善見律毘婆沙

The phrase “female animal” refers to a female nāga, a female garuḍa, and so forth.

A bhikkhu must not grasp any female animal; if he grasps one, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

The passage concerning crossing a bridge refers to plank bridges, bamboo bridges, wooden bridges, and so forth.

When crossing a bridge together with a woman, if a bhikkhu, with a lustful mind, causes the bridge to shake, then whether or not the bridge actually moves, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

The passage concerning trees: whether a woman has climbed a large or small tree, if a bhikkhu, with a lustful mind, causes the tree to shake, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

The passage concerning a boat is likewise.

The passage concerning a rope: if a bhikkhu and a woman each hold one end of a rope and, with a lustful mind, the bhikkhu pulls and moves the rope, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if it does not move, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

The same principle concerning whether an offense is committed applies when they jointly hold a staff, bamboo, wood, and so forth.

The passage concerning touching a bowl is easy to understand.

The passage concerning paying homage is also as above.

Here ends the explanation of the second Sanghādisesa rule.

The Third Sanghādisesa Rule (Sanghādisesa 3)

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery in Jeta’s Grove, in the country of Sāvatthī.

When instructing or praising others, Udāyin frequently used lewd words (duṭṭhullavācā).

The Dharma teacher said: “This will be explained below.”

“Shameless” means a woman who has no sense of shame or moral dread.

“To take delight” means that she laughs with pleasure at his conduct and replies, “Excellent, Venerable Sir!”

By every means, she causes the bhikkhu’s lustful mind to arise, saying such things as: “Perhaps the Venerable Sir is not a man,” or, “I fear that you may be a eunuch.”

The woman utters such playful, provocative words.

“Not mindful of the precept” means that, with a lustful mind, the bhikkhu can no longer discern what is wholesome or unwholesome and therefore utters lewd words.

Lewd words are improper speech, such as that spoken between young men and women, praising the two passages. If a bhikkhu speaks in this way, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense.

The two passages are the passages for defecation and urination.

“Praising” means, for example, saying, “You have a beautiful feature.” If he merely says, “You have no such feature,” he has not yet committed the offense. But if, with reference to a woman’s sexual organ, he explicitly says that it is the feature associated with defecation or urination, he commits the offense. If he disparages the two passages, saying, for example, that the two passages are joined together, or describing them as long, short, crooked, and so forth, then beginning with such words, he commits the offense in every case.

Or if he says, “May your parents someday give you to me,” or, “When shall I be intimate with you?” he commits the offense through all such statements.

1. A question, such as asking: “How do you and your husband engage in intercourse?” Then he himself answers, “You should do that with me.” Speaking thus also constitutes an offense.

2. A question and answer: “Venerable Sir, I sleep together with my husband. What good thing should I do so that my husband will think of me?”

If the bhikkhu replies that she should sleep in an ordinary manner, in such and such a way, he does not commit an offense. But if he tells her to perform a sexual act, he commits an offense.

3. The passage concerning instruction is likewise.

4. The passage concerning disparagement, such as saying: “Your female organ is ugly; it has an opening but no shape,” or saying that it has a shape but no opening.

5. The passage concerning absence of blood, such as saying that her urinary passage is dry and therefore has no blood, meaning that her menstruation is obstructed.

6. The passage concerning continual flowing: the urinary passage of this young woman continually discharges blood, meaning prolonged menstruation.

7. The passage concerning sealing it: she habitually uses a garment or cloth to seal the urinary passage tightly so that the blood does not flow out.

8. The passage concerning protruding at length: her organ protrudes lengthwise.

9. The passage concerning extending on both sides: the flesh within the female organ extends outward and has hair.

10. The passage concerning the two passages being joined.

11. She has two sexual organs.

Among these eleven statements, speaking of such matters as a protruding organ, joined passages, or having two sexual organs—the three statements numbered 8, 10, and 11—constitutes a Sanghādisesa offense. The first statement and those concerning the passages for defecation and urination, when combined with reference to sexual intercourse, constitute a Sanghādisesa offense, comprising six statements.

Other statements, such as saying that it has no shape and so forth, also constitute an offense if combined with reference to sexual intercourse.

The Dharma teacher said: “As for which of the other statements constitute grave or light offenses, this should be understood accordingly.”

Regarding a female whom he perceives as female, this has already been clearly explained under the first Sanghādisesa rule.

“Below the neck” means from the neck down to the knees.

“Above” means from the knees upward to the neck. Speaking about the area below the knees constitutes a dukkaṭa offense.

If, while teaching the Dharma or discussing its meaning, he praises garments, bracelets, or jeweled necklaces by way of explanation, there is no offense.

If a bhikkhu teaches the Dharma to a bhikkhunī and, during the teaching, a lustful mind arises so that he utters lewd words, he commits a Sanghādisesa offense.

There is no offense in the following cases: for the first offender before the rule was established, for one who is insane, for one whose mind is deranged, or for one overwhelmed by excessive pain.

Here ends the explanation of the principal text of the third Sanghādisesa rule.

Next is the supplementary regulation concerning the rule on lewd speech. Because speech concerning sexual intercourse issues from the mouth through bodily and mental volition, it is an offense by its nature and produces karma through body and mind.

If a bhikkhu, with a lustful mind, devises a means, takes delight in the matter, and speaks suggestively about it so that a woman understands the implication, the bhikkhu commits a dukkaṭa offense. For example, if he says, “This kambala—thick cloth—has long hair, short hair, red hair, or black hair,” he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

Whenever a bhikkhu speaks suggestively about sexual matters and the woman understands, he commits a dukkaṭa offense; if she does not understand, there is no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The sequence and wording of the remaining passages are easy to understand and need not be explained.”

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning lewd speech.

(Samantapāsādikāya vinayasaṃvaṇṇanāya duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā)

The Fourth Sanghādisesa Rule (Sanghādisesa 4)

The Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sāvatthī. Because the Venerable Udāyin had many friends there, he frequently visited their households to obtain the four requisites offered to monastics: food, clothing, medicine, and lodging (gilānapaccayabhesajjaparikkhāra—medicinal requisites for the sick).

“Vile” (vasala) means an exceedingly repulsive place from which impure blood frequently flows.

“Having spat” (niṭṭhubhitvā) means that he spat upon the female organ and said: “Who would want to make use of this filthy, foul-smelling place?”

The woman said: “What part of me is filthy, and what part is unattractive? Are my clothes unattractive, or is my appearance ugly? In what respect am I inferior to anyone else?”

The Vinaya text states: he approached the young woman and, after looking, spat upon that place.

“Praising an offering” means praising the offering made to oneself in terms of sexual intercourse, or praising the sexual intercourse that one desires.

“This is the foremost offering” means saying: “We who have gone forth can easily obtain other offerings, but this offering of sexual intercourse is difficult to obtain. This is the foremost offering.” Speaking thus constitutes a Sanghādisesa offense.

Again, if he says: “I too am of the kṣatriya lineage, and so are you. If we were united in harmony, nothing could be more excellent,” there is no offense. But if he says: “I too am a kṣatriya; use me for sexual intercourse,” he commits a Sanghādisesa offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The remaining passages are as previously explained.”

There is no offense in the following cases: for the first offender before the rule was established, for one who is insane, or for one who speaks while overwhelmed by anguish.

Next comes the supplementary regulation; the sequence and wording of the passages are easy to understand.

Here ends the fourth Sanghādisesa rule.

The Fifth Sanghādisesa Rule (Sanghādisesa 5)

At that time, the Buddha was in the country of Sāvatthī, where he established the rule concerning acting as a matchmaker.

“A wise person” (paṇḍita) means one who is highly intelligent and discerning, clearly understands affairs, knows how to manage household matters, is not indolent, and possesses a sense of shame and moral dread.

He said to the maiden, “This is a good young man; you should take him as your husband.” Then he said to the young man, “This maiden is very capable in her work and is also straightforward, truthful, and free from deceit and perversity; you should take her as your wife.”

