重治毗尼事義集要

SECOND: THE PRECEPT AGAINST STEALING

This is an offense by nature. It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

Permitted cases are fully explained in the Bodhisattva Pratimoksha.

Question: In cases permitted by the Mahayana, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech not only do not violate the bodhisattva precepts but also produce much merit. Do they nevertheless violate the bhiksu precepts?

Answer: For renunciants, sexual activity is prohibited in both the Mahayana and the Hinayana. As for the three precepts concerning killing, stealing, and false speech, the Mahayana permits exceptions, whereas the Hinayana prohibits them. If an act is truly performed out of compassion to save beings, then although it does not violate the bodhisattva precepts, under the Dharma governing bhiksus the offense must still be adjudicated according to the Vinaya.

The treatise states: In the depths of his heart, a bodhisattva even wishes to take upon himself the sufferings of hell in place of all sentient beings; how, then, could he be unwilling to undergo the punishment imposed by the Sangha? If someone styles himself a Mahasattva yet refuses to observe the regulations of the Sangha, he is neither a bhiksu nor a bodhisattva.

PRATIMOKSHA PRECEPT:

Should any bhiksu, whether in a village or in a wilderness, with the intent to steal take what has not been given, and should the taking of what has not been given be such that a king or a king’s great minister would arrest, execute, bind, banish, or rebuke him, saying, “You are a thief; you are a fool; you know nothing,” that bhiksu has committed a parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion.

ORIGIN[1]:

The Buddha was traveling in Rajagrha, on Mount Grdhrakuta. At that time, in the city there was a bhiksu named Dhanika, the son of a potter, who built a grass hut in a secluded forest. When that bhiksu entered the village to beg for alms, children gathered the firewood and dismantled the grass hut to take it home for fuel.

Afterward, that bhiksu mixed clay and constructed a house of earth, firing it with wood and cow dung. The house was red like fire. The Buddha prohibited making a house entirely of red-colored bricks.

Whoever did so committed a duskrta offense. The Buddha ordered the bhiksus to demolish the house. Bhiksu Dhanika then deceived the keeper of the royal timber of Magadha and obtained valuable wood reserved for King Bimbisara.

A great minister reported the matter to the king. The king thought, “It is not fitting to take the life of a renunciant over a small amount of property,” and merely reprimanded and banished him. The officials were displeased, and the laypeople criticized him.

The bhiksus of few desires therefore reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

“According to the law concerning taking what is not given” means in accordance with the king’s laws prescribing how the taking of what has not been given is to be punished. The royal law at that time stipulated that anyone who took five coins, or an object worth a full five coins, was subject to capital punishment.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya states:

One copper coin is worth one-sixteenth of a coin.

The Vinaya-samgraha states:

Five masas; one masa equals eighty cowrie shells[2].

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon moving the object from its place, one commits a parajika offense. If one prepares to take it but does not obtain it, one commits a sthulatyaya offense. If one takes nearly five coins’ worth, one commits a sthulatyaya offense.

If one fails to take it, one commits a duskrta offense. Instructing another to take or directing another to seek it is treated in the same manner as above. If one devises the means and instructs another to seek five coins or more, but the person instructed takes a different object or takes it from a different place, the taker commits a parajika offense, while the instructor commits a sthulatyaya offense.

If the person instructed has no intent to steal but obtains more than five coins’ worth, the taker is without offense, while the instructor commits a parajika offense. If the person instructed has the intent to steal and takes five coins or more, that person commits a parajika offense, while the instructor does not commit the root offense.

If an object has an owner, or one perceives it as having an owner, and one takes without permission something worth five coins or more, one commits a parajika offense. If it is worth nearly five coins or less, one commits a sthulatyaya offense. If one is uncertain whether it has an owner and takes something worth five coins or more, one commits a sthulatyaya offense. (According to the Mulasarvastivada tradition, this also constitutes a parajika offense.) If it is worth nearly five coins or less, one commits a duskrta offense. (According to the Mulasarvastivada tradition, this also constitutes a sthulatyaya offense.) If an object has no owner, but one perceives it as having an owner or is uncertain whether it has an owner, and one takes something worth five coins or more,

one commits a sthulatyaya offense; if it is worth nearly five coins or less, one commits a duskrta offense.

A bhiksuni commits a parajika offense. Members of the three junior assemblies commit a duskrta offense and are expelled. There is no offense when one believes the object has been given, believes it belongs to oneself, believes it to be discarded refuse, intends only to borrow it temporarily, regards it as belonging to an intimate friend, or when the precept had not yet been established, and so forth.

(The Third Section[3] states: The perception that someone is an “intimate friend” comprises seven qualities that make such a friend beneficial and compassionate. The seven qualities are:

– They can give what is difficult to give.

– They can do what is difficult to do.

– They can endure what is difficult to endure.

– They disclose secrets to each other.

– They do not expose one another’s faults.

– They do not abandon each other in suffering.

– They do not despise each other in poverty.)

The Mulasarvastivada Ksudrakavastu states:

An intimate friend is one to whom one may entrust one’s very life. Such a person has five qualities:

– They cherish one another.

– The closer they become, the more pleased they are with each other.

– They respect one another.

– After a long separation, they remember one another.

– When a friend uses their possessions, joy arises in their heart.

The Fourth Section[4] states:

If, with the intent to steal and for another person’s sake, one carries that person’s taxable goods past a customs checkpoint, and the goods are worth a full five coins, one commits a parajika offense. If many bhiksus tell one person to take another’s property and five coins’ worth is obtained, every one of them commits a parajika offense. (This is because, with the intent to steal, they caused another’s property worth a full five coins to be removed from its original place.) If an object is worth five coins in one locality but less than five coins in another locality, one nevertheless commits a parajika offense.

If an object is worth less than five coins in one locality but more than five coins in another locality, one commits a sthulatyaya offense. If one knows that a person, with the intent to steal, has instructed one to take another’s property, and one initially agrees but later regrets it and does not carry it out, one commits a duskrta offense. If one intends to steal another person’s robe but mistakenly takes one’s own robe, one commits a sthulatyaya offense.

If a thief has taken an object and one forcibly seizes that object from the thief, one commits a parajika offense. If what is taken on one occasion and what is taken on a later occasion together amount to a full five coins, one commits a parajika offense. If one steals land, water, fruit, vegetables, and so forth, totaling a full five coins in value, whether one personally makes use of them or causes them to be diminished, in every case one commits a parajika offense.

In one case, a donor had two clever and spirited children.[5] One day, when Venerable Pilindavatsa arrived, the children came at once, embraced his legs, and ran about joyfully at play. Later, thieves abducted them. Their parents came to the Venerable and tearfully recounted what had happened, thinking that the Venerable had taken their children. With his divine eye, the Venerable saw the children in the thieves’ boat. He then used his supernormal powers to seize them and return them to their parents. The bhiksus criticized the Venerable over this matter. The Buddha asked the Venerable with what intention he had seized the children. The Venerable replied, “I acted out of compassion and had no intent to steal.” The Buddha said, “There is no offense.”

The Mahasanghika Vinaya states:

In the case of a bhikkhu traveling on the road who is robbed by bandits: whether the bandits are few and the bhikkhus many, or the bandits conceal the recently stolen goods elsewhere, if this bhikkhu has not yet thought that his possessions are lost and then takes them back, there is no offense. If he has already thought that his possessions are lost and then takes them back, he becomes as one of the bandits, robbing the bandits.

Furthermore, if the bandits are traveling along the same road and, upon nearing a village, are about to divide the goods, and the bhikkhu follows them and asks for his possessions back and receives them, there is no offense. If he uses force to intimidate the bandits and make them return the possessions, there is also no offense. Or if he reports the matter to the head of the settlement, who uses skillful means to persuade the bandits to return them, there is no offense.

If he knows that doing so will cause them to kill or bind someone, he should not report it. In the case of a bhikkhu serving as the mamati, that is, the monastery steward: if the stupa-monastery has no property while the Sangha has property, and he thinks, “The offerings that devas and humans make to the Sangha are all due to the Buddha’s beneficence; making offerings to the Buddha is itself making offerings to the Sangha,” and then uses the Sangha’s property to repair the stupa, that mamati commits a parajika offense.

In the case where the stupa has property but the Sangha has none, if he thinks, “When offerings are made to the Sangha, the Buddha is also included therein,” and then takes the stupa’s property and offers it to the Sangha, the mamati who uses it in this way commits a parajika offense.

