重治毗尼事義集要

38. PRECEPT AGAINST EATING FOOD KEPT OVERNIGHT

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

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If any bhiksu stores food overnight and eats it, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[1]:

Venerable Kala regularly sat in meditation and contemplation. At that time, almsfood was easily obtained in the city. Kala thought: “Why must I undergo the hardship of going for alms every day? It would be better for me to eat the food obtained first and bring back the food obtained afterward to eat tomorrow.” He then acted according to this thought. When mealtime came, the bhiksus did not see Kala and suspected that he had died or gone elsewhere.... Later, when they saw him again, they asked and learned the reason. They reported it to the Buddha, who established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

Food received today and kept until tomorrow is, for bhiksus, an impure article.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if leftover food is given to one’s parents, a monastery worker, and so forth, and one later asks for it back from them and eats it.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If a senior bhiksu has not yet received food with his hand but sleeps in the same place as it, this is called storing food within the lodging^[2]; if he eats it, he commits a Duskrta offense. If he has already received it with his hand and sleeps in the same place as it, it is called leftover food kept overnight^[3]; if he eats it, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

– If one first takes fruit oneself and afterward receives it from a lay attendant and eats it, one commits a Duskrta offense.

– There are two kinds of food that has been touched which may be eaten without offense:

a) Food accidentally touched by a pure bhiksu.

b) Food touched by a shameless bhiksu who has broken the precepts.

Seven-day medicine may be used after noon.

The Mulasarvastivada Nidana says:

If leftover cakes or fruit are given to a sramanera, they may be received and eaten the next morning. If, when giving them, one hopes to receive them back, one commits a misdeed at the time of giving and an offense entailing downfall when eating. If one has absolutely no hope of receiving them back, there is no offense.

The Muktaka says:

If a sick person is poor, he may use leftover oil or ghee without offense.

– When traveling, a bhiksu who tells a sramanera to carry provisions may help the sramanera lift them up and set them down. Furthermore, bhiksus traveling on the road should take provisions with them. If there is neither a layperson nor a sramanera, they should encourage a donor to give. If there is no donor either, they should carry the provisions themselves. Later, upon meeting a layperson, they should exchange the provisions and then eat them. If it is impossible to employ this means of exchange, they should divide the provisions into two portions and tell the layperson: “Take one portion.” After that person has taken it, they should say: “You take my portion of food, and I shall take yours; let us exchange and eat.” If even this is difficult to accomplish, they should fast on the first day. The next morning, if someone is available to offer the food, they should receive and eat it. If no one is available to offer it, they are permitted to take one handful themselves and eat it. If, by the third day, there is still no one to offer it, they may eat two handfuls. If, by the fourth day, there is still no one to offer it, they may eat their fill as they wish, without offense. Subsequently, if their provisions are completely exhausted along the journey and ripe fruit has fallen to the ground, they should take it, have it made allowable, receive it, and only then eat it. If a lay attendant is difficult to find, they should receive it and eat it. If there is no one to offer it, they may take it themselves and eat it while regarding it as they would in Uttarakuru, the Northern Continent. If ripe fruit on a tree has not yet fallen to the ground, they should climb the tree themselves and shake it down, then take and eat it. All these allowances are made on account of perilous circumstances; when there are no perilous circumstances, they are all prohibited.

The Samantapasadika says:

If many bhiksus travel together but have only one young sramanera with them, the bhiksus may carry the provisions themselves. At mealtime, each apportions his own share. After the sramanera receives his share, he says to a bhiksu: “I now offer the sramanera’s portion to the Venerable.” After making the exchange, he exchanges with the second bhiksu in the same way, continuing in turn until the entire Sangha has done so. There is no offense in eating in this manner. If the sramanera does not understand the procedure, each bhiksu may give his own portion of food to the sramanera, and they may exchange in turn as described above and then eat, without offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If the food consists of provisions offered to the Buddha, provisions offered before the monastery gate, or provisions offered at the conclusion of the rains retreat, then even though one first handled it and afterward purchased it, one may eat it. Since one did not regard it as one’s own, there is no offense.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE:

The Mulasarvastivada Miscellaneous Matters says:

The Buddha told Ananda: “It is impossible for anyone to eat food kept overnight in a house and attain arhatship. Likewise, it is impossible for an arhat whose outflows have been exhausted to eat food kept overnight in the house of a layperson.”

CLARIFICATION:

Question: A sramanera who does not eat food kept overnight may attain the fruit of arhatship. If he has already attained arhatship,

why must he still receive full ordination?

Answer: Among the eight kinds of bhiksus, although there is the bhiksu who has destroyed the fetters, after the Buddha’s nirvana the formal act of one motion and three proclamations must be regarded as essential. Therefore, even if a sramanera has already attained the stage beyond training, he must immediately receive full ordination without waiting until he reaches the age of twenty. There has never been a case in which such a person did not ascend the ordination platform to receive full ordination.

39. PRECEPT AGAINST TAKING FOOD WITHOUT ITS BEING OFFERED

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

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If any bhiksu puts into his mouth food or medicine that has not been offered and received, except water and a tooth-cleaning stick, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[4]:

In the city of Sravasti there was a bhiksu who regularly went for alms and wore rag robes. At that time, householders in the city whose parents had died set out vegetarian food and rice as offerings at crossroads and even inside shrines. That bhiksu took the food with his own hand and ate it. The householders criticized him, and therefore the Buddha established this prohibition. At that time, some bhiksus became doubtful and did not dare to take tooth-cleaning sticks or plain water for themselves. The Buddha said that doing so was not an offense.

EXPLANATION:

There are five ways of receiving:

– Offered by hand and received by hand.

– Offered by hand and received with an implement.

– Offered with an implement and received with an implement.

– Offered with an implement and received by hand.

– An object is passed from a distance; the giver and receiver are both aware of each other, there is no obstruction, and it falls into the receiver’s hand.

There are also five ways of receiving:

– Given bodily and received bodily.

– Given with a robe and received with a robe.

– Given with the elbow and received with the elbow.

– Given with a utensil and received with a utensil.

– Or, when circumstances require, placed on the ground and given.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The six cases involving perception, doubt, and so forth may be understood as usual.

A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

Except when tasting food, one must not swallow it. It is permitted to receive food from a naga, from a deva, from a spirit, from a monkey, or according to the donor’s verbal authorization. One must not receive and eat food thrown from a distance.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya allows one to receive an object thrown from a distance, and such an act constitutes valid reception. The Mahisasaka Vinaya does not allow one to receive and eat food that has been thrown. Which should be followed here?

Answer: The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya permits an object thrown from a distance to be received because it must be caught by hand, or because particular circumstances require it. In the Mahisasaka Vinaya, food is thrown out of disrespect. Both the permission and the prohibition have their distinct reasons; this is the essential point.

40. PRECEPT AGAINST REQUESTING FINE FOOD WHEN NOT ILL

In the Mahayana, even one who is ill may not eat fish or meat.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

There are fine foods such as milk, curds, fish, and meat. If any bhiksu who is not ill requests such fine food for himself, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[5]:

Upananda went to the home of a merchant and demanded fine food of various kinds. The merchant asked: “What illness do you have?” He replied: “I have no illness; I simply wish to eat fine food.” The merchant criticized him, and therefore the Buddha established this prohibition. At that time, some sick bhiksus were so cautious and fearful that they did not dare to make requests, did not dare to request food for the sick, and did not dare to eat food they had received. Therefore, the Buddha permitted these things.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhiksuni commits an offense requiring confession and forfeiture. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one asks and obtains it, one commits a pācittiya offense; if one does not obtain it, one commits a duṣkṛta offense.

The Vinaya-saṅgraha says:

If one who is not ill goes to ask for food so that one who is ill may eat it, one commits an offense of wrongdoing when asking, but no offense when it is eaten. If one who is ill goes to ask for food so that one who is not ill may eat it, there is no offense when asking, but when it is eaten, an offense entailing forfeiture is committed. If the donor says, “Whatever you need, just let me know,” or if one goes to devas, nāgas, yakṣas, or shrines to seek alms, there is no offense.

