisites but regards them as empty space, then the words of such a bhikkhu accord perfectly with the superhuman state, just as when the Great River joins the rivers Gangooaka and Yamunodaka, there is no difference between their waters.

Therefore, for the sake of his disciples, the hearers, the Buddha taught nirvana. Those teachings contain no error. Thus, these questions are used to test and intimidate him.

If he is not afraid, he is a bhikkhu free from sensual desire. Even if lightning were to strike his body, such a bhikkhu would not be afraid. If he is still afraid, he is not an arhat.

If he is fearless and does not tremble in the slightest, like the lion king, it is proper for such a bhikkhu to speak of noble attainments. If a king and his ministers make offerings to him, he may accept them all.

An evil bhikkhu is one who has broken the precepts. A good bhikkhu is one who possesses moral discipline.

“To make others know about oneself” means that, with an evil mind, one feigns and displays the attainment of noble states. If one does not truly believe that one has attained them, one commits a parajika offense.

“Having committed the offense, he wishes to become purified” means that he thinks to himself: “I have committed a parajika offense. How can I become purified?”

The Tathagata established this rule because when a bhikkhu commits a parajika offense, his rebirth in a heavenly realm and his attainment of meditative concentration, liberation, and wisdom are obstructed. Even if he delights in practicing the path, these attainments are not easily realized. As there is half a verse in the Vinaya:

A shramana who does not observe the precepts
Must fall into hell after death.

If one cannot fully observe the bhikkhu precepts but returns to the state of a layperson, upasaka, or novice, observes the five precepts, and becomes a person of pure conduct who dwells near the Triple Gem, then the path to nirvana and liberation is not obstructed. This is the mark of purity in a layperson. Therefore, a bhikkhu who has broken the precepts and wishes to regain purity should return to being a novice or a pure lay practitioner who dwells near the Triple Gem. Thus, the text of the Vinaya says that if he desires and delights in purity, he should confess of his own accord: “Not knowing, I said that I knew; not seeing, I said that I saw. I spoke falsely.”

False speech is speech that does not accord with the truth. According to the three preceding parajika rules, anyone who commits this offense is called one defeated. The Dharma teacher says: This sentence is easy to understand.

“I delight in tranquility”: this is a concise statement concerning the attainment of noble states. No further details are given, lest the offense be compounded.

There is also another meaning: one uses such a device to make another person know.

“To enter meditative concentration” means entering the first jhana, second jhana, third jhana, or fourth jhana, as well as meditations of insight, loving-kindness, impurity, and mindfulness of breathing, the meditation of noble ones, and the meditation of ordinary persons; all of these may be entered. (Mettājjhāna, Asubhajjhāna, Ānāpānasatisamādhijjhāna, lokuttarajjhāna, lokiyajjhāna.) Therefore, the text of the Vinaya says that it begins with claiming to have entered the meditative absorptions. If one speaks in this way, one commits a parajika offense.

If one says, “I have completely eradicated the defilements, am free from sensual desire, and they will never arise again,” one incurs an offense as stated above. Or if one says, “I have entered samadhi and attained the Path,” or says, “I have clearly known the superior states,” one thereby incurs a parajika offense. If one says, “I have attained wisdom,” or “I have realized the three knowledges,” or “I have attained the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, which are true Dharmas,” or “I have attained the foremost power,” or “I have attained perfect conduct,” or “I have attained the Noble Eightfold Path,” in all such cases one incurs a parajika offense.

First, as for saying, “I have attained freedom from sensual desire”: this is the path of stream-entry. With the third path, one becomes far removed from anger and sensual desire; with the fourth path, one becomes far removed from delusion.

Therefore, the Vinaya states: If anyone falsely says, “I have attained freedom from sensual desire,” he commits a parajika offense. If one falsely says, “I have realized one of the six supernormal powers,” one also commits a parajika offense. If one says, “In a former life I realized the six supernormal powers, and in this life I wish to realize them,” one does not commit a grave offense.

If one says, “I have attained the four analytical knowledges,” one commits a grave offense. If one says, “I have entered the attainment of cessation,” one does not commit a grave offense. Why?

Because the attainment of cessation is neither an attainment of noble ones nor an attainment of ordinary persons. If someone is uncertain whether another is a non-returner or an arhat and speaks so that others may clarify the matter for him; or if he tells others of an attainment because he believes they clearly understand it; or if he says, “I attained the path of stream-entry in the time of Buddha Kassapa,” he does not commit a grave offense.

Why? Because the Tathagata established the precepts with reference to this life, not to past lives. The same applies if one says that one entered an attainment in a past life.

The Dharma master said:

“The characteristics of the offense of false speech have been clearly established, and there are three permutations. The first concerns the first jhana, up to and including freedom from one of the five hindrances. This is the first permutation.

“The second permutation begins with the second jhana.

“The third permutation concerns the third jhana. Likewise, one says, ‘I entered such an attainment in this manner, emerged from it in this manner, and accomplished it in this manner,’ thereby claiming unobstructed penetration.”

One teaching says that all such cases incur a grave offense.

The Dharma master said:

“False speech is of three kinds. What are the three?

“First, one thinks to oneself, ‘I am about to speak falsely.’

“Second, one utters the false statement.

“Third, after speaking falsely, one again thinks, ‘I have spoken falsely.’

“These are the three factors of false speech. There is also a case in which one begins with the intention, ‘I am about to speak falsely,’ but when speaking, one tells the truth. This does not constitute false speech, and therefore one does not incur a grave offense. There is also a case of false speech such as this: with the intention, ‘I wish to meditate,’ one speaks about the Dharma of meditation; or one says, ‘I wish to enter an attainment...’

“In such a case, one does not commit a grave offense.

“There is also false speech in which, when preparing to speak, one conceives a false statement, then utters that false statement. Once the false statement has been clearly expressed, all three characteristics are complete; such a false statement is indeed false speech.”

The Dharma master said:

“Even so, this does not constitute false speech. Why? Mental states arise and cease in every moment. The preceding mind is not the subsequent mind, and the subsequent mind is not the preceding mind. Therefore, no single mind contains all three characteristics.”

Answer: That is incorrect, because the Tathagata established the precepts on the basis of the continuity of the mind, regarding it as one and not different. Therefore, a grave offense is committed.

Question: Of those three characteristics, which is primary?

Answer: The present characteristic is primary.

The Dharma master said:

“I shall determine this teaching. Why is an offense incurred? If one says, ‘I am presently attaining a superior human state,’ one incurs an offense. If one says, ‘I once attained it,’ though one may no longer possess it now, or ‘I wish to attain it,’ one does not commit a grave offense.”

End of the Chapter on the Three Permutations.

“Intending to say” means that one intends to say that one has realized the first jhana, but mistakenly says the second jhana. This is a verbal error. Likewise, if one mistakenly says the third or fourth jhana, one commits a grave offense in every case. Why? Because all four jhanas are superior human states.

It is like intending to renounce the Sangha but mistakenly saying that one renounces the Dharma, or intending to renounce the Dharma but mistakenly saying that one renounces the Buddha: the precepts are still lost. False and untrue statements involve different particulars.

