重治毗尼事義集要

EXPLANATION OF THE DHARMA FOR DEALING WITH OFFENSES

Offenses arise from causes and conditions. Because they arise from causes and conditions, they have no intrinsic nature. Therefore, when the path of counteraction arises, the seeds of the offenses immediately perish.

This is called the original emptiness of the nature of offenses. Here, one does not reject phenomenal characteristics in order to seek intrinsic nature. Yet there are people who know neither shame nor moral dread and constantly proclaim that they contemplate the true characteristic of mind, while never considering the performance of formal procedures to remove their offenses.

How lamentable! They do not even understand the characteristics of offenses themselves, much less the true characteristic of mind. Although offenses arise from the mind, they become karma through particular acts.

Although offenses are extinguished through the mind, how could one abandon phenomenal characteristics and cling to emptiness? Moreover, phenomena have the capacity to rely upon principle, whereas principle has no separate capacity to establish itself. Therefore, it is said that repentance without contemplation of the mind can still decisively transform the branches of an offense; but if one merely expounds principle without disclosing the offense, its root will certainly be difficult to eradicate.

May everyone wholeheartedly establish profound faith and entertain no doubts. Everyone must look directly into their own mind and refrain from negligence. Establish phenomena on the basis of principle, then, through phenomena, return to accord with principle.

Only thus will the “pearl of precepts” and the “sun of wisdom” both shine radiantly. The three wheels and the seven limbs will alike be purified. One will perpetuate the lineage of the Śākyas, bring glory to the Sangha, forever close the gates to the evil destinies, and swiftly open the path of awakening.

Question: The ancients said that among the three methods of repentance[1], “it is better to lack the former than to lack the latter” (ninh khả khuyết ư tiền tiền, bất khả khuyết ư hậu hậu). This is because offenses are like frost and dew, which the sun of wisdom can dispel. Therefore, contemplation of principle must be taken as the principal practice. If we now employ only the formal method of repentance, are we not being constrained by the Lesser Vehicle and failing to attain the essential mystery of the true characteristic taught in the Mahayana?

Answer: To say that “it is better to lack the two former methods than to lack the two latter methods” refers to a situation in which conditions are insufficient and something must necessarily be omitted. It is like saying that one may release someone from a Sanghāvaśeṣa offense even without a full assembly of twenty pure members of the Sangha. Furthermore, it is intended to show that the former cannot encompass the latter, whereas the latter can fully encompass the former.

If one considers formal repentance shameful and refuses to practice it, concealing one’s offenses for the sake of saving face, then one has utterly failed to understand that the nature of offenses is originally empty. How could this be called the sun of wisdom? Therefore, the exclusive use here of the formal method of repentance is precisely the foundation for contemplation of principle.

The wise may realize that phenomena in their entirety are identical with principle. Even the foolish may enter principle through phenomena.

Master Jingxi said: “One who has committed a grave offense cannot succeed through contemplation of mind alone. To speak of contemplating the mind means that, when carrying out repentance in terms of phenomena, one must rely upon contemplation of the mind. Without contemplation of the mind, a grave offense cannot be eradicated. Only by applying phenomena and principle together can this matter be resolved.”

Elsewhere it is said: The phenomenal precepts are the foundation of the Three Contemplations.[2]

Therefore, it is said: When śīla (the precepts) is pure, samādhi (concentration) manifests before one. Without the precepts, even worldly powers of concentration do not exist, much less the Three Truths.[3] To say that the Mahayana has no need of the precepts is a mistake. “Non-attachment” means observing the precepts without attachment. If one says that failing to observe them is itself non-attachment, then one is attached to their destruction. How could that be called non-attachment? Even attachment to observing the precepts has no existence; upon forgetting their observance, on what could anything be established?

The original text says: If one now wishes to reject the formal method of repentance, that is not observance of the precepts. But if the phenomenal characteristics of the precepts are already deficient, upon what can contemplation of principle rely? To exploit the true characteristic taught in the Mahayana and thereby adopt the pernicious view of emptiness is to be mistaken oneself and to lead others into error as well. This is no small loss. It must be carefully considered! It must indeed be carefully considered!

In the original text, the treatment of offenses is divided into six parts:

1) Determining the method for dealing with the four pārājika offenses.

2) Determining the method for dealing with Sanghāvaśeṣa offenses.

3) Determining the method for dealing with Sthūlātyaya offenses.

4) Determining the method for dealing with minor offenses.

5) Determining the various karma procedures.

6) Determining the method of overturning the bowl.

I. DETERMINING THE METHOD FOR DEALING WITH THE FOUR PĀRĀJIKA OFFENSES

The second section[4] records:

The bhikṣu Nandi was enticed by Māra to approach the carcass of a dead mare and commit an impure act, but he had absolutely no intention of concealing it. The bhikṣu Nandi told the other bhikṣus, and the bhikṣus reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One permitted the Sangha to confer upon him the pārājika discipline.

(This means that this person had committed a grave offense and had thereby broken a pārājika precept. Yet he had absolutely no intention of concealing his offense; he wept and did not wish to abandon the kāṣāya robe. The Buddha therefore permitted the Sangha to assemble in harmony and, through a motion followed by three proclamations, confer the pārājika discipline upon him. He was permitted to dwell together with the Sangha, but the thirty-five privileges of acting as a teacher were revoked for life.)

The person concerned must earnestly make the request three times. Through a motion followed by three proclamations, the Sangha confers the pārājika discipline upon him. After the pārājika discipline has been conferred upon him, he must obediently observe the following:

1) He may not confer full ordination upon anyone.

2) He may not accept anyone as a dependent pupil.

3) He may not maintain śrāmaṇeras as disciples.

4) He may not instruct bhikṣuṇīs.

5) Even if appointed, he may not go to instruct them.

6) He may not recite the precepts to the Sangha.

7) He may not ask or answer questions concerning the Vinaya before the Sangha.

8) He may not accept an appointment by the Sangha as an officer in charge of affairs.

9) He may not act as an adjudicator of Sangha affairs.

10) He may not act as a representative of the Sangha.

11) He may not enter a village early in the morning and return only in the evening.

12) He must remain close to the bhikṣus.

13) He may not associate intimately with non-Buddhist ascetics or laypeople.

14) He must conform to the Dharma governing bhikṣus.

15) He may not engage in worldly conversation.

16) He may not recite the Vinaya before the assembly; however, if no one else is capable, he is permitted to do so.

17) He may not commit this offense again.

18) He may not commit a similar offense or one arising from this offense.

19) He may not obstruct the Sangha from performing a karma procedure.

20) He may not obstruct the person conducting a karma procedure.

21) He may not accept a seat spread out by a pure bhikṣu.

22) He may not accept washing water drawn by a pure bhikṣu.

23) He may not accept drinking water offered by a pure bhikṣu.

24) He may not allow another bhikṣu to wipe his shoes or wooden sandals.

25) He may not allow another bhikṣu to massage his body.

26) He may not accept homage from a pure bhikṣu.

27) He may not allow a pure bhikṣu to escort or receive him.

28) He may not accept greetings from a pure bhikṣu.

29) He may not accept an alms bowl handed to him by a pure bhikṣu.

30) He may not accept a robe presented to him by a pure bhikṣu.

31) He may not charge a pure bhikṣu with an offense, whether through a verdict based on recollection or a verdict based on the accused’s own admission.

32) He may not act as a witness in another person’s affair.

33) He may not prevent a pure bhikṣu from reciting the precepts.

34) He may not prevent a pure bhikṣu from participating in the Invitation Ceremony.

35) He may not dispute with a pure bhikṣu.

When the precepts are recited or a karma procedure is performed, whether or not this person attends, the Sangha commits no offense. If he again violates a pārājika precept, he must be expelled. (He is not permitted to undertake the pārājika discipline a second time.)

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Miscellaneous Matters records:

Until all afflictions have been completely severed, one must continue to comply with and practice these rules. Failure to practice them constitutes an offense. After attaining arhatship, one is no longer required to practice them.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya records:

A person who has been granted these rules of training following a parajika offense must sit behind all bhiksus and in front of all sramaneras. This person may not share a room with a bhiksu for more than three nights, and the same applies between this person and a sramanera. Whatever food is impure for a bhiksu is likewise impure for this person. Whatever food is impure for this person is likewise impure for a bhiksu.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

A person who has been granted this training Dharma must receive and observe every precept established by the Buddha. This person may participate in two Sangha karmans—the Uposatha and the Pavarana—but may not be counted toward the quorum of the Sangha. (That is, when performing the Uposatha karman, four pure bhiksus are required. If there are only three bhiksus and one person practicing this training Dharma, they may not perform the Uposatha karman; they may only conduct the Uposatha by mutual declaration. The same applies to the Pavarana karman, for which five persons are required.)

Apart from these, this person is not permitted to participate in any other Sangha karman.