In the case where the stupa has no property but the Sangha has property, it may lawfully be borrowed temporarily for use, but a clear record must be made stating, “When it is borrowed for use and when it will be returned.” If the Sangha has no property but the stupa has property, the same applies. When the property is handed over and received for borrowing, the document must be clearly read aloud before the assembly, and the transfer must be clearly conducted. If the document is not read aloud, an offense of transgressing the Vinaya is committed.

In the case of two bhikkhus who jointly possess property that must be divided, if one of them, with the intention to steal, takes all of it for himself, then after excluding his own half, if the other bhikkhu’s half is worth five coins, he commits parajika. If the other person consents to his taking it, there is no offense. If they promised each other that whatever they obtained would be divided between them, but after obtaining something one says, “Each person has his own separate good fortune,” then if half of that share is worth five coins, he commits parajika.

If he has this thought while the property still remains in the donor’s house, he commits sthulatyaya; if, knowing that there is a donor, he has such a thought, he commits an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. The same applies to two rag-robe bhikkhus[6] who make an agreement with each other.

A bhikkhu who oversees the Sangha’s property must know what may be given and what may not be given. What may be given? Things may be given to prevent loss or when doing so is beneficial.

What is meant by preventing loss? If bandits come to the monastery and demand food and drink, and refusing them might result in the monastery being burned or its property being plundered, then, fearing such harm, one should give them as much or as little as circumstances require. What is meant by being beneficial?

Masons, excavators, painters of designs, and those who supervise the work of repairing the Sangha’s dwellings should be given meals before and after work, oil for anointing the body, beverages outside the prescribed time, and so forth. If a king or other persons of great power are to be given provisions, food, and drink, this is called beneficial, and they should be given them.

If a bhikkhu’s robe and bowl are lost, and he has not yet thought that they are lost, then upon later learning where they are, he should go there and find a way to retrieve them. If he has already thought that they are lost and later learns where they are, going there and finding a way to retrieve them constitutes an offense of transgressing the Vinaya. If he had previously thought, “If I later learn where they are, I shall go and find a way to retrieve them,” and subsequently does retrieve them, there is no offense.

If two bhikkhus promise each other, “We shall study the sutras together; we shall recite the sutras together,” but afterward neither study nor recite them, they commit an offense of transgressing the Vinaya.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one gives rise to the intention to steal and prepares the means, one commits an offense of wrongdoing, that is, duskrta. Touching the object constitutes a sa-sthula-atyaya offense, that is, sthulatyaya. Removing it from its original place, if it is worth five coins, constitutes parajika; if it is worth less than five coins, it constitutes a grave offense, likewise sthulatyaya. If the object belongs to an animal, touching it constitutes an offense of wrongdoing. Removing it from its place, if it is worth five coins, constitutes a grave offense; if it is worth less than five coins, it constitutes an offense of wrongdoing.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If a hunter chases an animal into a monastery, whether the animal is wounded or unwounded, one does not commit an offense by refusing to return it to the hunter. If the animal has been shot, runs into the monastery, and dies at once, it should be returned to him.

If one conspires with bandits, points out the location to them, and afterward receives a share of the spoils, the offense is determined according to the amount received.

Question: How does this differ from instructing another person to take something? Suppose one does not receive a share; is an offense committed?

Answer: When one instructs another to take something for oneself, as soon as the object leaves its place, the offense is consummated for oneself. But when one merely points out the location to bandits, after they seize the property it is not certain that they will give one a share. Therefore, the offense must be determined according to the share received. Nevertheless, even if one receives no share, one still commits an offense, namely, the preliminary offense of sthulatyaya.

If one afterward becomes remorseful, goes to the property owner’s house, and warns him to guard it and not allow it to be lost, then even if those bandits succeed in taking it, one incurs only the preliminary offense. Even if one later receives a share, one also commits only a sa-sthula offense. If one travels with bandits intending to commit theft but turns back halfway, one commits only an offense of wrongdoing.

If one conspires to act as a bandit and keeps watch for the bandits, the offense is consummated when the goods are divided and one receives a share. If, out of fear, one merely accompanies them and has no intention of stealing together with them, then although the bandits obtain the goods, the bhikkhu commits no offense.

If one carries one’s own property or another person’s property and tells the customs officer, “I wish to be exempt from the tax,” one commits an offense of violating the Dharma. If one instructs a person subject to taxation to take another road, one commits an offense of wrongdoing. If, with an evil intention, one directs him to another road in the hope of evading the tax, one commits a sa-sthula offense.

If one carries another person’s property past a customs station without intending to obtain personal gain, one commits a grave offense. If, before reaching the customs station, one takes half or the whole share but has not yet passed beyond it, one commits a sa-sthula offense. If one passes beyond the customs station and the value reaches the requisite amount, one commits the fundamental offense.

If one brings one’s own property to the customs station and tells another person to carry it across, one also commits the fundamental offense. If the property truly belongs to oneself but one has firmly resolved to give it to one’s parents, elder brothers, and so forth, and tells the tax collector, “This property is not mine; please exempt it from tax,” or passes through the air, holds it in one’s mouth, wraps it in one’s robe, or takes a road that avoids the station, in every case one commits a grave offense.

(Question: This is also the same as the case of carrying something across for another person; why does it not constitute the fundamental offense?

Answer: When one carries another person’s property across, the benefit necessarily accrues to oneself, and therefore the fundamental offense is established. Here, because one has firmly resolved to offer it as a gift, there is no offense of seeking personal gain; there is only the fault of violating the tax law, and therefore one commits merely a grave offense.)

If one carries property through a customs station for the sake of one’s parents or the Three Jewels, one should teach the tax collector wholesome Dharma, praise the Three Jewels, and explain the kindness and virtue of one’s parents. If the collector then imposes no tax, there is no offense. If he still demands it, one should pay.

Theft is broadly of five kinds:

1) Taking by force in the person’s presence.

2) Taking secretly and stealthily.

3) Taking through manipulation and deception.

4) Taking what has been entrusted to one.

5) Taking back what one has already given.

These five kinds are all included under theft.

If someone brings property as an offering and, knowing that he has no share in it, says, “There is a share for me in this,” he commits a sa-sthula offense. If he receives that share, the offense is determined according to the amount received. If one comes to eat without having been invited, one commits an offense of wrongdoing.

If it is because one’s preceptor has gone elsewhere to receive goods, there is no offense. When taking someone’s share, one must inform that person; one should not take another’s share without informing them.

If one intends to bring goods to assist a sick person but hears that the person has died, those goods revert to their owner. If they are delivered while the person is still alive and the person dies afterward, they become the deceased person’s property.

If thieves, frightened by others, give stolen goods to a bhikshu, he should not accept them. If he accepts them with the thought of returning them to their owner, there is no offense. If he knows that the giver is the leader of the thieves, he may accept them at his discretion. After accepting cloth, he must cut it, piece it together, and dye it a dull color before he may keep it. If the owner comes to claim it, it should be returned.

If one conceives the intention to steal another person’s property but, after touching it, goes to its owner and asks for it, and the owner agrees to give it, then upon receiving it one incurs a grave offense for the actions committed before that point. If one initially borrows something for use but later decides not to return it, one incurs the fundamental offense from the moment one resolves not to return it.

If another person entrusts an article to one, one incurs a Sthulatyaya offense when the thought of stealing it arises; afterward, if one moves it from its original place, one incurs the fundamental offense of theft. If one first moves it from its original place and afterward forms the intention to keep it, one likewise incurs the fundamental offense.

If one deceives another and abducts that person’s child, or deludes someone and takes that person’s property, the offense is determined according to its value. If one takes anything belonging to gambling, one incurs an offense of wrongdoing. If one intends to steal one object but mistakenly takes another, because the object taken was not the one intended, one incurs only a grave offense.

If an article is lost and one has already regarded it as lost, it thereby belongs to another person; if one forcibly takes it back, the offense is determined according to its value. Therefore, one should not hastily regard an article as lost.

If one sees thieves approaching, one should shout and cause them to leave. If thieves are caught, they should not be handed over to the authorities. First, one must teach them the Dharma and ask them to return the things they have taken. If they refuse, one should pay them half the value or the full value.

The person who closes the monastery gates must carefully attend to five things: the upper lock, the lower lock, the two secondary locks, and the door bolt. If the gate is not closed and thieves slip in and take property, compensation must be made according to the value of what was lost. If one was negligent regarding one part, one must compensate for that part; if one was negligent regarding everything, one must compensate for everything.