Question: How do they differ?

Answer: In renouncing the precepts, even if one displays the act through conduct but does not speak it aloud, the precepts are not lost. The words must be spoken before the precepts are lost. If one tells another person, “I have attained the Path,” but that person does not immediately understand those words and understands them only much later, then because the person did not understand at once, the speaker does not commit a grave offense but incurs a thullaccaya offense.

There is also the case of a bhikkhu who speaks to another person about an attainment, but that person knows nothing of the characteristics of jhana, has never attained jhana, does not understand the meaning of jhana, and knows only the worldly expressions concerning meditative attainment. After hearing the bhikkhu speak, that person says, “This bhikkhu has attained jhana; he has entered jhana.” In such a case, the bhikkhu commits a grave offense.

End of the Chapter on Intending to Speak.

The successive permutations concerning expedient means are explained according to the wording of the Vinaya. For example, one says to a layperson, “The person who receives food and drink, robes, lodging, medicines, and so forth has attained the fruit of arhatship.” By this clever device, without explicitly stating one’s own name, one incurs a thullaccaya offense. If the donor does not clearly understand the statement, that bhikkhu incurs a dukkata offense.

The Dharma master said: “Thus, regarding the various expedient means intended to make others understand, you should discern for yourself whether the character of the offense is light or grave.”

I shall explain the cases in which there is no offense. Except in the case of overestimation, there is no offense if one did not deliberately intend to tell another person or if one spoke mistakenly. If one truly has an attainment and speaks of it to someone who agrees with and understands one, no offense is committed. The first bhikkhus at the Vaggumuda River committed no offense because the precept had not yet been established. One who is insane or mentally deranged commits no offense.

The causal basis of this offense originates from body, mind, and speech. It is an offense by its own nature. The feeling involved is pleasant feeling.

The Dharma master said:

“This is the principal section taught in the root Vinaya text. What follows concerns the supplementary regulations.”

The Dharma master said:

“Following the order of the supplementary regulations, I shall explain whatever is difficult to understand.”

The phrase “overestimation” was explained in the preceding section.

In the following passage concerning two persons, “causing others to entertain a suspicion” means that one thinks: “I shall go and dwell at an aranyaka residence, causing others to suspect that I have realized arhatship, or the fruit of once-returning, or even stream-entry. Because they entertain such a suspicion, I shall receive abundant offerings.” As soon as such a thought arises, one incurs a dukkata offense. While proceeding to the aranyaka residence, one incurs a dukkata offense with every step. Thereafter, whether or not anyone entertains such a suspicion, and whether or not one receives offerings, that bhikkhu still incurs a dukkata offense.

There is also the case of a bhikkhu who undertakes the dhutanga practices and therefore thinks: “I should not live in a village but should dwell in an aranyaka place, for that is a place of purity. If I become purified, I shall successively realize the paths and fruits. Once I enter that aranyaka place, if I do not attain the fruit of arhatship, I shall never leave it.”

He further reflects: “The Tathagata praised dwelling in an aranyaka place. If my fellow students see me living there, they too will delight in going to live in an aranyaka place.” Living there with such thoughts does not give rise to an offense.

In the third passage, a bhikkhu thinks: “I wish to enter the village to seek alms.” He therefore puts on his robe and carries his bowl, falsely displaying the appearance of one who has attained a noble state in order to receive offerings. From that point until he has finished eating, he incurs a dukkata offense throughout.

If he thinks, “I wish to enter the village for alms in order to train in the Dharma of the noble ones, for the sake of this life and future lives. When my fellow practitioners see me carrying my alms bowl, they will praise this as good; this is the true Dharma of the Tathagata. If we do not practice this Dharma, it would truly be shameful and fearful,” then if he goes for alms with such a mind, there is no offense.

The fourth statement concerns intimating to a donor, “The one who resides in your monastery...” Because the name of that bhikkhu is not stated explicitly, there is no parajika offense.

Causing others to have doubts: this statement is easy to understand. Regarding the statement about defilements, if one tells a layperson that one has brought the defilements to an end, one commits a parajika offense according to the words spoken.

If, in a secluded place, one says, “I have attained arhatship,” one commits a dukkata offense.

A bhikkhu receives offerings from a donor, and this bhikkhu is an arhat. This statement is easy to understand and requires no extensive explanation.

Regarding the statement about illness, if one says, “Others could not endure that illness; only I could endure this illness,” speaking thus does not constitute an offense.

If one says, “An ordinary person could not endure it; only I could endure that suffering,” speaking thus constitutes a thullaccaya offense.

Regarding the brahmin statement: a brahmin who has faith in the Teaching may say, “Homage to the arhat,” and when arranging various foods as offerings, may address the recipient each time as “Venerable arhat.” Those who receive such offerings commit no offense when the donors call them arhats.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus that when receiving such praise, they should accept it with moral shame and moral dread. Having heard it, they should diligently practice the path and seek to attain arhatship.

Next is the statement about leaving the household life, as when one says, “We have severed ourselves from worldly ways.” This is not a boastful statement, so there is no offense.

Regarding the statement about obstruction, as when one says, “I have barred the ways of laypeople,” or says that one has become removed from them, the root Vinaya text clearly explains the offense according to one’s perception.

Leaving the monastery, as when it is said, “Whoever leaves this monastery first, that bhikkhu is an arhat.”

The Dharma teacher said: This is stated in brief. In detail, it may refer to leaving the monastery, leaving one’s room, leaving the boundary ground, or saying, “I shall cross the river.” Thus, a large Sangha has established the rule that whichever bhikkhu leaves first is an arhat. If, wishing others to know that he is an arhat, one deliberately leaves first, one commits a parajika offense.

If there is a reason—such as being sent by one’s teacher or the Sangha, or because one’s parents are in urgent distress—and one therefore leaves first, there is no offense. If one leaves because of such a circumstance and thereby manifests the appearance of an arhat, there is likewise no offense. If one departs by carriage or uses supernormal power to depart for the foregoing reason, there is no offense. The root Vinaya text says that if one departs on foot, one commits an offense. If a rule has been established and one leaves that very day, there is no offense.

There is also the case of bhikkhus dwelling in the wilderness who establish the rule: “Whoever has attained arhatship shall sit beneath this tree; whoever walks in meditation at this place, that bhikkhu has attained arhatship, and we should offer him incense and flowers.”

If an evil bhikkhu, wishing to enjoy those offerings, sits beneath that tree or walks in meditation at that place, he commits a parajika offense.

If a layperson builds a monastery and says, “Any bhikkhu who enters my monastery is an arhat,”

then if an evil bhikkhu, knowing this, enters the monastery, he commits a parajika offense.

If the Sangha establishes the rule, “During the three months of the rains retreat, no one may speak, sleep, or accept a donor’s offerings,” this is an unlawful regulation, and one commits no offense by failing to observe it.

The elder Lakkhanatthera had a handsome form like that of Brahma; hence he was named Lakkhana.

Question: When did this Lakkhana go forth?

Answer: Together with one thousand brahmin ascetics, he received the “Come, bhikkhu” going forth and obtained full ordination.