The Vinaya-matrika explains:

After this bhiksu has been authorized by a karman, he is called a pure observer of the precepts. Nevertheless, in this very body he cannot bring birth and death to an end, nor can he attain undefiled merit. Yet he is prevented from falling into hell. It is like a leaf that, once separated from the tree, can never be reattached to it.

Question: According to the Mulasarvastivada Ksudraka-vastu, a person practicing this training Dharma can attain realization; after attaining arhatship, he is no longer required to practice it. The Vinaya-matrika, however, says that he cannot attain realization. Which position, then, is correct?

Answer: The Mulasarvastivada Ksudraka-vastu says that realization is possible on the basis of the manifestation presented by the bhiksu Nandi. The Vinaya-matrika, however, speaks from the standpoint of the Buddha-Dharma and says that such a person has absolutely no share in attaining realization. It is unreasonable to suppose that a fallen leaf can be reattached. How could one who commits an offense not tremble at this? Repentance through “formal observance” must be united with repentance through “non-arising.” The penitent must exert himself to the utmost.

The Samantapasadika Vinaya says:

The characteristics of sexual misconduct and false speech are clear and easily discerned, whereas the characteristics of the two precepts concerning killing and stealing are difficult to discern. Subtle matters must be handled with discernment; one should not rely upon the suspicions of worldly people and conclude that someone has committed a parajika offense. He should be told to consult a teacher, a fellow practitioner, or a disciple.

If it is suspected that the person has committed an offense, he should be instructed to sit quietly in a room and contemplate himself. If the substance of his precepts is not impaired—that is, not defiled—his mind will immediately be able to enter samadhi. If the substance of his precepts has been destroyed, he will be unable to attain a concentrated mind.

A judgment may then be made on that basis.

Question: A person who has committed an act of complete sexual impurity but has not concealed it is specially permitted to receive the “discipline of training following a parajika offense.” If someone violates one of the other three grave precepts without concealing it, may he receive the same treatment?

Answer: This is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, let us consider it as follows. Regarding the precept against stealing, the Vinaya stipulates that an offense is complete when five conditions are fulfilled:

1) The object belongs to another person.

2) It is perceived as belonging to another person.

3) It is taken with the intention to steal.

4) It is worth at least five coins.

5) It is moved from its original place.

Suppose a bhiksu happens to see another person’s possession, gives rise to covetous desire, and wishes to steal it. As soon as he moves it from its original place, he commits a grave offense. Then, with a subsequent thought of remorse and regret, he returns it to its original place and does not take it away. If that person has never had any intention to conceal the offense and urgently seeks the “discipline of training following a parajika offense,” why should it not be granted to him? But if he has already taken the object and only afterward reveals the offense, and one hastily and improperly grants him the “discipline of training following a parajika offense,” how could this fail to incur wrongdoing?

Regarding the precept against killing, suppose someone intends to kill one person but mistakenly kills another. In such a case, although the precept has not been lost, even worldly law would not pardon him. How much less, if his murderous intent has been fulfilled, could he be granted the “discipline of training following a parajika offense,” even though he did not conceal the act? Nevertheless, according to the Vimalakirti Sutra and the Sutra on Purifying Karmic Obstructions, has no path of accommodation ever been opened?

Next is the precept against making a great false claim. If one makes a great false claim for the sake of material gain, how could it be said that there was no intention to conceal it? In principle, this should not be permitted. But if someone makes a great false claim to escape a threat to his life or a threat to his pure conduct, and immediately afterward reveals it and seeks someone before whom to repent, how could he be driven onto a path with no way forward?

One should therefore understand that this matter must be handled with the greatest skill. Only a person free from attachment, anger, fear, and delusion can undertake it.

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra explains:

There may be a bhiksu who observes the precepts, possesses complete deportment, and safeguards the Right Dharma. Upon seeing someone damaging the Right Dharma, he immediately expels, rebukes, and disciplines that person. One should know that this bhiksu gains immeasurable and incalculable merit. If there is a bhiksu who is regarded as good, yet upon seeing someone damaging the Right Dharma does not expel, rebuke, or formally accuse that person, one should know that he is an enemy within the Buddha-Dharma.

If someone violates the four grave precepts or commits one of the five heinous offenses, knows that it is a grave offense, yet feels neither fear nor shame and refuses to reveal it; if he never has any intention of safeguarding or upholding the Buddha’s Right Dharma, but disparages and scorns it, and his speech is mostly blameworthy—such a person is also said to be proceeding along the path of an icchantika. Those who say that there is no seed of the Buddha-Dharma are likewise called by this name.

(The Sanskrit sound is icchantika, translated into Chinese as “one who has much craving and delights in samsara.” In some places it is transliterated as acchantika, translated into Chinese as “without desire,” meaning one who does not delight in the state of nirvana. Elsewhere it is transliterated as atyantika, translated into Chinese as “extremely evil,” meaning one who has severed all roots of goodness.)

Question: According to the Vinaya, a bhiksu who commits an offense entailing expulsion is like a tala palm whose crown has been cut off and which can never live again. One who commits an offense of the second category must also undergo probation, manatta, and then have the offense removed before a Sangha of twenty members. Even one who commits an offense of wrongdoing must confess it before another person before becoming pure.

Why, then, does the Great Buddha-Crown Sutra say that if someone has committed any of the five heinous offenses bringing immediate retribution, violated the four parajikas or the eight parajikas, and recites this mantra, all his offenses will be completely eradicated without the slightest remainder? The Buddhas and bodhisattvas will not only refrain from regarding that person as an offender but will also bestow merit upon him, and he will attain the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas.

Judged according to this, regardless of whether the offense is great or small, one need only recite the mantra, with no need whatsoever to reveal the offense before another person. Since the sutras and the Vinaya appear to contradict each other in this way, how can they be reconciled?

Answer: The radiance gathered at the Buddha’s ushnisha, from which subtle and wondrous sounds were proclaimed; this is called the mind-mantra, and is also called the mantra of the mind. It is the esoteric proclamation of the King Shurangama Samadhi. From the perspective of the Exoteric Teaching, the Buddha’s initial instructions directly answered the questions posed; they were straightforward words from the depths of his heart, without the slightest appearance of accommodation or circumlocution.

At times it is said that offenses, whether grave or minor, need not be disclosed before another person; otherwise, since this would run contrary to the Tathagata’s course, how could it accord with the unsurpassed mind-mantra? The sutra seeks to reveal the efficacy and spiritual power of the esoteric seal; therefore, it says that there is no offense that cannot be extinguished[5]. This meaning is taught not only in this sutra, but also in the Ushnisha Vijaya Sutra, the Great Compassion Sutra, the Vaipulya Sutras, the various mantras, and even the sutras of the Thirty-Five Buddhas, the Fifty-Three Buddhas, and the Names of the Five Thousand Five Hundred Buddhas.

The principal reason is that sentient beings may have deep and heavy karmic obstructions and fail to understand that offenses are difficult to discipline, subdue, extinguish, and eliminate; therefore, the Vinaya reaches an impasse in its stringent treatment. Here, the sutras and mantras open a new path of deliverance. One side excludes, while the other accepts; each has its function.

Thus, those who have not yet committed offenses dare not commit them, while those who have already committed offenses may have them extinguished. We may call this the consummation of a heart of compassion and a wondrous skillful means. If there were no disciplinary regulations, the abiding office of the Sangha Jewel would not be honored.

If there were no sutras and mantras, sentient beings would fall forever because of their offenses and obstructions. The Four Siddhantas, proclaimed with skillful inclusiveness from the Buddha’s golden mouth—how could we permit ourselves to give rise presumptuously to biased judgments?

II. DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH SANGHADISESA OFFENSES

The third section[6] explains:

If one commits a Sanghadisesa offense and conceals it, one is to undergo the penalty of concealment according to the length of time it was concealed. The person concerned must approach the Sangha, arrange the robe to bare the right shoulder, remove sandals, bow at the feet of the members of the Sangha, join the palms, kneel, and make this declaration:

“May the Venerable Sangha listen! I, Bhikkhu..., committed a Sanghadisesa offense and concealed it. I, Bhikkhu..., committed a Sanghadisesa offense; according to the length of time it was concealed, I now come before the Sangha to request a karman for the offense of concealment, equal in duration to the period of concealment. I respectfully beseech the Sangha to grant me a karman for the offense of concealment, lasting as long as the period for which it was concealed. May the Sangha have compassion on me, have compassion on me!” (The request is to be made three times. The Sangha should grant it by a motion followed by three proclamations.)

(If it was concealed for one day, one is to undergo one day of “separate residence.” If it was concealed for two days, one is to undergo two days of “separate residence.” The same applies up to five days, ten days, half a month, one month, half a year, one year, and so forth.)

If, while undergoing the procedure for concealment (separate residence), one again commits a grave offense, one must request, through a motion followed by three proclamations, the procedure for dealing with concealment by returning to the original day of the preceding offense.