41. THE PRECEPT AGAINST PERSONALLY GIVING FOOD TO NON-BUDDHIST ASCETICS

The same training applies in the Mahayana. Alternatively, after discerning their capacities, one may be permitted to give.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu personally gives food to a male or female non-Buddhist ascetic, he commits a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[6]:

The Buddha instructed Ananda to distribute cakes to the Sangha. After the distribution, some remained, so he gave them to a beggar. There was a well-formed and beautiful naked female non-Buddhist ascetic.

When Ananda gave her cakes, two cakes were stuck together and appeared to be one, so he gave them to her. That woman and a nearby person questioned each other and learned what had happened, whereupon they gave rise to suspicion and slander. There was also a brahmin ascetic who, after eating there, went to another country.

On the road he met a faithful person, a brahmin lay devotee, and said that he had received food from the shaven-headed householder. That faithful brahmin reported this to a bhikshu. When the Buddha heard of it, he established this precept.

Later, non-Buddhist ascetics voiced resentment, so the Buddha permitted food to be placed on the ground or given through another person.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one personally gives it and the recipient accepts it, one commits a pācittiya offense; if the recipient does not accept it, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. If one is about to give it but then changes one’s mind, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. A bhikshuni commits a pācittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a duṣkṛta offense.

There is no offense when giving to one’s parents, attendants, and so forth, or when it is forcibly seized through another’s power.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one wishes to use food as a causal condition for eliminating that person’s wrong views, there is no offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

There is no offense if that person is ill or is a relative, or if food is given while that person is requesting ordination—that is, during the four-month probationary period. Before one has oneself received food, one should not give it to another. One should receive one’s own portion first and only afterward give some to another. If the person is one’s father or mother, or someone who is bound, food should be given promptly. To a pregnant woman, one may give more or less according to her needs. An animal should be given one morsel.

42. THE PRECEPT AGAINST GOING TO ANOTHER HOUSE WITHOUT INFORMING ANOTHER BHIKSHU

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu has previously accepted an invitation but, either before or after the meal, goes to another house without informing another bhikshu, except on a special occasion, he commits a pācittiya offense. The special occasions are: a time of illness, the robe-making period, and the robe-giving period. These are the special occasions.

ORIGIN^[7]:

A householder prepared a vegetarian meal and invited the Sangha, waiting for Bhadra-nanda to arrive. After finishing his morning meal, Bhadra-nanda went to another house and did not return until it was nearly past noon. Consequently, because it was past noon, the bhikshus could not eat their fill.

On another occasion, a minister brought oranges to the sangharama and likewise waited for Bhadra-nanda to arrive before distributing them. After eating, Bhadra-nanda immediately went to another house and did not return until after noon, causing the Sangha to be unable to eat those fresh oranges. The Buddha therefore established this precept.

Later, members of the Sangha did not dare accept invitations to enter the city, so the Buddha permitted them to inform one another before entering. Furthermore, in cases of illness, during the robe-making period, or during the robe-giving period, they were permitted to enter the city without informing another bhikshu.

EXPLANATION:

“Before the meal” means from sunrise until the meal. “After the meal” means from the time one has eaten until midday. “Another bhikshu” means one within the same boundary who resides together with him.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one informs another and sets out but turns back midway, and later wishes to go again, one must inform another bhikshu anew. If one does not do so, one commits as many pācittiya offenses as the number of houses one enters. When one foot enters through a gateway, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. A bhikshuni commits a pācittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a duṣkṛta offense.

There is no offense if no bhikshu is present whom one can inform, provided one goes to the storeroom of the village or to a place where there is a house in order to give notice. There is also no offense if one is dragged away by force, or in the event of danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life.

The Vinaya-saṅgraha says:

If one tells the householder, “Even if I do not come, you should still make offerings to the Sangha and allow nothing to be lacking,” or if the householder does not wait on that bhikshu’s account, there is no offense in either case.

43. THE PRECEPT AGAINST PERSISTING IN SITTING IN A HOUSEHOLD OF INTIMACY

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu deliberately lingers in a household where there is food and a precious object, he commits a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[8]:

Kalodayin went to the home of a female lay devotee and sat down. Her husband asked what he needed, and so forth. He replied, “I need food,” whereupon the husband told his wife to bring out food for him. After eating, he did not leave. The husband became angry, went away, and said, “Do as you please.” When the Buddha heard of this, he established the prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

“Food”: A man takes a woman as food, and a woman takes a man as food; hence it is called a “household of intimacy.” “Precious object” refers to mother-of-pearl, agate, pearl, amber, gold, and silver. (On examination, the offense under this precept arises precisely from a “household of intimacy” [食家], not from a place containing precious objects. The phrase “where there is a precious object” means that the precious object here indicates a place where husband and wife may engage in sexual intercourse.)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one is blind but not deaf, deaf but not blind, or stands rather than sits, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. A bhikshuni commits a pācittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a duṣkṛta offense.

There is no offense if one is within reach of the door, if two bhikshu companions are present, or if one is bound, and so forth.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

There is no offense in a household where sexual activity has been renounced, in a household observing the Eight Precepts, where a venerable elder is seated upon a seat, or in a household where many people are coming and going.

If the woman has undertaken the one-day precepts but the man has not, or if the man has undertaken the one-day precepts but the woman has not, sitting in such a household constitutes a duṣkṛta offense. If both have undertaken the precepts, there is no offense.

44. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SITTING IN A CONCEALED PLACE WITHIN A HOUSEHOLD OF INTIMACY

The same training applies in the Mahayana. The cases constituting an offense and those not constituting an offense are the same as in the preceding precept.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu sits in a concealed place within a household of intimacy where there is a precious object, he commits a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[9]:

Kalodayin again sat behind a door and conversed with the female lay devotee. The Buddha therefore established this precept.

45. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SITTING ALONE WITH A WOMAN

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu sits alone with a woman in an open place, he commits a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[10]:

This likewise arose because of Kalodayin, and so the precept was established.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The cases constituting an offense and those not constituting an offense are the same as in the preceding precept.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If they sit one zhang apart, a pācittiya offense is committed; if they sit one and a half zhang apart, a duṣkṛta offense is committed; if they sit more than two zhang apart, there is no offense.

The Vinaya-saṅgraha says: If one sits in a secluded place with a female nonhuman being, a female pandaka^[11], one who is not yet capable of sexual intercourse, or one who is deaf, confused, or feeble-minded, and so forth, one commits an offense of wrongdoing in every such case.

46. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DELIBERATELY CAUSING ANOTHER TO GO WITHOUT FOOD

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu says to another bhikshu, “Venerable sir, come with me into the village, and I will give you food,” but in the end does not give that bhikshu food and instead says, “Venerable sir, go elsewhere! It is unpleasant for you and me to sit or converse together. I am happier sitting alone and conversing alone,” and, with this purpose alone and no other, deliberately drives him away, he commits a pācittiya offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

“Speech” means recitation, and “sitting” means meditative contemplation.^[12]

ORIGIN^[13]:

Bhaddananda quarreled with the other bhikkhus and harbored resentment in his heart. Some time later, he led a bhikkhu to places where there was no food. Near midday, he then said, “You are a greatly evil person. Because of you, I too have obtained no food. You should go away,” and so forth. That bhikkhu left the city and went to Jetavana. By then midday had passed, and he could obtain nothing to eat. He was extremely hungry. When the bhikkhus heard of this, they took offense, criticized and reproached him, and reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one makes preparations to drive another away and he goes beyond the range of sight and hearing, or if one personally goes beyond the range of sight and hearing, in either case one commits a Payattika offense. If one leaves the place beyond the range of hearing and reaches a place beyond the range of sight, or leaves the place beyond the range of sight and reaches a place beyond the range of hearing, one commits a Duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense if, after giving him food, one tells him to leave; or if he is ill or lacks proper deportment and people are displeased at seeing him, and one says:

“Venerable sir, please go; I shall bring food to the Sangharama.” Or if that person has broken the precepts, holds wrong views, has violated proper deportment, has been suspended, or has been expelled and therefore must be driven away; or if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life, and one expediently tells him to go, not out of resentment or anger.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If a bhikkhu does this and causes trouble to the four assemblies, he commits a Duskrta offense. If a bhikkhuni does this and causes trouble to the two assemblies, she commits a Payattika offense; if she causes trouble to the other three assemblies, she commits a Duskrta offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, before the person has entered the city gate, one makes him turn back, or even before he has entered the door of a layperson’s house one tells him to turn back, in every case one commits a Duskrta offense. If he has entered through the gateway and one makes him turn back, one commits a Payattika offense.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

If one follows a physician’s instruction not to eat, there is no offense.