If a donor, out of goodwill, wishes to make an offering to this residence for the construction of Sangha dwellings, but a bhikshu uses those funds for food, he must repay their full value.

If one wishes to obtain medicine and treatment for a sick person, one should ask the sick person what medicine is needed and where it may be obtained, and then seek treatment according to the patient’s instructions.

The Mục-đắc-ca says:

When the resident sees a guest arrive, he should first ask, “Do you have a friend here? Do you need robes or a bowl?” If the guest says that he does not need them, yet the resident still gives them to him, the resident must compensate for their full value. If the guest says that he needs them, then should they be lost, no compensation is required.

When a visiting bhikshu comes to another bhikshu’s room, he should ask its resident, “If someone arrives and needs robes or a bowl, should they be provided?” If the resident says they should not be provided, but the visiting bhikshu provides them on his own authority, he must compensate according to their value. If the resident says that they should be provided, then should they be lost, no compensation is required.

If a traveler borrows a robe to change into, one must continue to ask for it back until he has received the precepts. If one deliberately fails to ask for its return, one must compensate for its full value.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If a person has not yet consented but one hastily assumes that the person has consented and takes robes or food to give to that person, one commits a Dushkrita offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If an object is carried by the current to a bhikshu and he takes it with the intent to steal, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense when he selects it for himself. If he grasps the object and prevents it from drifting away, causes it to sink to the bottom, or removes it from that place, and it is worth five coins or more, he commits a Parajika offense.

If one lends verbal assistance to seize another person’s land, then if the land is seized, one commits a Parajika offense; if it is not seized, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If one steals a relic of the Buddha, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If one takes it with a pure and reverent mind, there is no offense. If one steals scriptures or books, the offense is determined according to their value. If one steals requisites offered within a monastery, stupa, or vihara, and there is someone responsible for safeguarding them, the offense is determined according to their value.

If one takes the property of a person in Aparagodaniya[7], the offense is determined according to its value in that place. The same applies in Purvavideha[8]. If one takes property in Uttarakuru[9], there is no offense.

If a donor invites the Sangha and, before one’s turn has arrived, one says on one’s own initiative, “I need to attend,” one commits a Pacittiya offense. Upon receiving food, the offense is determined according to its value.

If one destroys or takes a bird’s nest, in either case one commits a Dushkrita offense.

If, out of compassion, one releases an animal kept by another person, one commits a Dushkrita offense. If one seizes an object belonging to a deity’s image, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If one destroys any hunting equipment with a mind of delight, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense; if one does so out of compassion, one commits a Dushkrita offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

If one accepts an article entrusted by another and, when its owner comes to retrieve it, says, “I did not accept the article you entrusted to me,” one commits a Dushkrita offense. If this causes the owner to become doubtful, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If the owner says, “Then my property has been lost,” one commits a Parajika offense.

If a thief takes an article and a bhikshu, with the intent to steal, wrests that article away from him, the article thereby leaves the thief’s person. If the thief is strong and seizes the article back and carries it away, although the bhikshu did not obtain the article, he still commits a Parajika offense, because with the intent to steal he took the article and caused it to leave its original place.

If a donor offers fruit trees to the Sangha but their produce is used for robes or medicine, the Sangha does not receive its share of that food. If the donor gives the fruit trees to provide for the four requisites and a bhikshu, with the intent to steal, takes more than his share of the food, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small. If the donor gives funds for the construction of dwellings but the Sangha uses them for food, the Sangha commits a Sthulatyaya offense and must repay their full value.

If the donor offers funds for robes, they should be used for robes. If a famine occurs, the Sangha may, through a harmonious Sangha karman, use them for food and drink, and there is no offense. The same applies to using donations intended for making robes to construct dwellings, or using donations intended for constructing dwellings to procure food.

If there are many monastic dwellings in the monastery that have fallen into disrepair and no one is available to repair them, the sound ones should be retained, while the dilapidated ones may be dismantled and sold to purchase food so that the residence may be preserved.

THIRD: KILLING LIVING BEINGS

This is an offense evil by nature and is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

If a shravaka kills an animal, he commits a Pacittiya offense; if a bodhisattva does so, he commits a grave offense. If a shravaka kills his father, mother, or an arhat, it constitutes an offense of immediate retribution. For a bodhisattva, killing either of his two teachers—the preceptor or the acharya—also constitutes an offense of immediate retribution. An offense of immediate retribution does not permit repentance. Although repentance is permitted for a grave offense, it is essential that one behold an auspicious sign.

Question: When a bodhisattva kills an animal, the Commentary determines the offense in two ways. Why is only one applied here? Furthermore, the two teachers are equal in their kindness and virtue regarding the Dharma; why does killing them constitute an offense of immediate retribution for a bodhisattva, while for a bhikshu it is not called such an offense?

Answer: One who receives the bodhisattva precepts has certainly aroused the aspiration for bodhi and personally understands that all sentient beings alike possess Buddha-nature. With compassion and loving-kindness, one cherishes them as one’s own body and one’s own children. How, then, could one despise animals and even kill them?

Therefore, only one of the two determinations is applied. The kindness regarding the Dharma received from the two teachers is indeed no different. However, when a bhikshu violates the precept against killing, he has already committed a disqualifying offense and can in no way be permitted to receive the precepts again.

When a bodhisattva violates the precept against killing, he may be permitted to receive the precepts again only after beholding an auspicious sign. If he kills either of his two teachers, it necessarily obstructs the qualities of the precepts; therefore, it is called an offense of immediate retribution.

THE PRATIMOKSHA PRECEPT:

Any bhikkhu who intentionally, with his own hand, takes a human life, or hands another person a knife with which to end a life, or praises death, or incites someone to die, saying: “Ah, friend, what benefit is there in such a wretched life? It would be better for you to die.” Or, with such an intention and such a thought, by any means whatsoever, praises death or incites someone to die—if that person dies as a result, that bhikkhu has committed a Parajika offense and may no longer dwell in communion.

ORIGIN[10]:

The Buddha was traveling in Vaishali and staying in the assembly hall on the bank of the Monkey River. There he taught the contemplation of impurity, praised the contemplation of impurity, and praised those who practiced the contemplation of impurity. After hearing this, the bhikkhus cultivated the contemplation of impurity, became distressed and disgusted with their bodies and lives, and sought knives with which to kill themselves.

At that time, there was a bhikkhu who called himself Vaggumuda Nandi. Carrying a sharp knife, he entered the Baku Garden. One bhikkhu said to Vaggumuda: “Venerable sir, end my life, and I shall repay you with my robe and bowl.” Vaggumuda agreed and ended that bhikkhu’s life. After doing so, he went to the river to wash the knife, and remorse arose in his heart. At that moment, Mara stood by the river and praised his deed. Vaggumuda’s remorse immediately vanished, and he returned to the garden and killed bhikkhus, until he had killed sixty people. Corpses lay scattered throughout the garden, and the laypeople were horrified and voiced their reproach.

At that time, the Buddha saw that the assembly had diminished. Though he knew the reason, he deliberately asked about it. Venerable Ananda reported the entire matter fully to the Buddha. The Buddha then assembled the Sangha, taught the Anapanasati samadhi, and established this precept.

The Shanjian Vinaya says:

With his divine eye, the Tathagata clearly saw that long ago there had been five hundred hunters who went together into the wilderness and killed a herd of deer. Because of that deed, they fell into the three evil destinies and endured many sufferings and afflictions, passing through many kalpas before emerging. Owing to a small amount of merit they had previously accumulated, they were born among human beings and renounced the household life to practice the path.

Because their karmic retribution had not yet been exhausted, within half a month they would again kill one another, and even the Buddhas could not save them. Among these five hundred, some had already realized the noble fruits and thus had a limit to their course through birth and death; the remaining ordinary beings, however, would revolve in samsara without end. Therefore, the Tathagata taught them the contemplation of impurity so that they might abandon sensual desire and be born in the heavenly realms.

He certainly did not instruct them to die. He merely knew beforehand that they could not be saved through spiritual power. Therefore, after teaching the contemplation of impurity, the Tathagata entered a quiet chamber for half a month and permitted only one attendant to bring him food.

This was so that no one might say: The Buddha is omniscient, yet he was unable to stop his disciples from slaughtering one another. For after delivering this teaching, the Blessed One entered samadhi, and no one was permitted to approach him.

The Sarvastivada Vibhasha Treatise raises the following question:

The Buddha is omniscient. Why, then, did he instruct the bhikkhus in a way that caused them to suffer such harm and distress? If it is said that the Buddha did not know, then he cannot be called omniscient!

