重治毗尼事義集要

23. THE PRECEPT AGAINST HAVING A WEAVER WHO IS NOT A RELATIVE WEAVE A ROBE

In the Mahayana, for the sake of sentient beings, this precept is not observed in the same way.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu personally begs for thread and has a weaver who is not a relative weave it into one of the three robes, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[1]:

Battananda wished to make a sanghati robe, so he entered the city of Sravasti and went from house to house among the laypeople asking for thread. Having obtained a large quantity of thread, he had a weaver weave it into one of the three robes. He personally mounted the thread upon the loom and personally supervised the weaver. When the laypeople saw this, they criticized him. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Supervising the weaver, weaving it oneself, or personally mounting the thread upon the loom are all dukkata offenses. A bhikkhuni commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkata offense.

There is no offense if the weaver is a relative, or if one personally weaves a bowl bag or miscellaneous requisites.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

Personally going to ask for thread constitutes a vinaya-transgression requiring remorse; obtaining it after asking constitutes a vinaya-transgression; when it has been woven, a nissaggiya pacittiya offense is committed.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

Having a weaver who is not a relative weave it constitutes a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Asking someone who is not a relative for thread constitutes a dukkata offense. Weaving it oneself or having members of any of the five assemblies weave it constitutes a dukkata offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If payment is made for the weaving, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If one lacks a robe, one should ask for a robe; one should not ask for thread with which to make a robe. If thread needed for making a robe is instead used to make a belt, there is no offense.

24. THE PRECEPT AGAINST REQUESTING THAT A NEW ROBE BE WOVEN FINELY

The Mahayana likewise establishes this prohibition and calls such conduct evil seeking and excessive seeking.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a male or female lay follower has a weaver weave a robe for a bhikkhu, and that bhikkhu, without previously having been invited to ask for whatever he wishes, goes to the weaver and says, “This robe is being made for me. Please weave it for me with the utmost skill, making it long, broad, and durable. I shall give you some payment,” then if that bhikkhu gives payment, even merely the value of one meal, and obtains the robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[2]:

In the city of Sravasti, a layman brought fine silk thread to a weaver and instructed him to weave a robe for Battananda. The weaver informed Battananda of this. Battananda told the weaver to make it long, broad, and durable.

The weaver said that there was insufficient silk thread. Battananda went to the layman’s home and asked for more silk thread. The layman’s wife brought out a chest containing silk thread, and Battananda selected whatever he desired and took it to the weaver.

The weaver said that the fee was too little. Battananda promised to pay him for the weaving. When the layman returned from another region, he saw that it was not the robe he had previously instructed the weaver to weave.

Upon inquiry he learned what had happened and began to criticize Battananda. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition. Subsequently, when people invited bhikkhus to ask for whatever they wished, the bhikkhus became doubtful and did not dare to answer; nor did they dare refuse an exceedingly fine robe that they did not want.

The Buddha taught: If one has previously been invited to ask for whatever one wishes, there is no offense.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one makes such a request and obtains the robe, one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense; if one does not obtain the robe, one commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkata offense.

There is no offense if one asks on behalf of another, if another asks on one’s behalf, or if one obtains it without asking.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If one merely goes and urges the weaver but does not promise additional payment, then obtaining the robe constitutes a vinaya-transgression.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one already has thread and has a weaver weave it, there is no offense.

25. THE PRECEPT AGAINST ANGRILY TAKING BACK A ROBE AFTER GIVING IT

This precept is observed in the same way in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, having previously given a robe to another bhikkhu, afterward becomes angry and displeased and either takes it back himself or has someone else take it back, saying, “Return my robe to me. I will not give it to you,” then if the other bhikkhu returns the robe and this bhikkhu accepts it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[3]:

A disciple of Nanda was skilled in teaching and converting others. Battananda said to him, “Travel through the countryside with me, and I shall give you a robe.” Other bhikkhus asked him, “Why are you traveling with Battananda? He is foolish and does not know how to recite the precepts, conduct the recitation of the precepts, or perform the uposatha karman.” Thereafter, Nanda’s disciple did not travel with him. Battananda demanded the return of the robe he had previously given. That bhikkhu refused to return it. Battananda angrily seized it from him. The bhikkhu cried aloud, “Do not do that!” The bhikkhus staying in nearby rooms came and inquired about the matter. Having learned what had happened, they reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If, after taking the robe back, one puts it away or removes it from its original place, one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. If one neither puts it away nor removes it from its original place, one commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkata offense.

There is no offense if, without anger, the person immediately returns the robe; if another person advises that person to return it; if one forcibly takes it from someone who has borrowed it and unreasonably refuses to return it; if one fears that the robe will be lost or damaged; if the person has broken the precepts, embraced wrong views, or violated proper deportment; if the person has been suspended, expelled, or ought to be expelled; or if, because of these matters, there is danger to life or danger to the holy life. In all such cases, if one takes the robe but does not put it away, there is no offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

A robe may have been given jointly and taken back individually; given individually and taken back jointly; given jointly and taken back jointly; or given individually and taken back individually. If those acting jointly take it back and obtain it, they incur one pacittiya offense. If they take it back individually and obtain it, they incur multiple pacittiya offenses.

If, when giving the robe, one says, “If you remain with me, I shall give it to you; if you do not remain with me, I shall take it back,” or says, “If you please me, I shall give it to you; if you do not please me, I shall take it back,” or if one gave it on the condition that the recipient undertake to study the sutras and takes it back because he does not study them, there is no offense in any such case. If one has sold the robe but has not yet received payment, or has received only part of the payment, and the other person takes the robe, there is no offense in taking it back.

If a disciple cannot be admonished and taught, and one therefore takes the robe back to subdue him, then gives it to him again after he has been subdued, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one takes it back and obtains it, one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense; if one does not obtain it, one commits a dukkata offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

Taking back a robe from a member of any of the five assemblies, or from a person undergoing further training in the precepts, performing separate residence, performing manatta, or from one who is blind, visually impaired, deaf, mute, or suspended, constitutes a nissaggiya pacittiya offense in every case. Taking a robe from one who is insane, mentally ill, has committed one of the four parajika offenses, one of the five heinous karmas, or is a person possessing the five qualities^[4], constitutes a dukkata offense in every case.

If a bhikkhuni takes a robe from a bhikkhu, she commits a dukkata offense; if she takes a robe from a member of the bhikkhuni assembly, she commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense in every case. If one previously gave a robe to another with the definite intention of giving it away, but later temporarily takes it back because of affliction, one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. When the robe is returned to that person, the one returning it must confess a pacittiya offense.

If one previously gave a robe to another with the definite intention of giving it away, and later takes it back with the definite intention of repossessing it, the offense is determined according to its monetary value; if it is worth five coins, one commits a grave offense. If one previously gave a robe to another only temporarily, and later takes it back in anger with the desire to cause that person distress, one commits a dukkata offense.

If one temporarily takes it back in order to subdue that person and cause him to abandon unwholesome conduct, there is no offense.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there is no offense in taking back a robe from someone who has broken the precepts, embraced wrong views, and so forth. The Sarvastivada Treatise, however, says that taking back a robe from one undergoing further training, up to and including one who has been suspended, constitutes a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Which position should be followed?

Answer: If one previously gave that person a robe and later takes it back because he has broken the precepts and so forth, doing so with the intention of subduing him, there is no offense. If, however, he was already a person undergoing further training and so forth, and one first gave it out of attachment but later took it back out of anger and resentment, one is acting according to ordinary worldly passions; therefore, it is judged to be an offense.