47. THE PRECEPT AGAINST ACCEPTING MEDICINE BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TERM

Practitioners of the Mahayana train in the same way. If one requests it for the sake of the assembly, there is no offense.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu has been invited to accept medicine for four months, a bhikkhu who is not ill may accept it. If he accepts it beyond the prescribed term, he commits a Payattika offense, except in cases of a perpetual invitation, a renewed invitation, an invitation to receive a share, or a lifelong invitation.

ORIGIN^[14]:

Mahanama of the Sakya clan offered medicine to the Sangha. He showed reverence to the elder monks and offered fine medicine, making offerings whether it was needed or not. When the Group of Six needed medicine, they went to his house and asked for it, but it was difficult to obtain. The donor said, “If I have it, I shall offer it; if I do not, I shall go to the market, buy it, and make the offering.” The Group of Six immediately accused him of partiality and falsehood and reproached him. Because of this, Mahanama ceased offering medicine to the Sangha. The Buddha therefore established this precept. Later, owing to other circumstances, he permitted perpetual invitations and the other exceptions.

EXPLANATION:

Four months: This refers to the four months of the rainy season. Illness: A physician has instructed that medicine must be taken. Perpetual invitation: The person says, “I shall always offer medicine.” Renewed invitation: After ceasing to make offerings, the person begins offering again. Invitation to receive a share: The person brings medicine to the Sangharama and distributes it as an offering. Lifelong invitation: The person says, “I shall make offerings throughout my life.”

There are four kinds of invitation:

1) The period is limited, but the medicine is not limited.

2) Both the period and the medicine are limited; it may be accepted during the four months of the rainy season.

3) The period is not limited, but the medicine is limited.

4) Neither the period nor the medicine is limited; it may be accepted whenever it is offered.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

A donor’s invitation may be for the four months of summer, the four months of winter, or the four months of spring; it is not fixed. Whether the term is four months, one month, or half a month, once the appointed term has expired, one may not go and demand anything. If one has been invited to the earlier meal, one may not demand the later meal. If one has been invited to the later meal, one may not demand the earlier meal. The same applies to medicines and other requisites. If the donor says, “For the rest of your life, accept from me the four requisites,” then one may request them as needed.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one accepts medicine beyond the prescribed term, one commits one Payattika offense with each mouthful. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If one demands something and obtains it, one commits a Payattika offense; if one does not obtain it, one commits a Duskrta offense. If one improperly demands haritaki fruit or other medicine, whether one obtains it or not, one commits a Duskrta offense.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

If, before the term of a four-month invitation to coarse food has expired, one additionally demands fine food, then upon obtaining it one commits an offense of wrongdoing, and upon eating it one incurs an offense entailing downfall. If one has been invited to fine food but demands coarse food, one commits an offense of wrongdoing when making the demand, but no offense when eating it.

The Samantapasadika says:

Medicine offered by a donor for medicinal use may not be used as food. Even if one demands ghee, one commits a Duskrta offense.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If someone offers medicine to the Sangha, the bhikkhu serving as steward should ask, “Is this offered to the village medicine cabinet or to the medicine cabinet of the Sangha’s lodgings?” If the donor says, “It is offered to the village medicine cabinet,” then when medicine is needed the bhikkhu should say, “I need such-and-such medicine. Please provide it for me and do not let the supply be lacking.” If the donor says that it is for the Sangha’s lodgings, the Sangha should perform a motion followed by one proclamation and appoint as keeper of the Sangha’s medicine a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities: he does not act out of desire, anger, delusion, or fear, and he knows what is medicine and what is not medicine.

That person should use new containers to hold haritaki, amalaka, vibhitaka, pippali, dried ginger, sugarcane, sugar, and rock sugar. Substances that do not flow, such as ghee, oil, and honey, should be placed in containers that are securely tied and tightly covered at the mouth, with the names of the medicines clearly labeled. If an ill bhikkhu needs any of them, the keeper should gladly give it to him.

If the sick person knows how to use the medicine, he may take and use it himself. If he does not know, he should ask a physician. If no physician is available, he should ask his two teachers, his preceptor and acarya, “I am suffering from such-and-such an illness.

What medicine should I use?” If the two teachers do not know, he should take a medicine and use it. If he has not recovered after taking it three times, he should use another kind of medicine.

48. THE PRECEPT AGAINST WATCHING AN ARMY IN BATTLE ARRAY

Practitioners of the Mahayana train in the same way.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu goes to watch an army in battle array, he commits a Payattika offense, except when there is an appropriate reason.

ORIGIN^[15]:

King Prasenajit personally led the six divisions of his army on a campaign against rebels. The Group of Six went to watch. The king was displeased and consequently sent a packet of rock sugar to be presented to the Blessed One.... The Blessed One reproached them and established this precept. Later, two high ministers serving in the army wished to meet the bhikkhus Rishidatta and Purnaka, so they sent messengers to invite them. The bhikkhus, being cautious and afraid, did not dare to go. The Buddha therefore made an exception for an appropriate occasion and reason.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one goes to a place from which the army can be seen and sees it, one commits a Payattika offense; if one does not see it, one commits a Duskrta offense. If one wishes to watch but does not go, or encounters the army along the road and does not avoid it, one commits a Duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense when one is compelled by force or when any unavoidable obstruction prevents one from avoiding it.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If marching troops come to the monastery and one watches without deliberately intending to do so, there is no offense. If one deliberately watches, one incurs a Vinayatikrama offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one sees troops on the march, one should not say whether they are good or bad.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If one goes to watch an army of yaksas, one commits a Duskrta offense.

The Nidana says:

One should not go to watch people fighting. If one sees people quarreling, one must quickly move away.

49. THE PRECEPT AGAINST REMAINING WITHIN AN ARMY FOR MORE THAN THREE NIGHTS

Practitioners of the Mahayana train in the same way. If one does so to discern beings’ capacities, there is no offense.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu has a reason that permits him to go to an army encampment, he may remain there for two or three nights. If he stays longer, he commits a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[16]:

The Group of Six had a reason to go and stay within an army encampment. Laypeople took offense, so the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

On the third night, before the first light of dawn appears, one should go to a place beyond both sight and hearing. If one has not left the place within sight and hearing when the first light of dawn appears, one commits a Payattika offense. If one has gone beyond the range of sight but not beyond the range of hearing, one commits a Duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

No offense: when encountering obstacles.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

Even when there is a valid reason, if the matter can be resolved by correspondence, correspondence should be used. One should go only if it is necessary to do so. Once the matter is concluded, one should return immediately and should not remain overnight. If the matter is not concluded, one may stay for one night. If it is not concluded after one night, one may stay for a second night. If it is still not concluded, one may stay until the third night. On the third night, whether the matter is concluded or not, if one stays beyond that, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If the matter is unexpectedly concluded, one should not remain overnight; if one does so contrary to this, one commits a Dukkata offense.

50. THE PRECEPT AGAINST WATCHING AN ARMY IN BATTLE ARRAY

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, while staying with an army for two or three nights, watches the army fighting, reviews the strength of the army, the elephant corps, or the cavalry, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[17]:

The Group of Six watched an army in battle array and were struck by an arrow. Their companions bandaged the wound with a robe and carried the injured monk back. When laypeople inquired and learned what had happened, they criticized them together. The Buddha therefore established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The cases of offense and non-offense are the same as in the preceding precept.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

Watching animals fight one another constitutes a Dukkata offense.

51. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DRINKING ALCOHOL

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu drinks alcohol, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[18]:

Venerable Sagata lodged at the home of a matted-hair brahmin and subdued a vicious fire-dragon. The ruler of Kosambi conceived reverence and admiration for him, paid homage to the Blessed One, and requested permission to make an offering to the Venerable. The Group of Six asked for dark liquor. The Venerable became intoxicated and vomited along the road, while birds gathered around, clamoring noisily. The Buddha questioned Ananda, learned what had occurred, and rebuked him: “In your present state, you could not subdue even a small snake, much less a great dragon.”

Drinking alcohol has ten faults, losses, and harmful consequences:

1) One’s complexion becomes unattractive.

2) One’s strength is weakened.

3) One’s eyes lose their clarity.

4) One displays an angry demeanor.

5) One ruins fields, gardens, and property.

6) It leads to illness.

7) One delights in causing disputes.

8) One’s ill repute spreads everywhere.

9) One’s wisdom declines.

10) At the breakup of the body and the end of life, one falls into the three evil destinies.

From this time onward, whoever takes me and my teaching as their teacher must not allow even so much as the tip of a blade of grass dipped in alcohol to touch their mouth.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense: using alcohol as medicine or applying alcohol to sores.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya states:

Drinking rice liquor, fruit liquor, sugar liquor, and so forth—any kind of intoxicating liquor—constitutes one Pacittiya offense for each mouthful. If something has only the color of liquor but neither its odor nor flavor and does not intoxicate a person, there is no offense in drinking it.

The Matrka states:

If alcohol is cooked into a timely medicine, an untimely medicine, or a seven-day medicine, and it no longer possesses the nature of alcohol, it may be consumed.

The Samantapasadika states:

If medicine or food cooked with alcohol retains the odor and flavor of alcohol, consuming it constitutes a Dukkata offense. If it does not retain the odor and flavor of alcohol, it may be consumed.

52. THE PRECEPT AGAINST PLAYING IN WATER

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu plays in water, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[19]:

The Group of Seventeen bhikkhus were playing in the water. King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika saw them from a tower. The queen sent a messenger to report the matter to the Blessed One, who then established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Playing in water means swimming from one bank to the other, going with or against the current, diving beneath the water here and surfacing elsewhere, tracing patterns on the water with one’s hands, splashing water at one another, or frolicking in the water.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Playing in water constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If one playfully traces patterns in fruit juice, buttermilk, barley, and so forth contained in a vessel, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense: wading through water while traveling, hauling bamboo, collecting sand, searching for a lost object, learning to swim, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

Splashing snow-water or playing with dew on the tips of grass constitutes a Dukkata offense.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya states:

If there is water on a table or on a seat or bed, playfully tracing patterns in it with one’s finger constitutes a Dukkata offense.

The Samantapasadika states:

If the water is deep enough to cover the shins, playing in it constitutes a Pacittiya offense. Rocking a boat or playing with water constitutes a Dukkata offense.

53. THE PRECEPT AGAINST TICKLING ANOTHER

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu tickles another person with his finger, he commits a Pacittiya offense. (That is, using a finger to make the flesh itch for amusement.)

ORIGIN^[20]:

One member of the Group of Six tickled a member of the Group of Seventeen until he died. The Buddha therefore established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Apart from using the fingers or toes, if one uses a stick, a key, a door bolt, and so forth to tickle someone, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense; the latter three assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense: making contact while asleep or any accidental contact.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

Tickling a samanera or even an animal constitutes a Dukkata offense.

The Sarvastivada Matrka states:

If a bodily faculty is impaired and one pokes it with the hand, one commits a Dukkata offense.

54. THE PRECEPT AGAINST REFUSING ADMONITION

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu refuses admonition, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[21]:

Channa was on the verge of violating a precept. The bhikkhus admonished him, but he would not listen. The Buddha therefore established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense: when the person admonishing one lacks wisdom, is merely jesting, has spoken by mistake, and so forth.

APPENDIX:

The Vinaya Matrka Sutra states:

One should not accept admonition from five kinds of people:

1) A person without moral shame or moral dread.

2) A person who is not learned.

3) A person who constantly seeks the faults of others.

4) A person who delights in contention.

5) A person who wishes to cast off the robes and return to lay life.

55) THE PRECEPT AGAINST FRIGHTENING ANOTHER

The same training applies in the Mahayana. If one discerns another’s capacities and acts to subdue them, there is no offense.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu frightens another bhikkhu, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[22]:

At the walking-meditation ground, the Buddha was walking in meditation while the bhikkhu Nagapala attended upon him. During the first watch of the night, he invited the Buddha to return to his room. The Blessed One remained silent. The same occurred during the middle and final watches of the night. Nagapala turned his robe inside out and imitated the voice of a nonhuman being to frighten the Blessed One. The following morning, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha, rebuked him, and established the precept.

EXPLANATION:

Frightening means frightening another by means of sights, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, or mental phenomena.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the intended person sees, hears, or knows of it, whether or not that person becomes afraid, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If the person does not see, hear, or know of it, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense: any case in which one does not intentionally cause another person to be afraid.

The Vinaya-samgraha states:

If one frightens another with repulsive sights, sounds, and so forth, one commits an offense entailing downfall. If one startles another with pleasing sights or sounds, one commits an offense of wrongdoing. If one causes any other person to become frightened, one commits an offense of wrongdoing.

If one explains the three evil destinies with the intention of guiding and transforming another, then even if that person becomes afraid, there is no offense. Regarding a bhikkhu while perceiving him to be a bhikkhu, there are six cases: the first two entail an offense of downfall, and the latter four entail a minor offense. When there is in fact nothing frightening, and regarding what is not frightening as not frightening, there are six cases: two entail a grave offense, two a minor offense, and two no offense.

56. THE PRECEPT AGAINST BATHING TOO FREQUENTLY

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

A bhikkhu should bathe once every half-month; a bhikkhu who is not ill should observe this. If he bathes more frequently, he commits a Pacittiya offense, except on special occasions. The special occasions are: during hot weather, when ill, when engaged in labor, during wind and rain, and while traveling. These are the special occasions.

ORIGIN^[23]:

In the country of Magadha there was a bathing pond, and King Bimbisāra permitted the bhikkhus to bathe in it. The Group of Six Bhikkhus went there to bathe after nightfall. The king arrived with the women of his court; hearing the bhikkhus bathing, he waited silently. The Group of Six applied various kinds of medicinal powders to one another and continued until sunrise, so that in the end the king could not bathe. The ministers therefore all found fault with them, criticized them, and became angry; hence the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Illness: the body has an offensive odor. Labor: tasks such as sweeping the grounds and sweeping rooms. Wind and rain: a violent rainstorm soils the body. Traveling: journeying half a yojana.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

A time of heat means a time when perspiration flows.

The Sarvāstivāda Treatise says:

Whether the bathing period is earlier or later depends upon the region; ordinarily, bathing is permitted during the latter half of the month.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Except under special circumstances, if one pours water over and wets the entire body or half the body, one commits a Pācittiya offense. If one makes preparations but does not carry it out, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhunī commits a Pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense when circumstances compel one to bathe.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

If one arrived yesterday and bathes today, or intends to depart tomorrow and bathes today, one commits a Pācittiya offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one bathes one’s teacher or a sick person and one’s own body becomes wet, there is no offense if one then takes the opportunity to bathe.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

If none of the circumstances above applies, one should follow the bathing method of potters: first wash the two hands and two feet, and then wash the head, face, waist, back, shoulders, upper arms, elbows, hips, and armpits.

CLARIFICATION:

During repentance ceremonies and the establishment of a ritual platform, bathing three times daily in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching is not an offense. In a Chan monastery, when the entire assembly has an appointed period for hot-water bathing, that too is not an offense.

SUPPLEMENT:

One should not bathe together with laypeople. If they praise the Three Jewels, however, they may be permitted to bathe.