Answer: The Buddha teaches everyone impartially. At that time, it was not only the sixty bhikkhus who received the teaching on the contemplation of impurity. The Buddha’s teaching is never partial, but those who receive it differ in whether they gain much or little benefit.

The Buddha truly comprehended and knew the faculties and karma of sentient beings. He knew that, sooner or later, these conditions and this Dharma would necessarily bring them great benefit. In the presence of Buddha Kashyapa, those sixty bhikkhus had received the teaching on the contemplation of impurity, but they were unable to practice it with single-minded concentration and committed many evil deeds.

When their lives ended, they fell into hell. Now that the Buddha had appeared in the world and their offenses had been exhausted, they were born among

human beings, into lowly families, and renounced the household life to enter the path. Because of their former conditions, they received this teaching. After their lives ended, they were born in the heavenly realms. Descending from the heavens, they followed the Buddha, heard the Dharma, and attained the fruit of the path. From these causes and conditions, it should be understood that the Buddha was never partial.

EXPLANATION:

Anapana is rendered in Chinese as “sending forth and drawing in,” and refers to the sixteen supreme methods. The Sequential Gate of the Dharma Realm[11] says:

1. Knowing the in-breath.

2. Knowing the out-breath.

3. Knowing whether the breath is long or short.

4. Knowing the breath throughout the entire body.

5. Calming all bodily formations. These all belong to the contemplation of the Foundation

of Mindfulness of the Body.

6. Experiencing joy.

7. Experiencing bliss.

8. Experiencing all mental formations. These three methods belong to the contemplation of the Foundation

of Mindfulness of Feelings.

9. Gladdening the mind.

10. Concentrating the mind.

11. Liberating the mind. These three methods belong to the contemplation of the

Foundation of Mindfulness of Mind.

12. Contemplating impermanence.

13. Contemplating dispersal and release.

14. Contemplating dispassion.

15. Contemplating cessation.

16. Contemplating relinquishment. These five methods belong

to the contemplation of the Foundation of Mindfulness of Dharmas.

Furthermore, knowing the in-breath and the out-breath means relying on the breath as a Dharma gate. When one abides in the gross and subtle states and in the concentration of the desire realm, one knows whether the breath is long or short. Upon entering the Preliminary Ground concentration, one knows the breath throughout the entire body.

Upon attaining the First Dhyana, one calms bodily formations and experiences joy, bliss, and all mental formations. Upon attaining the Second Dhyana, one gladdens and concentrates the mind. Upon attaining the Third Dhyana, one liberates the mind.

Upon attaining the Fourth Dhyana, one contemplates impermanence. Upon attaining the Sphere of Infinite Space, one contemplates dispersal and release. Upon attaining the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness, one contemplates dispassion.

Upon attaining the Sphere of Nothingness, one can contemplate cessation. Upon attaining the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, one contemplates relinquishment. This appears to be the same as the fundamental Four Dhyanas and Four Formless Concentrations, but the contemplative practices differ.

If practitioners clearly cultivate contemplation on each ground, inverted views will not arise on any ground, and the mind will not become defiled or attached. Whenever the requisite causes and conditions are complete, true unconditioned freedom from outflows will arise there, and they will realize the paths of the Three Vehicles.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Here, personally killing someone, instructing someone to kill, sending another person to kill, urging someone to kill, or devising means to kill all constitute a Parajika offense. If the intended victim does not die, a Sthulatyaya offense is committed. If, with regard to beings of the eight classes, animals, those capable of understanding speech, or transformed beings, one devises means to kill them and succeeds, a Sthulatyaya offense is committed; if they do not die, a Duskrta offense is committed.

If the victim is actually human, one perceives the victim as truly human, and one kills that person, a Parajika offense is committed. If one is uncertain whether the victim is human, a Sthulatyaya offense is committed. (According to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, this also constitutes a Parajika offense.) If the victim is human but one perceives the victim as nonhuman; if the victim is nonhuman but one perceives the victim as human; or if, regarding a nonhuman being, one is uncertain or perceives it as nonhuman, all such cases constitute a Sthulatyaya offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a Parajika offense; members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense and are expelled. No offense is committed in cases of accidental killing, where there is no murderous intent, before the precept was established, and so forth.

The Fourth Section[12] says:

Using means to cause another person to miscarry constitutes a Parajika offense. If the mother dies but the child lives, one does not incur the offense of killing the child, but only a Sthulatyaya offense.

If a group of bhikkhus orders one person to end another’s life, all those bhikkhus commit a Parajika offense. Devising means with the intention of killing oneself constitutes a Sthulatyaya offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

When one devises means with the intention of killing oneself, one incurs a Sthulatyaya offense; if one then kills oneself, one commits a Parajika offense. Placing a knife against a vital area constitutes a Sthulatyaya offense. A vital area is the region extending four finger-widths to either side of the anal passage (the anal passage is the anus).

The Mulasarvastivada Nidana says:

One should not cut off a hemorrhoid.

The Mahishasaka Vinaya says:

From the time of entering the mother’s womb until the forty-ninth day, the being is called “human-like”; after that time, it is called “human.” Whether the being is human or human-like, taking its life constitutes a Parajika offense.

If one writes a letter causing another person to kill, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense for each character. If the letter reaches its destination and the person dies because of it, one commits a parajika. If one uses suggestive language to instruct another to kill someone, and that person dies as a result, one commits a parajika.

If something is poisonous and one perceives it as poisonous, one commits a duskrita. If something is poisonous but one perceives it as nonpoisonous, or it is nonpoisonous but one perceives it as poisonous, in either case one commits a Sthulatyaya. When the thought of killing arises, one commits a duskrita. When one undertakes the means of killing, one commits a Sthulatyaya; if the intended victim dies, one commits a parajika.

Two bhiksus were angry with each other and later traveled together along the same road. On the way they fought, and one of them died. The Buddha said: “If there was no intention to kill, there is no offense.” Because one struck a bhiksu in anger, one commits a payattika. Henceforth, bhiksus who are angry with each other and have not yet expressed remorse and apologized are not permitted to travel together along the same road. If they do so, they incur a duskrita offense.

If one intends to kill one person but mistakenly kills another, one commits a Sthulatyaya.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, for the purpose of killing a person, one digs a pit, makes a pillory, fashions a bow, spreads a net, and so forth, and that person dies as a result, one commits a parajika. If the person does not die immediately but later dies because of it, one also commits a parajika. If the person later dies from some cause unrelated to it, one commits a Sthulatyaya.

If the device was made for a nonhuman being and a nonhuman being dies, one commits a Sthulatyaya; if a human being or an animal dies, one commits a duskrita. (It should be said that if a human being or animal dies, there is no offense with respect to their death, because there was originally no malicious intention toward them; the offense incurred is only the preliminary offense with respect to the nonhuman being.) If it was made for an animal and an animal dies, one commits a payattika; if a human or nonhuman being dies, one commits a duskrita. (Here too, only in relation to the animal is the preliminary offense determined.) If it was not made specifically for any one kind of being, but any being that comes to it will be killed, then if a human dies, one commits a parajika;

if a nonhuman being dies, one commits a Sthulatyaya; if an animal dies, one commits a payattika.

If none dies, one commits one Sthulatyaya and two duskritas.

If one cuts off one’s own male organ, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If one cuts off one’s own finger, one commits a duskrita.

If one kills a magically created person, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If one has the intention to kill and strikes a person, but the person does not die, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If, after caring for a sick person for a long time, one becomes weary and acts so as to cause the sick person’s death, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If one urges another to go to a place where there is poisoned food and the person who eats it dies, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If one lances an abscess before it is ripe and thereby causes a person’s death, one commits a Sthulatyaya. If one lances an abscess after it has ripened, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vibhasa Treatise says:

If, through the influence of a bhiksu’s words, one subjugates and rules another country in order to seize its wealth and treasures, one incurs two parajika offenses: killing and stealing.

The Matrka says:

If one intends to kill an ordinary person but mistakenly kills an arhat; intends to kill an arhat but mistakenly kills an ordinary person; intends to kill one’s father but mistakenly kills one’s mother; or intends to kill one’s mother but mistakenly kills one’s father, in every case one commits a Sthulatyaya, and the act is not classified as an offense of immediate retribution.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: The noble person who has transcended the world, and the father and mother who gave birth to this body—even if they are killed by mistake, how could one escape painful retribution in the three evil destinies, and how could one escape the censure of worldly people? Although the body of precepts may remain unaffected, could one still peacefully devote oneself to progress on the path?