The lay devotee replied, “Venerable sir, we have not decided to accept this person because we do not yet know whether he is good or bad, whose son he is, or what his name and family are. How could we dare give our daughter to him? But if the venerable sir tells me to give her, I shall give her to him. If you do not tell me to do so, I would not dare. Marriage is a momentous affair, so an auspicious time should be chosen for conducting the wedding ceremony. We entrust all their future good and ill fortune to the venerable sir.”

“Knowing herself to be the former second-in-command of the community” means that while this woman’s husband was alive, he was the leader of everyone in the village. Now that her husband has died, she is called the community’s former second-in-command.

“Behind the village” means living outside or behind the village.

The people discussed the matter among themselves, knowing that Udāyi had long been skilled at arranging marriages, that he clearly understood how wedding ceremonies should be conducted, and how a daughter-in-law should be instructed and cared for.

“Regarded as a daughter-in-law”: when she first arrives, the husband’s family regards the wife as a daughter-in-law, but afterward they treat her contemptuously like a female servant. This means that during the first month after her arrival, she is entrusted with overseeing the household; after one month, she is ordered and compelled to perform all manner of labor.

She suffered hardship from having to fetch water and work the fields because of poverty.

Therefore, Udāyi said to the lay devotee, “Do not make the wife suffer. It is improper to order her to perform such heavy labor.”

The lay devotee replied, “We did not speak to the venerable sir about this matter. As laypeople, we know only the affairs of laypeople. The venerable sir is one who has gone forth and should know only the Dharma of those who have gone forth. The two matters have nothing to do with each other. If one knows the domestic affairs of laypeople, that person is not a śramaṇa.”

After saying this, that person fell silent.

On hearing this, Udāyi immediately told the wife to leave: “Go away; do not remain here any longer.”

“Ornaments” (sajjita) means all gold, silver, jewels, and precious objects.

“Dhutta” is rendered in Chinese as “a person of many desires.”

“To minister well” (paricārenta): if a woman offers her husband sound, beauty, touch, fragrance, delicious flavors, and all such pleasing things, this is called ministering well.

“To make a wager with one another” means: “If we obtain this maiden, you must compensate me; otherwise, I shall compensate you.”

As stated in the Vinaya, a bhikkhu must not gamble or make wagers.

“Temporarily” (taṃkhaṇikaṃ) means for a short time, even as brief as a single instant. In Chinese, the interval of a finger snap is called “temporary.”

“To undertake the act of matchmaking” (Sañcarittaṃ samāpajjeyya). Why? Because, in compliance with the person who sent him, he carries out the work of matchmaking.

“Man and woman” means that the maiden inclines toward the young man, and the bhikkhu conveys the message, “This maiden is thinking of you.”

After the young man replies, the bhikkhu returns to the maiden and says, “Thus and thus does that young man think of you.”

The maiden says to the bhikkhu, “I wish to have intimate relations with that young man.”

If he accepts her request, goes and speaks to the young man, returns and reports to the maiden, even if it leads to only a single act of intercourse, the bhikkhu commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

A woman may be under ten kinds of guardianship.

“Guarded by her father” means that her father restrains her and does not permit her to go out, fearing that she may contemplate some other course.

Being guarded by her mother is the same. Being guarded by both parents means that they supervise her, do not allow her to go elsewhere for amusement, and do not permit her to come and go outside. She may be guarded by a brother, a sister, an elder, relatives of her lineage, fellow adherents of the same Dharma, or the law.

“Guarded by fellow adherents of the same Dharma” means being protected by those of the same religious community.

“Guarded by the law” means being protected by the penal law. For example, if a widowed woman wishes to have illicit relations with another person, she must first approach an official and request permission. If the official grants permission, she may have such relations; if he does not, she may not act on her own authority. Anyone who violates this is punished by the official through the confiscation of gold; therefore, she is said to be guarded by the penal law.

“One obtained through purchase” means that goods are brought to redeem and obtain the person; she is therefore called a purchased woman.

“One who lives together out of love” means that, because the two love one another, they live together.

“One hired to live in the household” means that goods are used to hire a person, and the household duties are entrusted to her.

“One who lives in return for clothing and requisites” means that, because she receives clothing and requisites, she agrees to remain as a wife. Such women are destitute maidens.

“One obtained through water” means that, while bathing together, they pour water over one another and pledge to become husband and wife; this is called being obtained through water.

“One obtained through a carrying ring” means that a ring used for carrying objects is placed upon the head. The man takes that ring and casts it away, saying, “Come live in my house and be my wife.” This is called being obtained through a carrying ring.

“Taking a female servant” means taking one’s own female slave as a wife.

“One obtained through labor”: if one uses payment to hire a person to perform some work in the household and then takes her as a wife, she is called one obtained through labor.

“A wife obtained by the raising of a banner”: one raises a banner, leads troops to attack another country, captures a woman of that country, brings her back, and takes her as a wife.

If a layman sends a bhikkhu elsewhere to meet a maiden who is under guardianship there and ask that she be brought back to become his wife, and the bhikkhu agrees, goes to meet her, and explains the matter stated above, whether or not the maiden agrees and replies,

if the bhikkhu accepts such a commission and returns to convey the message to that man, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If the man tells this bhikkhu to instruct another bhikkhu, but that bhikkhu instead speaks to the maiden’s parents, brothers, or sisters, acting as a messenger in this way entails a thullaccaya offense.

The Dharma teacher said, “That is incorrect. Why? As stated in the Vinaya, if one intends to renounce the Buddha but mistakenly says that one renounces the Sangha, or intends to renounce the Sangha but mistakenly says that one renounces the Buddha, one nevertheless loses the precepts.”

Therefore, a bhikkhu who speaks to the maiden’s parents, brothers, or sisters also commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Dharma teacher said, “The passages that follow are the same as those above and therefore will not be repeated.”

If many maidens send a bhikkhu to convey messages to many men, and the bhikkhu accepts, goes to speak to them, and returns to report to those maidens, he commits multiple Sanghadisesa offenses.

Cases involving no offense: the first offender, before the precept had been established; or, having been sent by the Sangha, one consequently tells a woman, “That man wishes to marry you as his wife.” There is no offense. Why? Because he did not accept a commission directly from the maiden. There is also no offense for one who is insane, mentally confused, or overwhelmed by pain.

When six factors are fulfilled, a Sanghadisesa offense is committed:

1. Nodding the head

2. Making a hand gesture

3. Verbally accepting

4. Moving the body to indicate consent

5. Accepting a letter

6. The five foregoing factors together constitute the sixth

These are the six factors.

If a father and mother quarrel and the father has driven the mother away entirely, causing her to return to her maternal home, but afterward the father regrets it and says to a bhikkhu, “I am old and have no one to care for me morning and evening. Venerable sir, please tell the mother to return home and care for me,”

and the bhikkhu accepts this commission, goes and speaks to the mother, then returns and reports to the father, he also commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

For this precept, it is unnecessary to ask whether he knew or did not know. Merely by accepting the commission, going to speak, and returning to report, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. This is an offense by regulation, not an offense by nature, and it pertains to all three kinds of feeling.

The following text is easy to understand and requires no explanation.

Here ends the fifth Sanghadisesa rule.

The Sixth Sanghadisesa Rule (Sanghadisesa 6)

This is the precept concerning dwellings. At that time, the Buddha was staying in the Bamboo Grove at Kalandaka, in Rājagṛha.

Āḷavaka is the name of a village. This bhikkhu was born in the village of Āḷavaka and was therefore called Āḷavaka.

“Personally begging” means personally begging for various kinds of timber materials to build a large dwelling.

“Having it made” means having another person make it or making it oneself.

This bhikkhu abandons meditation and the recitation of scriptures, continually preoccupying himself with such mundane work.

“Without an owner” means that there is no donor, and he merely seeks materials everywhere on his own.

“For himself” means making it for himself, not for the Sangha.

“A large dwelling” means that this dwelling is exceedingly large and without limit.

“Begging extensively” means either asking or borrowing from others, or asking or borrowing materials for the construction; in such matters, one either asks or borrows.