26. THE PRECEPT AGAINST USING MEDICINE BEYOND SEVEN DAYS

This is a prohibitive offense that Mahayana bhikkhus likewise observe.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu who is ill uses any of the following leftover medicines—butter scum, oil, fresh butter, honey, or molasses—he is permitted to use them within seven days. If he continues to use them after seven days, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[5]:

In the autumn, the bhikkhus became ill from wind disorders; their bodies grew dry and they developed malignant sores. The Buddha permitted them to use five kinds of medicine both at the proper time and outside the proper time. At that time, Pilindavaccha was residing in the city of Rajagaha. He had many acquaintances and a large following, and received butter scum, oil, fresh butter, honey, and molasses. His disciples accumulated and stored them until they overflowed everywhere and made the dwellings foul-smelling. When the householders saw this, they criticized them; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one commits an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation, does not forfeit the medicine, and exchanges it for another medicine, one incurs one offense requiring forfeiture and expiation and one Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

There is no offense if butter scum or oil kept beyond seven days is applied to a door hinge to stop it from squeaking, or if honey or molasses is given to a garden keeper. If the seventh day has arrived, it may be given to another bhikkhu to use.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Before noon, one should wash one’s hands clean, take the medicine, approach a fellow practitioner of the holy life, and say: “Venerable sir, please take note. I, the bhikkhu..., have this condition of illness. This medicine is pure, and I now ask permission to use it for seven days in accordance with those who practice the holy life.” One should say this three times. After taking it for one day, one should inform a fellow practitioner of the holy life: “This medicine has been taken for one day. Six days remain during which I shall take it.” One should report in this way through the seventh day. After seven days, if any medicine remains, it should be relinquished to a lay attendant or a novice seeking ordination.

The Vinaya Sangraha says:

If, out of a desire for an attractive appearance, attachment to pleasant fragrances and flavors, a wish to become plump, or a deceitful mind, one uses these medicines, one commits a Dukkata offense in every case.

The Dasabhanavara Vinaya says:

There is no offense in cases of serious illness. Food consists of four kinds of nourishment that are digested to sustain the body. When eating, one should reflect: “I eat this to treat illness, not for its pleasant flavor.”

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

It should be forfeited to the Sangha, and the Sangha should relinquish it to a layperson or samanera. Alternatively, it may be used to fuel lamps or anoint the feet. Once a bhikkhu has forfeited it, he may not use that medicine, and no bhikkhu may consume it.

27. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING REQUESTING A RAIN-BATHING CLOTH AND USING IT OUTSIDE THE PROPER TIME

The same applies to practitioners of the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

When one month remains in the spring, a bhikkhu may seek a rain-bathing cloth; when half a month remains, he may use it. If a bhikkhu seeks a rain-bathing cloth earlier than one month beforehand or uses it earlier than half a month beforehand, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[6]:

The Buddha was staying in Jeta’s Grove when Visakha Migaramata invited the Buddha and the Sangha to a meal. At that time, it happened to be raining, and the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to bathe in the rain. A servant of Visakha Migaramata came to announce that it was time for the meal. From afar, the servant saw the bhikkhus bathing naked, mistook them for non-Buddhist ascetics, and returned to report this to her mistress. After the Buddha had finished the meal, Visakha Migaramata requested eight boons:

– To offer food to visiting bhikkhus.

– To offer food to bhikkhus setting out on a journey.

– To offer food to sick bhikkhus.

– To offer medicine to sick bhikkhus.

– To offer food to those attending the sick.

– To offer gruel to the Sangha.

– To offer rain-bathing cloths^[7] to bhikkhus.

– To offer bathing cloths to bhikkhunis.

The Buddha granted them all. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus sought rain-bathing cloths throughout the entire year, did not relinquish them, and used them for other purposes. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

One should begin seeking such a cloth on the sixteenth day of the third month and begin using it on the first day of the fourth month. Using it before that time constitutes an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation in every case.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

This cloth may not be accepted and used in the same manner as the three principal robes, may not be given away through a formal declaration of purification, and may not be worn while bathing in a river or pond. It may not be worn for bathing in light rain but only in heavy rain. If the rain suddenly stops and one is covered with sweat or dirt, one may wear it while bathing in any place where there is water, without offense.

At other times, one also may not bathe naked, but must wear a salaka, or short trousers, or some other old cloth. One may not wear the rain-bathing cloth for other purposes. When eating, if one wishes to anoint the body with oil, or when ill, or in a place where many people pass by, one may tie its two ends together and use it as a covering.

It must be relinquished on the full-moon day of the eighth month. One bhikkhu in the midst of the Sangha should proclaim:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen! Today the Sangha relinquishes its rain-bathing cloths.” This should be said three times.

If one waits until the sixteenth day to relinquish it, one commits a Vinayatikkama offense. After relinquishing it, one may use it as one of the three robes, formally declare its purification, wear it while bathing anywhere there is water, or wear it for any other purpose, without offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya-vibhasa says:

Bhikkhunis are permitted to keep bathing cloths but not rain-bathing cloths. Bhikkhus are permitted to keep rain-bathing cloths for two purposes:

– When bathing in the rain, they may screen off the four sides and bathe within; they may do likewise in hot weather.

– During the rainy summer months, they may regularly wrap up the three robes in it and carry them.

If there is an intercalary third month in a given year, one should not request the cloth during the first third month. A bhikkhu who does not keep a rain-bathing cloth commits no offense.

28. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING KEEPING AN URGENTLY OFFERED ROBE BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD

For the sake of sentient beings, Mahayana practitioners may keep one, but it must be formally given away through a declaration of purification in accordance with the Dharma, as explained above.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

When ten days remain before the end of the three-month rains retreat, bhikkhus may receive an urgently offered robe. A bhikkhu who knows that it is an urgently offered robe may accept it. Having accepted it, he may keep it until the robe season. If he keeps it beyond that period, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[8]:

The Buddha was staying at Veranja. After the rains retreat ended, a brahmin arranged an offering and presented robes. The Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to accept robes marking the completion of the rains retreat. The group of six bhikkhus habitually requested robes throughout the entire year; even before the rains retreat was finished, they requested and accepted robes. Moreover, after Bhaddananda had completed the rains retreat at one residence, he heard that many robes had been received at another retreat residence. He went there to claim a share, received many portions, and brought them back to Jetavana.

Thereupon, the bhikkhus of few desires reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha rebuked him.

At that time, in the kingdom of Sravasti, two high ministers named Isidatta and Puranaka received orders from King Prasenajit to lead troops in suppressing a rebellion. They thought: “We do not know whether we shall return alive.” The two wished to arrange a meal offering and present robes to the Sangha. Because the rains retreat had not yet ended, the bhikkhus did not dare accept the robes and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha permitted them to accept the robes and then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

An urgently offered robe is a robe whose availability is time-limited: if accepted, it is obtained; if not accepted, it will be lost. The robe season lasts for one month after the Pavarana day if the kathina robe has not been accepted, and for five months after the Pavarana day if the kathina robe has been accepted. If an urgently offered robe is received when ten days remain before the Pavarana day, it should be accepted.

Once accepted, it may be kept until the end of the robe season. If an urgently offered robe is received when nine days remain, it should be accepted and may be kept through the robe season with one additional day. Thus, if an urgently offered robe is received when only one day remains before the Pavarana day, it may be kept through the robe season with nine additional days.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Keeping it before the permitted period begins or beyond the permitted period after it ends constitutes an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation in either case. A bhikkhuni commits an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

There is no offense if, before the permitted period, the robe has been seized, lost, and so forth; or if, after the permitted period, one believes that the robe has been lost, and so forth.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If, during the summer retreat, a donor wishes to present a robe personally, there is no offense in accepting it. Or if one successively receives and keeps a bhikkhu’s robe, or if a donor says: “I am leaving; when I return, I shall present it personally,” then there is no offense in keeping it even beyond the prescribed period.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya-vibhasa says:

Except for the ten-day period, all robes given as urgent gifts during the rains retreat must wait until the Pavarana before being distributed. If they are distributed during the rains retreat, one commits a Dukkata offense.

29. PRECEPT CONCERNING SEPARATION FROM ONE’S ROBE FOR MORE THAN SIX NIGHTS AFTER THE MONTH FOLLOWING THE END OF THE RAINS RETREAT

Mahayana bhiksus observe the same training rule.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

The three months of the rains retreat are not yet complete.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

The three-month rains retreat has not yet reached the end of the eighth month.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

The three months have passed, but the eighth month has not yet arrived, and the year is not yet complete.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Dwelling at an aranya residence during the later rains retreat.

The term Kathina is translated as “merit,” and is also rendered as “the Pleiades constellation,” because the Pleiades appear during this month; that is, from the sixteenth day of the seventh month through the fifteenth day of the eighth month, which is called the Kathina month.