Question: Through hearing what teaching did Lakkhana attain the fruit of arhatship?

Answer: Upon hearing the Discourse on Radiance, he immediately attained the fruit of arhatship. The Venerable Moggallana attained the Path seven days after going forth.

“To smile” means to smile gently and slightly. Why did he smile? This is already clearly explained in the Vinaya and will not be repeated.

“A skeleton with bones linked together” (Atthika-sankhalika) refers to the form of a hungry ghost, which cannot be seen with ordinary eyes and is visible only to the divine eye.

Question: The Venerable Moggallana saw beings such as these; why did he not give rise to compassion but instead smiled?

Answer: Moggallana thought, “Through the Buddha’s eye of wisdom, I am able to see such subtle beings,” and the Venerable reflected upon his own person. Thinking thus, he rejoiced and smiled. He also thought inwardly, “I have escaped suffering like that of this hungry ghost; I have gained a great benefit.” As stated in the discourse, the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “The causes, conditions, and fruits of karma are inconceivable. Whoever persists in trying to conceive of them will become deranged.” Therefore, such causes and conditions are inconceivable.

As stated in the root Vinaya text, Lakkhana asked Moggallana, “Why did you smile?”

Moggallana replied, “If you wish to know, please ask me before the Buddha.”

“A skeleton with bones linked together” means a skeleton one yojana in height, without sinews or flesh.

“A flock of birds flew in pursuit”: were these real birds, or birds created by transformation? They were yakkha ghosts. Their mouths were made of iron, like beaks.

“Uttering loud cries” means that they howled and roared in extreme anguish.

If someone came and touched this skeleton, it suffered pain like that of a boil being burst.

“Alas!” is a lament over that suffering.

The Dharma teacher said: This passage is easy to understand.

“The bhikkhus censured him” means that the bhikkhus said Moggallana had spoken false and untruthful words, and therefore censured him.

The Buddha said: “Moggallana saw it with the eye of wisdom.”

Therefore, the root Vinaya text says that Moggallana had attained the divine eye and was thus able to see it.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I too have previously seen beings such as these. When I attained omniscience beneath the Bodhi tree, I saw the immeasurable and boundless realms of beings throughout the worlds as clearly as an amra fruit held in the palm of my hand.”

“The cattle slaughterer” refers to one whose occupation was slaughtering cattle. After killing them, he stripped off the flesh and sold it, leaving the skeletons hanging from hooks. As the karmic result of this, he fell into hell for a long time. Only after a very long period was he able to emerge; but because his residual karma was not yet exhausted, he has now fallen into this bodily form.

Regarding the passage about pieces of flesh: after killing cattle, this person cut up the meat, dried it, and hung it from hooks, while discarding the bones. Because he made his livelihood through this karma, when he died he fell into hell. After experiencing the karmic result and emerging from hell, he assumed a body resembling a piece of dried meat and was pursued by a flock of birds, as described in the preceding passage.

The second passage concerns a bird trapper. After catching a bird, he first cut off its head, wings, and legs, then skinned it and hung it from a hook. Because he made his livelihood through this karma, when he died he fell into hell, and so forth; each detail is as previously explained.

Regarding the passage about one without skin: this person habitually slaughtered goats. The circumstances are as explained in the passage about the bird killer.

Regarding the passage about hairs like knives: this was a pig butcher who habitually used knives to slaughter pigs and always made his livelihood through this karma. When he died, he fell into hell, and so forth; the circumstances are as previously explained.

The passage concerning hairs like spearheads: this person habitually hunted deer, stabbing and killing them with a spear. Because of this karmic retribution, when he died he fell into hell... The matter is as previously stated.

The passage concerning hairs like arrows: this person had formerly been a king. He punished offenders in many lawless ways, such as stabbing, cutting, striking, and beating them. Because he created such karma, its retribution caused him to fall into hell after death... The matter is as previously stated.

The passage concerning hairs like iron goads: during his lifetime, this person was a soldier who frequently used an iron goad to prod horses. Because of that retribution, when he died he fell into hell. After escaping from hell, he assumed this body and is constantly stabbed in the body with iron goads.

The passage concerning hairs like needles: during his lifetime, this person spoke divisive and malicious words, and after death fell into hell. After emerging from hell, he assumed this body and is continually pierced by needles in the mouth.

The passage concerning genitals like a great jar: formerly, this person was a village chief who judged cases dishonestly. As the retribution for this, when he died he fell into hell. After emerging from hell, he assumed a body with genitals as large as a great jar. Why? If an offender offered him property as a bribe, he concealed that person’s offense. If no property was offered, he exposed and pursued the offense. Therefore, he assumed such a body.

The Dharma teacher said: “If a wise person serves as an official or village chief, he must be careful never to distort the truth and thereby incur such retribution.”

The passage concerning sexual misconduct: during his lifetime, this person delighted in sexual misconduct. Whenever he desired someone’s soft body, he secretly engaged in illicit relations with that person. After death, he fell into hell. After emerging from hell, he assumed the body of a hungry ghost and constantly entered cesspits.

The passage concerning the evil brahmin (this edition has the character ‘weak,’ but the Pali-Chinese translation has the character ‘evil.’ The written forms were probably similar and thus confused; here ‘evil’ is used.—Translator): this passage is easy to understand.

The passage concerning the skinless maiden: this maiden originally had smooth skin and belonged to her husband, but secretly gave herself to another man. Because of this retribution, after death she fell into hell. The initial contact brought pleasure, but the subsequent contact brought suffering; she is now undergoing this retribution.

The passage concerning the foul-smelling and ugly one is clearly explained in the Vinaya.

The passage concerning sores, blood, and pus: this woman poured burning coals upon another woman. Because of this retribution, she had to undergo... and so forth, as previously stated.

The passage concerning the killing of a bandit is easy to understand.

The passage concerning the bhikkhu: this evil bhikkhu accepted offerings made through the faith of others but did not guard the karma of body, speech, and mind. Because of this retribution, he fell into hell for the duration of a Buddha’s dispensation. After emerging from hell, he was reborn with the body of a hungry ghost.

These evil bhikkhunis, sikkhamanas, and samaneras did not guard body, speech, and mind, and therefore incurred such punishment.

Concerning the question about the river, the Dharma teacher said: “From where does this river originate?”

Answer: It originates from Mount Vebhara (Vebhārapabbata, Mount Insect-Supporting). One yojana away, at the end of the river, stands the palace of the Dragon King, one yojana in breadth and length. This citadel is like the celestial palace of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three. Through the merit of the Dragon King, there are pure, fragrant, beautiful lotus flowers as large as cartwheels. Water flows from the centers of these flowers and passes above two hells, causing it to boil violently. This is the Cauldron-of-Boiling-Water Hell. Hot vapor rising from there causes the water above to boil.

The passage concerning the conflict: Moggallāna said to the bhikkhus, “Venerable elders, the donor King Bimbisāra fought with the Licchavis, and the king was defeated and fled.”

Because they cherished the donor King Bimbisāra, the bhikkhus said to Moggallāna, “You have spoken false and untrue words.”