Answer: The two precepts concerning killing and stealing determine offenses according to the mind, not according to the outward circumstances of the act. In the present case, the intended killing has not been accomplished, and therefore only the preliminary offense is established. Since the other person was killed by mistake and there was no deliberate intention to kill that person, the full offense is not incurred. Because the four conditions are not complete, the essence of the precepts remains. As for painful retribution in the three evil destinies and the censure of worldly people, these all pertain to offenses established by prohibition, and naturally they do exist. How could one therefore claim on their basis that the precepts have been lost?

THE FOURTH PRECEPT: GREAT FALSE SPEECH

This is an offense evil by nature and is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhiksu, without truly having realized anything, personally declares: “I have attained the Dharma of a superior person; I have entered the supreme Dharma of noble wisdom. Thus do I know; thus do I see,” and at another time, whether questioned or not questioned, wishing to become purified, says: “In truth, I did not know and did not see, yet I said that I knew and saw. That was false speech”—except in a case of overweening conceit, that bhiksu commits a parajika and may not remain in communion.

ORIGIN[13]:

The Buddha was traveling in the city of Vaisali, on the bank of the Monkey River. At that time there was a famine, and obtaining almsfood was extremely difficult. On the bank of the Vaggumuda River, certain bhiksus went to laypeople and claimed that they had attained the Dharma of a superior person, and so forth.

The laypeople believed them, rejoiced, and made offerings; thus the bhiksus suffered no hardship regarding food and drink. After the rains retreat ended, the bhiksus went to pay homage to the Blessed One. He inquired after them and asked about this matter, and they reported everything fully.

The Buddha said: “You are foolish men. Even if you had truly attained realization, you still should not speak of it to others, much less when you have not truly attained it. There are two kinds of thieves in the world: first, one who is not truly a practitioner of the pure life but claims to be a practitioner of the pure life; second, one who, for the sake of his belly and mouth, falsely and deliberately declares before the great assembly that he has attained the Dharma of a superior person, though he has not attained it.

Of these two kinds of thieves, the one who acts for the sake of his belly and mouth is the foremost great thief—the most dangerous and ruinous—for he steals the food and drink of others.”

Regarding the phrase “except in a case of overweening conceit,” the Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

Two bhiksus practiced in the aranya. One of them temporarily developed the faculties, powers, factors of awakening, and the path, so that greed and anger did not arise. He said to the other bhiksu: “Venerable sir, I have attained arhatship.” Later, after entering a village, he allowed his faculties to become unrestrained and grew negligent in his cultivation. He said to his companion: “I have not attained it.” His companion said: “Venerable sir, you falsely claimed to have attained the Dharma of a superior person and have committed a parajika offense.” The bhiksu replied: “I did not knowingly speak falsely; I believed it to be true.” Because of this matter, they reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“This is overweening conceit. Why, having left home and gone forth into homelessness in the True Dharma, did you give rise to overweening conceit? You should eliminate this overweening conceit, and then you may attain the fruit of arhatship.”

At that time, the bhiksu was deeply ashamed. He immediately applied himself diligently, cultivated serenity and insight, eliminated overweening conceit, and attained the fruit of arhatship.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: A person with overweening conceit says that he has attained what he has not attained and realized what he has not realized. Like the uninstructed bhiksu who mistook the fourth dhyana, his offense is also grave. Why, then, is no offense established?

Answer: “Except in a case of overweening conceit” means that the person does not clearly understand the characteristics of the Dharma. Having mistakenly experienced some slight state of ease, he considers it the ultimate attainment. Since his words accord with what is in his heart, no offense of false speech is established, for mind and speech are in accord. Moreover, when he later awakens to the truth, regrets his fault, and practices diligently, he can still enter the path. Only if he remains stubborn and deliberately conceited, never repenting or reforming, does he incur the fault of being uninstructed. He is not like one who commits great false speech, who immediately loses the precepts and is certain to sink into samsara.

EXPLANATION:

“Human dharmas” means the human skandhas, human dhatus, and human ayatanas. “The Dharma of a superior person” means the various dharmas capable of bringing attainment to fulfillment and the factors for liberation from birth and death. “Personally declares” means concerning oneself. This extends to claiming attainment or fruition. “Noble wisdom” means knowledge of the Dharma, inferential knowledge, and so forth. “Seeing” means seeing suffering, seeing its origin, and so forth, extending to knowing in accordance with reality the karmic retribution of sentient beings.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the claim is false and untrue, and one personally tells another, sends someone else to tell them, writes a letter, or makes a sign so that the other person understands, one commits a parajika. If the other person does not understand, one commits a Sthulatyaya.

When one is calm, one conceives that one is not calm; when one is not calm, one conceives that one is calm, and speaks it with one’s own mouth[14], one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If one speaks to ghosts, animals, and so forth, and they understand, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense; if they do not understand, one commits a Duskrta offense. Regarding a human being, one conceives the person to be human... The six cases should be understood by analogy[15] (according to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, there are two grave and four light offenses). A bhiksuni who transgresses commits a parajika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense and are expelled.

There is no offense when one says to another person: “The faculties, powers, factors of awakening, mindfulness, liberation, samadhi, right attainment, and the other dharmas,” without saying that one has personally attained them; or when one speaks while alone, speaks in a dream, speaks by mistake, or speaks before the precept was established, and so forth.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

One should rather swallow a red-hot stone or drink molten copper than obtain the food offered by the faithful through false speech.

In the world there are five kinds of great thieves:

1) Those who command hundreds or thousands of people,

break into cities and villages, harm people, and seize their possessions.

2) Evil bhiksus who lead other bhiksus traveling

among the people and teach the Dharma as a form of wrong livelihood.

3) Evil bhiksus who take the Dharma spoken by the Buddha

and claim that they themselves spoke it.

4) Evil bhiksus who do not practice the holy life, yet say,

“I practice the holy life.”

5) Evil bhiksus who, for the sake of gain and support, possess no

superhuman dharma, yet claim that they have attained

such a dharma.

This fifth kind of thief is the greatest thief in all the worlds of humans, devas, Maras, Brahmas, sramanas, and brahmins.

That Vinaya further says: For the sake of gain and support, if one praises in many ways another person’s accomplishment in morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation, intending thereby to glorify oneself, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. For the sake of gain and support, if one walks, stands, lies down, sits, and speaks with a serene demeanor, presenting oneself as bearing the marks of one who has attained the path and wishing others to know this, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one falsely says, “I am an arhat,” or even, “I have attained mindfulness of anapana,” one commits a parajika offense. If one falsely says, “I observe the precepts well; sexual desire does not arise in me,” one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If one falsely says that devas came, or even that raksasa ghosts came, and that they questioned and answered one another, one commits a parajika offense. If one falsely says that a whirlwind or earth spirits[16] came to one’s dwelling place, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If someone asks a bhiksu, “Are you an arhat?” and he remains silent, he commits a Sthulatyaya offense. In that situation he should say, “I am not an arhat.”

The Sarvastivada Vibhasa says:

If one has neither received and retained nor read and recited a teaching, yet says, “I have received, retained, read, and recited it,” one commits a Sthulatyaya offense in every case.

The Matrka says:

If one says, “I shall not fall into the three evil destinies,” one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. If one says, “I have abandoned the fetters and afflictions,” one commits a parajika offense. If one speaks to a deaf person, a mute person, a person who is both deaf and mute, or someone absorbed in meditation, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If asked, “Have you attained the fruit?” and one replies, “I have attained the fruit,” while merely pointing to a piece of fruit presently held in one’s hand, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

Suppose bhiksus dwelling in the aranya establish this rule: “Whoever sits beneath this tree or practices walking meditation in this place attains the fruit of arhatship; we should make offerings of incense and flowers to him.” If an evil bhiksu, wishing to receive these offerings, goes and sits or walks there, he commits a parajika offense.

Suppose a layperson builds a monastery and says, “Whoever enters this monastery is an arhat.” If an evil bhiksu enters that monastery, he commits a parajika offense.

Suppose the Sangha establishes a rule that during the three months of the rains retreat the members must not speak to one another, must not sleep or rest, and must not accept offerings from donors. Such a rule is contrary to the Dharma; one commits no offense by refusing to follow it.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: In the sutras there is the practice called the Samadhi of One Practice, in which one only sits and does not lie down. In the Constantly Walking Samadhi, one neither sits nor lies down. Moreover, the prescribed methods of repentance require one to remain focused and refrain from miscellaneous speech, including social interaction and inquiries. Among the ancient virtuous masters, some never left the mountains throughout their entire lives. These practices appear to conflict with the Samantapasadika. How can they be reconciled?