According to those four Vinayas, the word “complete” must be read together with the sentence below. This means that although those undertaking the later rains retreat follow the community that undertook the earlier rains retreat in performing the Pavarana on the full-moon day of the seventh month, they must remain separately at the aranya for a full month to complete the period of the later rains retreat, during which separation from their robes is not permitted.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu, after the three months of the rains retreat have ended and the subsequent Kathina month has also been completed, dwells in an aranya at a place that is considered dangerous and fearful, then a bhiksu dwelling at such a residence may, if he wishes, leave one of his three robes in a lay household. If the bhiksus have a reason, they may sleep apart from it for up to six nights. If they exceed that period, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[9]:

The Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. After the bhiksus had completed the rains retreat and the subsequent Kathina month was over, they were dwelling at an aranya residence where there was much danger from bandits, so they all returned to stay at Jetavana. Knowing of this matter, the Buddha permitted them to leave a robe in a lay household. Thereupon, the group of six bhiksus left their robes in lay households, instructed friendly bhiksus concerning them, and then went traveling. Those entrusted with the robes took them out to air them. The bhiksus reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha therefore established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Aranya: a place five hundred bow-lengths distant from a village. According to the law of the land of Camara, each bow-length measures four cubits, measured by the cubit. A place considered dangerous: a place suspected of harboring thieves or bandits. Fearful means fearing bandits or thieves. Within a dwelling: a village inhabited by the local people.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

“One particular robe” means either the sanghati or the uttarasanga; whichever is heavier may be left behind. The antaravasa may not be left behind because it must be worn on the body. Two robes may not be left behind, because one may not wear only a single robe when paying homage, entering the community, or going for alms. “Having a reason” means matters concerning a stupa, matters concerning one’s two teachers—the preceptor and the acarya—and various other matters.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

On the seventh night, if, before sunrise, he has not relinquished the robe, has not touched it with his bare hand, and cannot throw a stone as far as the place where it is kept, then at sunrise he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if he believes it has been seized by robbers, and so forth, if the roads are obstructed, or if there are other calamities.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

By a Sangha karman, permission may be granted for one month without forfeiting the robe.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If, after one night, two nights, or up to five nights, the matter has been completed but he does not return, he commits a Dukkata offense.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If he originally intended to go only temporarily, thinking that he would return immediately, but upon arriving was compelled by circumstances to remain and could not return in time to the place where the robe was kept, there is no offense of separation from the robe.

The Samantapasadika says:

If the Sangha at the aranya is numerous and the dwellings are secure, there is no need to leave a robe in the village. If it is left there, then after leaving the robe, one should go to inspect it once every six nights; after seeing the robe, one should return to the aranya.

30. PRECEPT CONCERNING DIVERTING SANGHA PROPERTY TO ONESELF

The same prohibition applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu, knowing that an article belongs to the Sangha, diverts it to himself, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[10]:

In the country of Sravasti there was a layman who always delighted in offering fine food and robes to the Buddha and the Sangha. Upananda said to that layman: “When an offering is made to the Sangha, many people receive it. Therefore, offer only food to the Sangha, and offer the robe to me.” The layman complied.

The following day, the Sangha went to his home in response to his invitation. Seeing their fully dignified deportment, the layman exclaimed that he regretted not being able to offer them robes. The bhiksus questioned him, learned what had happened, and reported it to the Buddha, who established this precept. At that time, the bhiksus did not know whether an article belonged to the Sangha or did not belong to the Sangha, or whether it had or had not been promised to the Sangha. When they later learned that it belonged to the Sangha or had been promised to the Sangha, some performed the confession for a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense, while others felt ashamed. The Buddha said: “If one did not know, there is no offense.”

EXPLANATION:

Sangha property: an article procured for the Sangha, already offered to the Sangha, or promised to the Sangha. “Article” refers to a robe, bowl, sitting cloth, needle case, or even a water vessel.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one knows that an article belongs to the Sangha and contrives to divert it to oneself, one commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. If one diverts Sangha property to a stupa, or stupa property to the Sangha; property of the Sangha of the four directions to the presently assembled Sangha, or property of the presently assembled Sangha to the Sangha of the four directions; property of the Bhiksu Sangha to the community of bhiksunis, or property of the community of bhiksunis to the Bhiksu Sangha—each such reciprocal diversion constitutes a Dukkata offense. A bhiksuni commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if something was promised but one believed it had not been promised; if a small amount was promised and one encouraged the donor to give more; if it was promised to a few people and one encouraged the donor to give to many; or if an inferior article was promised and one encouraged the donor to give a superior article.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If an article has been promised and one believes it has been promised, or is doubtful about it, one commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.^[11]

If it has not been promised but one believes it has been promised, or is doubtful about it, one commits a Dukkata offense. If it has been promised but one believes it has not been promised, or has not been promised but one believes it has been promised, there is no offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If someone wishes to give alms and asks a bhiksu where the offering should be made, the bhiksu should reply: “Offer it wherever your heart feels reverence.” If the person further asks, “Where should I make an offering to gain abundant karmic fruit?” one should answer: “An offering to the Sangha brings abundant karmic fruit.” If the person further asks, “At which residence is the Sangha pure in precepts and endowed with merit?” one should answer: “The Sangha is free from transgressions and pure.” If someone brings an article as an offering, the bhiksu should say: “An offering to the Sangha brings great karmic fruit.” If the person says, “I have already made an offering to the Sangha, and now I wish to make an offering to the Venerable,” one may accept it without offense.

If one knows that the article is intended for the Sangha and causes the donor to divert it to oneself, one commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. The Sangha should not return that article but should accept and use it. If one causes the donor to divert it to another person, one commits a Pacittiya offense.

If one knows that the article is intended for this Sangha and causes the donor to divert it to another Sangha, and so forth, in each case one commits a Vinayatikrama offense. If one knows that the article is intended for one living being and tells the donor to divert it to another living being, one commits a Vinayatikrama offense requiring mental repentance.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If the donor independently changes his mind and wishes to offer to oneself an article originally intended for the Sangha, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vibhaga says:

If an article intended for another person is caused to be given to oneself, it should be returned to that person. If an article intended for one stupa is diverted to another stupa, or property of one permanent Sangha^[12] is diverted to another permanent Sangha, it should not be returned; one should merely confess a Dukkata offense. If, at the summer-retreat seniority Pavarana, property belonging to one Sangha is diverted to another Sangha, it should be returned, and then one should confess a Dukkata offense. If it is not returned, the offense is determined according to its monetary value. The same applies to robes offered in person^[13].

C. CONCLUDING INQUIRY

Venerable Ones, I have recited the thirty Nissaggiya Pacittiya rules.

I now ask the Venerable Ones assembled here: Are you pure in this regard? (Three times.)

The Venerable Ones assembled here are pure, since they remain silent. Thus do I understand this matter.

Here ends the fourth division, concerning the thirty rules entailing forfeiture and expiation.

V. FIFTH DIVISION: THE NINETY PACITTIYA RULES

This is divided into three parts: the general introduction, the individual enumeration, and the conclusion.

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The Mahasanghika Vinaya contains ninety-two rules, and the Mahisasaka Vinaya contains ninety-one.

Venerable Ones, these are the ninety Pacittiya rules, extracted from the Pratimoksa Sutra and recited once every half-month.

EXPLANATION:

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya^[14] says:

Pācittika means falling into a place of burning. That is, when one commits this offense, one falls into hell, the animal realm, or the realm of hungry ghosts, and undergoes burning suffering in the evil destinies. Furthermore, if one does not earnestly and sincerely confess this offense in order to remove it, it can obstruct wholesome dharmas.

B. INDIVIDUAL ENUMERATION

There are ninety precepts, beginning with the precept against false speech and ending with the ninetieth precept, concerning making a robe equal in size to the Buddha’s robe.

1. THE PRECEPT AGAINST FALSE SPEECH

This is an offense by nature. It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana. An exception is permitted when it is done to save sentient beings.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu deliberately speaks falsely, it is a Pācittika offense.