Except in the case of borrowing, begging constitutes an offense. However, one may not borrow from two classes of people: hunters and fishermen. Borrowing from all other places is allowable. The construction of this bhikkhu’s dwelling is excessively large, while meat and fish are difficult to obtain; it is feared that hunters and fishermen, because of such borrowing, might increase their hunting and fishing. Therefore, this is prohibited.

If, while building a dwelling, one is lent draft oxen and plowing implements by a farmer, there is no offense.

If there are people in the monastery who live on leftover food (Vighãsãda), and after eating they gather to practice and amuse themselves, there is no offense in assigning work to these people.

If a bhikkhu wishes to build a shrine hall, he may go to the house of a stonecutter and borrow handcrafted stonework for the construction; if he obtains it, that is good. If he obtains a stone pillar (pãsãnatthambha), the bhikkhu should ask the donor how this pillar is to be erected. If the donor erects the pillar for him, that is good; or if the donor gives him another pillar as well, that is also permissible.

If the donor replies that he has no workers, or says that he is occupied with his own affairs, the bhikkhu should ask him to borrow workers elsewhere.

The bhikkhu may further say, “I have no other acquaintances. If the donor has no workers, it would also be permissible to help with the expense of hiring workers.”

After obtaining the funds, he should take them to a carpenter. If bricks or tiles (Itthakã) are needed, he should go to a potter; if carving or painting is needed, he should go to a carver or painter. If other funds are available, they may be used to make beds and mats, or to provide robes and utensils for the dwelling.

If those who subsist on leftover rice in the monastery work and then take rest, food should be given to them. If there is no food, one may enter the village and beg food for them, but one must not give them money.

If one enters a village at an improper time to beg for oil for the construction of a dwelling, one must cover the bowl completely with one’s hand.

Upon arriving at a donor’s house, the donor asks, “What does the bhikkhu need?”

The bhikkhu replies, “Because a dwelling is being built, I ask for oil for those doing the work.”

The same should be said regarding rice and grain. If oil is obtained, it should be brought back and handed to the monastery steward.

If the bhikkhu who is building the dwelling is assaulted, injured, suffers loss, or dies, the bhikkhu holding the funds must return the construction funds to the donor. If the donor gives them again to the bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should not accept them. If the donor offers them to the monastery, they may be accepted. The bhikkhu must not take possession of them himself but should summon a lay attendant and entrust the matter to him.

If a cart or other necessary implements are borrowed for use in constructing the dwelling, this is the same as the case concerning the borrowing of oxen.

If a bhikkhu is ill, it is proper for him to ask for medicine.

If laypeople see a bhikkhu approaching and think, “This bhikkhu is coming to beg again,” and therefore flee and hide, or if, seeing a bhikkhu on almsround, they close their doors, then the dwelling should be made according to the prescribed measurements. What does it mean to make it according to the prescribed measurements? Here, three human spans (Vidatthiya = one span?) are equivalent to one Buddha-span.

The internal dimensions of the dwelling are twelve Buddha-spans in length (one Buddha-span equals six handbreadths; thus twelve Buddha-spans equal 12 × 0.6 m = 7.2 m—the translator) and seven Buddha-spans in width (7 × 0.6 m = 4.2 m). One may not reduce the length by one span in order to add one span to the width. Nor may one reduce the width in order to add to the length.

How much more so if both dimensions exceed the prescribed measurements: even if the dwelling remains unfinished by only one lump of clay, an offense is incurred.

If a dwelling is six spans long and four spans wide, even if there is no donor to have it built, no offense is incurred. Why? Because it is not a dwelling exceeding the prescribed size. If a dwelling is made of clay, with the upper and lower portions and the inside and outside all made of clay, and it exceeds the prescribed size, an offense is incurred. A dwelling made of grass or straw entails no offense.

The Dhamma teacher said:

“At what stage of construction is the offense incurred? Is it when construction begins, after construction is completed, or only when it has been fully finished?”

Answer:

“From the commencement of construction until only two lumps of clay remain before the dwelling is complete, every act constitutes a dukkata offense. Placing the first of those two lumps constitutes a thullaccaya offense. Placing the second lump, the final one, constitutes a sanghadisesa offense.”

Clay plaster (lepa) is of two kinds: first, clay plaster (mattikàlepa); second, lime plaster (sudhàkpa).

“Places” refers to such locations as windows, pillars, beams, rafters, battens, and smoke vents; these are not places where clay is laid.

“A bhikkhu should bring other bhikkhus to designate the site for the dwelling” means that the owner of the dwelling should bring other bhikkhus to designate the site where the dwelling is to be built for him.

First, the owner of the dwelling must clear and level the site until it is as even as the face of a drum. He must then approach the Sangha and request that it determine the site for the dwelling. He should make this request three times. If the Sangha comes to designate the site, that is good. If it does not come, it should send a wise bhikkhu to inspect whether the site is free from danger and obstruction (Anàrambha). After inspecting it and finding it to be a suitable place, that bhikkhu may approve the ground cleared by the owner of the dwelling.

A dangerous place (Sàrambha) is a place inhabited by tigers, wolves, lions, or even creatures as small as ants (kipillika). A dwelling must not be built amid anthills or ant nests (Aosaya-Upacika). If the place is merely on the ants’ path for seeking food, a dwelling may be built there after they have been driven away. Why? Because the Tathagata has loving-kindness for living beings and for the bhikkhus.

An obstructed place (Abbhàghàta) is another person’s garden or field, a roadway, a place belonging to an enemy (verighara), a place frequented by bandits, a charnel ground (Susàna: burial ground, cemetery), or land belonging exclusively to the king. A bhikkhu must not build a dwelling in any of these obstructed places. On all four sides around the dwelling, there must be a space as wide as a twelve-rung ladder (Nisseni), each rung being one cubit wide, or approximately enough space for a cart laden with grass to turn around (one cubit equals 0.4 m; thus twelve rungs equal 12 × 0.4 m = 4.8 m—the translator).

The other passages are fully explained in the Vinaya text and need not be repeated. If a bhikkhu builds a large dwelling for himself, without a donor, on an improper site, and exceeding the prescribed measurements, every act performed in connection with its construction constitutes a dukkata offense.

If bricks are used to build the walls, then, according to the number of bricks, each brick constitutes one dukkata offense. Of the final two bricks, placing the first (pinda) constitutes a thullaccaya offense; placing the second constitutes a sanghadisesa offense. When the dwelling has been built and the plastering completed, the offense is incurred; sprinkling water to clean it entails no offense. If the dwelling remains unfinished, with one portion of brickwork or clay still remaining, and one stops with the thought, “I shall complete it later,” a thullaccaya offense is incurred. If one decides not to do any more because one regards it as already completed, a sanghadisesa offense is incurred.

If a wall is built around a dwelling but does not reach the eaves—where the roof meets the wall—and a space is left for light, there is no offense. If it is built nearly up to the eaves, lacking only one more brick to complete the dwelling, but an accident prevents the work from continuing, and a visiting bhikkhu arrives, sees that it is unfinished, and completes it, neither incurs an offense.

If a place is chosen that is both dangerous and obstructed, two offenses of dukkata are incurred.

If the Sangha has not designated the site and the dwelling is made larger than the prescribed dimensions, two Sanghadisesa offenses are incurred.

If the dwelling is unfinished and is then offered to the Sangha or even to a single person, or if it is demolished, abandoned, and not used, there is no offense.

If one builds it oneself or completes it oneself; if one instructs another to complete it; or if one instructs someone to build it and that person instructs another to complete it—all incur Sanghadisesa.

If two persons build a dwelling together, one a bhikkhu and the other a novice, neither incurs an offense. Why? Because they do not separately receive individual portions of a single dwelling. If it is divided into portions and each receives a complete portion of the dwelling, a Sanghadisesa offense is incurred.

If bricks, stones, earth, or timber are piled up to make a cave, or if a dwelling of thatch or grass exceeds the prescribed dimensions, but no portions are divided, there is no offense.

If a dwelling of the kind described above is in a dangerous or obstructed place, the Sangha has not designated the site, and it exceeds the prescribed dimensions, this also does not constitute a Sanghadisesa offense.

A person of wisdom should understand this meaning.