57. THE PRECEPT AGAINST KINDLING A FIRE IN THE OPEN

The same training applies in the Mahāyāna.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu, not being ill and wishing to warm himself, kindles a fire in the open or causes another to kindle one, he commits a Pācittiya offense, except when there is a valid reason.

ORIGIN^[24]:

In the presence of the senior elders, the Group of Six could not act as they pleased, so they went outside the dwelling and together kindled a fire in the open to warm themselves. At that time a venomous snake was inside a hollow tree. The smoke entered the hollow and the heat drove the snake out through the opening. The bhikkhus were all terrified and threw the burning firewood in every direction, causing the lecture hall to catch fire. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Illness: needing a fire for warmth. A valid reason: a sick bhikkhu needs to cook rice, porridge, or soup; or one is in a warming room^[25], kitchen, or bathhouse; or one is fumigating bowls, dyeing robes, lighting lamps, or burning incense.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one is not ill and kindles a fire in the open for warmth, or burns grass, wood, branches, leaves, and so forth, one commits a Pācittiya offense. If one burns half-consumed fuel or charcoal, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhunī commits a Pācittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one kindles a fire whose flames rise four finger-widths high, one commits a Pācittiya offense.

The Sarvāstivāda Treatise says:

If one encounters bitter cold while traveling and kindles a fire for warmth, there is no offense.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

When carrying a torch and wishing to extinguish its embers, one should not extinguish them on unburned ground, but should do so on a raised place or upon bricks. If fire from the torch falls to the ground and one immediately extinguishes it, there is no offense.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Fourth Part (the Four-Part Vinaya) says:

Staying close to a fire has five faults:

1) It causes one to lose a healthy complexion.

2) It diminishes one’s strength.

3) It impairs the eyesight.

4) It causes many people to gather.

5) It leads to much talk about worldly affairs.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

Kindling a fire has seven disadvantages:

1) It damages the eyes.

2) It damages the complexion.

3) It weakens the body.

4) It soils and damages robes.

5) It damages bed coverings.

6) It creates conditions for violating the precepts.

7) It increases discussion of worldly affairs.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Miscellaneous Matters says:

One who deliberately sets forests and mountains ablaze commits a Thullaccaya offense.

58. THE PRECEPT AGAINST HIDING ANOTHER’S PROPERTY IN JEST

The same training applies in the Mahāyāna.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu hides another bhikkhu’s robe, bowl, sitting cloth, or needle case, whether he hides it himself or causes another to hide it, even merely in jest, he commits a Pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[26]:

The Group of Seventeen set their robes, bowls, sitting cloths, and needle cases to one side and went walking in meditation while awaiting the time for the meal. The Group of Six waited until their backs were turned and then took and hid those articles. When mealtime arrived, the Group of Seventeen had to search for them and were mocked. The other bhikkhus investigated and learned what had happened, found fault with the Group of Six, and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhunī commits a Pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if, knowing clearly that another has forgotten an article, one takes and stores it safely; if one takes and stores it in order to admonish someone who is careless; if one has lent another person a robe to wear and, because that person does not put it away properly, one takes and stores it for fear it might be lost; or if there is danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one hides the property of any of the four assemblies, or even the property of an animal, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense. If a bhikkhunī hides the property of either of the two monastic assemblies, she commits a Pācittiya offense; in other cases, she commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

If one hides another kind of robe or some other article, one commits a Vinayātikrama offense.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

If the other person finds the article, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense; if it is not found, one commits a Pācittiya offense. If one hides a needle case, whether it is found or not, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

59. THE PRECEPT AGAINST HASTILY USING A ROBE THAT HAS BEEN FORMALLY ASSIGNED

The same training applies in the Mahāyāna.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu has given a robe to a bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, and later takes it back and uses it without informing its owner, he commits a Pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[27]:

This precept was established on account of the Group of Six.

EXPLANATION:

Giving a robe means formally assigning a robe to another to make it allowable. Such formal assignment is of two kinds:

1) Genuine assignment: One says, “This is my extra robe, which has not yet been made allowable. Now, wishing to make it allowable, I offer it to the Elder as a genuine assignment.”

2) Successive assignment: One says, “This is my extra robe, which has not yet been made allowable. Now, wishing to make it allowable, I offer it to the Elder so that it may become allowable.” The other says, “Elder, please listen. The Elder has an extra robe that has not yet been made allowable and now gives it to me so that it may become allowable.

I accept it.” After accepting it, he asks, “Is there anyone to whom the Elder wishes to give it?” The former replies, “Give it to Venerable...” The recipient of the robe then says, “The Elder has an extra robe that has not yet been made allowable and now gives it to me so that it may become allowable. I accept it. Having accepted it, I give it to so-and-so.

Thus this robe belongs to so-and-so. The Elder should keep it on behalf of so-and-so and use it as desired.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

In the case of a genuine assignment, one must ask the owner before using the robe. In the case of a successive assignment, one may use it as desired, whether or not one asks the owner. A bhikkhunī commits a Pācittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya says:

If one accepts a robe entrusted to one for safekeeping and later wears it without asking the owner, one commits a Pācittika offense. If it belongs to a close friend who would be delighted upon hearing that one had used it, there is no offense.

CLARIFICATION:

Upon examination, the purpose of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya differs entirely from that of the Four-Part Vinaya. The present precept was established with regard to the giver, while the other guards the recipient of entrusted property against wrongdoing. Although they differ, in principle both safeguards should be observed.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

One should not formally assign property to five kinds of people:

1) Someone one does not know.

2) Someone with whom one does not yet have a thorough mutual understanding.

3) Someone with whom one has never been close.

4) Someone who is neither a close friend nor a fellow disciple of the same teacher.

5) Someone inappropriate in time or kind (a person eighty or ninety years old is called “inappropriate in time”; one who has never gone forth is called “inappropriate in kind”).

There are also two circumstances in which one should not make a formal assignment:

1) To a person who does not praise others.

2) Together with a person who does not help others acquire a good reputation.

There are also two practices:

1) One should not accept another’s formally assigned valuable property unless one can safeguard it as one’s own.

2) One has valuable articles but is unable to make them a pure gift. The other person may use them without resentment.

There are also two circumstances:

1) One does not know whether that person is still alive.

2) One does not know for certain whether that person is still practicing.

If a bhikkhu is alone, he should perform the procedure of “making a pure gift to someone from afar.” Among the three robes, there must be a change. He should arrange his robe to bare his right shoulder, remove his sandals, kneel, hold the robe, and, while mentally attending to it, say aloud: “These robes of mine, numbering... articles, I now relinquish.” He should say this three times. Afterward, he receives the extra robes, likewise according to the preceding procedure, mentally attending and saying aloud: “These... robes of mine, numbering... articles, I now receive.” He should say this three times.

They are thereby received. The relinquished robes should then be made a pure gift, again according to the preceding procedure, mentally attending and saying aloud: “These robes of mine I make a pure gift to.... I shall take and use them from that venerable one.” If he does not exchange them, he may use them; whenever he obtains extra robes, he must immediately make them a pure gift in this manner.

Under the procedure for making a pure gift while alone, on the eleventh day he must again, according to the preceding procedure, mentally attend and say aloud: “These extra robes of mine I take back from....” Afterward, likewise according to the preceding procedure, he receives them and makes them a pure gift. Or, in the presence of the person to whom the pure gift is made, he should perform the procedure for transferring a pure gift.

As in the preceding procedure, he holds the robes and says: “These extra robes of mine I bring to the Elder to make a pure gift.” The other should ask: “These robes of the Elder have been brought to me to be made pure. To whom shall I give them?” He replies: “Give them, as you wish, to anyone among the five assemblies.” The other then says: “I now give them to.... When you need them, take and use them from that person, and carefully protect the robes.”

In this matter, that person explicitly named the bhikkhu who was to receive the gift. That bhikkhu, fearing that he would commit the offense of keeping extra robes, did not dare accept them. The Buddha taught: “The name of the bhikkhu receiving the robes should not be stated.”

60. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING ROBES WHOSE COLOR HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED

The Mahayana has the same rule.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu obtains a new robe, he should use, as he wishes, one of three colors—blue, black, or magnolia—to alter its color. If he does not alter its color with one of these three—blue, black, or magnolia—but wears the new robe in its original state, it is a Pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[28]:

The group of six bhikkhus went about wearing white robes, and the householders criticized them; therefore, this rule was established.

EXPLANATION:

A robe newly sewn or newly received from another person is in either case called a new robe.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If one obtains a blue robe, one should use black or red to make it allowable. (Nê ‘泥’ means black. Thiến ‘茜’, pronounced by fanqie as “thử + kiến = thiến,” is the name of a type of grass; it is also written thiến ‘菁’ and means magnolia.)^[29] If one obtains a red robe, one should use blue or black to make it allowable. If one obtains a yellow, red, or white robe, one should use the three colors blue, black, and red to make it allowable.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

One should use the three colors to make a mark. If one does not make such a mark, one commits one Pācittiya offense each time one wears it. If one does not wear it, one commits one Pācittiya offense for each night.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

The mark for making it allowable should be no larger than four fingerbreadths and no smaller than a bean. There may be one, three, five, seven, or nine marks. They must not be drawn in the shape of flowers. If individual patches are sewn on, each patch must be made allowable. If a new robe is sewn, one corner should be made allowable diagonally; if one strip or half a strip is patched, it too must be made allowable.

61. THE PRECEPT AGAINST KILLING ANIMALS

This is an offense by its very nature. It constitutes a grave offense in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu intentionally kills a living animal, it is a Pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[30]:

Kāḷudāyin disliked seeing birds and fashioned a bow from bamboo to shoot them; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

Animals: Apart from nāgas, all the rest are alike classed as animals. (Although nāgas are animals, they can transform themselves, possess complete spiritual powers, guard the realm, and protect the True Dharma. Their function is like that of the devas; therefore, killing one constitutes a Thullaccaya offense.)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether one kills personally, instructs another to kill, employs a method of killing, and so forth, in every case one commits a Pācittiya offense. If one employs a method with the intention to kill but does not kill, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense if it is accidental or if harm is caused unintentionally.

The Sarvāstivāda Mātṛkā says:

If, intending to cut a cord, one mistakenly cuts a snake, one commits a Dukkaṭa offense. If, intending to kill one insect, one mistakenly kills another; intending to cut an insect, one cuts the ground beneath it; or intending to pick up an insect, one picks up some earth, in every case one incurs a Dukkaṭa offense.

APPENDIX:

The Vinaya Saṅgraha says:

If birds come to dwell in a monastery, room, or under the eaves and make noise, someone should be sent to inspect the place. If their nest contains no eggs, they should be driven away. If it contains eggs, one should wait until they hatch and the birds fly away before removing the nest. If a beehive contains no young, the bees should be driven away. If it contains young, it should be wrapped with silk or hemp so that it does not grow further.

62. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE USE OF WATER CONTAINING LIVING CREATURES

The Mahayana establishes the same rule.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu knowingly drinks or uses water containing living creatures, it is a Pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[31]:

Because of the group of six bhikkhus, the Buddha established this rule.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The six permutations concerning perception, doubt, and so forth may readily be understood. A bhikkhuni commits a Pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if one does not know that living creatures are present; or if they are large creatures that move elsewhere when the water is stirred; or if the water has been filtered.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya says:

If one knows that living creatures are present in such things as noodles, honey, sugar, oil, vinegar, water, milk, curds, cakes, or fruit, and consumes or uses them, one incurs an offense entailing a fall.

The Vinaya Saṅgraha says:

Water should not be inspected with five kinds of eyes: 1) diseased eyes, 2) eyes afflicted with sores, 3) deranged eyes, 4) aged eyes, and 5) the divine eye.

When examining water to determine whether it contains living creatures, one should look for as long as it takes six ox-carts to turn around.

If a river is flowing and, upon one examination, no living creatures are seen, the water within a distance of one krośa^[32] may be drunk or used freely, provided no other river flows into it within that distance.

If the water is still or the current flows backward, one examination suffices for the water within one’s range of vision, and it may then be used.

There are five kinds of clean water:

1) Water purified by the Sangha.

2) Water purified by an individual.

3) Water purified by filtering.

4) Pure water from a flowing spring.

5) Pure well water.

If one knows that the other person observes the precepts and respects living beings, then even without examining the water, one commits no offense by drinking or using water received from that person.

Each examination of water remains valid from sunrise until before the signs of the next sunrise appear, and throughout that period the water may be used.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says:

The living creatures referred to are not fish, loaches, and the like. They are minute creatures, even those whose forms are so exceedingly small that they are difficult for the eye to see.

One should not use the divine eye to inspect water, nor should one ask a person with dim vision to inspect it. A person capable of seeing the finest thread in the palm of the hand may be asked to inspect water. One must not inspect it too hastily or for too long; one should inspect it for as long as it takes a great elephant to turn around once. If the water contains exceedingly small creatures, one should not use it to wash one’s hands or face, or for defecation or urination.

If a donor invites one to a meal, one should ask whether the water has been filtered. If the donor says that it has not been filtered, one should find a trustworthy person and ask that person to filter it. If the person is not trustworthy, one should not ask that person to filter it, lest the creatures be harmed. The bhikkhu should personally filter the water before using it. The creatures caught in the filtering bag should be returned to the place from which the water was taken. If that place is far away, they should be released into a pool that will not dry up within seven days. If there is no such pool, they should be kept alive in a vessel. When rain falls and water becomes available, they should be released into a stream, with these words: “May you all enter the great ocean.”

If, while traveling, one knows that the water in a well contains living creatures, one must not draw that water and pour it into a vessel borrowed from another person.

If the water in a pond or a large pool contains living creatures, one must not cry out loudly, “Elder! This water contains living creatures, contains living creatures,” thereby causing him to give rise to doubt and become distressed. If he asks, “Does this water contain living creatures?” one should reply, “Elder, look for yourself.” If he is an acquaintance or a fellow disciple of the same teacher, one should say: “This water contains living creatures; it should be filtered before use.”

SUPPLEMENT:

The Fourth Part^[33] states:

One should not travel more than half a yojana without a water-straining bag. If one does not have one, one should use a corner of the Sanghati robe to strain the water.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

It is also permitted to keep a water-filtering vessel made of copper, iron, bamboo, wood, earthenware, stone, and so forth, covering its opening with fine cloth. It is not permitted to cover it with a rag robe.

The Mulasarvastivada Miscellaneous Matters states:

Tie thin silk over the mouth of the vessel and submerge it in the water up to half the mouth of the vessel. Wait until it is full, then lift it out; one must still inspect it for living creatures. (If the entire mouth of the vessel is submerged, the water will not enter.) A wide-mouthed vessel is required, but its size does not matter. Tie silk over its mouth and draw water whenever needed. This is a task that must be performed carefully and unhurriedly.

(“Kundika 君持U” is also written “kundika 軍遲”^[34] and is translated as “vessel.” The Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago^[35] states: A pure vessel made of earthenware or clay, with a capacity of two or three sheng, is placed in a clean place and handled with a clean hand. Many vessels are made of copper or iron and placed in various locations, to be carried away as desired.)

The Admonitions for the Monastic Gate states:

The water-straining bag is an implement of compassionate conduct and a condition for aiding living beings. Through it, great conduct arises; by means of it, the supreme Way is attained.

TESTIMONY:

The Mahasanghika Vinaya states:

In the country of Balaji, two bhiksus were traveling together to the country of Sravasti to pay their respects to the Blessed One. On the way, they became thirsty and had no water. Ahead of them was a well.

One bhiksu drew water and immediately drank it, while the other saw that the water contained living creatures and did not drink. The first bhiksu asked, “Why do you not drink?” He replied, “The Blessed One has established a precept forbidding us to drink water containing living creatures.” The other urged him, “Elder, you should drink. Do not die of thirst and fail to see the Buddha.” The bhiksu replied, “I would rather give up my life than violate the Buddha’s teaching.” Afterward, he died.