EXPLANATION^[15]:

The Sakyan disciple Xiangli engaged in debate with a non-Buddhist brahmin. When he was unable to prevail, he stated the opposite of what he had previously maintained. When questioned within the Sangha, he likewise contradicted his former words. The brahmin criticized this; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Regarding seeing, hearing, touching^[16], knowing, and the other categories—eight kinds of false speech—if one speaks clearly, one commits a Pācittika offense; if one speaks unclearly, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duṣkṛta offense. During the recitation of the precepts, after the question has been asked three times, if one remembers that one has committed an offense but does not disclose it, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya says:

Any statement made contrary to what is in one’s heart constitutes an offense entailing downfall. If the statement is not contrary to what is in one’s heart, there is no offense.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Vinaya Compendium says:

Disciples of the Buddha must speak truthfully and should not swear oaths to establish their innocence, for swearing an oath indicates that others do not trust them. Even when falsely accused, they should not swear oaths.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

One must not perform spells oneself or perform spells for others. One must not use any object to swear an oath oneself or to curse others. One must not entrust oneself to spirits or deities, nor tell others to entrust themselves to spirits or deities. Performing spells and seeking favors from spirits or deities belong to the same category. (Such as the present-day practices of submitting accusatory petitions or making sacrifices to spirits, and so forth.)

2. THE PRECEPT AGAINST INSULTING OTHERS

This is an offense by nature. It is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana. If one merely disparages another, the offense is light; if one praises oneself as well, the offense is grave. If one further gives rise to afflictions, one also loses the bodhisattva precepts.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu utters insults concerning another’s birth or class, it is a Pācittika offense.

ORIGIN^[17]:

The group of six bhikkhus adjudicated a dispute and used all kinds of insults against other bhikkhus. Out of shame, those bhikkhus became confused, forgot what came before and after, and were unable to speak. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Characteristics of the offense: Insulting others concerning their birth or class means saying that they come from a low lineage, practice a lowly occupation, possess inferior skills, or engage in an inferior craft. Or one disparages them as offenders, persons with many fetters, blind persons, bald-headed persons, and so forth. Or one says directly to another, “You were born into a caṇḍāla household”—that is, a household of low caste—and invokes every kind of calamity upon that person in rapid succession.

Or one may use a simile to insult another, saying, “You are like someone born into a caṇḍāla household,” and so forth. Or one may insult another by comparing oneself with that person, saying, “I am not of caṇḍāla lineage,” and so forth. In all such cases, one commits a Pācittika offense.

If one’s meaning is not clearly expressed, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense. If one uses tactful expressions to insult another directly, insults by means of a simile, or insults by comparing oneself with the other person, then whether the meaning is clear or unclear, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense. Tactful expressions include such terms as a person dwelling in an araṇya (a secluded forest), a wearer of patched robes, an alms-goer, or a meditator.

To say directly, “You are an araṇya-dweller,” and so forth, is direct insult. To insult by a simile is to say, “You are like an araṇya-dweller,” and so forth. To insult by comparing oneself is to say, “I am not an araṇya-dweller,” and so forth.

A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittika offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Duṣkṛta offense.

There is no offense when, for the sake of mutual benefit, one speaks for the sake of the Dharma, for the sake of the Buddha, or for the sake of giving instruction; when one speaks because of familiarity and closeness; or when one speaks in jest, makes a slip of the tongue, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or speaks by mistake.

The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says:

If one insults members of the four lower assemblies, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense. If a bhikkhuni insults a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, she commits a Pācittika offense; if she insults members of the three lower assemblies, she commits a Duṣkṛta offense.

3. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DIVISIVE SPEECH

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

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu utters divisive speech, it is a Pācittika offense.

ORIGIN^[18]:

The group of six bhikkhus carried confidential statements back and forth between opposing parties, causing disputes to arise in an assembly where none had existed, and preventing existing disputes from coming to an end. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether the statement is clear or unclear, the offense is the same as under the preceding precept. The rule for bhikkhunis is likewise the same as under the preceding precept.

There is no offense in the following circumstances: when one speaks in order to separate someone from a bad spiritual friend or an evil faction; when one speaks concerning an act of karman that is contrary to the Dharma or contrary to the Vinaya; or when one speaks at length about matters that are meaningless or unbeneficial, and so forth.

SUPPLEMENT:

If one reports another person’s affairs to the government authorities, one commits a Duṣkṛta offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If a layperson in a monastery intends to commit evil misconduct and to violate or harass bhikkhus, they should speak earnestly to that person so that the person may be brought under restraint. If they cannot restrain that person, they should not report the matter directly to the king. They should first inform the evil person’s friends, and only afterward speak to the king’s consort, the king’s sons, the ministers, and so forth. If that person abandons the evil conduct, they should let the matter rest and not pursue it further.

4. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SLEEPING UNDER THE SAME ROOF AS A WOMAN

This is likewise observed in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu sleeps under the same roof as a woman, it is a Pācittika offense.

ORIGIN^[19]:

Venerable Anuruddha was traveling from Śrāvastī to Kosala. Along the way, he came to a village where there was no lodging place for bhikkhus. He heard that travelers could request to stay overnight at the house of a courtesan.

The Venerable went there and asked to lodge beneath the eaves by the doorway. At that time, several elders also arrived and requested lodging for the night. Because the place was crowded and there were many people, the courtesan invited the Venerable to rest inside the house.

The Venerable sat cross-legged, establishing mindfulness before him. During the first watch of the night, the courtesan approached and asked to become his wife. The Venerable neither replied nor looked at her.

During the last watch of the night, the courtesan removed her clothing, approached, and grasped the Venerable’s hand. He immediately rose into the air and remained seated there. Ashamed, the courtesan put on her garments, joined her palms, and repented three times.

The Venerable returned to his former seat and taught the wondrous Dharma. The courtesan attained the pure Dharma eye, took refuge in the Three Jewels, received the Five Precepts, and became an upāsikā. The following day, the Venerable accepted the midday meal offered by the courtesan, taught the Dharma, and departed.

Upon returning to the Sangharama, the Venerable recounted the incident to the assembly. Those of few desires criticized the matter and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

There are four kinds of structures:

a) One enclosed by walls on four sides and roofed above.

b) One open in front, without a wall.

c) One with walls that do not completely enclose it.

d) One completely covered but with an opening for entry and exit.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether the bhikkhu or the woman arrives first or later, or whether they arrive together, if the bhikkhu lies down with his back or side touching the ground or mat, he commits a Pācittika offense. With each turn of the body, he commits another Pācittika offense. If he sleeps under the same roof as a female ghost, a female animal, a paṇḍaka (an impotent male), or a hermaphrodite, he commits a Duṣkṛta offense. If during the daytime a woman is standing while the bhikkhu is lying down, he commits a Duṣkṛta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duṣkṛta offense.

There is no offense if one does not know that a woman is present; if there is insufficient space in the structure; if there is a partition; if one is walking or sitting; if one is lying down because of illness; or if one is bound.

The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says:

There is no offense if, although under the same roof, there is a separate partition; if there is a great assembly for teaching the Dharma; if the woman is one’s mother, elder sister, younger sister, or other relative; if there is illness; if a knowledgeable man is present as a companion; or if one does not lie down.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

If he sleeps in the same place with a female deva or female naga whose form can be seen, or with a female animal, he commits an offense of wrongdoing in each case. If the animal is too small for sexual intercourse to be possible, there is no offense. If parents, a husband, a guardian, and so forth are present to provide protection, there is no offense in sleeping together.

5. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SLEEPING THREE NIGHTS WITH ONE WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED FULL ORDINATION

Mahayana bhiksus train in this likewise.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu sleeps at night under the same roof with one who has not received full ordination for more than two nights, then on the third night he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[20]:

The group of six slept together with householders in the lecture hall. One bhiksu, sleeping heedlessly, turned over and exposed his body. Another bhiksu covered him with a robe, but afterward he turned over again and exposed himself, and this happened a third time.

The householders criticized and ridiculed them; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition. Later, when the Buddha was in the country of Kausambi, because Rahula had not yet received full ordination, the bhiksus drove him outside. Rahula had to sleep in the latrine.

When the Blessed One learned of this, he went to the latrine and led Rahula back to his room to sleep for one night. The next morning, the Buddha assembled the bhiksus and said: “You lack compassion, and so you drove a child outside in this manner. From now on, bhiksus are permitted to sleep with one who has not received full ordination for two nights.