Answer: When one relies upon the Mahayana teachings and diligently cultivates in accordance with the Dharma, this certainly cannot be called a violation of the Vinaya. If additional ascetic practices are added to the Buddha’s disciplinary rules and then considered in isolation, they are called contrary to the Dharma. When reconciled according to their meaning, however, there is truly no violation.

To explain this subtle point: the Samadhi of One Practice and the other practices are vows undertaken personally for diligent cultivation; they are not imposed by an agreement within the Sangha. Although the methods of repentance prohibit miscellaneous speech, they do not require one to adopt the practice of muteness. To dwell alone in tranquil seclusion and sever all contact with worldly people for one’s entire life is sublime and most essential; yet how could the whole assembly be required to practice it together?

SCRIPTURAL PROOF:

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:

Although all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, they must observe the precepts before they can see it. Through seeing Buddha-nature, they attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect awakening. Suppose someone says: “The Buddha taught that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by afflictions, they neither know nor see it. Therefore, they must diligently cultivate skillful means and completely eliminate the afflictions.” One should know that a person who speaks in this way does not violate any of the four grave precepts.

Suppose someone says: “I have already attained unsurpassed, complete, perfect awakening. Why is this? Because I possess Buddha-nature. Since I possess Buddha-nature, I will certainly attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect awakening. For this reason, one should know that I have now already attained the fruit of bodhi.” One should know that a person who speaks in this way commits a parajika offense. Why is this? Although that person possesses Buddha-nature, because they have not yet cultivated wholesome skillful means, they have not yet seen it. Because they have not yet seen it, they cannot claim to have attained unsurpassed, complete, perfect awakening.

C. CONCLUDING INQUIRY

Venerable Ones, I have finished reciting the four parajika dharmas. Any bhiksu who violates even one of these dharmas may no longer live in communion with the bhiksus. Just as he was before, so is he after the transgression. That bhiksu is one defeated by parajika and may not live in communion.

I now ask: Are the Venerable Ones here pure? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones here are pure, as shown by their silence. Thus do I understand this matter.

EXPLANATION:

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

Previously, as a layperson, he had no share in the way of life of a bhiksu. After violating the precept, his essential status is no different from that of the layperson he formerly was. Therefore it is said: “Just as he was before, so is he after the transgression.”

SCRIPTURAL PROOF:

The Fourth Section[17] says:

A dead person has five undesirable qualities:

1) The body is unclean.

2) It emits a foul odor.

3) It is a fearful and repulsive sight.

4) It causes others to feel fear and revulsion,

while evil ghosts delight in it.

5) It is cast into the dwelling places of evil beasts and nonhuman beings.

A person who violates the precepts is likewise:

1) Their bodily, verbal, and mental karma is impure.

2) Their ill repute spreads everywhere.

3) Good bhiksus fear them and keep their distance.

4) When virtuous bhiksus see them, an unwholesome thought arises, and they think: “Why must I behold such an evil person?”

5) They dwell together with unwholesome people.

Breaking the precepts entails five faults and dangers:

1) One harms oneself.

2) One is censured by the wise.

3) One’s ill repute spreads everywhere.

4) As death approaches, one feels remorse.

5) After death, one falls into hell.

There are also five further consequences:

1) What has not yet been obtained will not be obtained.

2) What has already been obtained cannot be safeguarded.

3) One feels ashamed within the assembly.

4) One’s evil reputation spreads throughout the land.

5) After death, one falls into an evil destiny.

There are five qualities that characterize a great thief, who commits grave offenses throughout life yet is never bound. These five qualities are:

1) Having no fixed dwelling and having companions whom one favors.

2) Possessing many knives and weapons.

3) He possesses great wealth and many valuables, so if arrested, he immediately offers bribes.

4) His friends are persons of great power, such as kings or ministers, so if arrested, he is protected.

5) He commits banditry in a distant region and then returns.

A bhikkhu who breaks the precepts likewise has five qualities by which he commits many offenses yet is not soon accused by others, because:

1) His place of residence is not fixed, and he has many factions and followers.

2) He is learned, has a strong memory, and always speaks eloquently, with both literary expression and meaning. He always conducts himself as though pure, yet he cannot contemplate with a wholesome mind so as to penetrate Right View.

3) He regularly receives offerings of the four requisites, and when accused of an offense, he offers bribes.

4) He has close associates of high rank, either senior elders or those next in seniority, and when accused of an offense, he is protected by them.

5) He dwells in wilderness places, frequents wealthy households, and seeks gain and offerings.

These are the five qualities he shares with that great bandit.

The Good-Seeing Vinaya says:

Once one has committed any evil deed, there is no one who does not know of it. When the deed is first committed, the guardian spirit of one’s body sees and knows it; next, devas and humans possessing knowledge of others’ minds know it. Devas and spirits all see and know a person of this kind. Therefore, it is stated with certainty: The knowledge is passed successively from one to another until it reaches the Brahma realm and is established even in the Formless Realm; everyone knows it completely.

The Sarvastivada-vibhasa says:

When one first violates a precept, thereby destroying the vessel of the Path, it is called a parajika. If one subsequently kills a person, one incurs a duskrta offense. In truth, it is a grave offense, but it is not called a parajika, because there is no longer any vessel of the Path left to destroy.

The Sutra on the Characteristics of the Five Precepts for Upasakas says:

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: The Tathagata has two bodies: the Birth Body and the Precept Body.

If a virtuous man, for the sake of My Birth Body, builds a stupa of the seven precious substances reaching as high as the Brahma heaven, and someone damages it, that offense can still be repented of. But if one damages My Precept Body, that offense is immeasurable.

The first section, concerning the four parajika dharmas, is complete.

. THE THIRTEEN SANGHADISESA DHARMAS

This is also divided into three parts: a general introduction, a separate enumeration of the characteristics of the precepts, and concluding questions.

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION:

Venerable Ones, these are the thirteen Sanghadisesa dharmas, taken from the Pratimoksa Sutra and recited once every half-month.

EXPLANATION:

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

Sanghadisesa is an offense belonging to the Sangha, and only the Sangha can provide deliverance from it. Only when one repents of the offense before the Sangha is the offense eradicated; therefore, it is called Sanghadisesa.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Here, the word Sangha means that one who commits this offense must rely upon the Sangha to perform the rite of repentance and must depend upon the Sangha to be released from the offense. The word adisesa means that there is still hope of being saved. If one commits any of the four grave offenses, one cannot be saved and may no longer live in communion. But if one commits any of these thirteen dharmas, one can still be restored to life; therefore, they are called Sangha-remnant offenses.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

By complying with the instructions of the assembly, the offense can be eradicated.

The Vinaya-matrka Sutra says:

It is like a person whose throat has been cut by another but not completely severed; this is called a “remnant,” for life still remains. It is also like two people who enter battle together: one is killed at once, while the second is struck by another and his life is reduced to a faint breath, yet he is not completely dead. If he encounters a skilled physician and good medicine, he can be healed.

If there is no skilled physician or good medicine, he cannot be cured. One who commits a Sanghadisesa offense is likewise. In principle, the offense can be repented of.

If a pure Sangha guides the offender to repent and remove the offense in accordance with the Dharma, the offense can be eradicated. If there is no pure assembly, the offense cannot be eradicated; therefore, it is called Sangha-remnant.

B. ENUMERATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THIRTEEN PRECEPTS

From the first precept, “Manipulating the Male Organ and Emitting Semen,” through the thirteenth precept, “Refusing to Abandon an Evil View.”

1. THE PRECEPT AGAINST INTENTIONALLY EMITTING SEMEN

This is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

The Brahma Net Sutra says:

One should rather take a sharp axe and cut apart this body than ever, throughout one’s life, use a precept-breaking mind of craving and delight in physical contact to commit an offense.

The Bodhisattva Pratimoksa Sutra says:

To give rise to a mind of the five hindrances and fail to disclose one’s understanding is called committing many offenses; that is, when a defiled mind arises, an offense is committed.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu intentionally causes himself to emit semen, except in a dream, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[18]:

Kaludayin’s desire for sexual activity blazed intensely; his complexion became haggard, and his body grew thin. At another time, following his thoughts and recollections, he manipulated his male organ and emitted semen. His faculties then became refreshed, and his complexion grew radiant. A bhikkhu who was well acquainted with him asked about this and learned what had happened. He reported it to the Buddha, who established this precept.