(This means that if, while formally undergoing “separate residence,” one again commits a Sanghadisesa offense, however many days of separate residence one has already completed are annulled. One must request the Sangha to annul them and ask the Sangha to impose separate residence anew for the number of days required by the previously committed offense.)

After completing separate residence, one must request six nights of Manatta (pleasing the Sangha) through a motion followed by three proclamations. After completing the six nights of pleasing the Sangha, one next requests rehabilitation through a motion followed by three proclamations.

If one commits a Sanghadisesa offense but does not conceal it, one requests only six nights of Manatta (pleasing the Sangha). After completing the six nights of pleasing the Sangha, one requests rehabilitation. If, while undergoing Manatta, one again commits a grave offense, one must request the Manatta procedure of returning to the original day (which has the same meaning as the procedure of returning to the original day during concealment, explained above). After completing the procedure, one requests rehabilitation.

If one commits many Sanghadisesa offenses, concealing some for one night and others for ten nights, one is permitted to combine them and perform a single procedure requesting, through a motion followed by three proclamations, treatment for the many Sanghadisesa offenses on the basis of ten nights of concealment. One is then made to undergo six nights of Manatta, followed by rehabilitation.

If one commits two Sanghadisesa offenses and conceals both offenses; or remembers one offense but not the other; or is doubtful about one offense but not the other; or knows one offense but does not know the other; or states one offense but does not state the other... then, according to what one remembers, knows (knowing means being free from doubt), or states, the karman for the offense of concealment should be performed. If one later remembers, comes to know, or states the other, the karman for the offense of concealment should likewise be performed according to the offense committed. The same applies when one has concealed offenses for two months but remembers one month and does not remember the other month, and so forth.

If one commits two Sanghadisesa offenses, then abandons the monastic life, and later returns to the monastic life and receives the Higher Ordination (this case does not apply to bhikkhunis), whether one concealed them both before and after, concealed them before but did not conceal them afterward, or disclosed them before but concealed them afterward, the karman of concealment is performed according to the duration of concealment. If one did not conceal them either before or afterward, but disclosed them, only Manatta is imposed. After completing the procedure, rehabilitation is granted.

Cases in which one offense was concealed and one was not concealed, and so forth, likewise comprise all four permutations stated above. Cases in which one offense was remembered and one was not remembered, and so forth, likewise comprise all four permutations. When requesting the concealment procedure—stating one offense but not stating the other—the same four permutations are also fully included.

When carrying out the concealment procedure, and even after undergoing Manatta, all twenty such permutations are included.

If one becomes a samanera and later receives the Higher Ordination again, the one hundred permutations are likewise included.

Insanity, mental derangement, and affliction each likewise comprise the full one hundred permutations. The offenses for which the Sangha performs a karman—failure to acknowledge an offense, refusal to repent, and refusal to relinquish a wrong view—each likewise comprise the full one hundred permutations.

*

Diagrams of each set of four permutations, the twenty permutations, and up to the one hundred permutations are given below:

1) Diagram of four permutations: Concealing one offense and not concealing one offense.

Previously committed two offenses, concealing one offense and not concealing one offense.

Abandoned the monastic life and later received the Full Ordination again.

– Previously concealed one and did not conceal one.

– Did not conceal either offense.

– Concealed both offenses.

– Concealed before but did not conceal afterward.

– Did not conceal before but concealed afterward.

2) Diagram of four permutations: Remembering one offense and not remembering one offense.

Previously committed two offenses, remembering one offense and not remembering one offense.

Abandoned the monastic life and later received the Full Ordination again.

– Previously remembered one and did not remember one.

– Did not remember either offense.

– Remembered both offenses.

– Remembered before but did not remember afterward.

– Did not remember before but remembered afterward.

3) Diagram of four permutations: Being doubtful about one offense and not doubtful about one offense.

Previously committed two offenses, being doubtful about one offense and not doubtful about one offense.

Abandoned the monastic life and later received the Full Ordination again.

– Previously was doubtful about one and not doubtful about one.

– Was not doubtful about either offense.

– Was doubtful about both offenses.

– Was doubtful before but not afterward.

– Was not doubtful before but was doubtful afterward.

4) Diagram of four permutations: Knowing one offense and not knowing one offense.

Previously committed two offenses, knowing one offense,

and not knowing one offense.

Abandoned the monastic life and later received the Full Ordination again.

– Previously knew one and did not know one.

– Knew both offenses.

– Did not know either offense.

– Did not know before but knew afterward.

– Knew before but did not know afterward.

5) Diagram of four permutations: When requesting concealment, stating one offense and not stating one offense.

Having committed two offenses, one approaches the Sangha

to request the concealment procedure, stating one offense and not stating one offense.

Abandoned the monastic life and later received the Full Ordination again.

– Previously stated one and did not state one.

– Stated both offenses.

– Did not state either offense.

– Did not state it before but stated it afterward.

– Stated it before but did not state it afterward.

In the preceding five diagrams, each diagram has four propositions, making twenty propositions in all. This is established to explain the cases from the time an offense is committed until one requests probation for concealment and then disrobes. There are also the cases of disrobing while undergoing probation for concealment; disrobing after completing probation for concealment; disrobing while undergoing mānatta; and disrobing after completing mānatta. Each also comprises twenty propositions; together with the preceding cases, they make one hundred propositions concerning disrobing. When the seven circumstances concerning a novice are enumerated, each likewise has one hundred propositions. They are presented in the following diagram:

When requesting probation for concealment: Concealed one, did not conceal one—four propositions.

While undergoing probation for concealment: Renounced the precepts; remembered one, did not remember one—four propositions.

After undergoing probation for concealment, returned to lay life: Doubted one, did not doubt one—four propositions.

While undergoing the practice of delight and receiving ordination: Knew one, did not know one—four propositions.

After completing the practice of delight and returning: Stated one, did not state one—four propositions.

Diagram of 700 propositions:

– From committing the offense until requesting: Concealed one, did not conceal one—four propositions

probation for concealment. Renounced full ordination and became a novice

– While undergoing probation for concealment: Insane; remembered one, did not remember one—four propositions

Mentally deranged

– After undergoing probation for concealment: Afflicted and oppressed by suffering; doubted one, did not doubt one—four propositions

Would not acknowledge the offense

– While undergoing the practice of delight: Would not repent; knew one, did not know one—four propositions

Would not relinquish wrong views

– After completing the practice of delight: Stated one, did not state one—four propositions

In the first proposition, “Renounced full ordination and became a novice,” five periods are included. In each period there follow such cases as concealing one and not concealing one, each comprising four propositions. Each period contains five sets of four propositions, making twenty propositions.

The five periods, each containing twenty propositions, make one hundred propositions. That is, one renounces the full precepts, becomes a novice, and later receives full ordination again. These one hundred propositions differ from one another.

Each individual case must be resolved accordingly by performing the appropriate karman. After recovery, each of the three illnesses—insanity, mental derangement, and affliction—also has one hundred propositions. After the rescinding karman has been obtained, each of the three cases—refusing to acknowledge the offense, refusing to repent, and refusing to relinquish wrong views—likewise has one hundred propositions, making seven hundred propositions altogether.

There are the cases of disrobing while undergoing probation for concealment; disrobing while the karman of returning to the beginning is being performed; disrobing after undergoing probation for concealment; disrobing while undergoing mānatta; and disrobing after completing that practice. If one later receives full ordination again, the appropriate procedure must be performed according to each case. The five propositions likewise apply to one who became a novice and so forth.

Diagram of five propositions:

After disrobing, one again receives full ordination.

While undergoing probation for concealment—Disrobes and becomes—Permit him to continue probation for concealment.

While the karman of returning to the beginning is performed—a layperson—Perform the karman of returning to the beginning.

After undergoing probation for concealment—Receives ordination—Perform mānatta.

While undergoing the practice of delight—Full ordination again—Continue the practice of delight.

After completing the practice of delight—Grant emergence from the offense.

The case of a novice who again receives full ordination is also the same as these five propositions. After the minds of those who were insane, mentally deranged, afflicted, or oppressed by suffering become stable again, their cases are also the same as these five propositions. After the karman imposed upon those who would not acknowledge their offenses, would not repent, or would not relinquish wrong views has been rescinded, their cases are likewise the same as these five propositions. Altogether, there are forty propositions.

If one commits a Sanghadisesa offense but believes it to be an offense entailing expulsion and then conceals it, or calls it a Pacittiya offense or even an offense of wrong speech and then conceals it, that person should perform the confession procedure for a Dukkata offense and then request the Sangha to grant mānatta. If one commits a Pacittiya offense but calls it an offense entailing expulsion and so forth, and conceals it, one should first perform the confession procedure for a Dukkata offense and afterward confess the original offense in accordance with the Dharma.

If one commits a Sanghadisesa offense, understands it to be a Sanghadisesa offense, and then conceals it, one should perform the confession procedure for a Dukkata offense and afterward be granted the karman of probation for concealment.