On the third night, before the sun rises, you should awaken and tell that person to go elsewhere. If there is to be a fourth night, either you yourselves should leave or tell that person to leave.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The cases of offense and non-offense are the same as in the preceding precept. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If one sleeps under the same roof with a person who has not received full ordination, a curtain should be used as a partition. It should reach as high as the neck or armpits and hang nearly to the ground, so that not even a cat can crawl beneath it.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If a bhiksu is ill and instructs a sramanera to attend and care for him, there is no offense even if he lies down. However, if an bhiksu who is not ill is present there, he should not lie down.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If, after the rains retreat has begun, a bad bhiksu comes to the monastery, the monastery master should allow him to sleep in the same room with a pravrajya aspirant (sramanera) until the end of the retreat, without any doubt. After the rains retreat is over, if he can be expelled, he should simply be driven out. If he cannot be expelled, one should find a way to send the aspirant to another monastery. Although the journey may require sleeping more than two nights, they may sleep throughout the night without any doubt.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Mulasarvastivada Muktaka says:

One should not sit together with laypeople, pravrajya aspirants, probationary trainees, those dwelling separately under probation, and so forth. If circumstances of danger compel it, there is no offense.

6. THE PRECEPT AGAINST RECITING TOGETHER WITH ONE WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED FULL ORDINATION

Mahayana bhiksus train in this likewise.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu recites together with one who has not received full ordination, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

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

If a bhiksu speaks even one sentence of the disciplinary teaching to a person who has not received full ordination, he commits a Pacittiya offense. (Upon examination, the Shan-jian Vinaya accords with this meaning. This is because the names of the five divisions of offenses are teachings belonging solely to the fully ordained Sangha; if sramaneras and others know them all, this becomes an impediment to ordination.)

ORIGIN^[21]:

The group of six recited the Buddha’s sutras together with householders in the lecture hall, in loud voices like the intonation of brahmins reciting scripture, disturbing those engaged in meditation. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

One who has not received full ordination: everyone other than bhiksus and bhiksunis.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

Even though bhiksunis have received full ordination, they still may not be taught in this manner. If one wishes to transmit a sutra to disciples, one should tell them: “Wait until I have finished reciting; then you may recite.” If they will not accept this instruction, they must not be taught.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

Reciting together means reciting simultaneously. This includes when the teacher has not finished speaking and the student begins speaking, or when one person has not finished reciting and the other begins reciting.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the teacher does not instruct, “After I have spoken, you may speak,” he commits a Duskrta offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense when the teacher speaks first and the disciple repeats afterward, or when two colleagues recite together, and so forth.

The Shan-jian Vinaya says:

After the Buddha entered nirvana, the Venerable Mahakasyapa, together with five hundred arhats, compiled the Tripitaka. If one recites it together with a person who has not received full ordination, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If a Dharma master is composing a text and they read and recite it together, there is no offense.

7. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DISCLOSING ANOTHER’S GRAVE OFFENSE TO AN OUTSIDER

This is likewise prohibited in the Mahayana. The Commentary on the Meaning says: There are two ways of speaking about another person’s faults:

– With the intention to harm, wishing to cause that person to lose reputation, gain, and so forth.

– With the intention to punish, wishing to cause that person to be bound or confined.

In both cases, karma plays the leading role, and one certainly violates a grave precept. If one speaks with the intention of exhorting and reforming the person, or if one has been appointed by the Sangha to speak, there is no offense in either case. Furthermore, if a person has committed one of the seven rebellious acts or ten grave offenses, that person has lost the precepts. If one speaks about the offense after the precepts have been lost, one commits only a minor offense.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu, knowing that another bhiksu has committed a grave and evil offense, discloses it to a person who has not received full ordination, except by authorization through a Sangha karman, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[22]:

The Buddha was on Mount Grdhrakuta. At that time, certain bhiksus undergoing the practices of parivasa and manatta sat below the assembled Sangha. The group of six told laypeople that these bhiksus had committed such-and-such offenses and, because they were undergoing punishment, had to sit below the assembly. Hearing this, the offending bhiksus felt ashamed, and the other bhiksus were also ashamed. They reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this precept. Later, Sariputra was appointed by the Sangha to go to the royal palace and among the people to proclaim the offenses of Devadatta. He then became cautious and fearful. The Buddha said: “When appointed by the Sangha, there is no offense.”

EXPLANATION:

Grave and evil: a Parajika or Sanghavasesa offense. Sangha: those who participate in the same karman and the same recitation of the precepts.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one states the matter clearly, one commits a Pacittiya offense; if one states it unclearly, one commits a Duskrta offense. Apart from grave and evil offenses, if one discloses other offenses to a person who has not received full ordination, one commits a Duskrta offense. If one has oneself committed a grave offense and discloses it to a person who has not received full ordination, one commits a Duskrta offense. Apart from bhiksus and bhiksunis, if one discloses another person’s grave offense to one who has not received full ordination, one commits a Duskrta offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense if the layperson has already heard of this grave offense beforehand, and so forth.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

Although a bhiksuni has received full ordination, the matter still may not be disclosed to her.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one believes that a lay household does not know, or is uncertain whether they know, and discloses the offense to them, one commits an offense entailing downfall. If the lay household already knows, but one believes they do not know or is uncertain, and one discloses it to them, one commits an offense of wrongdoing.

There is no offense if the lay household does not know, but one believes that they already knew, and so forth.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If one is told to disclose it to person B but discloses it to person A, or is told to disclose this offense but discloses another offense, one commits a Pacittiya offense in each case.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If the Sangha performs a karman authorizing a certain bhiksu to disclose the offense, but another bhiksu discloses it, the latter commits a Duskrta offense. If one is told to speak to a particular person or in a particular place, but instead speaks to another person or in another place, one commits a Duskrta offense. If, when performing the karman, the Sangha stipulates that one may speak at one’s discretion, then one may speak at any time and in any place without offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

It would be better to smash a stupa than to disclose a bhiksu’s fault to someone who has not received full ordination. To disclose the offense is to destroy the Dharma-body. If one states the name of an offense belonging to either of the two divisions, one commits a Pacittiya offense; if one describes the circumstances of the offense, one commits a Duskrta offense.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: The Five-Part Vinaya says that if one is instructed to go and speak to A, but instead speaks to B, and so forth, in every case one commits a Pacittiya offense. The Ten-Recitation Vinaya, however, says that if one goes to another person or another place and speaks, one commits only a Dushkrita offense. Which should be followed?

Answer: Although one has been appointed by the Sangha, the intended person to be approached, namely A, was not correctly identified. If this was merely a mistake, the lighter offense should be adjudicated according to the Ten-Recitation Vinaya. However, if out of malicious intent and a desire to suppress someone, one goes and speaks to B, the graver offense should properly be adjudicated according to the Five-Part Vinaya.

8. PRECEPT AGAINST TELLING OUTSIDERS OF DHARMAS ONE HAS ATTAINED

Bodhisattva practitioners observe this precept in common.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhiksu speaks of his own realization of a superior human dharma to a person who has not received full ordination, saying, “I know this; I see this,” even if it is true, it is a Pacittiya offense.

(According to the Sutra on the Origins of the Precepts, this precept was established because such things were told to a sramanera.)

ORIGIN^[23]:

The occasion arose because of the bhiksus in the garden of Bagu, and therefore the Buddha established this precept. This was explained in detail in the first section.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If stated explicitly, it is a Pacittiya offense. If stated indirectly, it is a Dushkrita offense. If spoken to ghosts or animals, it is a Dushkrita offense. If spoken to a person who has received full ordination but does not concur, it is a Dushkrita offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dushkrita offense.

No offense: As stated in the first section.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one speaks without being asked to a person who has received full ordination, each statement constitutes one Dushkrita offense.

No offense: If it is before nirvana.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

Even if one truly is an arhat, or has attained as far as mindfulness of anapana^[24], if one tells a person, one commits a Dushkrita offense. If one tells a celestial being and so forth, it is a Pacittiya offense. If one tells an earth-dwelling ghost, it is a Dushkrita offense.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If one displays supernormal powers before laypeople, one incurs an offense of wrongdoing.