The passage concerning the elephant herd: it occurred by the Sappinikā River; Sappinikā is the name of the river.

The imperturbable samādhi (Ānañjasamādhi).

Question: “When body and mind are imperturbable, this is the fourth dhyāna. Why, then, was the trumpeting of the elephant herd heard as they crossed the river?”

Answer: “There are two kinds of trumpeting. First, the young elephants wished to wade across the river, but seeing that the water was deep, they became frightened and cried out. Second, the great elephants were delighted to enter the water and therefore trumpeted with joy.”

“Not yet accomplished” means that although one has attained it, one has not yet fully accomplished this dhyāna. It is also said that one has not yet purified oneself of defilements, and therefore still hears the elephants’ cries.

The bhikkhu Sobhita recollected five hundred past kalpas. This means recollecting successive lives one after another, but not knowing or recollecting the moment of spontaneous rebirth.

The Dharma teacher said: “How did he recollect five hundred lifetimes? After progressing beyond the fourth dhyāna of the non-Buddhist ascetics, he died and was reborn in the Formless Realm. After dying in the Formless Realm, he was reborn as a human being, went forth in the Buddha’s Dharma, and realized the three higher knowledges. Therefore, he recollected five hundred kalpas but did not recollect the interval between those two stages of rebirth, as stated in the sutra.”

The Buddha told the bhikkhus, “Among My śrāvaka disciples, the bhikkhu Sobhita is foremost in the ability to recollect the past.”

Venerable ones, I have now completed my exposition of the four pārājika rules.

The Dharma teacher said: “How many kinds of pārājika are there?”

Answer: “I say that there are altogether twenty-four kinds of pārājika. You should understand them.”

Question: “What are the twenty-four kinds of pārājika?”

Answer: “There are four rules for bhikkhus; bhikkhunis have four additional pārājikas; and there are eleven classes of persons who cannot attain realization because of pārājika.”

Question: “What are the eleven classes of persons who cannot attain realization?”

Answer:

– First, a pandaka.

– Second, an animal.

– Third, a person possessing both sexual organs (ubhatobyañjanaka).

These three classes do not possess the causal condition for human rebirth (Ahetukapatisandhika—a class that does not provide a condition for rebirth-linking consciousness), and are therefore called pārājika. Yet these three classes are not obstructed from rebirth in heaven; they are obstructed only from attaining the four paths and fruits, and are therefore called pārājika. These three classes must not be admitted into the monastic order.

– Fourth, one who fraudulently dwells among the Sangha (Theyyasaṃvāsaka).

– Fifth, one who has gone over to a non-Buddhist sect (Titthiyapakkantaka).

– Sixth, one who kills his mother (Mātughātaka).

– Seventh, one who kills his father (Pitughātaka).

– Eighth, one who kills an arhat (Arahantaghātaka).

– Ninth, one who violates the chastity of a bhikkhuni (Bhikkhunidūsaka).

– Tenth, one who causes the Buddha’s body to bleed (Buddhiruppādakā).

– Eleventh, one who causes a schism in the Sangha (Saṅghabhedakā). Because their actions prevent these eleven classes of persons from attaining the paths and fruits, they are called pārājika.

Three classes—those who fraudulently dwell among the Sangha, those who have gone over to a non-Buddhist sect, and those who violate the chastity of a bhikkhuni—are not obstructed from wholesome rebirth, but they are obstructed from attaining the four paths and fruits.

Those who kill their father, mother, or an arhat, cause the Buddha’s body to bleed, or cause a schism in the Sangha commit the five grave offenses. These five heinous offenses obstruct both the path to heaven and the paths and fruits.

The Dharma teacher said: “The eight pārājika rules for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, combined with the eleven classes above, make nineteen. Adding the bhikkhuni who takes pleasure in wearing the clothing of a laywoman makes twenty. This bhikkhuni has not broken a precept. There are also the supple-backed bhikkhu who can bend down to reach his own organ, the man with a long organ, the person who takes another’s organ into his mouth, and the person who sits upon another’s organ. Adding these four cases makes twenty-four. The final four cases were rules laid down in response to particular incidents.”

The Dharma teacher said: “Why is taking another person’s sexual organ into one’s mouth called a sexual act? Because this action is performed with lustful intent, it is called a sexual act. If one commits it, one may not dwell together with the bhikkhus, participate in the uposatha, recitation of the precepts, invitation ceremony, or Sangha acts, nor may one take part in any other affairs of the Sangha.

“Now I ask the elders: with regard to each of the foregoing pārājika rules, is everyone pure?” The question is asked a second and a third time in the same way.

Concerning the phrase “Is everyone pure?” the Dharma teacher said that, like the other passages, it is easy to understand.

Here ends the commentary on the four rules (pārājika) in the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary (Samantapàsadikàya-vinayasamvannanàya-catuthapàràjikavannanà-nitthìta).

Here ends the Pārājika Chapter.

Next come the thirteen rules;

As for the meaning of “thirteen,”

The venerable ones may understand it for themselves.

The Sanghādisesa rules.

At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling in the city of Sāvatthī.

“At that time” indicates the time when the Buddha established the disciplinary rules for his śrāvaka disciples, not time according to worldly reckoning. “Dwelling” has four aspects: walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. With reference to these four modes, it is called dwelling. Just as people in the world say that a king goes out to a pleasure ground to walk, stand, lie down, and sit there, so too did the Buddha dwell in the land of Sāvatthī.

Sāvatthī was the name of a seer. Long ago, a seer dwelt in this region. The king at that time perceived the excellence of this land, approached the seer to request it for establishing a kingdom, and named it Sāvatthī after the seer. Similarly, in the case of the city of Rājagaha, wheel-turning monarchs of many successive generations formerly dwelt in that city, and therefore it was called Rājagaha, the Royal Abode. So it was also with Sāvatthī. Sāvatthī also means “Having Much.” What does “having much” mean? The treasures and rare valuables of various countries all gathered in this land; therefore it was named “Having Much.”

The city of Sāvatthī was exceedingly beautiful;

Those who beheld it never tired of looking.

Ten kinds of music resounded,

Among them, the sounds of eating and drinking.

Prosperous and abundant in precious things,

It was like the celestial palace of Śakra.

Kāḷudāyi (Làludàyi) was the name of a bhikkhu.

“His lustful desire blazed up” means that, being scorched by the fire of lust, his complexion became haggard and his body grew emaciated.

The Dharma teacher said: “The passages that follow are easy to understand and require no explanation. If there is any passage difficult to understand, I shall explain it.”

He slept with a confused mind because his mind was unsettled, and thus he slept in that manner. If one sleeps during the day, one must first consider what time it is and at what time one will awaken. As stated in the sūtra, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “After bathing, if you wish to sleep, reflect: ‘I shall awaken before my hair has dried.’” One should sleep with such timing and reflection. At night, one must likewise know: “When the moon reaches such-and-such a place... I shall awaken.” If there is no moon, then: “When the stars reach such-and-such a place... I shall awaken.” First one must recollect the Buddha and, in accordance with one’s mind, establish right mindfulness upon each of the ten wholesome recollections; only afterward should one sleep.