If one commits Sanghadisesa offenses but does not remember how many times or for how many days one committed them, or remembers how many times but does not remember the number of days over which they were committed, one should be granted probation for the Sanghadisesa offenses dating from the time one ceased to be pure. If one remembers the number of days but not how many times the offense was committed, one should be granted probation based on the number of days remembered. The same applies to cases of doubt or absence of doubt, and so forth.

If, while undergoing mānatta, one commits another offense and conceals it, one should be granted mānatta, followed by the karman of returning to the beginning, and only afterward be granted emergence from the offense.

During the period from undergoing probation for concealment until emergence from the offense and so forth, one should not interpose the performance of a karman of probation for concealment, returning to the beginning, or mānatta, nor count that person among the full complement of twenty required for emergence from an offense.

There are eight circumstances in which a bhikkhu undergoing probation for concealment may not count the day and also incurs a Dukkata offense.

(The circumstances will be explained clearly in the passage below. In these eight circumstances, a formal declaration must be made. If no declaration is made, that day cannot be counted as a day of separate residence. One must confess the Dukkata offense and then undergo separate residence to make up that day.)

The eight circumstances in which a day may not be counted are as follows:

1) Going to another monastery without making a declaration.

2) A visiting bhikkhu arrives and no declaration is made to him.

3) It is necessary to go beyond the boundary, but no declaration is made.

4) Someone is walking about within the monastery, but no declaration is made to him.

5) Falling ill and failing to ask someone to make a declaration requesting a suspension of the practice.

6) Two or three persons sleeping in the same room.

7) Residing in a dwelling where there is no bhikkhu.

8) Failing to make a declaration on the day of the recitation of the precepts.

The person concerned, having fully composed his deportment, should make this declaration:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen to me! I, the bhikkhu ..., committed a Sanghadisesa offense and concealed it. I, the bhikkhu named ..., according to the duration of the concealment, approached the Sangha and requested the karman of probation for the number of days of concealment. The Sangha granted me the karman according to the number of days of concealment. I, the bhikkhu named ..., have practiced for ... days, and ... days remain to be practiced. May the venerable ones know this: I am a person undergoing the practice for an offense that was concealed.”

One undergoing mānatta must sleep together with the Sangha and make such a declaration every day.

If, on the Uposatha day, the person undergoing penance is weak and exceedingly ashamed, he should approach a pure bhikkhu and say:

“Venerable Elder, please know that today, in accordance with the Sangha’s instruction, I request temporarily to suspend the practice of penance.” When he wishes to resume the practice, he should approach a pure bhikkhu and say:

“Today, in obedience to the Sangha’s instruction, I request to resume the practice of penance.”

The Mula-sarvastivada One Hundred and One Karmans states:

While undergoing parivasa, that is, separate residence, or while undergoing mānatta, if one hears that a bhikkhu who is by nature quarrelsome and fond of criticism, or one who is shameless and indolent, intends to come to that residence, one should relinquish the practice before a bhikkhu. After that person has departed, one should return to a virtuous and pure bhikkhu and request to undertake that practice again.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya states:

A bhikkhu undergoing separate residence who wishes to travel far away should relinquish the practice before departing. He should approach a bhikkhu and, in accordance with the Dharma, say:

“Venerable one, please listen! I now relinquish the practice of separate residence and shall undertake it again later...” (He should say this three times.)

If he departs without relinquishing it and sees a bhikkhu along the road, he should say:

“Venerable one, I, the bhikkhu ..., have undergone separate residence for ... days, with ... days remaining. Venerable one, please take note of this.”

If he relinquishes separate residence and goes elsewhere, he should request the Sangha there to permit him to resume separate residence. The Sangha there should consent.

If a bhikkhu dies while undergoing separate residence, mānatta, or abbhana, emergence from the offense, the bhikkhus asked the Buddha: “When those bhikkhus die, do they possess the complete precepts, or have they broken the precepts?” The Buddha said: “Those bhikkhus are all bhikkhus who possess the complete precepts.”

The Vinaya-samgraha explains:

There are six classes of persons who, having transgressed the teachings, should confess before a bhikkhu and request absolution from the offense; they are then regarded as purified:

1) One who upholds the Sutra Pitaka.

2) One who upholds the entire Vinaya Pitaka.

3) One who upholds the entire Matrika Pitaka (Treatises).

4) One whose sense of shame is exceedingly profound, such that, if their offense were mentioned, they might die from the shame they harbor.

5) The most senior elder in the assembly.

6) One of great merit and virtue.

When these six classes of persons are subjected to disciplinary punishment, adverse consequences may result. If they have committed an offense, they resolve to bring it to an end and vow never to repeat it. They are deeply ashamed and never treat it lightly; therefore, the offense may be absolved. If one has transgressed teachings concerning an offense classified as “not shared in common,” then when the sexual faculty is transformed, that offense is also extinguished.

(“Not shared in common” refers to the following among the thirteen rules for bhikkhus: 1. Emission of semen, 2. Physical contact with a woman, 3. Lewd speech, 4. Praising oneself, 5. Building a dwelling without a patron, and 6. Building a dwelling with a patron. In all these matters, the rules for bhikkhunis are not the same as those for bhikkhus; hence they are called “not shared in common.”)

The Introduction to the Ten-Recitation Vinaya explains:

When an elder commits a Sanghavasesa offense and, after performing the manatta procedure, causes others to give rise to a mind of disbelief, he should form this resolve: “From this day forward, I shall never commit it again.” He thereby immediately attains purification. The same applies to a greatly virtuous person who is known by many. The same applies to one who thinks, “I would rather cease practicing than perform the manatta procedure.” The same applies to a sick and feeble bhikkhu who is unable to perform the manatta procedure.

There was a bhikkhu who committed a Sanghavasesa offense, but an assembly of twenty persons was unavailable. Wishing to go to another residence to confess, he was killed by bandits on the way. There was also a bhikkhu who committed a Sanghavasesa offense, but the assembly was impure.

Wishing to go to another residence to confess, he was killed by bandits on the way. If persons such as these form the intention to “confess in accordance with the Dharma,” they immediately attain purification and do not fall into an evil realm.

(There are six classes of persons or circumstances to which this method of confession applies: 1. An elder, 2. A greatly virtuous person, 3. One with a sense of shame, 4. One who is sick and feeble, 5. When a sufficient assembly is unavailable, and 6. When the assembly is impure.)

This method must not be applied improperly or arrogantly. If one presumptuously claims it while deceiving oneself, the offense cannot be absolved. It is essential to consult extensively with those who clearly understand the Vinaya before a determination can be made.

Question: The Vinaya Compendium calls these six classes of persons the eyes of humans and devas and the leaders of the assembly; therefore, they regard a Duskrta offense and an offense belonging to the four defeats (Parajika) as equal. If such consideration is now shown when a grave offense is committed, would this not conflict with the other training rules?

Answer: They are leaders within the Sangha, so naturally nothing concerning the relative gravity or lightness of offenses may be overlooked. It is only because the habitual force of their afflictions is exceedingly strong, or because they happen inadvertently to violate a rule of purity, that once they personally express remorse, all doubts concerning them may be overturned. They personally vow never again to deceive. These methods of confession inherently do not permit arrogant self-deception; how, then, could one hastily claim that they present no difficulty?

III. DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH STHULATYAYA OFFENSES

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya explains:

An offense arising from a Parajika offense, when grave in degree, is called a grave Sthulatyaya. This offense must be confessed before the entire Sangha in order to be eradicated.

(For example, regarding the precept against sexual intercourse: the two bodies have come into contact, but the male organ has not entered the female organ. Regarding the precept against stealing: one has resolved to take five coins but has not yet moved them from their original place. Regarding the precept against killing: one attacks the intended person, but that person has not yet died. Regarding the precept against false claims: one falsely claims attainment of a fruit but does not state it clearly.)

An offense arising from a Parajika offense, when not grave in degree, is called a light Sthulatyaya.

(For example, regarding the precept against sexual intercourse: the parties approach one another but have not yet made contact. Regarding the precept against stealing: one has touched a valuable object but has not yet resolved to take it, or one has resolved to take an ordinary object but has not yet moved it from its original place. Regarding the precept against killing: one has merely made preparations but has not yet injured another. Regarding the precept against false speech: one has not yet uttered the words and abandons the thought.)

An offense arising from a Sanghavasesa offense, when grave in degree, is called a grave Sthulatyaya.

(Regarding the precept concerning emission of semen: one stops before semen has been emitted. Regarding the precept against touching a woman's body: one party is clothed and the other is unclothed. Regarding the precepts against lewd speech and requesting sexual service: one speaks unclearly.

Regarding the precept against acting as a go-between: one does not accept the request, yet goes and conveys the message, then returns and delivers the reply. Regarding the precepts on building a large or small dwelling: construction has begun but is not yet complete. Regarding the precept against making an angry, slanderous accusation: one speaks, but not clearly.