No offense: If, in order to reveal the Noble Teaching, one manifests a wondrous occurrence, or if, for the sake of teaching sentient beings and taming their minds, one speaks of it, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If, for fame and gain, one tells others, “I observe the precepts purely; I recite the Tripitaka; I understand whatever I recite and can answer whatever I am asked,” each such statement constitutes a Dushkrita offense.

The Matrka says:

If one speaks to an insane person, a mentally disturbed person, or a gravely ill person, it is a Dushkrita offense.

9. PRECEPT AGAINST EXCEEDING THE LIMIT WHEN TEACHING THE DHARMA TO A WOMAN

This is a prohibitive offense. Bodhisattva practitioners observe this precept in common. If grounds for suspicion can be avoided, one may teach at length or briefly as appropriate, without offense.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhiksu teaches the Dharma to a woman in more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of an intelligent man, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[25]:

Kaludayin went to the home of a householder to seek alms. In the presence of the mother-in-law, he leaned close to the daughter-in-law’s ear and taught her the Dharma. Seeing this, the mother-in-law became suspicious, and therefore the Buddha prohibited it. Subsequently, the bhiksus did not dare teach the Dharma to women, so the Buddha formulated the text of this precept anew.

EXPLANATION:

Five sentences: Form is non-self, and so forth, through consciousness is non-self.

Six sentences: The eye is impermanent, and so forth, through consciousness is impermanent. “In the presence of an intelligent man” means a person capable of understanding what is good or bad, right or wrong.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

“Five or six sentences” refers to five or six connected utterances; whenever there is an expression of speech, it is counted as one of the five or six sentences.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dushkrita offense.

No offense: If an intelligent man is present, one may speak more than five or six sentences. If no intelligent man is present, one may confer the Five Precepts, teach the Dharma concerning the Five Precepts, confer the Eight Fasting Precepts, teach the Dharma concerning the Eight Fasting Precepts, or teach the Noble Eightfold Path, the ten wholesome dharmas, or the ten unwholesome dharmas. Also, if a woman asks about the meaning and one must answer, but she does not understand, one may explain at length.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

After teaching a woman the Dharma in five or six sentences, one may say, “This Dharma teaching ends here; rise and leave.” If another occasion then arises, she may sit down again and one may teach her anew, without offense. If, after speaking five or six sentences, another woman arrives, one may teach the latter woman. Continuing in this manner, even if very many women arrive, one may teach each of them without offense. If one is reciting a sutra and a woman comes to listen and asks about its meaning, explaining it in more than five or six sentences is also without offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

A “woman” is one capable of engaging in sexual intercourse. If she is not yet capable of engaging in sexual intercourse, it is a Dushkrita offense.

10. PRECEPT AGAINST DIGGING THE EARTH

This is a prohibitive offense. Mahayana bhiksus observe this precept in common.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhiksu digs the earth with his own hands or instructs another to dig it, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[26]:

The Group of Six were repairing a lecture hall for the Buddha and dug the surrounding earth with their own hands. A householder criticized them for killing living beings, and therefore the Buddha prohibited it. The Group of Six then instructed others to dig, and the householder again criticized them; therefore, the Buddha formulated the precept a second time.

EXPLANATION:

There are two kinds of earth: earth that has been dug and earth that has not been dug. After earth that has been dug has undergone four months of rain and sunshine, it becomes as though it had not been dug.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

There are two kinds of earth: living earth and nonliving earth. In countries with much rain, the earth is living for eight months, from after the Waking of Insects period until before the Beginning of Winter period. In countries with little rain, the earth is living for four months, the four months of summer. Outside those periods, it is called nonliving earth.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one damages the earth with a harrow, spade, pestle, knife, or even one’s fingernail, or kindles a fire upon the earth, each act constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If one does not say, “Know this; examine this,” it is a Dushkrita offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

No offense: If one says, “Know this; examine this.” (This is a permissible indirect expression. It means that the lay attendant himself should know and examine where digging is appropriate and where the earth should be placed. A bhiksu should not directly say, “Dig here and put it there.”) There is also no offense in clearing away forest trees, bamboo, or reeds; setting upright a fallen fence; turning over bricks or stones; collecting cow dung; taking earth from a collapsed bank or earth dug out by mice making burrows; clearing earth from a walking-meditation path; clearing earth inside a building; clearing earth from a place where people come and go; gathering earth swept up while cleaning a building; using piled earth as a support; or digging unintentionally.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If one stamps with one’s foot upon a hollow in the earth along a riverbank, each stamp constitutes one Pacittiya offense. If it is a hollow beside a road or a place where the earth has collapsed, there is no offense.

If a bhiksu who manages affairs has many articles belonging to a stupa or to the Sangha and wishes to store them in the earth, in an open place, or in living earth^[27], he must not dig with his own hands but should inform a lay attendant. If the place is concealed ground or dead earth, he may dig it with his own hands. The same applies when opening or covering the mouth of a storage pit. If dead earth has been rained upon, he should not dig it with his own hands. He should have a lay attendant dig away all the earth permeated by water; afterward, he may dig with his own hands, without offense.

Digging earth is a Pacittiya offense. If it is half sand, it is a Vinayatikrama offense. If it is entirely sand, there is no offense. The same applies to dung and ashes.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

Each act of digging nonliving earth constitutes one Dushkrita offense. Each act of digging living earth constitutes one Pacittiya offense. If one personally builds an embankment or even sows vegetable or mustard seeds, each such act constitutes a Dushkrita offense. If a bhiksu is an architect and wishes to begin constructing a new Buddha image or Sangha dwelling, and piles up earth to make a mold, there is no offense; but if another bhiksu does so, he commits an offense. If the place contains native, unrefined gold or silver and so forth, is a mining region, or consists of white earth, red earth, pale yellow earth, natural stone, black stone, sand, or a salt field, there is no offense in digging.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Digging living earth entails a Pacittiya offense; if it is not living earth, it entails an offense of wrongdoing. Driving in a stake entails a Pacittiya offense; pulling out a stake entails an offense of wrongdoing. If a bhikkhu serving as a steward wishes to lay a foundation and, when the proper occasion arises, no kappiya attendant is present, he may drive in stakes to mark the boundary, provided they penetrate no more than four fingerbreadths; there is no offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If members of the latter three assemblies dig the earth without cause, they commit a Dukkata offense. If they take dry earth, there is no offense.

11. PRECEPT AGAINST DESTROYING THE ABODE OF SPIRITS^[28]

This is an offense established by prohibition. Mahayana bhikkhus train in the same precept.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

Any bhikkhu who destroys living shoots of plants commits a

Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[29]:

There was a bhikkhu dwelling in a wilderness who, while repairing his lodging, cut down a tree himself; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Spirits (vegetation): these are nonhuman beings. The abode of spirits refers to all plants and trees.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one personally cuts, parches, or cooks vegetation, or instructs another to cut, parch, or cook it, in every case one commits a Pacittiya offense. Driving a nail into a tree, placing fire upon grass or trees, or cutting them apart all entail a Pacittiya offense. Causing grass or a tree to be half dead and half alive entails a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if one says, “Know this; see to this!”; if one cuts dry grass or dead wood; or if one severs it by mistake.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If a bhikkhu needs something done, he should say to a kappiya attendant, “Know this!” If the attendant does not understand, he should say again, “See to this!” If he personally cuts vegetation, the abode of spirits, or tells another to cut it, he commits a Pacittiya offense. If it is living grass and he perceives it as living grass or is doubtful, he commits a Pacittiya offense. If it is dry grass and he perceives it as dry, or if it is living grass but he perceives it as dry, there is no offense.

If members of the latter three assemblies kill plant life without cause, they commit a Dukkata offense. If grass or a tree has been burned by fire, broken, or cut, and one knows with certainty that it is no longer alive, there is no offense. If grass grows in the courtyard of the bhikkhus’ dwelling place, they are permitted to tell a kappiya attendant to attend to it.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

There are three precepts of great benefit to the Buddha-Dharma: one must not carry burdens, kill plants, or dig the earth. If these three precepts had not been established, kings would conscript bhikkhus for compulsory labor involving these activities. Members of the latter three assemblies may serve as kappiya attendants and therefore do not commit an offense.