If one builds an Uposatha hall, a warming room, a dining hall, or a kitchen (Uposathāgāra, Jantāghara, Bhojanasālā, aggisālā—kitchen), but it is not intended as one’s private residence, there is no offense.

If one builds any of the structures mentioned above but includes a portion as one’s private residence, a Sanghadisesa offense is incurred.

The cases of no offense are: before this rule was established, and the bhikkhu Āḷavika.

There are six factors constituting the offense:

1. Building it oneself

2. Instructing another to build it

3. The site has not been designated by the Sangha

4. It exceeds the prescribed dimensions

5. It is in a dangerous place

6. It is in an obstructed place.

This rule encompasses all three kinds of action and all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning dwellings.

Sanghadisesa Rule 7 (Sanghādisesa 7).

At that time, the Buddha was residing in Ghosita’s Park in Kosambi (Kosambi, Ghositārāma). This is the rule concerning the building of a large dwelling.

Kosambi is the name of the park, originally the name of a wealthy householder’s son.

Channa was the attendant who served and made offerings to the bodhisattva Śākya.

“May the Venerable One designate a site on which to build a dwelling”: A donor said to the Venerable Channa, “Venerable sir, please designate a place for me to build a dwelling, and I shall construct it for you.”

A tree belonging to a shrine (Cetiyarukkha) is a place where the people of the country make offerings morning and evening, and it is the abode of spirits.

“A living tree” means perceiving a tree as a living being.

Mahalla: one has a large dwelling built for oneself, but it is offered by a donor. A donor offers the dwelling, and it is built for oneself, but it exceeds the prescribed dimensions. If a large dwelling is built for oneself through the offering of a donor, without the Sangha having designated or authorized the site, and it is in a dangerous or obstructed place, a Sanghadisesa offense is incurred.

The remaining passages are the same as in the preceding rule.

Sanghadisesa Rule 8 (Sanghādisesa 8).

At that time, the Buddha was residing in the Bamboo Grove (Veḷuvana) at Rājagaha. There was a bhikkhu named Dabba Mallaputta. The Bamboo Grove was a park densely enclosed by bamboo. The bamboo was eighteen cubits (hattha: forearms) high (equivalent to seven or eight meters—the translator). At the four corners of the park were towers and beautiful dwellings, which from afar appeared dim and hazy like dark clouds; hence it was called the Bamboo Grove, and it was also called Kalandaka. The circumstances concerning Kalandaka were explained previously and therefore are not repeated here.

Dabba was the bhikkhu’s name, and Malla was the title of the royal house. Because this prince went forth, he was called Dabba Mallaputta. This venerable one went forth at the age of seven. As his hair was being shaved, the moment it fell to the ground he attained arhatship, acquired the threefold knowledge, possessed the six supernormal powers and the four unobstructed analytical knowledges, and mastered all the knowledge attained by the disciples. He was foremost among the arhats.

“Entering seclusion” (paṭisallīna) means entering a secluded place free from noise.

After emerging from concentration, he said to himself, “My cultivation of wholesome qualities is complete. I should undertake the allocation of lodgings and meals for the Sangha.”

The Dharma teacher said: “Why did he conceive this thought?” He thought, “This is my final body; my cultivation has reached its culmination, and I shall enter nirvana. Just as a lamp placed amid the wind will soon be extinguished, so too is this body. For the sake of the Sangha, I shall undertake the allocation of lodgings and meals.” He undertook the allocation of lodgings and meals for the Sangha because he saw virtuous bhikkhus coming from afar to pay respects to the Blessed One, while the lodgings were cramped and there was nowhere for them to stay. He thought, “I should use my supernormal powers to create lodgings fully furnished with beds, mats, blankets, curtains, mattresses, and so forth.”

Furthermore, one day he saw young bhikkhus who, out of reverence for senior elders of great virtue, did not dare accept invitations before them. Because their meals were irregular, these young bhikkhus became weak. He therefore thought, “I should bring well-being to the Sangha, enable them to live comfortably, and prevent them from suffering through a lack of food and drink. Therefore, I should distribute these things equally among them.”

The Dharma teacher said: “Among the three kinds of karma, why did the Venerable Dabba Mallaputta cultivate only the lesser kind?”

Answer: “Because the power of an aspiration made in a former life gave rise to this thought.”

Question: “In the past there was a Buddha named Padumuttara Bhagavant, and this Dabba Mallaputta was born into a householder’s family. At that time, the people of the country jointly organized a great assembly, inviting the Buddha into their country and respectfully making offerings to him. Sixty-eight thousand bhikkhus accompanied the Buddha. The assembly continued making offerings in this manner for seven days.

“At that assembly, an arhat bhikkhu used his supernormal powers to allocate sleeping and sitting places and various foods and drinks.

“Seeing the arhat bhikkhu use his supernormal powers to perform this work, Dabba Mallaputta rejoiced greatly. He approached the Buddha, bowed with his head and face at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and said, ‘I make this aspiration: in the time of a future Buddha, may I go forth and train in the path, quickly attain arhatship, and use my supernormal powers to allocate lodgings, requisites for sleeping and sitting, and food and drink for the Sangha, just as this arhat does at this assembly.’

“At that time, the Blessed One contemplated whether this virtuous man’s aspiration would be fulfilled and bear fruit in the future.

“Having contemplated the future, that Buddha said to Dabba Mallaputta, ‘One hundred thousand eons from now, there will be a Buddha named Śākyamuni (Gotama Buddha). You will go forth at the age of seven, and the moment the hair shaved from your head touches the ground, you will attain arhatship. You will be named Dabba Mallaputta, will fully possess the six supernormal powers, and will fulfill this aspiration.’

“From then onward, Dabba Mallaputta practiced generosity and observed the precepts, and he was reborn in a heavenly realm. After passing away from the heavenly realm, he was born in the human realm, continuing to pass between these states in this manner until the Buddha Śākyamuni appeared in the world. He then descended from the heavenly realm and was born in the human realm, went forth, and attained the path.

After emerging from meditation, he conceived the thought described above. Having reflected, he immediately approached the Buddha, bowed with his head and face at the Buddha’s feet, and said, ‘From this day forward, I ask the Blessed One to entrust me with two duties: first, allocating and arranging lodgings for the Sangha; and second, arranging and distributing food and drink during assemblies.’”

At that time, the Blessed One replied: “Excellent! You have extinguished all greed, hatred, and delusion, and are therefore capable of performing this duty. You should undertake the allocation and arrangement of lodgings and meals for the Sangha.”

Question: Why did Dabba Mallaputta ask the Blessed One for permission to fulfill this aspiration?

Answer: To prevent slander in the future.

After receiving the Buddha’s instruction, Dabba Mallaputta returned to his dwelling. The Blessed One foresaw that, in the future, the Mettiya-Bhummajaka bhikkhus would slander Dabba Mallaputta because the Sangha had appointed him to allocate lodgings within the assembly. To prevent this slander, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus: “You should invite Dabba Mallaputta to serve as the Sangha-appointed allocator of lodgings.”

After inviting him, the Sangha appointed him by a motion and one proclamation.

“Fellow students” means those who study the same branch of the Dharma; it is also said to mean those who share the same course of training. Bhikkhus who study the sutras spread out their seats together and gather in one place. Those who study the Abhidharma study together with the Abhidharma specialists. Those who study the Vinaya stay together with the Vinaya specialists. Those who teach the Dharma stay together with the Dharma teachers. Those who practice meditation stay together with the meditators. Why? To avoid disturbance. Those who study nothing at all, the indeterminate kind, stay together.

Those who engage in indeterminate talk do not cultivate the three kinds of karma. After eating, they sleep; upon waking, they bathe, and then discuss useless worldly matters among themselves, causing their bodies to grow stout.

Question: Why did Dabba Mallaputta make those who took no pleasure in creating wholesome karma through their conversation gather together in one place?

Answer: To make them direct their minds toward the Path. Through their appreciation of the Dharma of the Path, they would be reborn in heaven.

He entered the Fire-Radiance samadhi (Tejodhātu), which is the fourth jhana. After emerging from this concentration, he extended the second finger—the index finger—of his right hand and emitted light. In but a moment, his renown spread throughout all Jambudvipa.