Regarding the instigator of schism in the Sangha, the companion in schism, reviling the Sangha, and refusing admonition—that is, “not accepting corrective admonition”—if one abandons the conduct only when the Sangha performs the karman, these are all called grave preliminary offenses.)

These offenses must be confessed outside the boundary before four bhikkhus in order to be eradicated.

An offense arising from a Sanghavasesa offense, when not grave in degree, is called a light Sthulatyaya. This offense is eradicated by confession before one bhikkhu.

(One holds the male organ in one's hand but has not yet stimulated it. The parties touch one another while both are clothed. One begins lewd speech or a request for sexual service but stops before the words are fully uttered. In acting as a go-between, one goes to convey the message but does not return to deliver the reply. A large or small dwelling has been planned but construction has not begun. One intends to make an angry, slanderous accusation but stops before uttering the words. In matters extending from schism in the Sangha through malicious obduracy, if one abandons the conduct as soon as the first motion is announced to the Sangha, these are all called light preliminary offenses.)

An offense arising from these is also called a preliminary Sthulatyaya and is also called a causal Sthulatyaya.

The Dharmaguptaka Karman explains:

Independent Sthulatyaya offenses are of three distinct kinds:

– Acting as the principal in causing a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha, stealing four coins, killing a deva, and so forth are called offenses of the higher grade.

– Acting as the principal in disrupting the karman Sangha, acting as an accomplice in causing a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha, stealing two or three coins, and so forth are called offenses of the middle grade.

– Acting as an accomplice in disrupting the karman Sangha; shaving body hair; going naked; keeping human skin or a stone bowl; consuming raw blood or flesh; wearing the clothing of non-Buddhist ascetics; stealing one coin; and so forth are called offenses of the lower grade. By analogy with the Sthulatyaya offenses arising from these, the three procedures of confession should be understood.

This independent offense is also called an intrinsic Sthulatyaya and a resultant Sthulatyaya, and belongs to the category of derivative offenses.[7]

Question: Causing schism in the Sangha is a grave rebellious offense and a disqualification. How can a procedure of confession be performed for it as a Sthulatyaya offense?

Answer: Acting as the principal in causing a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha is a rebellious offense, whereas acting as an accomplice is not. Neither acting as the principal nor acting as an accomplice in disrupting the karman Sangha is called a rebellious offense. Moreover, although acting as the principal in causing a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha is a rebellious offense, it does not cause one to lose the bhikkhu precepts; therefore, it is still called only a Sthulatyaya offense and not a Parajika. If the wheel of the Sangha has not yet been broken, the offense may still be confessed. If the Sangha has already been split, it becomes a rebellious offense. In that case, confession merely by a “formal procedure” is insufficient; it must be confessed through “non-arising.”

This applies even to one who acts as an accomplice in causing a schism in the Dharma-wheel Sangha and one who acts as the principal in disrupting the karman Sangha: both may confess. However, if they relinquish the precepts and subsequently receive full ordination again, they become persons subject to a grave disqualification. (This is considered when questioning them about impediments and disqualifications.)

IV. DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH LIGHT OFFENSES

The method for confessing Nissaggiya offenses has already been explained in the section on the thirty rules entailing forfeiture and expiation. Here, only the general method for confessing Pacittiya, Duskrta, and other offenses will be explained.

The third section[8] explains:

If a bhikkhu has committed an offense and wishes to approach one bhikkhu to confess it (this applies to an ordinary pacittiya offense, a minor dukkata offense, and so forth), he must approach a pure bhikkhu, arrange his robe to bare his right shoulder, and, if that bhikkhu is senior, bow to him (but if he is junior, no bow is required). Kneeling with palms joined, he should state the name and category of the offense and say:

“Venerable Sir, please attend to me with compassion! I, the bhikkhu named ..., have committed the offense of ..., belonging to the category of .... I now approach the Elder to confess it. I dare not conceal it. Having confessed, I shall be at ease; without confessing, I shall not be at ease. I acknowledge the offense I have committed and disclose it according to my understanding, not daring to conceal it. May the Elder remember me as pure, pure in the full body of precepts, and fit to participate in the uposatha.” (This should be said three times.)

The bhikkhu receiving the confession should say: “You should reproach yourself in your own mind and give rise to disenchantment.” The offender replies: “Yes, Venerable Sir.”

If he wishes to approach two bhikkhus to confess (this concerns a pacittiya offense of the intermediate grade, which is relatively serious, so he should express his remorse before two persons for his mind to become settled; or there may be only three bhikkhus at that dwelling place), he should approach two pure bhikkhus, arrange his robe to bare his right shoulder, and clearly state the offense and so forth as above. The bhikkhu receiving the confession should ask the second bhikkhu: “If the Elder permits me to receive the confession of the bhikkhu ..., I shall receive it.” The other should say: “It is permitted; I consent.”

If he wishes to confess before three bhikkhus, the procedure is likewise the same. (This applies to an intermediate-grade pacittiya offense whose inherent nature is serious; the offender must confess before three bhikkhus for his mind to become settled. Or, if there are only four bhikkhus at that dwelling place, the bhikkhu receiving the confession should ask the other two before receiving it.)

If he wishes to confess before the Sangha (that is, a group ranging from four bhikkhus to any number is called the Sangha; this concerns the upper and intermediate grades, the two classes of thullaccaya offenses, as well as relinquishment before the Sangha and confession before the Sangha), the offender should approach the Sangha, arrange his robe to bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, bow at the feet of the Sangha, kneel with palms joined, and say:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! I, the bhikkhu ..., have committed the offense of .... I now come before the Sangha seeking to confess it....” (This should be said three times.)

The bhikkhu receiving the confession must make a formal motion. Only afterward may he receive the offender’s confession. The text of the motion is as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! The bhikkhu named ... has committed the offense of ... and now comes before the Sangha seeking to confess it. If it is the right time for the Sangha, may the Sangha give its consent, and I shall receive that bhikkhu’s confession. This is the motion.”

After making this motion, he may receive the confession. That bhikkhu should speak as above three times to confess. The bhikkhu receiving the confession says: “You should reproach your own mind and give rise to disenchantment and detachment.” The offender replies: “Yes, Venerable Sir.”

The Vinaya-matrka Sutra explains:

When a senior bhikkhu has an offense to confess to a junior bhikkhu, there are four things he must do when disclosing it:

1) Arrange his robe to bare his right shoulder.

2) Remove his shoes, wooden clogs, and sandals.

3) Join his palms.

4) State the offense he has committed.

When a junior bhikkhu approaches a senior bhikkhu to confess offenses he has committed, there are five things he must do (the same four things as above, with the addition of a fifth: kneeling).

(The distinction between senior and junior here is not determined by the number of rains retreats—nine rains, and so forth—but solely by the time at which full ordination was received. One who received bhikkhu ordination even a single instant earlier is thereby the senior. Furthermore, according to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, when a senior bhikkhu confesses to a junior bhikkhu, only the bow is omitted; he must still kneel.)

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya Ksudrakavastu says:

One must possess five qualities before performing the formal act of confession:

1) Possess faith.

2) Arouse diligence.

3) Give rise to a respectful mind.

4) Speak good and gracious words.

5) Associate with good spiritual friends.

The preface to the Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one has been captured by bandits or is ill, although the person before him has committed a “corresponding” offense, he is permitted to recollect it mentally and speak words of confession. Later he should approach a pure bhikkhu and confess. Only after those persons have confessed may their confessions be received.

(A “corresponding” offense means that both persons have committed the same offense. Under ordinary circumstances, one may not confess to someone who has committed the same offense, and a person who has committed the same offense may not receive another’s confession. But now, in the event of calamity, illness, or capture by bandits, that person should first think: “As for this offense of mine today, I must later approach a pure bhikkhu and confess it.” After giving rise to this thought, he may immediately receive the confession of the gravely ill person or the one captured by bandits, so that they will not fall into an evil destination after death.)

V. EXPLANATION OF THE VARIOUS KARMAVACANA PROCEDURES

The third section of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

There were two bhikkhus whose dispositions inclined them toward disputes. They reviled one another, spoke malicious words, contended over superiority and inferiority, and also encouraged others to engage in disputes. The Buddha permitted the Sangha to carry out a formal act of censure against them by a motion and three proclamations. After the Sangha had assembled, their offenses were to be stated. Once their offenses had been stated, an act of mindfulness was to be performed for them. After the act of mindfulness had been performed, the charges were to be determined. The text of the motion for the karmavacana is as follows:

“May the venerable Sangha listen! These bhikkhus named ... delight in quarreling with one another, insulting one another, speaking harsh words, and contending over superiority and inferiority. After those bhikkhus have quarreled among themselves, if other bhikkhus become involved in a dispute, they go and encourage them, saying: ‘You friends are capable and are not like those people.