One must not climb a tree to pick fruit or shake a tree so that its fruit falls.

The Matrka says:

Covering living grass with ashes, earth, or sand entails a Dukkata offense. Swallowing whole a living fruit that has not been made allowable entails a Dukkata offense. Pulling up mushrooms entails a Dukkata offense. Poking down ripe fruit entails a Dukkata offense. Poking down unripe fruit entails a Pacittiya offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

If a fallen tree pins down a bhikkhu without killing him, even if he has a knife, axe, or other implement in his hand, he should rather die than cut the tree or dig the earth to escape death. Why is this? Digging the earth or cutting a tree entails an offense leading to downfall. A wise person would rather die while preserving the precepts than live by violating them. If someone sets a fire that spreads toward the monastery, one is permitted, for the protection of the dwelling place, to split bamboo and dig the earth to extinguish the flames; there is no offense.

Plants are of two kinds: those growing in water and those growing on land. If a lotus flower lives floating on the surface of the water, turning it upside down while it remains in the water entails a Dukkata offense; lifting it out of the water entails a Pacittiya offense. If flowers or fruit are needed, one may pull a branch downward and have a kappiya attendant pick them; there is no offense, but the branch must not be broken.

If the tree is tall and the kappiya attendant cannot reach it, a bhikkhu may lift the attendant up to pick the fruit; there is no offense. If a fallen tree pins down a person, a bhikkhu may cut the tree or dig the earth to save that person’s life; there is no offense. (The preceding passage says that one may not do so to save oneself; this passage says that there is no offense when doing so to save another. This accords entirely with the intent of the Mahayana sacred teachings.)

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

In one country, people feared that nonhuman beings would steal grain from their granaries, so they marked it as allowable by burning bamboo and fire there; it had thereby been made allowable. If a Mama-de^[30] has a granary that has not yet been made allowable and fears that young bhikkhus who do not know the Dharma may use it, he should have a kappiya attendant make it allowable by fire. Thereafter, until the granary is emptied, a bhikkhu may say, “Grind it”; there is no offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

When the person responsible for monastery affairs wishes to cut down a tree, seven or eight days beforehand he should arrange offerings beneath the tree, recite sutras and make invocations, teach the path of the ten wholesome actions, and praise virtuous conduct. He should further say, “If any deva has previously dwelt in this tree, you should now seek another abode. This tree is needed for work on behalf of the Three Jewels.” Only after seven or eight days may the tree be cut down.

If an unusual sign appears when the tree is being cut, one should praise the merit of generosity and explain the faults of miserliness. If the unusual sign continues to appear, the tree should not be cut down. Only if no unusual sign appears may it be cut down. (This means having a kappiya attendant “know” what is to be done; it does not mean that the bhikkhu cuts it down with his own hands.)

CANONICAL TESTIMONY:

The Mulasarvastivada Miscellaneous Matters says:

In the country of Taksasila there was a naga king named Elapatra. Transforming himself into the form of a Manavaka (youth), he carried a casket filled with gold and traveled everywhere, proclaiming these verses:

“Where is the king supreme?

Who, amid defilement, is undefiled;

Though undefiled, becomes defiled?

Who is the foolish person?

Where does the fool grieve,

And where does the wise rejoice?

Who unites what is parted?

That is called happiness.”

Whoever could explain them would immediately be awarded the casket of gold. Yet no one was able to explain them. Traveling on, he eventually reached Varanasi and proclaimed them there as well. Someone replied, “There is a person of supreme wisdom dwelling in the aranya, named Narada, who will explain their meaning.” Not long afterward, Narada arrived. The naga questioned him with the verses. Having heard them, Narada committed them to memory and said, “Twelve years from now, I shall explain them to you.” The naga said, “That is far too long; please do so within seven days.”

Narada then went and reported the matter to five bhikkhus. The bhikkhus replied, “You may ask the Buddha.” Narada immediately went to the Deer Park, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. The Buddha taught him the Dharma, and he attained the fruit of stream-entry, whereupon he requested ordination. The Buddha instructed him:

“First you should explain the meaning of the verses to the Manavaka, and only afterward may you go forth. You should answer as follows:

The sixth king is supreme.

Where defilement is, attachment arises.

Though undefiled, one gives rise to defilement.

Such is called a foolish person.

Here the fool grieves;

Here the wise rejoice.

Where separation from the beloved is attained,

This is called happiness.

If he does not understand, recite these verses to him as well:

If a person hears the wondrous teaching,

Understands it, and cultivates supreme concentration;

If, upon hearing, he does not clearly grasp its meaning,

It is because that person is heedless.

If he remains doubtful, you may pluck a leaf with your fingers in his presence. If he asks whether the Blessed One has appeared in the world, answer: ‘He has appeared in the world.’ If he asks where, answer: ‘At the Deer Park.’”

Narada then received the Buddha’s instruction, went to the naga, and answered him fully as described above. That naga transformed himself into a wheel-turning sage-king and went before the Blessed One. The Buddha said, “You are a foolish being. During the time of the Buddha Kasyapa, you received the Buddha’s precepts but did not uphold them, and thus incurred the inferior karmic result of remaining in the body of a naga for a long time. For what reason do you now once again give rise to deceit? You should immediately reveal your original form.”

The dragon said: “World-Honored One! I have the body of a dragon and many evil enemies; I fear that sentient beings may join together to harm me.” The Buddha instructed Vajrapani to protect the dragon. The Dragon King went alone to a certain place and manifested his original form once more.

His body had seven heads, and the distance from head to tail extended as far as two hundred postal stations. Upon each head grew a great eranda tree. When the wind shook them, blood and pus flowed out, soaking and defiling his body, with a dreadful stench.

Insects, maggots, and flies constantly covered his entire body, gnawing and devouring it day and night. At that time, the Dragon King, in his former body, approached the World-Honored One, bowed at his feet, stood to one side, and said: “I beseech the World-Honored One to bestow a prediction upon me. When shall I finally cast off this dragon body?” The Buddha said: “In a future age, when the human lifespan is eighty thousand years, a Buddha named Maitreya will appear in the world.

He will bestow a prediction upon you, and you will be freed from the dragon body.” The Dragon King wept sorrowfully. Tears streamed from the eyes of all his heads, forming fourteen rivers whose swift currents were fearsome. The Buddha said: “You must stop; do not cause harm to the country.” The dragon bowed at the Buddha’s feet and suddenly disappeared.

The great assembly asked the cause of this matter. The Buddha said: “In the time of the Buddha Kasyapa, this dragon renounced the household life and practiced within the Buddha’s teaching. He thoroughly understood the Tripitaka and was well versed in the various forms of meditative concentration.

He practiced walking meditation beneath an eranda tree in order to spur himself onward. When a leaf fell and struck his forehead, he patiently endured it. Later, because his mind had become exceedingly weary, he arose from meditation.

As the practitioner urged himself onward in walking meditation, another falling leaf struck his head and caused intense pain. Anger arose in him, and with his hand he broke off the branch and cast it upon the ground, saying: ‘Buddha Kasyapa, what fault do these insentient things perceive that you established a training precept concerning them, causing me to suffer like this?’ Because his venomous anger was so intense that he violated the precepts, after death he fell into the state of a dragon.”

APPENDIX:

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

One must not build stupas for spirits or teachers of non-Buddhist paths. If they have already been built, however, one is not permitted to destroy them.

The Mulasarvastivada Nidana says:

One should neither make offerings at places belonging to deities nor treat them contemptuously or violate them.

12. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SPEAKING EVASIVELY IN ORDER TO HARASS OTHERS

This is an offense by nature. The Mahayana practitioners observe the same.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhiksu deliberately speaks evasively and causes annoyance to another, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[31]:

Chanda committed an offense. When the bhiksus questioned him, Chanda spoke of various other matters, saying: “To whom are you speaking? What matter are you discussing? What are you deliberating about? Are you speaking to me or to someone else? Who committed an offense? From what did the offense arise? I do not see any offense; why do you say that I am guilty?”