But this foolish bhikkhu did not recollect in this way before sleeping. Bound and driven by sensual desire, he manipulated his sexual organ and emitted an impure substance (Asuci-tinh).

“Except in a dream.” The Dharma teacher said: “The root Vinaya states, ‘except in a dream.’ Both manipulating the sexual organ and dreaming may result in the emission of semen; why are dreams excepted?”

Answer: “The Buddha established the disciplinary rules on the basis of bodily karma, not mental karma; therefore, there is no offense in a dream. As stated in the root Vinaya, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: ‘You should recite the precept thus: If any bhikkhu intentionally manipulates his sexual organ and emits semen, he commits a sanghādisesa offense’ (Sancetanikà-Sukhavissatthi-sanghàdiseo).”

“Emission of semen” means that, taking pleasure in it, one deliberately acts and clearly knows that semen is being emitted, without any sense of shame or fear.

According to the Vinaya, semen is of seven kinds; the Vibhāṣā commentary explains ten kinds in detail. Those ten are: blue, yellow, red, white, wood-colored, skin-colored, oil-colored, milk-colored, curd-colored, and ghee-colored.

The semen departs from its original location, which is considered to be in the region of the lower back. Others say that this is not so, but that semen is present throughout the whole body, except in the hair, nails, and dry skin.

If semen leaves its original location, whether or not it reaches the urinary passage, and is emitted in an amount sufficient to fill the belly of a fly (E-kà khuddakamakkhikà piveyya), one also commits a sanghādisesa offense. If semen is spontaneously emitted because of hot weather, work, walking about, physical exertion, or illness, there is no offense.

There are four kinds of dreams:

1. Dreams caused by disharmony of the four great elements.

2. Dreams caused by things previously encountered.

3. Dreams caused by deities.

4. Dreams arising from mental images.

Question: “What is a dream caused by disharmony of the four great elements?”

Answer: “While asleep, one dreams of mountains collapsing, of flying through the sky, or of being pursued by tigers, wolves, or lions. This is a dream caused by disharmony of the four great elements; its objects are illusory and unreal.”

A dream caused by what one has previously seen is as follows: having seen white or black things, men or women, during the day, one dreams of seeing them again at night. Therefore, it is said to arise from previous seeing. Such a dream is false and unreal.

As for dreams caused by deities, some deities are spiritual friends, while others are evil companions. If the deity is a spiritual friend, the deity manifests an auspicious dream, bringing an auspicious sign to the dreamer. An evil companion causes a person to conceive evil thoughts and therefore manifests a bad dream. Such a dream is true.

As for a dream arising from mental images, this person in a former life may have acquired merit or committed offenses. If there was merit, an auspicious dream appears; if there were offenses, an inauspicious dream appears. It is like the dream of the bodhisattva’s mother when he entered her womb (Bodhisattassa màtà viya puttapatilàbhãni-mittam). She dreamed that a white elephant descended from the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven and entered her right side. This was a dream arising from mental images.

If one dreams of paying homage to the Buddha, reciting sūtras, observing the precepts, giving alms, or performing meritorious deeds, this too is a dream arising from mental images.

The Dharma teacher said: “During this kind of dream, one is able to discern what is happening; therefore, is it not a dream arising from mental images?”

Answer: “One is neither asleep nor awake. For if it were said that one dreams while asleep, this would contradict the Abhidharma. If it were said that one dreams while awake and perceives oneself engaging in sexual intercourse, this would contradict the Vinaya.”

Question: “What is the contradiction?”

Answer: “If dreaming of engaging in sexual intercourse constituted an offense, no one would be free from guilt. Moreover, the Vinaya states that, except in a dream, there is no offense.”

Question: “If that is so, then is this kind of dream unreal?”

Answer: “It is not unreal. Why? It is like the sleep of a monkey. The sūtra states that the Buddha said: ‘Great King, the dreams of people in the world are like the sleep of a monkey’; therefore, dreams exist.”

Question: “Is a dream wholesome or indeterminate?”

Answer: “At times it is wholesome, at times unwholesome, and at times indeterminate. If one dreams of paying homage to the Buddha, hearing the Dharma, or teaching the Dharma, it is wholesome merit. If one dreams of killing living beings, stealing, or engaging in sexual misconduct, it is an unwholesome dream. If one dreams of seeing red, white, blue, or yellow colors, it is an indeterminate dream.”

Question: “If that is so, does one experience karmic retribution?”

Answer: “One does not experience karmic retribution. Why? Because the karma of the mind is too weak and therefore lacks sufficient power to bring about a result. Thus, the Vinaya says, ‘except in a dream.’”

“Sanghādisesa”: sangha refers to the Sangha; ādi means the beginning; sesa means the remainder, the final portion that remains.

Question: “Why is the Sangha said to constitute the beginning of the matter?”

Answer: This bhikkhu has committed an offense. If he wishes to become purified, he must go before the Sangha. The first procedure is for the Sangha to impose parivāsa (probationary residence); hence it is called the beginning. After the parivāsa procedure has been granted and completed, he is then made to undergo six nights of mānatta (penance, conciliation); this is the middle. The final stage is the granting of abbhāna (rehabilitation from the offense). Therefore, it is called Sanghādisesa.

The Dharma teacher said: It is only necessary to understand the meaning correctly; there is no need to investigate the wording. This offense can be dealt with only by the Sangha; one, two, or three persons can do nothing about it. Therefore, it is called Sanghādisesa. In the case of the offense of intentionally causing the emission of semen, one must understand the characteristics involved when employing a means to commit the offense.

To understand the means means to know: “I am causing the substance within to emerge,” wishing it to emerge upon an external form, upon both an internal and an external form, or by motion in empty space. Employing a means in this way is called employing a means. There are five occasions on which the male organ becomes erect: first, when lust arises; second, when needing to defecate; third, when needing to urinate; fourth, when wind moves; and fifth, when touched by insects.

When lust arises, the male organ becomes erect and can be used; after that occasion has passed, it is no longer erect. The other four cases are likewise. Furthermore, morning, midday, afternoon, and evening are also called occasions on which the male organ becomes erect, except in cases of illness.

Thus there are ten statements, beginning with the statement concerning the color blue; there are likewise ten. The Vinaya states that the beginning is where the urethra—the passage—constituting the internal form and an external form come into contact and produce a pleasurable sensation. When there is motion in empty space, there is neither an internal nor an external form; nevertheless, because one acts upon oneself to produce pleasure, an offense is incurred.

“Insects” refers to insects whose bodies have hairs—that is, scabies mites, according to the translator—which cause an itching sensation, making the organ become erect and usable for producing sensation. If semen is emitted for use as medicine, as a gift, as an offering, for an experiment, in the hope of rebirth in heaven, or for insemination, an offense is incurred in every such case. If one intentionally causes semen to be emitted and it comes forth, one commits a Sanghādisesa offense. If one intentionally attempts to emit semen but it does not come forth, one does not commit that offense. If semen comes forth spontaneously and not intentionally, there is likewise no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: The following passage is easy to understand. When a bhikkhu has committed an offense, he goes to see a Vinaya master.