The other bhiksu went to the Buddha. The Buddha asked, “Where have you come from?” He further asked, “Did you travel alone?” The bhiksu then related the entire matter. The Buddha said, “You are a foolish man.

Though you have not seen me, you call this seeing me. The bhiksu who died of thirst has already seen me.

(The Ten-Recitation Vinaya states: “That observer of the precepts did not drink and consequently died. He was immediately reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three and obtained a fully endowed celestial body. He came before the Buddha, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, heard the Dharma, attained the pure Dharma-eye, and received the Three Refuges. Therefore, it is said that he ‘saw me first.’ The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya also relates this event in the same way.)

If a bhiksu is heedless and indolent and does not restrain his faculties, then even though he lives in the same place as me, he is far removed from me. Although he sees me, I do not see him. If a bhiksu dwelling on the far shore of the sea is never heedless, is diligent and never indolent, and restrains his faculties,

then although he is far away from me, I always see him, and he is always near me.”

(This discusses nearness and distance in terms of space. In terms of time, however, a heedless person, though born in an age when a Buddha is present, is no different from one living in the age of the declining Dharma. A person who is not heedless, though born in the age of the declining Dharma, is no different from one living in the age of the True Dharma.

The Buddha’s body is true and eternal; fundamentally, it neither appears in the world nor passes into extinction. May people of heroic resolve not entertain the notion that the Dharma has utterly perished and thereby abandon themselves to negligence. Therefore, be diligent and never indolent, restrain the faculties, strictly preserve the purity of the Vinaya, and do not treat minor offenses lightly.

Always reflect as though you were beholding the honored countenance of the compassionate Father and personally receiving his luminous instruction. Practice and uphold it tirelessly, and you will see that the assembly on Vulture Peak remains solemnly gathered and has never dispersed.)

63. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DELIBERATELY CAUSING ANOTHER PERSON DISTRESS

The same rule applies to students of the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu deliberately causes another bhiksu to entertain doubts, even if only to make him uneasy for a moment, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[36]:

The Group of Seventeen Bhiksus asked the Group of Six Bhiksus: “How does one enter the First Dhyana, the Second Dhyana, the Third Dhyana, and the Fourth Dhyana? How does one enter emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness? How does one attain the four fruits?” They replied, “By asking such questions as these, you have committed a Parajika offense and are no longer bhiksus.” Thereupon, the Group of Seventeen went to ask a senior monk. The senior monk realized that doubts had been planted in them and that they were distressed. He reported the matter to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

Causing doubt and distress means doing so on the basis of the year of birth, age, ordination, karman, whether an offense has or has not been committed, or whether something is Dharma or not Dharma. To cause doubt concerning the year of birth is, for example, to ask, “How long ago were you born?” and, when told, “... years,” to say, “You were not born that many years ago. You were born at the same time as such-and-such other people, not when you claim.” The same applies through matters of Dharma and so forth.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one deliberately uses such a matter to cause doubt and distress and speaks explicitly, one commits a Pacittiya offense; if one speaks ambiguously, one commits a Duskrta offense. A bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense when the facts truly are so and there is no deliberate intention to cause distress, or when one speaks mistakenly, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya states:

If one causes any of the four assemblies to experience doubt and remorse, one commits a Duskrta offense. If a bhiksuni causes either of the two ordained assemblies to experience doubt and remorse, she commits a Pacittiya offense. If she causes any of the other three assemblies to experience doubt and remorse, she commits a Duskrta offense.

64. THE PRECEPT AGAINST CONCEALING ANOTHER PERSON’S GRAVE OFFENSE

This is an offense evil by nature. The same prohibition applies in the Mahayana. It is the “precept against failing to instruct another to repent of an offense.”

Question: Does not concealing another person’s offense mean disclosing the faults of members of the four assemblies?

Answer: It is forbidden only to speak of them to outsiders; it is not forbidden to report them within the Sangha, in accordance with the Dharma procedure for formally charging one with an offense. How could one permit unlawful conduct to develop into a great evil? This would cause the offender’s offenses to increase and would also bring disrepute upon the Dharma gate. What compassionate person could bear to sit by and watch such a thing happen?!

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhiksu, knowing clearly that another bhiksu has committed a grave offense, deliberately conceals it, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[37]:

Nanda often committed offenses. He would tell a bhiksu with whom he was close and instruct him not to tell anyone. Later, the two quarreled, and that bhiksu disclosed Nanda’s offenses to the other bhiksus. The other bhiksus questioned him, learned the circumstances, and reported the matter to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

Grave offenses are the four offenses entailing expulsion and the thirteen Sanghadisesa offenses.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one learns of the offense at the time of the morning meal and reports it after the meal, or even if one learns of it at the beginning of the night and reports it in the middle of the night, one commits a Duskrta offense. If one learns of it in the middle of the night and, intending to report it after the night has ended, has still not done so when the signs of sunrise appear, one commits a Pacittiya offense. Concealing other offenses, concealing one’s own grave offense, or concealing another person’s grave offense each constitutes a Duskrta offense.

If a bhiksuni conceals another bhiksuni’s offense entailing expulsion, she commits a Parajika offense; if she conceals another bhiksuni’s Sanghadisesa offense, she commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the latter three assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense if one did not know of it earlier, if there is no one to whom it can be reported, or if there is a danger to the holy life or a danger to one’s life.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya states:

Upon seeing another person’s offense, one reports it to someone else and then desists. If one merely hears of it or suspects it, one should not report it.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya states:

One should not go and speak to laypeople, but should go and speak to a virtuous bhikkhu. If the offending bhikkhu is a vicious person, or relies upon the power of a king, a great minister, or evil companions, and seeks to create circumstances to take one’s life or harm one’s brahmacarya, one should think: “That person creates karma and will certainly receive its result; they themselves will come to know it. It is like a fire breaking out: one can only save oneself, so how could one attend to anything else?” In this way, there is no offense.

APPENDIX:

The third section of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

One must oneself possess five qualities before raising another person’s offense:

1) Speak at the proper time, not at an improper time.

2) Speak truthfully, not falsely.

3) Speak beneficially, not harmfully.

4) Speak gently, not harshly.

5) Speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not anger.

The fourth section of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

The Buddha told Upali: “One whose bodily conduct and deportment are impure, whose speech is impure, and whose livelihood is impure; who has little learning and does not know the Sutras, has little learning and does not know the Vinaya, and whose arguments are unclear, like a ‘white sheep’—a mute goat—should not raise another person’s offense.

“If one possesses all these qualities, one should raise another person’s offense at the proper time and in accordance with the Dharma. Furthermore, if a bhikkhu has affection and reverence for me, his offense should be raised. If he has no affection but has reverence, or has no reverence but has affection, his offense should be raised.

Or, although he has no reverence, if he is able to abandon evil and practice good, his offense should be raised. Or if he has respect, veneration, faith, and delight toward some esteemed bhikkhu who can cause him to abandon evil and practice good, his offense should be raised. If none of these conditions is present at all, the Sangha should abandon and expel him, saying: ‘Venerable sir, go wherever you wish.

There they will perform an accusation against you, perform the act of recollection, perform the act based on your own admission, prohibit you from being absolved of the offense, prohibit you from attending the recitation of the precepts, and prohibit you from attending the invitation ceremony.’ It is like a horse trainer who, faced with a horse that is difficult to train, loosens both reins and bridle and lets it go. One should not go to such a bhikkhu to request permission.

This itself constitutes having obtained permission.”

The Sarvastivada Matrka says:

If one uses the divine eye to raise another person’s offense, one commits a duskrta. The same applies to the divine ear.

65. THE PRECEPT AGAINST CONFERRING ORDINATION IMPROPERLY

The Mahayana and the Bhikkhu Vinaya prescribe the same rule.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

A person who has reached twenty years of age may be given full ordination. If a bhikkhu knowingly gives full ordination to a person who has not yet reached twenty years of age, it is a payattika offense. That person does not obtain the precepts, and the bhikkhus deserve rebuke for their foolishness.