Bhikkhus from distant regions wished to come and see that supernormal power. Upon arriving, they said to Dabba Mallaputta: “Venerable sir, please arrange lodgings and provide bedding and seats for us.”

Dabba Mallaputta asked: “In which dwelling places would the venerable ones prefer to stay?”

The bhikkhus answered one by one: “I would like to stay on Mount Gijjhakuta”; “I would like to stay in the Snow Mountains.”

Another said: “I would like to stay on Mount Isigillipassa(?)”; while another said: “I would like to stay in Uttarakuru.”

For all these people, Dabba Mallaputta arranged lodgings and provided bedding and seats according to each bhikkhu’s preference. In order to arrange lodging for each one, Dabba Mallaputta manifested many bodies identical to his own to attend to them.

After arranging lodgings for the bhikkhus, Dabba Mallaputta returned to the Bamboo Grove Monastery.

The bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka were leaders of the group of six bhikkhus.

“Poor food” means that they did not receive delicious food. Not only was their food poor, but their lodgings, bedding, and seats were also coarse and inferior.

Question: Why did the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka always encounter poor lodgings and poor food?

Answer: Because in previous lives they had not created merit. Furthermore, they were the most junior members of the Sangha, and therefore received inferior rooms and poor food.

A donor who offered delicious food and drink: this donor regularly prepared fragrant and delicious food and drink as offerings to the Sangha.

One day, this good donor entered the monastery, went to see Dabba Mallaputta, and asked: “Venerable sir, whose turn is it tomorrow to receive your disciple’s offering?” Dabba replied: “It is the turn of the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka to accept the invitation.”

Upon hearing this, the donor was displeased. He returned home and told his servant: “Tomorrow, prepare food for the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka. I shall take no part in it. It is not to be like the meals offered before or those that will be offered afterward.”

The donor further instructed the servant: “If the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka come, merely set up seats outside and present the offering there. Do not allow them into the house.”

The next day, the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka and their companions gathered in one place and discussed among themselves: “Today we ought to have received delicious food, had this donor not gone to see Dabba yesterday. Dabba must surely have told that donor to set up seats outside and serve poor food and drink.”

Wind blowing where there is no wind: although the place was completely enclosed, a strong wind arose.

Fire within water: ordinarily water extinguishes fire, yet now fire blazed forth from within the water.

The Buddha said to Dabba: “Do you remember committing that act of which the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhummajaka now accuse you?”

Dabba replied: “Only the Blessed One truly knows me. The Blessed One is the Omniscient One, and I am an arhat whose taints have been exhausted. What need is there for me to say anything?”

The Buddha again said to Dabba: “You must not speak in that way. If you committed that act, say before the Sangha that you did; if you did not commit it, answer before the Sangha that you did not.”

The Dharma master said: Why did the Blessed One not state directly that Dabba was innocent and that these were merely the false words of the bhikkhuni Mettiya?

Answer: Out of loving concern for sentient beings. If the Blessed One were to say, “I know that this bhikkhu has committed a parajika offense,” or, “I know that this person has committed a parajika offense,” then any bhikkhu who had committed a parajika offense would slander the Blessed One. Why? They would say: “The Blessed One is governed by affection and anger. Because he is fond of Dabba, he does not disclose Dabba’s offense; because he is angry with me, he discloses my offense. Clearly, then, the Blessed One is not Omniscient.”

Because of such slander, after death they would fall into hell.

Furthermore, in the future there would be shameless and unscrupulous bhikkhus who, though truly guilty, would claim to be innocent and think: “The Buddha is no longer in the world; who can know of my offense?” Therefore, the Buddha said to Dabba: “If you committed it, say that you did; if you did not, say that you did not.”

Dabba replied: “I truly did not do it; even in a dream I would not do such a thing.”

Expulsion of the bhikkhuni: there are three kinds of expulsion:

1. Expulsion of the person.

2. Expulsion from communal residence.

3. Expulsion as punishment.

“Expulsion of the person” means expelling the person who committed the act that caused the offense. This is called expulsion of the person.

“Expulsion from communal residence” means that if one has committed an offense but refuses to confess and repent, and does not abandon an erroneous view, this is called expulsion from communal residence.

“Expulsion as punishment” means that merely by committing the offense, one is automatically expelled, without any need for adjudication. This is expulsion as punishment.

Of these three, the bhikkhuni Mettiya incurred expulsion of the person.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “You should expel the bhikkhuni Mettiya.”

The Dharma teacher said: “This bhikkhuni Mettiya was pure, but because she was instigated by another, she made such a false accusation. The one who instructed her deserved to be expelled, so why did the Blessed One order the expulsion of the bhikkhuni Mettiya? Was that bhikkhuni expelled because she made a false accusation, or because she committed an offense?

If she was expelled for committing an offense, then Dabba Mallaputta must also have been guilty, for this type of offense must involve two persons. In this case, she was expelled for making a false accusation; therefore, Dabba was innocent. The Vinaya states that if a bhikkhu falsely accuses another bhikkhu of an unfounded parajika offense (Amùlaka pàràjika), he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If a bhikkhu falsely accuses a bhikkhuni of an unfounded parajika offense, he commits a dukkata offense. The same applies when a bhikkhuni falsely accuses a bhikkhu. Thus, the bhikkhuni Mettiya committed only a dukkata offense, while her lying constituted only a pacittiya offense.

The Dharma teacher said that falsely accusing a bhikkhu of an unfounded parajika offense constitutes a Sanghadisesa offense, not a pacittiya offense. The bhikkhuni Mettiya committed a dukkata offense, not a pacittiya offense. The reason the bhikkhuni Mettiya was expelled was that she herself declared that she had committed a parajika offense.

After the Blessed One rose and entered his meditation chamber, the bhikkhunis made Mettiya remove her monastic robes, found lay clothing for her to wear, and expelled her from the monastery.

Seeing that the bhikkhuni Mettiya had been expelled, the bhikkhu Mettiya said to the Sangha: “Because I was angry, I instructed that bhikkhuni to make the false accusation. The offense is mine; the bhikkhuni Mettiya should not be expelled.”

Anger means the loss of a wholesome state of mind.

Displeasure means that, because of anger, joy is no longer present. This joyless mind is also called a defiled mind.

An unfounded parajika: this parajika has no basis in fact.

A false accusation means that, regarding the matter, one has neither seen, heard, nor suspected it (Adittha, Asuta, Aparisankita).

Not seen means that one has not personally seen it with the physical eye, nor seen it with the divine eye.

Not heard means that one has not heard it from another person.

Not suspected means that no suspicion has arisen in one’s mind.

There is a case of suspicion based on seeing: A bhikkhu enters a thicket of grass outside a village, and a young woman also enters that thicket nearby. The bhikkhu comes out first, and afterward the woman comes out, though neither has any knowledge of the other. Another bhikkhu sees this and becomes suspicious, thinking: “Could it be that these two had an unlawful intention?” This is called suspicion based on seeing.

Suspicion based on hearing: One hears the voices of a bhikkhu and a woman in the darkness and, because of this, becomes suspicious. This is called suspicion based on hearing.

Suspicion based on suspicion: A man and a woman bring food into a monastery. After viewing the sights and strolling about, they depart, leaving behind remnants of food and drink scattered about in a filthy condition, without cleaning them up. The next morning, a visiting bhikkhu arrives, enters the monastery, and sees this filthy place; consequently, suspicion arises in his mind. When he meets a resident bhikkhu, he notices that this bhikkhu has a fragrant scent. The visiting bhikkhu therefore suspects further: “Surely, last night this bhikkhu ate and drank with a woman, and together they engaged in unlawful sexual conduct.” This is called suspicion based on suspicion.

The bhikkhu Mettiya had neither seen, heard, nor suspected anything, yet he made a slanderous accusation; therefore, it is called a false accusation involving an unfounded parajika offense.

To make a false accusation means to wish to cause that bhikkhu to fall away from the state of purity. If one says to another person in accusation, “You have committed a parajika offense,” the speaker commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If one instructs another person to make the false accusation, a Sanghadisesa offense is committed with each statement.