You are far superior to them in learning, wisdom, and accomplishments, and likewise in friends and acquaintances. We shall be your allies.’ Because they maintain this position, disputes arise in the Sangha where none had arisen, and disputes that have arisen cannot be brought to an end. If it is the right time for the Sangha, may the Sangha give its consent to perform a karmavacana act of censure against those bhikkhus.

If in the future they quarrel again and insult one another again, the Sangha shall impose additional offenses and discipline them. This is the motion.”

The text of the karmavacana is to be formulated accordingly. If they conform to the Sangha and oppose it in no respect, and if they request the revocation of the karmavacana act, it should be revoked. They must approach the Sangha and request the revocation of the penalty three times. The Sangha then revokes it by a motion and three proclamations.

If an expelled bhikkhu has not been summoned, he should not enter within the boundary. He is permitted to ask a trustworthy person to enter the assembly and request confession on his behalf. (This refers to one who engages in corrupt conduct and defiles households.)

If a bhikkhu living in dependence studies the Vinaya Dharma, attains wisdom, conforms to the Sangha, does not dare to act contrary to it, and requests the revocation of the karmavacana act, it should be revoked.

If a bhikkhu possesses any of ten qualities, the Sangha should perform a karmavacana by motion to prohibit him from visiting lay households:

1) He speaks ill of and reviles a lay household.

2), 3), 4) He causes a lay household to suffer harm, lose its benefits, and have no place of refuge.

5) He quarrels with and harasses laypeople.

6), 7), 8) In the presence of laypeople, he slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

9) In the presence of laypeople, he speaks base and insulting words.

10) He promises to act in accordance with the Dharma but does not do so.

There are five kinds of bhikkhus for whom this act of karma should not be performed: those who do not respect their fathers, mothers, śramaṇas, or brahmins, and who do not steadfastly observe what ought to be observed (for them, only an act of rebuke and restraint should be performed....). If they respect their fathers, mothers, śramaṇas, and brahmins, and steadfastly observe without abandoning what ought to be observed, then any bhikkhu who commits the ten offenses mentioned above should be subjected to the act of karma prohibiting him from visiting the homes of laypeople. After performing the act, a bhikkhu should be appointed to go to the layperson’s home and apologize on behalf of that bhikkhu. One possessing the following eight qualities should be appointed:

1) He has heard and understands the matter.

2) He speaks skillfully.

3) He himself understands clearly.

4) He is capable of understanding another person’s intention.

5) He is skilled in receiving another person’s words.

6) He remembers well.

7) He is without faults.

8) He is skilled in explaining which statements are right and which are wrong.

One possessing these eight qualities should be appointed by a motion and one proclamation to go to the layperson’s home and apologize to the householder, saying: “The Sangha has already performed an act of disciplinary censure against this bhikkhu.” If the householder accepts the apology, that is well. If not, the bhikkhu should be instructed to stand where the householder can see but not hear him, and that bhikkhu should be told to make a proper confession.

The appointed bhikkhu should then return and tell the householder: “That bhikkhu formerly committed an offense, but he has now confessed and repented; his offense has been removed.” If the householder accepts the apology, that is well. If not, the offending bhikkhu must go directly and apologize to the householder. Having apologized, he must remain dependent upon the Sangha and must not offend again.

When he requests that the act of karma be revoked, it should be revoked for him.

If one has committed an offense but says that one does not see it as an offense, has an offense but does not confess and repent, or refuses to relinquish an evil view, in each case an act of suspension should be performed.

If an act of rebuke, banishment, dependence, prohibition from visiting laypeople’s homes, suspension for refusing to acknowledge an offense, suspension for refusing to confess an offense already committed, or suspension for refusing to relinquish an evil view has already been performed, then, according to the number of days the offense was concealed, the penalty must be recommenced from the first day, followed by six days of mānatta. After these acts of karma have been performed, five things must not be done:

1) One must not confer full ordination upon anyone.

2) One must not accept another person as a dependent.

3) One must not keep a novice.

4) One must not accept an appointment from the Sangha to instruct bhikkhunīs.

5) If already appointed by the Sangha, one must not go to instruct them.

There are also five other things that must not be done:

1) One must not recite the precepts.

2) When the Sangha asks about the meaning of the Vinaya, one must not answer.

3) One must not serve as the officiant of an act of karma.

4) One must not participate in selecting wise persons to deliberate upon and adjudicate the affairs of the Sangha.

5) One must not act as a representative of the Sangha.

Furthermore, one must not enter a village early and return only after dark. One must not associate closely with non-Buddhist ascetics. One must not speak jāguṇa, that is, foreign speech, and must not commit another offense.

One must not disparage an act of karma or those who perform it. One must not accept offerings or reverential salutations from virtuous bhikkhus. One must not accuse a virtuous bhikkhu of an offense.

One must not obstruct the Uposatha or the Invitation. One must not dispute with virtuous bhikkhus. One should sit and walk behind the other bhikkhus.

For pure bhikkhus, one should sweep, prepare seats, carry their robes and bowls, massage their bodies, and so forth, serving them in accordance with the Dharma as one would serve a teacher. Three times each day, one should present oneself before a pure bhikkhu. On the Uposatha day, one must sweep, prepare everything, and arrange the tally sticks.

After the Uposatha, one should put everything in order.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya explains:

There are five matters for which an act of restraint must be performed (that is, an act of rebuke):

1) Habitual intimacy in eight ways, namely, bodily intimacy in living together, verbal intimacy in living together, and bodily and verbal intimacy in living together. Bodily intimacy means sitting together on the same bed, sleeping together on the same bed, eating together from the same tray, sharing clothing, going out together, and entering together. Verbal intimacy means responding back and forth to one another and speaking defiled words. Bodily and verbal intimacy means sitting together on the same bed and so forth, while responding back and forth to one another and successively speaking defiled words. (There are six bodily forms and two verbal forms, making eight matters in all.)

2) Frequently committing offenses and refusing to desist after being admonished three times.

3) Entering a village too early and leaving the village too late; associating with evil friends and going where one ought not to go.

4) Engaging in disputes with one another and refusing to desist after being admonished three times.

(Five qualities cause disputes to arise again: 1. Arrogance; 2. A coarse and vicious disposition; 3. Speaking meaningless words; 4. Speaking at an improper time; 5. Failing to associate with good friends.)

5) Delighting in associating closely with young people and refusing to desist after being admonished three times.

When an act of karma for restraint has been performed but the person does not comply and practice accordingly, or when he frequently commits minor offenses and, although verbally accepting admonition, continues to offend, in every such case an act of karma prohibiting others from speaking with him should be performed (that is, the act of dependence).

For corrupt conduct that defiles lay households, an act of banishment should be performed. For disturbing worldly people and causing unpleasant incidents, an act of reconciliation should be performed (that is, the act prohibiting one from visiting laypeople’s homes).

If one does not acknowledge an offense, does not act in accordance with the Dharma (that is, does not confess and repent), or refuses to relinquish an evil view, an act of suspension should be performed.

A bhikkhu undergoing parivāsa must comply with seven categories of duties:

1) Duties concerning bhikkhus.

2) Duties concerning bhikkhunīs.

3) Duties concerning one’s retinue.

4) Duties concerning entering a village.

5) Undertaking arduous duties.

6) Accepting duties assigned by the Sangha.

7) Duties concerning the king.

What are the duties concerning bhikkhus?

One must not accept the reverential salutations of bhikkhus. One must not speak of a bhikkhu’s faults. One must not engage in deliberations with bhikkhus. One must not speak of a novice’s offenses. One must not reward or punish novices. One must not engage in deliberations with novices. One must not act as a messenger for bhikkhus. When the assembly gathers, one must not serve as its Dharma speaker, except in special circumstances. These are the duties concerning bhikkhus.

What are called the duties concerning bhikkhunīs?

One must not accept the prostrations of bhikkhunīs. One must not speak of a bhikkhunī’s offenses or engage in deliberations with bhikkhunīs. One must not speak of the offenses of śikṣamāṇās or novice nuns. One must not reward or punish them, nor engage in deliberations with them. One must not obstruct the bhikkhunīs’ Uposatha or Invitation. One must not prevent bhikkhunīs from standing across the gateway of the Sangha’s dwelling place.

(Because certain bhikkhunīs struck Venerable Kapila, the Buddha instructed the bhikkhus that when they saw bhikkhunīs entering the monastery, they should tell them to stand across the gateway. This was proper. Only after they had reported their arrival were they permitted to enter. Bhikkhus who are presently undergoing separate residence, however, must not prevent them.)

One must not go to instruct bhikkhunīs; even if one has already accepted the appointment, one must not go. (This means that although, before being penalized, one may already have accepted the Sangha’s appointment, while one is presently under an unresolved penalty, one must not go to instruct them.) These are the duties concerning bhikkhunīs.