At that time, a certain bhikkhu slept with a distracted mind and emitted semen in a dream. He suspected that he had violated this precept. The Buddha said: “There is no offense.”

Nevertheless, sleeping with a distracted mind has five faults:

– One has evil dreams.

– The devas do not protect one.

– The mind does not enter the Dharma.

– One does not contemplate the sign of light.

– One emits semen in a dream.

Sleeping with wholesome thoughts has five virtues that are the opposite of the five faults above.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one manipulates the male organ and semen is emitted, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If semen is not emitted, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense.

If one instructs another bhikkhu to manipulate his male organ and semen is emitted, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense; if semen is not emitted, one commits a duskrta offense. If one instructs another person to manipulate his male organ, whether or not semen is emitted, one commits a duskrta offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

The fourth section[19] says:

If a woman grasps the front of a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu moves his body and emits an impure substance, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If he does not move his body but emits an impure substance, he commits a duskrta offense. The same applies if she grasps him from behind. The same applies when she grasps his feet while paying homage. If he places his male organ against or with the current of water, beneath dripping water, or against or with the wind; or if he sucks it with his mouth; or if, while recollecting such things in empty space, his body moves and he emits an impure substance—in every case he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

One should rather grasp a terrifying venomous snake with one’s hand than, with a defiled mind, grasp one’s generative organ with one’s own hand. If one looks at the generative organ with a defiled mind, one incurs an offense of wrongdoing.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If one sleeps with a distracted mind, one incurs a duskrta offense. If one thinks about engaging in sexual intercourse, one commits a duskrta offense.

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:

With regard to sexual desire, one should give rise to the perception of foulness, to the point that not even a single perception of purity can arise. If one engages in sexual intercourse in a dream, upon awakening one must give rise to a mind of remorse.

2. THE PRECEPT AGAINST TOUCHING A WOMAN’S BODY

This is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu, overwhelmed by a lustful mind, touches a woman’s body—whether grasping her hand, grasping her hair, or touching any part of her body—he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[20]:

After the Buddha established the precept forbidding the manipulation of the male organ to emit semen, Kaludayin began waiting for women to come to his room, where he touched them and kissed their lips and cheeks. Those who welcomed it delighted in what he did, while those who did not became angry, reviled him, and told the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

When one touches a woman, each single act of touching constitutes one Sanghadisesa offense. If one touches a female ghost or a female animal capable of transforming its form, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense; if it is incapable of transforming its form, one commits a duskrta offense.

If a woman, while paying homage, grasps his feet, and he experiences pleasure and moves his body, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if he does not move his body, he commits a duskrta offense.

If, with a lustful mind, he touches robes, bowls, and so forth, or even touches his own body, in every case he commits a duskrta offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a parajika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense. There is no offense when people touch one another while receiving an object, while freeing one another from bonds, while exhorting and reconciling one another, and so forth.

The fourth section[21] says:

If, conceiving her to be a woman, one comes into bodily contact with a man, or, conceiving him to be a man, one comes into bodily contact with a woman, in either case one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one mistakes this woman for another woman, or another woman for this woman, bodily contact constitutes a Sanghadisesa offense. Bodily contact with the corpse of a woman that has not yet decomposed constitutes a Sanghadisesa offense.

If one touches a corpse that is half decomposed or mostly decomposed, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If a woman touches any part of a bhikkhu’s body and he responds with lustful intent, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If a woman is being swept away by water and, with a compassionate intention to rescue her, he comes into contact with her without taking pleasure in it, there is no offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

When a bhikkhu is seated and a woman bows at his feet, if lustful desire arises, he should remain composed and upright and tell the woman, “Please move back a little before bowing.” If the woman is exceedingly devout and suddenly comes forward to bow directly at his feet, he should bite his tongue, causing pain so that he does not perceive the softness of contact with the woman.

If a woman comes to a bhikkhu asking for water, he should not personally hold a dipper, scoop up water, and pour it over her hands, but should give it to her in a vessel. If there is no vessel, he should ask a lay attendant to give it to her. If there is no lay attendant, he should place the dipper on a bed or chair and tell her to take it herself.

If a woman is being swept away by water and calls for help, a bhikkhu may regard her as earth, take her hand, and pull her out; there is no offense. Or he may give her a bamboo pole, a piece of wood, or a rope to grasp and pull her out; there is no offense. Or if he says, “I know that you are suffering, but this has been predetermined by your fate,” there is no offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Whenever one touches the body of a woman capable of sexual intercourse, if there is no garment separating them, it is a Sanghadisesa offense; if there is a garment, it is a grave offense. In the case of one incapable of sexual intercourse, if there is no garment, it is a grave offense; if there is a garment, it is an offense of wrongdoing.

If one touches a man or a pandaka capable of sexual intercourse, without a garment between them it is a grave offense; with a garment, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If the person is incapable of sexual intercourse, whether or not there is a garment, it is an offense of wrongdoing.

If one touches an animal, whether or not it is capable of sexual intercourse, it is an offense of wrongdoing.

If one sees a woman being swept away by water, hanging herself, drinking poison, and so forth, and contact occurs while it is necessary to rescue her, there is no offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, out of lust, a woman touches an unclothed bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu, with lustful intent, moves his body and experiences the smoothness of the contact, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If the bhikkhu is clothed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If contact occurs while rescuing someone from fire, water, a weapon, vicious creatures, evil spirits, or a fall from a height, in every case there is no offense. If there is no defiled intent, or contact occurs accidentally, there is no offense.

A woman being swept away by water should be rescued. At that time, even if lustful desire arises, he should grasp her in one place only and not let go; he should release her only after pulling her to the bank. If he releases her and grasps her again, he commits an offense.

If a woman is embroidered or painted on paper, or is represented by a wooden figure, deliberately touching it constitutes a Dukkata offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

If a woman strikes a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu, out of lust, gladly accepts it, he commits a Dukkata offense. If a strong woman seizes a bhikkhu, or if many women seize him together, and he takes no pleasure in it, there is no offense.

The Sutra on the Causes and Conditions of the Precepts says:

Ananda was bewitched by Matangi through the use of a spell; he committed no offense.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: According to the Mahasanghika Vinaya, if one is unable to regard her as earth and there is also no bamboo, wood, rope, or other object that can be given to her to grasp, one should leave her to the course of her karma. Yet the Ten Recitations Vinaya says that even if lustful desire arises, one is still permitted to rescue her. Which should be followed?

Answer: The Mahasanghika Vinaya emphasizes guarding against offenses, whereas the Ten Recitations Vinaya gives priority to the urgent rescue of a person. One should now examine oneself: if one’s habitual defilements are extremely strong, one should follow the prohibition of the Mahasanghika Vinaya. Only if compassion is truly predominant should one apply the expedient allowance of the Ten Recitations Vinaya.

3. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING LEWD SPEECH

This is an offense wrong by its very nature. It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

Should any bhikkhu, overwhelmed by lustful desire, speak lewd words concerning sexual intercourse to a woman, then, according to the lewd words concerning sexual intercourse that he speaks, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[22]:

This rule also originated because of Kaludayi, and therefore the Buddha established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

“Lewd” means contrary to the holy life. “Words concerning sexual intercourse” means praising the good or bad qualities of the “two passages,” and so forth; whether one solicits it oneself, instructs another to solicit it, asks, answers, speaks, instructs someone, or reviles.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

For every phrase spoken explicitly, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if it is spoken indirectly, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one sends a letter, dispatches a messenger, or makes a gesture, and causes the woman to understand, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if she does not understand, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. Speaking of the good or bad qualities of other parts of the body constitutes a Thullaccaya offense.

If such speech is addressed to an intersex woman, a nonhuman female, or a female animal capable of assuming another form, it constitutes a Thullaccaya offense. If such a being does not understand, it constitutes a Dukkata offense. If it is addressed to a female animal incapable of assuming another form or to a man, in every case it constitutes a Dukkata offense.

A bhikkhuni commits a Thullaccaya offense. Members of the three lower orders commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense when teaching a woman the contemplation of impurity, explaining the Vinaya, mentioning such matters while teaching the Dharma, speaking of things in a dream, making a verbal mistake, and so forth.