The Vinaya master should question him in due order. First, he must instruct the person not to speak deceptively, saying: “I am like a physician, and you are like a patient. If your head hurts but you falsely say that your foot hurts, then although the physician gives you medicine, your illness will not be cured.” The Vinaya master should further admonish him: “If the physician does not examine the case correctly, he will not know how to prescribe the medicine. Therefore, you must tell me every matter clearly. If the offense is grave, it will be judged grave; if it is light, it will be judged light.” First, the Vinaya master must examine the eleven cases of sensual pleasure and the eleven means.

Question: What are the eleven cases of sensual pleasure?

Answer:

1. Pleasure when wishing to emit semen.

2. Pleasure while semen is being emitted.

3. Pleasure after semen has been emitted.

4. Pleasure associated with sexual desire.

5. Pleasure arising from contact.

6. Pleasure arising from itching.

7. Pleasure arising from seeing.

8. Pleasure arising from sitting.

9. Pleasure arising from speaking.

10. Pleasure arising from affection for family members.

11. Pleasure arising from breaking a tree branch.

Pleasure when wishing to emit semen: When lust arises in a bhikkhu, and with a desirous mind he wishes to experience pleasure and therefore intentionally causes semen to be emitted, if semen comes forth, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense.

If he intentionally acts but semen does not come forth, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If a bhikkhu lies down to sleep with thoughts of sensual desire, first employing a means such as tightly pressing his organ between his thighs or grasping it with his hand, and then falls asleep while thinking of sexual activity, thereby having a dream and emitting semen, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. If sensual desire arises and he contemplates impurity to dispel it, then sleeps with a pure, undefiled mind but has a dream and emits semen, there is no offense. This is called pleasure when wishing to emit semen.

Pleasure while semen is being emitted: If a bhikkhu dreams that he is engaging in sexual activity and awakens at the very moment semen is emitted, but does not act upon his organ to cause further emission, there is no offense. If, while semen is being emitted, he acts upon his organ, there is an offense. If, at the very moment semen is emitted, he thinks, “Do not let the semen soil my robe or mat,” and, not wishing it to flow upon them, grasps the base of his organ with his hand so as to direct the semen elsewhere for washing, there is no offense. If his mind takes pleasure in it, he commits an offense. This is called pleasure at the very moment semen is being emitted.

Afterward, if he no longer touches his organ, there is no offense. If, desiring pleasure, he continues manipulating his organ to cause semen to be emitted, he commits an offense. This is called pleasure after semen has been emitted.

Pleasure associated with sexual desire: If, when lust arises, a bhikkhu grasps a woman and semen is emitted, he does not commit this offense. Why? Because he was under the influence of the object of lust, he commits only a dukkata offense. If he penetrates the proper orifice of the woman, he commits a pārājika offense. If, after grasping the woman, he delights in the softness and smoothness of her body, but does not enter the locus constituting a pārājika offense, and semen is emitted, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. This is called pleasure arising from desire.

Pleasure arising from contact: There are internal contact and external contact. Internal contact means touching with the hand to test whether the organ is hard or soft. If semen is emitted because of this contact, he does not commit the offense. If he intends to take pleasure and wishes to cause emission, he commits the offense. This is internal contact. External contact means that a bhikkhu with a lustful mind touches a woman’s body. If semen is emitted because he lifts her or touches a soft, smooth place, he does not commit this offense; but if he caresses her and thereby emits semen through pleasure, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. If he delights in the contact and delights in the pleasure, and semen is thereby emitted, he commits the offense in either case.

Pleasure arising from itching: When scabies, ringworm, or microorganisms produce an itching sensation and the male organ becomes erect, if he scratches the itch with his fingernails and semen is emitted, there is no offense. If, after the organ has become erect, he takes that opportunity to act upon it and cause semen to be emitted, he commits an offense.

Pleasure arising from seeing: If a bhikkhu’s organ becomes erect upon seeing a woman’s sexual organ, and semen is emitted because he gazes intently at it, he does not commit a Sanghādisesa offense but commits a dukkata offense. If, after seeing it, he acts upon his organ to cause semen to be emitted, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. This is called pleasure arising from seeing.

Pleasure arising from sitting: If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in a secluded place and semen is emitted while they converse, he does not commit this offense; however, because he sat alone with a woman in a secluded place, he commits another offense. If lust arises while he is sitting and, taking that opportunity, he moves his waist and lower back to cause semen to be emitted, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. This is called pleasure arising from sitting.

Pleasure arising from speaking in a secluded place: A bhikkhu converses with a woman, asking, for example, “What is your sexual organ like? Is it black or white, plump or thin?” If semen is emitted because of the conversation, he does not commit this offense; however, because he spoke lewd words, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. If he speaks pleasurable words and semen is emitted because his mind intentionally prompted the act, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense. This is pleasure arising from speech.

Pleasure arising from affection for family members: A bhikkhu returns to the home of his benefactors—his own parents—and, thinking, “This is my mother” or “These are my sisters,” strokes or embraces them and semen is emitted, he does not commit this offense. Because of the physical contact, he commits a dukkata offense. If he intentionally strokes them in order to cause semen to be emitted, he commits the offense. This is called pleasure arising from affection for family members.

Pleasure arising from breaking vegetation: a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another, using perfumes, flowers, betel leaves, and areca nuts as gifts exchanged between them, saying that these objects are given to form an intimate bond. Why is this called “breaking vegetation”? Because perfumes, flowers, betel leaves, and areca nuts all come from plants.

If the woman replies, “The gift is excellent. The venerable sir’s gift is very fragrant and beautiful. Later, I shall give you a gift in return so that you will remember me,” and, upon hearing this, the bhikkhu becomes lustful and emits semen, he does not commit an offense.

If, because of this, he deliberately causes himself to emit semen, he commits an offense. Furthermore, if he intentionally acts for that purpose but does not emit semen, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

The Dharma teacher said: Based on these eleven cases, after the Vinaya master has examined the matter clearly and determined whether there is an offense or no offense, and whether it is light or grave, if it is light, he should declare it light; if grave, he should declare it grave, and impose the penalty according to the Dharma as stated in the Vinaya. It is good if one can act in this way. It is like a skilled physician who examines illnesses and prescribes medicine according to each illness. When the patient recovers, the physician is rewarded.

Initially having the intention to emit semen but not manipulating the sexual organ means that the mind desires to emit semen, but one neither manipulates nor otherwise stimulates the male organ, and semen is nevertheless emitted; there is no offense.

If one touches, grasps, or scratches the male organ without deliberately intending to emit semen, there is no offense. If one intends to emit semen, there is an offense.

Except in a dream: a bhikkhu may dream that he has sexual intercourse with a woman, or dream that they embrace or sleep together. You should clearly understand the successive acts of sexuality in this way: if semen is emitted, there is no offense. If he awakens while semen is being emitted and, because of this, wishes to take pleasure in the emission, and therefore grasps the organ with his hand or presses it between his thighs, he commits an offense.