ORIGIN^[38]:

The Group of Seventeen youths had previously been close friends. The eldest was seventeen years old and the youngest twelve. Together they sought to leave the household life, and the bhikkhus gave them full ordination. Unable to endure eating only one meal, they became hungry at midnight and cried out loudly, wailing and weeping. The Buddha heard them and inquired about it. Ananda reported the matter fully, and the Buddha established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the preceptor knows or suspects this and nevertheless gives the ordination, upon completion of the three karman proceedings he commits a payattika offense; upon completion of two karman proceedings, he commits three duskrta offenses; upon completion of one karman proceeding, he commits two duskrta offenses. Upon completion of the motion, he commits one duskrta offense. From the time he begins the preparatory arrangements until the Sangha assembles, every act constitutes a duskrta offense. If members of the Sangha know or suspect it, all commit duskrta offenses. A bhikkhuni commits a payattika offense.

There is no offense if one did not know beforehand and trusted the statement of the ordinand, the testimony of someone close to him, or the words of his parents. If doubts arise after the ordination, it is permitted to count the months spent in the womb, or to count every precept-recitation day as fourteen days in calculating his age. (The precepts are recited every half month, making a total of twenty-four recitations each year.

In both full and deficient lunar months, the precepts are recited on the fifteenth day. If a deficient lunar month is short, the precepts are recited on the fourteenth day. In a single year, there are only six recitations on the fourteenth day and eighteen recitations on the fifteenth day.

Here, as an expedient means, every precept-recitation period is reckoned as only fourteen days. Calculated by the months, this yields eighteen additional days in one year and 180 additional days in ten years. Thus, if a person is nineteen years old, adding 342 days may be counted as one year, and he may accordingly be said to have reached twenty years of age.)

The Ordination Skandhaka^[39] says:

If one attains arhatship, this itself is called receiving full ordination.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If, at the time of full ordination, a person’s actual age is insufficient but he believes it to be sufficient, and afterward a close relative^[40] informs him, “Your age was insufficient,” the months spent in the womb and the intercalary months should be counted. If the total is sufficient, that is well. If it is insufficient, he should return to the status of a sramanera and later receive full ordination again.

If he does not do so, he becomes one who dwells as a thief. If a person is fully nineteen years old but thinks he is twenty and receives full ordination, and after one year a close relative^[41] comes and says that his age had been insufficient; or if he himself remembers and realizes it had been insufficient; or if he received full ordination at the age of eighteen and, after two years, remembers and realizes it as above—cases such as these are all called valid ordinations.

Because it is difficult to encounter the True Teaching, this allowance was made.

66. THE PRECEPT AGAINST REVIVING A DISPUTE

The Mahayana prescribes the same rule.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that a dispute has already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, afterward revives it, he commits a payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[42]:

The Group of Six knew that a dispute had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma, yet they said: “You did not examine it properly; your examination was not valid. You did not resolve it properly; your resolution was not valid. You did not settle it properly; your settlement was not valid.” Consequently, disputes arose within a Sangha where none had existed, and existing disputes could not be brought to an end. Therefore, this prohibition was established.

EXPLANATION:

“In accordance with the Dharma” means in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching. There are four kinds of disputes: disputes concerning words, disputes concerning matters, disputes concerning accusations, and disputes concerning offenses.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one revives a dispute and speaks clearly, one commits a payattika offense; if one speaks indistinctly, one commits a duskrta offense.... If one revives any other quarrel or abusive contention, a matter that has already been disputed, or a dispute among any other persons, one commits a duskrta offense in each case. A bhikkhuni commits a payattika offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense if the matter truly was not properly examined, and so forth.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If one group performs a karman against another group, one incurs a sthulatyaya offense, because this is a preparatory act leading to schism in the Sangha. If a matter has already been fully settled according to the Dharma, and one knows or suspects that it has been fully settled yet undermines it, one commits an offense entailing downfall. If it was not fully settled according to the Dharma, but one believes or suspects that it was settled according to the Dharma and obstructs it, one commits an offense of wrongdoing. If, regarding what is in accordance with the Dharma and what is not in accordance with the Dharma, one perceives what is not in accordance with the Dharma as such and undermines it, in these two cases there is no offense.

67. THE PRECEPT AGAINST TRAVELING WITH BANDITS

This is a prohibitory offense. The Mahayana prescribes the same rule.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that certain persons are a band of robbers, makes an arrangement to travel with them along the same road, even for the distance from one village to another, he commits a payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[43]:

A bhikkhu traveled in the company of merchants through a customs checkpoint, and all were detained by the customs officials over a matter of duties. King Prasenajit rebuked the officials and released the bhikkhus, but the ministers resented the king’s action. When the Buddha heard of this, he established the precept.

EXPLANATION:

Keeping company with bandits means accompanying persons who are returning from committing robbery or who are preparing to set out to commit robbery.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The relative gravity of the offenses is the same as in the precept against traveling with a woman. A bhikkhuni commits a payattika offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense if one does not know, has made no prior arrangement, or is seized and compelled to travel with them, and so forth.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If one travels with an evil bhikkhu, one commits a duskrta offense. If one does so because of danger, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one travels with bandits in order to pass through a dangerous place, there is no offense.

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

END OF VOLUME EIGHT

Notes:

1 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, fascicle 14, p. 662c, Taisho 22, no. 1428.

2 “Stored within” (內宿), stated in full as “food stored within,” means food that remains in the same place as a bhikkhu overnight. It is one of the kinds of impure food. A bhikkhu may not consume it.

3 Leftover overnight food 殘宿食: Food remaining overnight; it is also a kind of impure food. A bhikkhu may not consume it.

4 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 663b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

5 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 664a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

6 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 664b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

7 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 665a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

8 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 666a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

9 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 666c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

10 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 667b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

11 Paṇḍaka 半擇d迦: Skt. paṇḍaka (kaṇḍāka), translated as “eunuch” or “one incapable of manhood,” refers to a male who lacks the male organ or whose male organ is incomplete. The same applies to a female paṇḍaka.

12 Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 38, p. 834c25, Taishō 23, no. 1442: ...“Go away”... is an expression of expulsion. “Speech” means recitation. “Sitting alone...” means taking pleasure in it; this clearly shows an intention to cause distress and make the other person go hungry...

13 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 667c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

14 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 668b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

15 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 669b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

16 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 15, p. 670a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

17 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 671a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

18 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 671b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

19 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 672b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

20 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 673a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

21 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 673a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

22 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 673b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

23 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 674b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

24 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 675a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

25 Heated chamber 溫室?: Pāli: jantāghara, a bathhouse with hot water.

26 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 678c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

27 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 676a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

28 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 676b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

29 The passage in parentheses is an additional commentary by Master Zhixu.

30 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 676c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

31 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 16, p. 677b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

32 Krauśa: krosa 拘盧舍 (Skt. krośa), translated as “sound,” namely the distance at which the bellow of a large ox or the sound of a drum can be heard. This was a unit of measurement in ancient India. According to the Commentary on the Supplementary Karman Procedures of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Adapted to Circumstances 1: One bow equals four cubits, and one cubit equals one chi and eight cun. Therefore, one krośa equals 3,600 chi.

33 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 52, Fourth Section, Miscellaneous Skandhaka, p. 954b10, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

34 Kuṇḍikā: Skt. kuṇḍikā.

35 A Record of the Buddhist Practices Sent Home from the Southern Sea 1, p. 207c11, Taishō 54, no. 2125.

36 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 17, p. 677c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

37 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 17, p. 678c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

38 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 17, p. 679a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

39 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 34, Third Section, Ordination Skandhaka, p. 811a18, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

40 In the main text of the Essential Compendium of the Meaning of Vinaya Matters, Revised and Corrected 8, p. 813b02, Manji 40, no. 719: “relatives and friends” 親H友Ð. In the Vinaya Compendium of the Mūlasarvāstivāda School 13, p. 600b08, Taishō 24, no. 1458: “relatives” 親H屬. This may be understood as members of one’s household or family, not necessarily close friends.

41 See the note above.

42 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 17, p. 680c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

43 Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 17, p. 681b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.