If one sends a letter concerning this matter, the person delivering the letter commits no offense.

There are four kinds of accusation: 1. Accusation concerning moral discipline; 2. Accusation concerning conduct; 3. Accusation concerning wrong view; 4. Accusation concerning wrong livelihood. (Catubbidà codanà: 1. Silavipatti; 2. Acàravipatti; 3. Ditthivipatti; 4. Ajivavipatti).

Question: “What is an accusation concerning moral discipline?”

Answer: “To make an accusation based on any one of the four parajika rules or the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules is called an accusation concerning moral discipline.”

Apart from these, an accusation based on the two aniyata rules, the ninety nissaggiya rules, or the sekhiya rules is called an accusation concerning conduct.

An accusation concerning wrong view is, for example, saying: “I saw them assert that this body has a self, an intrinsic self.” This is called an accusation concerning wrong view.

An accusation concerning wrong livelihood is, for example, saying: “I saw them relying on their observance of the precepts in the hope of obtaining material gain.” This is called an accusation concerning wrong livelihood.

There are also four other kinds of accusation (Vatthusandassanà, àpatti-sandassanà, samvàsapatikkhepa, sàmìcìpatikkhepa): indicating the act, indicating the offense, refusing communal residence, and refusing participation in communal acts.

1. Indicating the act: saying, for example, “You engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman.” This is called indicating the act.

2. Indicating the offense: saying, for example, “You committed a grave offense.” This is called indicating the offense.

3. Refusing communal residence: saying, for example, “I will no longer dwell together with you in the same residence.” This is called refusing communal residence.

4. Refusing participation in communal acts: refusing to participate together in the uposatha, the establishment of boundaries, the invitation ceremony, and other Sangha acts, saying, for example, “You have committed a grave offense; you are no longer a samana, no longer a son of the Sakyan.”

If one utters the statements above, one commits an offense. If the person who has been falsely accused asks, “Why do you not pay homage to me?”

Answer: “You are not a samana; you are not a son of the Sakyan.”

If one replies in this way, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If one says, “Let the Dharma teacher know for himself; what need is there for me to say it?” then by speaking thus one has not yet committed the offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The accuser and the accused will be explained clearly below.”

The accusers come together before the Sangha and declare: “May the venerable ones graciously adjudicate this matter for us; we shall gladly abide by the decision.” If they speak thus, the Sangha should adjudicate the case.

If they say: “For my sake, let the Sangha adjudicate this case without delay. If the decision is made in this way, I shall accept it; if it is not made in this way, I shall not accept it.”

If they speak thus, the Sangha should tell the accuser: “Pay homage to the Buddha and teach the Dharma to them; afterward, we shall adjudicate this matter for you.” If the matter continues until evening, the person at fault says to the Sangha: “It is already dark; I must return to my dwelling.”

The Sangha replies: “Very well.”

After resting, they return to the midst of the Sangha the next morning and again request that the matter be adjudicated. The Sangha replies: “For now, go back.” This is done three times. After three times, when their minds have become gentle and subdued, the Sangha should bring forth the matter and adjudicate it.

Although they have made their request three times, if their minds remain obstinate and their speech unruly, the Sangha should say to them: “There are too few Vinaya masters here, so we cannot adjudicate this matter for you. Go to another monastery and request an adjudication.”

If they go to another monastery, the Sangha there should ask: “Have you already made your request to the Sangha?”

Answer: “We have made the request, and the Sangha instructed us to come here.”

The Sangha says: “If that is so, there are no Vinaya masters here either. Go and seek them at another monastery.”

Thus, after seeking everywhere without success, their minds become gentle and subdued. They return to their former place and declare to the Sangha: “We went everywhere and appealed to the Sanghas, but there was no one to adjudicate the matter. May the venerable ones adjudicate this case for us, and we shall gladly abide by the decision.”

The Sangha should adjudicate it in accordance with the Dharma. The Sangha asks the accused person, “Did you do that deed?” The Sangha should then make a formal motion and perform a Sangha act in concord, thereby bringing the dispute to an end.

If a shameless person slanders one who possesses a sense of shame; if the person who is slandered is wise, while the slanderer is unwise, and they come together before the Sangha, the Sangha must investigate the matter thoroughly. If the foolish bhikkhu gives erroneous answers, the Sangha should say to him: “You know and understand nothing; why, then, do you slander another? You should become reconciled with him and return together in harmony. Do not bring this matter forward again.”

If the slanderer is wise and, before the Sangha, answers concerning an offense based on what was seen, heard, or suspected, the Sangha should question the person who was slandered. If he has committed an offense, the Sangha should impose the appropriate penalty. If he has committed no offense, the Sangha should tell them: “You may return to your respective places.”

If one who possesses a sense of shame slanders a shameless person, but the slanderer is foolish and comes before the Sangha in compliance with it, the Sangha should skillfully ask him: “On what point do you reproach him—regarding the precepts or regarding proper conduct?”

The Dharma teacher said: “Why is one who possesses a sense of shame instructed, while a shameless person is not instructed? Would this not mean that the Sangha is also swayed by affection, anger, fear, and delusion?”

Answer: “It is not so. Why? It is solely in order to subdue the shameless person and enable the person who possesses a sense of shame to live in peace and happiness. If a powerful person who knows no shame were instructed, evil practices would increase. A person who possesses a sense of shame but lacks influence would then be unable to live in peace and happiness. Therefore, the Sangha does not instruct the shameless person.”

If both the slanderer and the person slandered possess a sense of shame, the Sangha should gently teach and admonish them in the Dharma, saying: “You have caused discord with one another; you should confess your faults to each other. You should restore harmony and dwell together.”

If they have slandered one another, and the Sangha has admonished them and attempted to reconcile them as many as three times, yet they refuse to desist, the Sangha must adjudicate the matter according to the Dharma.

The Dharma teacher asked: “Does the procedure for dealing with slander pertain to the beginning, the middle, or the end?”

Answer: “First, the formal act of seeking a hearing is performed. Next comes complete compliance with the Sangha; this is the middle. Whether there is an offense or no offense, the Sangha settles the matter accordingly; this is the end.”

Question: “How many roots and how many grounds does the procedure for adjudicating slander have?”

Answer: “Slander has two roots, three bases, and five grounds.”

The two roots are slander with a basis and slander without a basis.

The three bases are what is seen, heard, and suspected.

The five grounds are: 1) At the proper time; 2) In accordance with the truth; 3) Motivated not by anger but by loving concern; 4) Conducive to benefit; 5) Not influenced by attachment or fear. These are the five grounds for adjudication.

Whether questioned or not questioned, if one has slandered another with a baseless accusation of a Parajika offense and is afterward questioned about the matter by the Sangha, by two or three persons, or by one person, or if one declares that accusation oneself in the midst of the Sangha, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “Disputes are of four kinds, beginning with speaking to one another. What is the meaning of ‘dispute’? Because a dispute arises when testimony is given concerning an offense, it is called a dispute.”

Question: “Is such verbal disputation wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate?”

Answer: “It may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. What is wholesome? What is unwholesome? Discussion conducted in accordance with the Dharma is wholesome. Discussion conducted contrary to the Dharma is unwholesome. Discussion that is neither in accordance with the Dharma nor contrary to the Dharma is called indeterminate.”

The Dharma teacher said: “Apart from these three kinds of dispute, the remaining matters will be clearly explained later.”

If one slanders a bhikkhu with such words as: “You are a samanera; you are an upasaka; you are a non-Buddhist ascetic; you are a Nigantha; you are a eunuch; you are a person with both sexual characteristics; you are an animal; you killed your father; you killed your mother; you killed an arhat; you caused a schism in the harmonious Sangha; you caused the Buddha’s body to bleed”—beginning with statements such as these, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

Suspicion is doubt arising from what has been seen or heard. Doubt is a wavering and uncertain state of mind; it also refers to having forgotten when, or on what day, an earlier event occurred.

The Dharma teacher said: “The other passages are easy to understand. If a bhikkhu slanders another with a baseless accusation of a Parajika offense, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if he slanders another by accusing him of a Sanghadisesa offense, he commits a Pacittiya offense; if he slanders another concerning proper conduct, he commits a Dukkata offense.”