Therefore, if a wise bhikkhu has such a dream, he should be careful not to move in response. If, while semen is being emitted, he fears soiling his robe or mat and therefore holds the organ with his hand while going to a place for washing, there is no offense. If the organ has a sore or wound and he applies oil or medicine to it without taking pleasure, but semen is emitted, there is no offense.

If a person who is insane emits semen, there is no offense. The first offender, and one who acted before the rule was established, commits no offense.

Here ends the first Sanghadisesa rule.

(Samauta-pàsadikàya-vinayasamvannanàya-sukkavisathis kkhàdàpavannanà-nitthità)

The Second Sanghadisesa Rule (Sanghàdisesa.2)

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anathapindika’s Monastery in Jeta’s Grove, in the country of Savatthi.

The Dharma teacher said: The meaning of this has already been explained above. This is the text of the rule concerning physical contact. Wherever something is difficult to understand, I shall explain it.

In an arannaka dwelling place: this was not truly an arannaka. It is called not truly so because it was in the forest behind the monastery. This bhikkhu’s residence had rooms on all four sides and an inner chamber in the center. The interior was splendidly adorned with beautiful and exquisite decorations, intended to serve his own desires rather than the contemplation of wholesome Dharma.

Opening one window: if one window was opened, all the other places became dark. If the other windows were opened and this one closed, this place also became dark.

After he had spoken thus, the brahmin woman thought: “This brahmin intends to go forth.”

Disclosing what should have been concealed means that she spoke of the matter because she wished to prevent that brahmin from intending to go forth.

Why would a highly virtuous person commit such an evil act?

“Highly virtuous” means one of noble lineage and exalted virtue; it may also mean one belonging to a wealthy and noble family.

“Female” means a woman who is married or one who has not yet borne a child.

Lust (otinna) throws the mind into confusion: this means that lust enters the body just as a yakkha spirit enters the mind, or as an elephant sinks into mud and cannot escape. Sexual confusion means that the mind changes and clings firmly to its object, no longer possessing moral shame or moral dread; or the mind changes according to sensual desire, or sensual desire changes according to the mind. Therefore, the Vinaya text says that sexual confusion transforms the mind, whereupon the mind becomes defiled and attached. It is also called clinging through infatuation, because bodies touch and cling to each other.

“Newly born” means just born: the body of a newborn infant is still wet and has not yet dried. If one deliberately touches its body with a lustful mind, this is also called a Sanghadisesa offense. If one goes beyond the scope of this rule, one commits a parajika offense. If one remains together with it in a secluded place, one commits a pacittiya offense. If such offenses can occur even in relation to a newborn infant, how much more so in relation to an adult.

The beginning is grasping the hand and touching a soft, smooth part; this is an evil act. Therefore, the Vinaya text says, “or grasps the hand.”

The Dharma teacher said: I shall explain clearly what is meant by “hand.” Beginning with the elbow and extending to the fingernails, all of it is called the hand. Some say that the part from the upper arm to the fingernails is also called the hand.

“Hair” refers to hair unmixed with anything else.

“Bound” means hair arranged in a knot. “Mixed with thread” means hair bound together with threads of five colors, interwoven with the hair and with campaka flowers, and so forth.

Hair intermingled with gold or silver, gold or silver coins, golden flowers, silver flowers, or other precious ornaments is all called hair mixed with gold and silver.

Any bhikkhu who grasps hair of these kinds commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If the bhikkhu says, “I grasped only the object intermingled with the hair,” he does not incur this offense. If a bhikkhu grasps even a single hair on a woman’s head, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

Apart from the hair and hands, touching any other place is called touching a soft, smooth part. Any bhikkhu who touches any part of a woman’s body commits a Sanghadisesa offense. Regarding this rule of physical contact—grasping the hand, grasping the hair, or touching a soft, smooth part—twelve cases are distinguished. I shall now present them.

The first is grasping and touching. The Vinaya text says that “grasping” is not stroking or caressing; when there is neither grasping nor stroking, it is called contact. Grasping means holding firmly onto one place. This is called grasping; the other expressions are easy to understand. I shall now explain these passages clearly.

Regarding a female, perceiving her as a female: with a lustful mind, a bhikkhu touches a woman’s body, as clearly stated in the Vinaya. If he grasps her, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If, after grasping her, he releases her and grasps her again, whether he does so many times or only a few, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense each time.

If a bhikkhu touches one place with one hand for as long as an entire day, he commits one Sanghadisesa offense. Why? Although he does not move his hand, he deliberately maintains the contact and therefore commits an offense.

Touching downward: if, beginning at the head and proceeding down to the feet, he grasps any place without letting go, he commits one Sanghadisesa offense. If he releases her and then grasps her again, each grasp, whether many or few, constitutes a separate Sanghadisesa offense.

Touching upward, from the feet to the head, is likewise.

Bending down to touch: first he grasps the woman’s hair, then lowers his head to smell it or kiss the hair. According to each separate act of contact, he commits a separate Sanghadisesa offense. “Pulling” means drawing her toward his own body. “Pushing away” means letting go and shoving her away.

Grasping and leading her away: if he grasps a woman’s body and leads her for a distance of one yojana without releasing his hand, he commits one Sanghadisesa offense.

If he releases her and grasps her again, each act of grasping constitutes a separate Sanghadisesa offense.

If he grasps her through her robe or through an ornament (Abharana), he commits a thullaccaya offense.

If he reaches through the robe and touches her skin or flesh, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

(With actions such as those described above): toward a woman whom he perceives as a woman, he commits a sanghadisesa offense; if he is uncertain whether she is a woman, he commits a thullaccaya offense. Toward a woman whom he perceives as a paṇḍaka, he commits a thullaccaya offense. Toward a woman whom he perceives as a man, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

Toward a woman whom he perceives as an animal, he commits a thullaccaya offense. Toward a paṇḍaka whom he perceives as a paṇḍaka, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if he is uncertain whether the person is a paṇḍaka, he commits a dukkata offense. Toward a man or an animal whom he perceives as a paṇḍaka, he commits a dukkata offense.

Toward a man whom he perceives as a man, he commits a dukkata offense; if he is uncertain whether the person is a man, he commits a dukkata offense. Toward a man whom he perceives as a woman or an animal, he commits a dukkata offense. Toward an animal whom he perceives as an animal, he commits a dukkata offense.

In the case of two women, if he grasps both women, he commits two sanghadisesa offenses. If he grasps many women, he commits many sanghadisesa offenses. If many women have gathered together in one place and he grasps them all, the offenses are counted according to the number of women: for each woman, he commits one sanghadisesa offense. If he does not directly grasp the woman in the middle, he commits a thullaccaya offense in relation to her.

If a bhikkhu wraps his robe around many women and drags them along, he commits a thullaccaya offense. In relation to a woman in the middle who does not come into contact with the robe, he commits a dukkata offense.

If a bhikkhu uses a cord to tie the clothing being worn by a woman, he commits a dukkata offense.

If many women are seated in succession with their knees resting upon one another, a bhikkhu who grasps the first woman by the head commits a sanghadisesa offense, and in relation to each of the remaining women, he commits a dukkata offense. If they are holding one another’s clothing and the bhikkhu grasps the first woman, he commits a thullaccaya offense; in relation to the second woman, he commits a dukkata offense; in relation to the third and all those thereafter, he commits no offense.