The Fourth Section[23] says:

If one mistakes a woman for a man or a man for a woman and speaks lewd words, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one mistakes this woman for another woman, or another woman for this woman, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

If one habitually enjoys speaking lewd words but has no lustful intent, one commits a Dukkata offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If a woman speaks lewd words in the presence of a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu complies with her desire, then whether the words he utters are few or many, he commits a separate Sanghadisesa offense for each utterance.

4. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING PRAISING ONESELF AND SOLICITING THE MINISTRATION OF SENSUAL PLEASURE

It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

Should any bhikkhu, overwhelmed by lustful desire, praise himself in the presence of a woman, saying, “Woman, I practice the holy life, uphold the precepts with diligence, and cultivate wholesome qualities. You should minister to me with that sexual act; such ministration is supreme,” he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[24]:

As with the preceding precept, this rule also originated because of Kaludayi, and therefore the Buddha established it.

EXPLANATION:

“Praising himself” means praising his own handsome form, fine complexion, lineage, and so forth. “The holy life” means diligent cultivation and separation from impurity. “Upholding the precepts” means observing the training rules without deficiency, breach, or defilement. “Wholesome qualities” means delighting in secluded and tranquil places, living according to the twelve dhutanga practices, being learned, teaching the Dharma, preserving the Vinaya, practicing meditation, and so forth.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

According to whether the praise is extensive or brief, each instance spoken explicitly constitutes a Sanghadisesa offense. If spoken indirectly, it constitutes a Thullaccaya offense. With regard to female animals and female spirits, whether they understand or do not understand, and whether there is perception, doubt, and so forth, the cases are the same as above. The cases concerning bhikkhunis and others are likewise the same as above.

5. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING MATCHMAKING

This is a prohibitive offense. It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

Should any bhikkhu go back and forth between one person and another as a matchmaker, conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man, whether to bring about marriage or illicit intercourse even for a single moment, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[25]:

The bhikkhu Kala was well versed in worldly customs. When he acted as a matchmaker and brought men and women together as husbands and wives, those whose affairs succeeded made offerings to him and praised him, while those who were dissatisfied resented, reproached, and criticized him. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

According to however many matchmaking arrangements one undertakes, each case constitutes one Sanghadisesa offense. If one accepts the request, goes to speak to the other party, but does not return to report, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one does not accept the request, goes to speak to the other party, and returns to report, one commits a Thullaccaya offense.

If one accepts the request but does not go to speak to the other party and does not return to report, one commits a Dukkata offense. If one does not accept the request, goes to speak to the other party, but does not return to report, one commits a Dukkata offense. The various cases involving female animals or female ghosts, whether knowing or not knowing, with perception, doubt, and so forth, are the same as above.

Carrying another person's letter without reading it, or acting as any kind of messenger for laypeople, all constitute Dukkata offenses. A bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense in the following cases:

When acting to reconcile those who have become estranged; for parents who are ill or imprisoned; for a faithful upasaka who is ill or imprisoned; for the Three Jewels; for an ill bhikkhu; and so forth.

There is no offense in reading and carrying a letter.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

When a man has many wives and treats them unequally, if a bhikkhu exhorts him to treat them equally, and the man replies, “I shall follow the venerable one's counsel,” that bhikkhu then incurs a Thullaccaya offense. If husband and wife quarrel and a bhikkhu counsels them to reconcile, he incurs a Thullaccaya offense. If a husband and wife are not living in harmony and consequently neglect matters concerning the Buddha or the Sangha, there is no offense in counseling them to reconcile for the sake of meritorious deeds. If a woman has left and returned to her parents' home, counseling her to return promptly to her husband's home incurs a Thullaccaya offense.

If someone who raises many horses but has no good stallion asks a bhikkhu to indicate a household possessing a good breeding stallion, the bhikkhu incurs a Thullaccaya offense by pointing one out.

If, of two bhikkhus, one has a son and the other a daughter, and they arrange a marriage alliance with each other, both commit a Sanghadisesa offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If the matchmaking has already been completed and a bhikkhu subsequently comes to assist, he incurs a Thullaccaya offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If a bhikkhu goes to a donor's house and says, “This girl is already grown; why has she not been given in marriage? This boy is already grown; why has he not taken a wife?” or says, “Why has this girl not gone to her husband's household? Why has this boy not gone to his wife's household?” in every case he commits an offense of wrongdoing.

The Sutra on the Causes and Conditions of the Precepts says:

Bringing male and female animals together for mating constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: In the other Vinaya traditions, matchmaking for animals is not classified under this offense, whereas the Sutra on the Causes and Conditions of the Precepts classifies bringing male and female animals together for mating as a Sanghadisesa offense. Why is this so?

Answer: In merely acting as a matchmaker, the intention leading to sexual intercourse is still remote; therefore, offenses involving nonhuman beings and animals are reduced successively in gravity. But when bringing male and female animals together for mating, one personally watches the unlawful act; therefore, although they are animals, the fundamental offense is still constituted.

(In the present age, monasteries even raise chickens and pigs, males and females mingled indiscriminately. How could all the offenses possibly be recounted!)

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

END OF VOLUME THREE

Notes:

1 Four-Part Vinaya 1, p. 572b, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

2 This issue should be studied in the Four-Part Vinaya with Collated Commentary by the venerable Vinaya Master Thich Tri Thu for a clearer understanding.

3 Four-Part Vinaya 41, Part Three, Robe Khandhaka, p. 861a19, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

4 Four-Part Vinaya 55, Part Four, Matters of Discipline, p. 976a22, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

5 Mulasarvastivada Vinaya 5, p. 650b19, Taisho 23, no. 1442: It merely says that this was a child, a grandson of Pilindavatsa.

6 Mahasanghika Vinaya 3, p. 252a18, Taisho 22, no. 1425: A bhikkhu obtained a fine rag robe and thought, “This robe is very fine; even if I obtain another one later, it may not be as fine as this!” He then said to his companion, “Venerable sir! From now on, each shall keep whatever gains he receives. If you obtain something, you shall keep it; if I obtain something, I shall keep it.” Because this bhikkhu violated their previous agreement, if that half-share of the robe amounts to the prescribed value, he commits a Parajika offense. If this bhikkhu obtains a rag robe but does not bring it back, instead hiding it, covering it with grass and bricks, and then returns to dissolve the agreement as stated above, he commits a Thullaccaya offense.

7 Hsi-chü-yeh-ni 西拘耶鳟尼: Skt. Apara-godānỵya, the Western Continent of the Transforming Ox. The custom there is to use cattle as currency in exchange.

8 Fu-yü-tai 弗于逮: Skt. Pūrva-videha, the Eastern Continent of Surpassing Bodies.

9 Yü-tan-yüeh 鬱d單?越½: Skt. Uttara-kuru, the Northern Kuru Continent.

10 Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 575c, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

11 The Initial Approach to the Sequential Stages of the Dharma Realm (compiled by Zhiyi of the Sui dynasty), upper volume, latter section, p. 673c01, Taisho 46, no. 1925.

12 Four-Part Vinaya 56, Part Four, Matters of Discipline, p. 981a17, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

13 Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 577b, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

14 Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 578c21: He declares verbally, “I have attained a superhuman Dharma”...

15 “The six clauses should be understood by analogy.” This sentence was quoted by Master Zhixu so that readers might understand the original text of the Four-Part Vinaya accordingly. Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 578c29: Regarding a human being, if one perceives the being as human, one commits a Parajika offense. If one doubts whether the being is human, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If the being is human but one perceives the being as nonhuman, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If the being is nonhuman but one perceives the being as human, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If the being is nonhuman but one doubts, one also commits a Thullaccaya offense.

16 Earth ghost 土鬼: Ten Recitations Vinaya 2, p. 12c17, Taisho 23, no. 1435: The footnote reads “ghost 鬼” = “clod 塊.” Thus it may be translated: saying, “Even the whirlwind caused clods of earth to roll toward me.” If this is untrue, the bhikkhu commits a Thullaccaya offense.

17 Four-Part Vinaya 59, Part Four, Numerical Classifications of the Vinaya, p. 1005b15, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

18 Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 579a, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

19 Four-Part Vinaya 56, Part Four, Matters of Discipline, p. 986a10, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

20 Four-Part Vinaya 2, p. 580b, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

21 Four-Part Vinaya 57, Part Four, Matters of Discipline, p. 986b, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

22 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 581b, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

23 Four-Part Vinaya 57, Part Four, Matters of Discipline, p. 987b24, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

24 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 582a, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

25 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 582c, Taisho 22, no. 1428.