The bhiksus criticized him and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed the Sangha to make a formal declaration concerning irrelevant speech and established the precept: If a bhiksu speaks evasively, he commits a Pacittiya offense. After this, Chanda ceased speaking evasively but instead annoyed and vexed the Sangha in the following ways: when summoned, he did not come; when not summoned, he came; when he should rise, he did not rise; when he should not rise,

he rose; when he should speak, he did not speak; when he should not speak,

he spoke. The Buddha then instructed the Sangha to make a formal declaration concerning vexatious conduct and established this precept anew.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the Sangha has not yet made a formal declaration concerning irrelevant speech, speaking irrelevantly constitutes a Duskrta offense. If the declaration has been made and one then speaks irrelevantly, it constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If the Sangha has not yet made a formal declaration concerning vexatious conduct, then failing to come when summoned and so forth each constitutes a Duskrta offense. If the declaration has been made, every act of vexatious conduct constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If an elder summons one and one does not come, it constitutes a Duskrta offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense when, upon hearing the preceding words, one does not understand them because they are ambiguous and therefore appears to speak irrelevantly by asking again: “To whom are you speaking?” and so forth, up to: “I do not see this offense.” Nor is there an offense when that person is acting contrary to the Dharma, or when one is eating, seated in the eating place, ill, confronted by danger, and so forth, and therefore appears to be vexatious.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

Suppose a bhiksu sees a deer or another animal, pursued by a hunter, run into the monastery. The hunter asks: “Did you see a deer run past here?” The bhiksu should not say: “I saw it.” If the weather is cold, he should invite the hunter into a warm room to warm himself by the fire. If the weather is hot, he should invite him into a cool room to drink water.

If the hunter says: “I am not tired. I only wish to ask whether a deer ran past here,” the bhiksu should first look only into the palm of his own hand and say: “I see only the palm of my hand.” If the hunter asks again, the bhiksu should look up into empty space and say: “I see empty space.” If the hunter says: “I am not asking about the palm of your hand or empty space. I am asking only whether the animal I intend to kill ran past here,” the bhiksu should then look throughout the four directions and form this thought: “According to ultimate truth, all conditioned phenomena have never contained any sentient being,” and answer: “I do not see any sentient being.” In all these cases there is no offense.

If, when questioned about other matters, one answers untruthfully, one commits an offense entailing downfall.

APPENDIX:

The various other Vinayas all contain a precept against disrespect. Its general meaning is the same as that of this precept.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

If a bhiksu behaves disrespectfully, he commits a Pacittiya offense. When an elder spoke on the Dharma and Vinaya, Chanda responded with strange words, using peculiar expressions to answer the questions posed to him. The Buddha therefore prohibited this conduct.

The Sangha should formally record his disrespect by a motion followed by three proclamations. Before his conduct has been formally recorded, if he is admonished not to do something and replies that he will not do it but actually does it, or replies that he will do it and actually does it, in either case he commits a Duskrta offense. After the Sangha has formally recorded his disrespect, if he is admonished not to do something and replies that he will not do it but actually does it, or replies that he will do it and actually does it, in either case he commits a Pacittiya offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

To slight any of the three teachers—the preceptor, the elder, or the acarya—or to slight the precepts constitutes a separate Pacittiya offense in each case. To slight another bhiksu constitutes a Duskrta offense. Even if one’s teacher tells one to sweep and one does not sweep, or tells one to sweep with the wind and one sweeps against the wind, each act constitutes a Duskrta offense. The same applies to bhiksunis. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

Disrespect toward the Sangha entails an offense of downfall. Disrespect toward another person entails an offense of wrongdoing.

There are five kinds of persons whose instructions must not be disobeyed:

1) The king.

2) The Tathagata, the Great Teacher.

3) An elder within the assembly.

4) An acarya.

5) An upadhyaya.

CLARIFICATION:

The instructions of the king refer to the established laws of the country. A bhiksu must not violate the national laws. If the king gives unreasonable commands, such as ordering monks to attend court and bow in homage, perform compulsory service, and so forth, they should not comply. The Canon contains a record entitled “Sramanas Should Not Bow to Laypeople,” together with related matters, comprising six fascicles.^[32] Bhiksus should not fail to read it. Furthermore, apart from the Tathagata, the Great Teacher, if either of one’s two teachers or an elder gives an instruction contrary to the Dharma, one should likewise not obey it.

The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

One should not, in the presence of a single preceptor or several preceptors and so forth—those of ten or more rains—or in the presence of a single acarya or several acaryas and so forth—those of five or more rains—wear one’s robe covering both shoulders or wear wooden sandals or other footwear. Upon seeing either of one’s two teachers or an elder, one should rise and welcome them, except while eating, while performing the procedure for taking leftover food without eating it, or when ill. One should then say: “Venerable sir, please forgive me. Because of these circumstances, I am unable to rise.”

ESSENTIAL COMPENDIUM OF THE MEANING OF THE REVISED VINAYA MATTERS

END OF FASCICLE SIX

Notes:

1 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 9, p. 624a, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

2 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 9, p. 624c22, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

3 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 9, p. 626a, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

4 A person adhering to the five practices: one who accepts Devadatta’s five practices for schism in the Sangha.

5 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 10, p. 626c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

6 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 10, p. 628c24, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

7 Rain-bathing cloth 雨浴辍衣Â: Pāli: vassikasāṭikā, a cloth wrapped around the body when bathing in the rain; it differs from a bathing cloth 浴衣÷ (udakasāṭikā), which is wrapped around a bhikshuni’s body when bathing in a river. (Note to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, translated by Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

8 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 10, p. 630b28, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

9 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 10, p. 632a19, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

10 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 10, p. 633a13, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

11 Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 8, p. 60c13, Taishō 23, no. 1435: “If a bhikshu diverts an object to himself and perceives that he is diverting it, he commits a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If he diverts an object to himself but perceives that he is not diverting it, he also commits a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If he diverts an object to himself and is doubtful, he also commits a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If he does not divert an object to himself but perceives that he has diverted it, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he does not divert an object to himself but is doubtful, he also commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he does not divert an object to himself and perceives that he has not diverted it, there is no offense.”

12 Saṅgha 僧祇: translated as “assembly” or “number.” Examples include the Mahāsāṃghika school, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, property of the Sangha, and so forth.

13 The pleasure of the facial aperture: See note 10, Revised and Systematized Essentials of the Meaning of Vinaya Matters, fascicle 4 (Vietnamese edition), Saṅghāvaśeṣa 12.

14 Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 25, p. 762c04, Taishō 23, no. 1443.

15 This is the occasion of origin, not an explanation; Master Zhixu mistakenly wrote the wrong character (Revised and Systematized Essentials of the Meaning of Vinaya Matters, fascicle 6, p. 392b13, Manji 40, no. 719). Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 634a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

16 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11: Tactile sensation through three consciousnesses: those of the nose, tongue, and body.

17 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 634c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

18 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 636a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

19 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 637a29, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

20 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 638a28, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

21 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 638c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

22 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 639a29, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

23 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 639c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

24 Mindfulness of ānāpāna: See the explanation of the third pārājika precept (taking life), Revised and Systematized Essentials of the Meaning of Vinaya Matters, fascicle 3 (Vietnamese edition).

25 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 640a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

26 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 11, p. 641a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

27 Living soil 生地: Soil becomes productive in the eighth month in countries with abundant rainfall; in countries with little rainfall, the soil becomes productive in the fourth month. (Note to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, translated by Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

28 Village of spirits 鬼神d村: Pāli: bhūtagāma, translated as a class of seeds possessing living sprouts. “Village of spirits,” literally “a village inhabited by spirits,” carries a religious connotation: spirits commonly dwell in trees, especially great trees. Moreover, trees provide shelter for many kinds of insects, birds, and animals. Therefore, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Vinaya Compendium translate the term as “village of sentient beings,” literally a place upon which sentient beings depend. (Combined Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 2A, compiled by Venerable Trí Thủ; note to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, translated by Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

29 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 12, p. 641c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

30 Ma-ma-di 摩摩帝: Sanskrit: Mamati, a steward, administrator, or monastery proprietor (Vihāra-svāmin).

31 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 12, p. 642a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

32 Collection of Matters Such as Śramaṇas Not Being Required to Bow to Laypersons, 6 fascicles, compiled by Yanzong during the Tang dynasty, p. 443, Taishō 52, no. 2108.