If he touches the thick, coarse clothing being worn by a woman, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

If he touches the thin, fine clothing being worn by a woman, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu touches his hair against a woman’s hair, body hair against body hair, or nails against nails, he commits a thullaccaya offense. Why? Because such contact produces no sensation. The Dharma teacher said: If hair is used to bind them together, is there one offense or many offenses? It is like sitting or lying unclothed upon a bed or seat belonging to the Sangha: when a single body hair touches the seat or sleeping place, one dukkata offense is committed. In the case of a woman, however, it is not as above: one thullaccaya offense is committed, not many offenses. Let the verse of the ancient arhats be recited again:

The object, perception, lust, and contact;

Knowing correctly, without uncertainty—

As has been stated in the Vinaya,

You should know that the offense is grave.

(Vatthusannà ca ràgo ca phassam pativi- jànanà, yathà nidditthaniddese garukam tena kàraye)

“Object” means a woman.

“Perception” means perceiving her as a woman.

“Lust” means desiring to touch a soft and smooth part of the woman’s body.

“Contact” means clearly knowing that one is touching the body of a woman.

When all the above factors are present, a sanghadisesa offense is committed.

If the circumstances are otherwise and not all the factors are present, a thullaccaya offense is committed.

If he touches the body of a woman with a lustful mind, he commits a sanghadisesa offense. If he touches her without a lustful mind, he commits a dukkata offense.

If a woman is sleeping covered by a cloth and a bhikkhu intends to touch the cloth but mistakenly touches the woman’s body, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

As for the phrase “seizes hold”: if, without perceiving the person as a woman, he seizes the woman’s body with his hand, he commits a dukkata offense.

A woman and a bhikkhu are seated in the same place. Overcome by sexual desire, the woman grasps, strokes, or touches the bhikkhu. If the bhikkhu, with a lustful mind, moves his body in response, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

The Dharma teacher said: In the same sequence, one should understand whether the offense is grave or light when the other person is a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal. If a woman seizes a bhikkhu and he has a lustful mind and experiences pleasure but does not move his body in response, he commits a dukkata offense.

If a woman strikes or pats him and the bhikkhu has a lustful mind and takes pleasure in it, in every such case he commits a dukkata offense.

If, with a lustful mind, a bhikkhu makes suggestive gestures—such as casting glances, moving his body, moving his hands, or moving his feet—or uses any gestures expressing lustful intentions, he commits a dukkata offense in every case.

If a woman touches his body and the bhikkhu has a lustful mind but does not move his body in response, there is no offense.

Seeking escape: if a bhikkhu is endangered in his celibate life, he may push inward, thrust away, pull, or wrench himself free in order to escape. None of these actions constitutes an offense.

If a young and strong woman suddenly embraces a bhikkhu and he is too weak to move and must submit to her actions, but when she is about to engage in sexual intercourse the bhikkhu finds a way to flee and escapes, there is no offense.

“Unintentional” means that he does not deliberately touch the woman’s body. If, when a woman offers a bowl or offers various foods, they happen to touch each other, there is no offense.

“Without perception” means that the bhikkhu does not perceive that person as a woman and, in the course of his duties, comes into contact with her without intending to do so. Thus, there is no offense.

“Without knowing”: if a woman is dressed in men’s clothing and the bhikkhu, not knowing that she is a woman, grasps her, there is no offense.

“Without sensation”: if many women seize a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu experiences no pleasurable sensation, there is no offense.

The cases in which no offense is committed are these: the first offender, before the rule had been established, and one whose mind is deranged. Here ends the explanation of the second sanghadisesa rule. (padabhajaniyavannanànitthità).

The following is the supplementary regulation concerning the rule on physical contact. Under this rule, there arise from body and mind two kinds of feeling: pleasant feeling and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, or equanimous feeling. These are called the two feelings.

If, thinking of his mother and moved by remembrance of her, he touches his mother’s body, he commits a dukkata offense; the same applies to his sisters. Why? A woman is an adversary to one who has gone forth.

If his mother falls into the water, a bhikkhu should not put his hand into the water and grasp her. If the bhikkhu is wise, he should rescue her with a boat or use bamboo, wood, a rope, or a staff to rescue her. If no bamboo, wood, rope, or staff is available, he should remove his upper robe, the uttarāsaṅga, and use it to rescue her.

Once his mother has grasped the robe, the bhikkhu should pull her along by means of the robe. Upon reaching the shore, if his mother is still afraid, the bhikkhu should say to her: “Benefactress, be afraid no longer. All conditioned things are impermanent.

Now that you have survived, what is there still to fear?” If she is so weak that she dies, the bhikkhu may personally wash and shroud his mother’s body without offense; he must not abandon her corpse. The same applies if his mother falls into mud or into a well.

A bhikkhu must not grasp any clothing or belongings of a woman; if he does so, he commits a dukkata offense, except that he may take hold of them when receiving them as an offering.

A bhikkhu must not take hold of images of women made as paintings or fashioned from wood or clay; if he takes hold of them, he commits a dukkata offense. If they have been given by a donor, they may be used wherever appropriate. He must not take hold of grain, with the exception of rice.

If his path passes through a field of grain, there is no offense. He must not take hold of the ten kinds of precious objects: genuine gems, maṇi jewels, mother-of-pearl, agate, coral, amber, gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and cowrie shells used as currency. However, he may take hold of a pearl that still has flesh adhering to it and has not yet been cleaned.

If a bhikkhu suffers from certain illnesses and people give him such objects for use as medicine to be taken internally or applied to a wound, he may accept them.

As for coral and conch shell that have not yet been polished clean, they may be handled. Gold and silver compounded by people as medicine may be handled. If gold or silver is alloyed with copper or tin so that the resulting object does not have the color of gold or silver, it may be handled. If a person's house is made of various precious materials, with pillars of beryl, beams of silver, and bindings of gold—the entire house being made of precious materials in this way—and a bhikkhu wishes to teach the Dharma, he is permitted to sit upon a seat in that house without offense.

Bhikkhus must not handle any kind of weapon; if an object has not yet been fashioned into a weapon, it may be handled. If someone offers weapons to the Sangha, the Sangha must neither accept nor sell them; they may be broken so as to render them unusable and then employed for an appropriate purpose.

When a bhikkhu comes to a battlefield and sees discarded weapons, he must first break them so as to render them unusable before picking them up. If he obtains a shield, he may break it apart and use it as boards for miscellaneous purposes.

Musical instruments must not be handled. If they have not yet been fashioned and remain merely as raw, unfinished materials, they may be handled. If someone offers such objects, they may be sold as appropriate.

From the statement concerning a female yaksha up to the statement that one must not take hold of female devas in the Heaven of Those Who Control the Creations of Others: if one takes hold of them, one commits a thullaccaya offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The passages that follow are easy to understand.” (Samantapà sàdikàya vinayasamvan- nanàyakàyasamsaggavannanà nitthità)

Commentary on the Vinaya: The Good Exposition

—Volume 12—