What are the duties concerning one’s retinue?

One must not authorize anyone to receive full ordination. One must not accept anyone as a dependent. One must not keep a novice. One must not accept provisions from a bhikkhu. One must not transmit scriptures to another person. One must not receive scriptures from another person. If one regularly recites scriptures, one should recite them in a low voice. If one had previously given disciples permission to live in dependence upon oneself, one should instruct them to depend upon another teacher and should relinquish one’s retinue. These are the duties concerning one’s retinue.

What are called the duties concerning a village?

One must not enter a village too early or leave it too late. One must not enter a village alone. One must not walk ahead of or behind a śramaṇa.

(A bhikkhu undergoing separate residence, “separate confinement,” must walk behind all bhikkhus who are pure, and likewise must sit behind them. If he enters a village alone, or walks ahead of or behind other renunciants, this means that he is not complying with the prescribed practice.) He must not go to the homes of knowledgeable donors. He must not stay in a dwelling place where no Sangha of bhikkhus resides. When sitting and when eating, he must remain behind the other bhikkhus. He must not direct anyone to receive food, nor direct anyone to distribute food, except when it is his turn. (When it is his assigned turn to serve on duty and have someone receive or distribute food, there is no offense.) These are called the matters concerning the village.

What is meant by undertaking arduous duties?

Upon rising in the morning, he must sweep the monastery, the stupa, and the Sangha’s quarters. He must wash and clean the Sangha’s vessels for urine and excrement. All such tasks that can be done must be performed according to his ability, and he must not evade them. He must not receive another person’s proxy consent, except when it is his turn. (When it is his assigned turn to convey another person’s proxy consent, there is no offense.) This is called undertaking arduous duties.

What is meant by accepting appointments from the Sangha?

He must not accept any form of homage or any appointment made through a ñatti-kamma or a ñatti-catuttha-kamma. This concerns accepting appointments from the Sangha.

What are matters concerning the king?

He must not rely upon the power of the king, ministers, householders, or violent persons. He must not disparage the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, or the person who performed the formal act. He must reproach only himself and must not reproach others. These are matters concerning the king.

When bhikkhus are undergoing parivasa and manatta, there are these seven matters to be observed. If they observe them, it is called compliant conduct; if they do not observe them, it is called noncompliant conduct.

A person subjected to a formal act of censure must compliantly observe five matters:

1) Matters concerning bhikkhus.

2) Matters concerning bhikkhunis.

3) Matters concerning his retinue.

4) Matters concerning formal acts of the Sangha (accepting an appointment as a teacher).

5) Matters concerning the king.

(Only matters concerning entry into villages or settlements and the Sangha’s arduous duties are excepted.) After performing the formal act, the Sangha should say:

“Elder, you must not commit the offense again. If you repeat it, the Sangha will impose a more severe penalty upon you. You must fully comply with and observe these five matters.”

When he has observed them, become subdued, and humbled himself, the Sangha should grant him a formal act of release (the rescinding of the formal act). A person subjected to this formal act must not converse, nor may he fail to comply with the five matters stated above. After the formal act has been performed, he must further comply with five matters:

1) Even if he has been ordained for one hundred years, he must place himself under dependence upon a bhikkhu who has kept the precepts for only ten years, even if that bhikkhu knows only the two divisions of the Vinaya.

2) Upon rising in the morning, he must offer greetings, carry away and empty the vessels for urine and excrement and the rinsing tube, and return them to their original places. He must provide tooth sticks, sweep and clean, carry food, wash robes, dye the bowl, and render every other service, except making prostrations and massaging the body. If the other bhikkhu is ill, however, he may anoint or massage him.

3) He must study the two divisions of the Vinaya. If he is unable to do so, he must at least study the five classes of precepts.

4) He must thoroughly understand the skandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, and the twelve links of dependent origination.

5) He must thoroughly understand what constitutes an offense and what does not constitute an offense, what conduct accords with proper deportment and should be taught, and what conduct violates proper deportment and should be avoided.

When he has completed this study, the formal act of release is performed.

A person subjected to a formal act of banishment must likewise comply with the five matters above. After the formal act has been performed, he should be settled beside the Sangha’s monastery. When he has compliantly observed the five matters and everything has been done in accordance with the Dharma, he should be granted the formal act of release.

A person subjected to a formal act of reconciliation must likewise comply with the five matters above. After the formal act has been performed, he should be told to go to the householder’s home and apologize, causing that layperson to be pleased. If that person is pleased, this is called release.

A person subjected to a formal act of suspension must likewise comply with the five matters above. After the formal act has been performed, he should be made to stay outside the Sangha’s monastery, with his door facing the wilderness. If he comes to sweep the grounds of the monastery, stupa, or Sangha’s compound, the bhikkhus should sweep away and conceal his footprints.

If he goes to the place for washing the feet, urinating, or defecating, it should afterward be flushed and washed clean. If he travels together with his disciples or dependent pupils, they must not address him as Preceptor or Acarya and must not converse with him; others, however, may speak to him. To induce him to comply with the prescribed practice and abandon evil wrong views and bhikkhus of evil wrong views, they must not converse with him, stand together with him, share Dharma food with him, bow together before the same Buddha, recite sutras together, belong to the same Sangha assembly, perform the Uposatha or Pavarana together, or participate in formal acts of the Sangha with him.

They may converse with adherents of other paths and invite them to sit. If he becomes ill, they must not care for him, but they may tell his donors or relatives, “The suspended person is ill; you should go and care for him.” If he dies, they must not make offerings of incense and flowers to his corpse, nor prepare food and drink on his behalf as offerings to the Sangha. His robes and bowl must not be distributed, and his corpse must not be cremated.

The corpse should be placed upon the bed on which he lay, his robes and bowl tied around his neck, and the entire bed carried outside. They should say:

“The affairs of the Sangha are now purified! The affairs of the Sangha are now purified!”

Toward a bhikkhu of evil wrong views, we must not give rise to an evil mind. Even when the corpse is being burned, we must not give rise to evil thoughts, but should reflect: “May those who come afterward not become accustomed to following this wrong view.” If cowherds or woodcutters bring back the robes and bowl, they may be accepted because those people are regarded as donors. If the suspended person compliantly observes the five matters, his mind gains right view, and he becomes gentle and harmonious, the formal act should be rescinded; this is release.

There are three matters for which a person must be suspended:

1) His observance of the precepts is impure.

2) His views are impure (such as saying that sexual intercourse does not obstruct the path, saying that killing living beings brings no karmic result, holding views of annihilationism or eternalism, or maintaining that the world is finite or infinite, and so forth).

3) His livelihood is impure.

There are three grounds upon which a person may be suspended: seeing, hearing, and suspicion.

Furthermore, a bhikkhu endowed with the following five qualities may accuse another person of an offense:

1) What he says is true, not false.

2) He speaks at the proper time, not at an improper time.

3) He speaks for the person’s benefit, not without benefit.

4) He speaks gently, not harshly.

5) He speaks with loving-kindness, not out of anger.

One who is endowed with the following five qualities may also accuse another person of an offense:

1) His bodily conduct is pure.

2) His verbal conduct is pure.

3) His livelihood is pure.

4) He is learned in the sutras.

5) He is learned in the Vinaya.

Furthermore, there are five ways of accusing another person of an offense:

1) First insulting him and afterward accusing him of an offense.

2) First accusing him of an offense and afterward insulting him.

3) Accusing him of an offense while also insulting him.

4) Insulting him without accusing him of an offense.

5) Accusing him of an offense without insulting him.

Of these five, when one first insults another and afterward accuses him of an offense, first accuses him of an offense and afterward insults him, or both accuses and insults him at the same time, the Sangha should not accept the accusation. When one accuses him of an offense without insulting him, the Sangha should investigate the matter.

One possessing the following five qualities should not accuse another person of an offense: partiality through affection, anger, fear, delusion, or desire for gain. Whoever accuses another person of an offense because of these five qualities will, upon the breakup of the body at death, fall into an evil destination, into hell.

Only a person possessing the following five qualities should accuse another person of an offense: freedom from anger, affection, fear, delusion, and desire for personal gain. Whoever is endowed with these five qualities and accuses another person of an offense will, upon the breakup of the body at death, be reborn in a good destination and receive the praise of practitioners of the holy life.

When a bhikshu who has been suspended goes to another residence of the Sangha, he should say: “Venerable ones, I have been suspended. I have practiced the act of compliance, my mind has become gentle and yielding; please rescind the act for me.” The Sangha should ask: “For what reason were you suspended?” If he replies: “There was no matter for which I was suspended,” they should say: “I shall share Dharma-food and material food with you.” If he says: “I was suspended because of a certain matter,” they should say: “Return to your former place;

the Sangha there will rescind it for you.” If the person says that no Sangha resides at that place, or that its members have died, ceased practicing, or gone to other residences, none of which has a Sangha, they should ask: “For what matter were you suspended?” He replies: “I was suspended for such-and-such a matter.