If, out of anger, one makes an accusation in another’s absence concerning an offense entailing suspension, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one makes an accusation in another’s absence concerning proper conduct, one commits a Dukkata offense.

The cases in which there is no offense are:

– The first person to commit this offense.

– When the precept had not yet been established.

– One whose mind is deranged and confused.

– One overwhelmed by suffering.

This offense originates from body and mind. The Vinaya text states that bodily action here also encompasses verbal and mental action. It is an offense that is wrong by its very nature.

Here ends the explanation of the precept concerning slander.

Sanghadisesa Precept 9 (Sanghādisesa 9)

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling in the Kalandaka Bamboo Grove at Rajagriha.

While descending from Mount Grdhrakuta, the bhikkhu Mettiya saw goats mating and said to his companions: “Let us call this male goat Dabba Mallaputta and call this female goat the bhikkhuni Mettiya.”

The bhikkhus replied: “Excellent! We shall use this incident to slander Dabba Mallaputta; through this matter he will be defeated.”

Having spoken thus, they rejoiced together, went to the Sangha, and declared: “We saw Dabba Mallaputta and the bhikkhuni Mettiya engaging in sexual intercourse.” Upon hearing the bhikkhu Mettiya speak in this way, the Sangha immediately convened to adjudicate the matter together.

The Sangha asked the bhikkhu Mettiya: “Venerable sir, state precisely where you saw Dabba Mallaputta and the bhikkhuni Mettiya engaging in sexual intercourse.”

He answered: “While descending from Mount Grdhrakuta to enter the village for alms, we encountered Dabba Mallaputta and the bhikkhuni Mettiya laughing, talking, and jesting together along the way.”

The Sangha asked Dabba Mallaputta: “Where were you at that time?”

Dabba Mallaputta answered: “In the Bamboo Grove Monastery.”

They asked: “What were you doing?”

He answered: “I was distributing food and drink to the Sangha.”

They asked: “Who knows of this?”

He answered: “The Sangha saw and knows it.”

The questioning here refers to making a formal motion and asking the Sangha: “At that time and at that hour, does the Sangha affirm that it saw Dabba Mallaputta distributing food and drink to the Sangha?”

The Sangha answered: “We indeed saw him distributing food to the Sangha.” The Sangha then asked the bhikkhu Mettiya: “Your statement is inconsistent; therefore, it is a contrivance and not the truth.”

After being questioned in this way three times by the Sangha, the bhikkhu Mettiya answered: “It was indeed a contrivance.”

The Sangha rebuked the bhikkhu Mettiya, saying: “Why did you take a different but similar circumstance and impute it to Dabba?”

Question: “What is a different circumstance?”

Answer: “A different circumstance is as follows: Dabba is a human being, whereas the male goat is not a human being. Yet the male goat was imputed to Dabba; therefore, it is called a different circumstance. The female goat was imputed to the bhikkhuni Mettiya; this too is called a different circumstance. Why? Because the two circumstances resembled one another. Therefore, the Vinaya says: ‘If one uses a detail, or something resembling that detail.’ The passages that follow are easy to understand and require no explanation. This is what is called a different circumstance.”

Within the same clan, there was a bhikkhu of the Khattiya lineage who had gone forth. On seeing a Khattiya engaging in sexual intercourse, another bhikkhu slandered this bhikkhu of Khattiya lineage, saying: “Venerable sir, you have committed a Parajika offense.” The Sangha asked: “Did you truly see this Khattiya bhikkhu engaging in sexual intercourse?”

He answered: “I truly saw it.”

With each utterance, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

Regarding physical appearance, name, and dwelling: if one sees something belonging to one person and uses it to falsely accuse another, whether an offense is committed or not has been explained above.

The cases in which there is no offense are: one has truly seen that an offense was committed; the first offender; before this rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, or overwhelmed by suffering. In these cases, there is no offense.

Here ends the explanation of the second rule concerning false accusation.

The Tenth Sanghadisesa Rule (Sanghadisesa 10)

At that time, the Buddha was residing at the Bamboo Grove Monastery in Rajagriha. This is the rule concerning causing a schism in the harmonious Sangha.

Devadatta went to see Kokalika, Kata-morakatinsaka, Khandadeviyaputta, and Samuddadatta, and said: “Venerable ones, let us together cause a schism in the Sangha (Sanghabheda) and undermine the authority of the Tathagata.”

The circumstances concerning causing a schism in the harmonious Sangha will be explained later in the Khandhaka.

“Very well, Venerable Sir,” is an expression of entreaty. “May all bhikkhus throughout their lives observe the rule of dwelling in the aranna. This is the undertaking of a dhuta practice. Any bhikkhu who returns to dwell in an inhabited village commits an offense. May the Blessed One establish such a rule for the bhikkhus.” The other four practices were proposed in the same manner.

“Let us make others know that we have few desires and are content, so that they will arouse great wholesome faith in us.”

Hearing that Devadatta had requested the establishment of five practices in order to cause a schism in the Sangha, the Buddha reflected: “For the sake of gain and offerings, this man will surely fall into hell.” He further reflected: “If I approve these five practices proposed by Devadatta, many good sons who have gone forth will have to observe them, and their practice of the path will encounter difficulties.”

Therefore, it is said in the Vinaya that the Buddha told him: “Enough, enough, Devadatta! Do not establish these practices. Any good son may, according to his preference, dwell either in the aranna or in an inhabited village; neither will obstruct the cultivation of the path.”

Regarding dhuta practices such as living on almsfood, gathering discarded cloth (pamsukula) for robes, dwelling beneath a tree for half a month (on the fifteenth day one must meet with the Sangha at the monastery for the uposatha—the translator), and abstaining from fish and meat, the Buddha taught that fish and meat may be eaten provided that the three grounds for suspicion are absent. The three grounds for suspicion are:

1. Seeing that it was killed for oneself

2. Hearing that it was killed for oneself

3. Suspecting that it was killed for oneself

What is seeing? It is seeing a donor kill a living being in order to offer it to a bhikkhu.

What is hearing? It is hearing that a donor killed a living being in order to offer it to a bhikkhu.

What is suspecting? It is suspecting that a donor killed a living being in order to offer it to a bhikkhu.

There is suspicion arising from seeing. What is suspicion arising from seeing? A bhikkhu dwelling in the aranna enters a village for alms and, along the road, encounters laypeople going into the forest to hunt. The following morning, a great gathering is held in the village. The bhikkhus receive meat at this gathering and think: “Yesterday we saw the donors going hunting; perhaps this meat came from that hunt.” This is called suspicion arising from seeing, and the meat may not be eaten.

If the donor says: “I went hunting for the king or for myself, not to make an offering to the bhikkhus. Venerable Sir, please eat,” then the meat may be eaten without offense.

As for suspicion arising from hearing: a bhikkhu dwelling in the aranna hears that the villagers are going hunting in order to hold a gathering. A donor invites the bhikkhu to eat meat at that gathering. If the bhikkhu eats while harboring suspicion, he commits an offense.

If the donor says: “I went hunting for myself, not for the bhikkhu,” then, upon such a statement, the meat may be eaten without offense. This is suspicion arising from hearing.

If a bhikkhu has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that the animal was killed for him, he may eat the meat without offense.

There is a case in which one sees yet may still eat. What is seeing yet being permitted to eat? If one sees a person kill an animal, but it was not killed for a bhikkhu, and one later receives that meat, one may eat it without offense. This is called seeing the killing yet being permitted to eat without offense.

As for hearing: a bhikkhu himself hears the sound of an animal being killed, but it was not killed for a bhikkhu. If the bhikkhu later receives that meat, he may eat it without offense. This is called hearing.

There is also a case of suspecting yet being permitted to eat the meat without offense. For example, a bhikkhu enters a village for alms and sees that the meat is still fresh, so he becomes suspicious and does not dare accept it. If the donor says that the animal was not killed for the bhikkhu, he may eat it without offense. This is called suspecting yet being permitted to eat.