My mind has become gentle and yielding, I have seen my fault, and I have already practiced the act of compliance.” If so, they should rescind it.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Nidāna explains:

When bhikshus quarrel with one another, if their two teachers—the preceptor and the acarya—are still present, they should be instructed to repent or the teachers should remonstrate with them. If they have completed ten rains and are independent of reliance, the bhikshus should admonish them—that is, perform a formal act of rebuke. If they refuse to listen, a Sangha act of placing them under restraint should be performed—that is, a Sangha act requiring reliance, instructing them to take reliance upon one who upholds the Vinaya. All the other bhikshus must not associate or converse with them.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

After performing the Sangha act of humbling oneself—that is, the Sangha act of conciliation—a bhikshu should be sent to the layperson’s home to offer an apology. If, after three visits, the layperson still refuses to accept it and wishes to cause trouble, that bhikshu should be told to go far away. If he refuses to go, the Sangha is not at fault. If a bhikshu jokes and laughs while conversing with bhikshunis, thereby disturbing other bhikshus, a Sangha act declaring him impure should be performed. This belongs to the category of Sangha acts of rebuke.

The Preface to the Vinaya says:

A bhikshu expelled from this residence may not go to another residence to repent, except when there is no Sangha at that monastery; in that case, he is permitted to go to another residence to repent.

VI. EXPLANATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR OVERTURNING THE BOWL

The fourth section[9] explains:

When a lay household commits any of ten acts, the Sangha act of overturning the bowl should be performed against it:

1) Reviling and slandering a bhikshu.

2) Causing harm to a bhikshu.

3) Acting to his detriment.

4) Depriving a bhikshu of support.

5) Provoking disputes and disorder among bhikshus.

6. 7. 8) Disparaging the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha in the presence of a bhikshu.

9) Falsely accusing a bhikshu of impure conduct.

10) Violating a bhikshuni.

If any one of these ten acts is committed, the Sangha act of overturning the bowl must be performed. After performing the Sangha act, a bhikshu endowed with the eight qualifications—as explained in the section on prohibiting visits to a lay household—should be appointed to go to that lay household and say: “Because of such-and-such a matter, the Sangha has now performed the act of overturning the bowl against.... We shall no longer visit the household of....” If that person repents in accordance with the Dharma, complies with the Sangha without daring to oppose it, and requests that the Sangha act of overturning the bowl be rescinded so that visits may resume, the Sangha should rescind it for that person.

On this matter, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya records:

In the city of Sravasti, the upasaka Dharmadatta regularly invited the Sangha to receive meals. Whenever the members of the Sangha arrived, he would question them closely about doctrinal meanings. If a bhikshu could answer, he rejoiced and personally served him various foods. If one could not answer, he immediately disparaged and ridiculed him and ordered his servants to bring him unpalatable food. For this reason, the bhikshus all refused to go to that lay Buddhist’s household to receive meals. The Buddha instructed the Sangha to perform the Sangha act of overturning the bowl.

There are eight acts by an upasaka for which the Sangha must perform the Sangha act of overturning the bowl:

1) Openly slandering a bhikshu.

2) Openly reproaching a bhikshu.

3) Openly reviling a bhikshu in anger.

4) Cutting off a bhikshu’s material support.

5) Refusing to cooperate with a bhikshu.

6. 7. 8) Reviling the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

Dharmadatta ordinarily made offerings to the bhikshus before taking his own meal. On that day, he waited until after noon, but no bhikshu came. He went and addressed the Buddha....

The Buddha taught: “You treated the Bhikshu Sangha with contempt. Wishing to benefit you, the Sangha has therefore performed the Sangha act of overturning the bowl.” At that time, not far from the Buddha was an arhat. The Buddha told Dharmadatta: “Go and ask him what salt is and how many kinds of salt there are.” Dharmadatta immediately went and asked.

The arhat replied: “I know that you are the upasaka Dharmadatta, who treated bhikshus with contempt, and that the Sangha has performed the act of overturning the bowl against you. Is that still not enough? I require quiet here, yet you come to disturb me as well!

Salt is simply salt.” Dharmadatta was displeased upon hearing this and returned to the Buddha. The Buddha asked: “How did your inquiry into the meaning of salt go? Were you satisfied?” Dharmadatta replied: “That bhikshu is incompetent and poorly learned.

When asked about salt, he merely said that salt is salt.” At that time, not far from the Buddha was another bhikshu, a Dharma teacher named Phất-hy-lô. The Buddha told Dharmadatta to go and ask that bhikshu. Dharmadatta went and asked him, and the Dharma teacher replied: “According to its meaning, salt is of two kinds: the taste of salt and the nature of salt.

Its taste is the single salty taste of seawater. Its nature includes black salt, red salt, Sindhu salt, Vị-bạt-già salt, Tỳ-lãm salt, Ca-già salt, Tư-đa salt, and Tỷ-ca salt. In brief, there are two kinds: raw salt and cooked salt.

This is what is called salt.” Hearing this, Dharmadatta was greatly delighted and went to address the Blessed One: “That bhikshu explained it exceedingly well. He distinguished and presented the meaning of salt fully and concisely. Whether questioned directly or in reverse order, he could answer everything.” The Buddha taught: “That is an ordinary bhikshu who has not yet tasted the flavor of the Dharma within my teaching.

The former bhikshu, however, is an arhat. In your arrogance, you could not distinguish truth from falsehood, and throughout your life you have done only useless things.” Confronted with this, Dharmadatta became afraid and begged to repent. The Buddha said: “With a sincere heart, you must dress properly and, together with your relatives, go before the Sangha and three times request the Sangha act rescinding the overturning of the bowl.” The Sangha had them enter the boundary and stand where they could be seen but not heard, and then rescinded it by a Sangha act with one motion and three proclamations.

When the Sangha has performed the Sangha act of overturning the bowl, no one, from bhikshus down to upasakas and upasikas, may visit or associate with that person. A piece of kasaya cloth should be tied and hung at the entrance of that person’s home, and an announcement should be made throughout the lanes: “The household of.... is a household against which the Sangha act of overturning the bowl has been performed.” If visiting bhikshus arrive, they must be informed.

The Sangha act of overturning the bowl must not be performed hastily; it requires careful consideration. If they say: “It is fortunate for our household that sramanas do not come,” the Sangha act of overturning the bowl should not be performed against such people. It should be performed if the family possesses a sense of shame and moral dread. If they have seen their fault and, with a conciliatory mind, practice the act of compliance, that Sangha act should be rescinded.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

A bhikshu should not perform the Sangha act of overturning the bowl against a layperson because of some trifling matter. Likewise, an upasaka should not cease to respect and trust a bhikshu because of some trifling matter. Only when a bhikshu commits any of the following eight acts may an upasaka cease to trust and respect him:

1, 2, 3, 4) Slandering the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and precepts.

5) Seeking to harm an upasaka.

6) Causing defamatory rumors to spread about an upasaka.

7) Seeking to seize an upasaka’s place.

8) Treating what is contrary to the Dharma as correct and showing contempt for an upasaka.

If an upasaka is angry with a bhikshu, the bhikshu should not go to his home. If an entire village is angry with a bhikshu, the bhikshu should not enter that village.

ESSENTIAL COMPENDIUM OF THE MEANINGS OF VINAYA MATTERS, REVISED AND EDITED

END OF FASCICLE THIRTEEN

Note:

1 The three methods of repentance comprise repentance based on non-arising, repentance through apprehending signs, and repentance through formal procedure.

2 The Three Contemplations: The Tiantai school teaches that these comprise the contemplation of emptiness, the contemplation of provisional existence, and the contemplation of the Middle.

3 The Three Truths: Established by the Tiantai school, these comprise the truth of emptiness, the truth of provisional existence, and the truth of the Middle, which are the objects of the Three Contemplations.

4 This is not in the second part; Master Zhixu cited it incorrectly (Chongzhi Pini Shiyi Jiyao, fascicle 13, p. 447c18, Manji 40, no. 719). Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 55, fourth part, Regulating the Community, p. 972b11, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

5 See the Yết-ma Chỉ Nam, Chapter 14, under the heading “Repentance for the Six Classes of Offenses,” for clarification of this issue concerning the Exoteric and Esoteric teachings.

6 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 45, third part, Puggalakkhandhaka, p. 898c07, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

7 A correspondingly resultant offense: an offense in which an offending cause gives rise to an offending result; that is, the result resembles the cause.

8 The third part, as cited by Master Zhixu in Chongzhi Pini Shiyi Jiyao, fascicle 30, p. 451b13, Manji 40, no. 719. According to Taisho 22, no. 1428: Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 36, second part, Uposatha Khandhaka, p. 825c23.

9 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 53, fourth part, Miscellaneous Khandhaka, p. 959b03, Taisho 22, no. 1428.