If a donor kills an animal for a bhikkhu, but the bhikkhu has neither seen, heard, nor suspected it, he may eat the meat without offense. Suppose a donor invites two bhikkhus to eat together. The junior bhikkhu thinks: “This animal was surely killed for the senior bhikkhu, not for me,” and therefore eats without offense. The senior bhikkhu thinks: “This animal was surely killed for the junior bhikkhu, not for me; I may eat without offense.” In this case, each suspects that the animal was killed for the other; both senior and junior harbor such a suspicion and eat together, yet neither commits an offense. If someone kills an animal for a bhikkhu, but the bhikkhu does not know this and learns of it only after eating, there is no offense.

When a bhikkhu receives meat to eat, he should first inquire clearly and only afterward eat it. Why? Because he must distinguish what is allowable from what is unallowable before eating. Furthermore, bear meat and pork resemble one another. Not only bear meat and pork, but other kinds of meat also resemble one another; therefore, he must inquire clearly.

Elated and overjoyed: although his request for the five practices was not approved by the Blessed One, Devadatta was delighted and thought: “Now I shall certainly be able to cause a schism in the Sangha.”

After hearing this, Kokalika became deeply distressed, as though he had swallowed poison. Devadatta persuaded his companions with words such as these: “Why are you distressed? Those who have gone forth to seek the path must be diligent. The ascetic Gotama also has these practices, but he does not require that they be observed for life. We, however, shall observe these practices throughout our lives. Why, then, should you be distressed?” Upon hearing this explanation, those of his faction rejoiced and complied.

The Dharma teacher said that the foolish Devadatta was heading toward the Avici hell without understanding or knowing it, and so he paid homage to the Buddha and took his leave. Afterward, Devadatta returned to Kokalika and said: “Together with you, my companions, I shall carry out these five practices and make everyone know that we have few desires and are content.”

One who has many desires and knows no satisfaction is one who accepts robes and food without moderation.

Devadatta told his companions: “The ascetic Gotama constantly thinks: ‘How can I ensure that my sravaka disciples obtain robes and food without difficulty?’ This is precisely one who has many desires and is not content.”

The Buddha told Devadatta: “You should not delight in this practice of causing a schism in the harmonious Sangha, for it is a grave offense. If the Sangha is harmonious, like water blended with milk, it dwells in happiness. Whoever disrupts the Sangha in this way must endure suffering for an eon in the Avici hell. If the Sangha has been divided and someone restores its harmony, that person will dwell joyfully in heaven for an eon and enjoy the meritorious reward of the Brahma realm.”

In many ways, the bhikkhus taught the Dharma to Devadatta. That is, seeing Devadatta causing a schism in the harmonious Sangha, the virtuous bhikkhus instructed him in many ways so that he might become receptive and unite with the Sangha in both body and mind, like water blended with milk.

“Of one mind” means that their minds together follow the same Dharma. “United in body” means that they assemble together in one place for the uposatha.

What is it to be disunited in body? It means that although they dwell in the same place, their minds follow an outside doctrine. This is called being physically together while their minds are divided.

Persisting without relinquishing means persisting in the undertaking to cause a schism in the Sangha and refusing to relinquish it. This is called persistence.

“The bhikkhus admonish this bhikkhu” means that bhikkhus possessed of conscience and moral dread admonish those bhikkhus, saying: “Do not cause a schism in the Sangha; dwell together in harmony with the Sangha.” The bhikkhus should admonish them three times. If they relinquish the undertaking, that is good. If they do not relinquish it after the first admonition, they incur an offense of dukkata. If they do not relinquish it after the second admonition, they incur an offense of thullaccaya. If they do not relinquish it after the third admonition, they incur an offense of Sanghadisesa.

Admonition outside the Sangha assembly: when the bhikkhus hear that someone is about to cause a schism in the Sangha, they should go to him and admonish him, saying: “Venerable sir, do not cause a schism in the Sangha. If you do so, you will incur a very grave offense.” If he relinquishes the undertaking, that is good. If he does not relinquish it, they should take him by the hand, bring him before the Sangha, and say: “You must not cause a schism in the Sangha,” admonishing him three times in this way.

If, outside the Sangha assembly, they admonish him three times with gentle words, and after bringing him before the Sangha they again admonish him three times with gentle words, yet he refuses to heed them, he incurs an offense of dukkata on each occasion. If he relinquishes the undertaking, that is good. If he does not relinquish it, a motion and three proclamations must be carried out to admonish him.

If he does not relinquish it when the motion is proclaimed, he incurs an offense of dukkata. If he does not relinquish it after the first proclamation, he incurs an offense of thullaccaya. If he does not relinquish it after the second proclamation, he likewise incurs an offense of thullaccaya.

If he does not relinquish it after the third proclamation, he incurs an offense of Sanghadisesa.

Question: During the third proclamation, is the Sanghadisesa offense incurred at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end?

Answer: The offense is incurred at the very end. The first person to commit it was Devadatta.

Question: In the case of other precepts, the first offender does not incur an offense. Therefore, did Devadatta likewise not incur one?

Answer: Because he was admonished three times by the Sangha and did not relinquish the undertaking, he incurred the offense.

The Dharma Master said: The passages that follow are easy to understand and need no explanation. This precept involves all three modes of action—body, speech, and mind—is accompanied by painful feeling, and belongs to mental karma.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning causing a schism in the Sangha.

Sanghadisesa Rule 11

At that time, the Buddha was residing at the Bamboo Grove Monastery in Rajagriha. This rule concerns causing a schism in the Sangha. “Supporting one who causes a schism in the Sangha” means delighting in, accepting, and acting in accordance with the doctrine of one who causes a schism in the Sangha.

A faction (Pakkha) means not joining the Sangha in the uposatha, the recitation of the precepts, or the invitation ceremony, thereby supporting a schism in the Sangha and preventing the Sangha from flourishing.

The phrase “Let us accept and understand” means that we must all accept and understand what they say.

“Venerable sirs, do not support a schism in the Sangha; you must support the harmony of the Sangha. A harmonious Sangha is joyful and free from disputes, blending like water and milk.” The remaining passages are the same as those in the preceding rule concerning schism in the Sangha.

Here ends the section on the second rule concerning schism in the Sangha.

Sanghadisesa Rule 12

At that time, the Buddha was residing in Ghosita’s Park at Kosambi. This is the rule concerning a harsh-natured person who refuses instruction.

The phrase “bad conduct” refers to evil conduct of body and speech.

“Venerable sir, why do you speak to me in this way?”: this is an arrogant statement.

The Dharma Master said: I shall explain its meaning. This bhikkhu was of an evil disposition and would not heed the instruction of the other bhikkhus. Instead, he retorted: “You should not instruct me; rather, I should instruct you. Why? The Buddha is the Buddha of my family. Why is this so? Kanthaka and I brought the Buddha into the mountains to seek the Way. I did not see any of you venerable sirs attending upon him. After attaining the Way, the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel. Therefore, the Buddha is the Buddha of my family, and the Dharma is also the Dharma of my family. Thus, I should instruct you venerable sirs; you must not presume to instruct me.”

The Dharma Master said: Why did the bhikkhu Channa not say, “The Sangha is the Sangha of my family”? Because he was then engaged in a dispute with the Sangha, he did not say that the Sangha was the Sangha of his family. “Venerable sirs, just as in autumn the leaves fall to the ground and are blown by the wind into a heap in one place, and just as duckweed floating upon the surface of the water is driven by the wind and gathered together in one place, so too, venerable sirs, people of many different clans go forth into homelessness and enter the Buddha’s Dharma. Therefore, venerable sirs, do not instruct me; I should instruct you.”

“Acting on one’s own and not communicating with one another”: although instructed in the Patimokkha by his fellow bhikkhus in the training, he arrogantly refuses to heed their instruction.

“Communicate with one another”: with respect to the Patimokkha, they should recite the precepts together and rehabilitate one another from offenses; by doing so, the Sangha flourishes in the Buddha’s Dharma. The passages that follow are easy to understand.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning one of an evil disposition who refuses admonition.

Commentary on the Vinaya: The Samantapasadika

– Volume 13 -