重治毗尼事義集要

68) THE PRECEPT AGAINST FAILING TO ABANDON WRONG VIEWS

In the Mahayana, this constitutes a grave transgression, for it is a slander of the Dharma.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu speaks thus: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the Path,” the other bhikkhus should admonish him: “Venerable sir, do not speak thus; do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable skillful means, the Blessed One has said that sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the Path.” When admonished by the bhikkhus, if that bhikkhu persists and does not abandon his view, the bhikkhus should admonish him up to three times so that he may abandon it. If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good; if he does not abandon it, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN:

The bhikkhu Arittha gave rise to a wrong view. The bhikkhus admonished him, but he did not abandon it, so they reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed the Sangha to perform a motion and three proclamations for the person concerned, censuring and admonishing him, and then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon completion of the threefold formal act, a Payattika offense is committed. One who prevents him from abandoning the view commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one bhikkhu goes to a secluded place to admonish him and he abandons the view, he commits one Dukkata offense. If several bhikkhus go to admonish him and he abandons it, he commits two Dukkata offenses. If the Sangha goes to admonish him and he abandons it, he commits three Dukkata offenses. If he abandons it after the motion has been made, he commits four Dukkata offenses. If he abandons it after the first proclamation has been completed, he commits five Dukkata offenses. If he abandons it after the second proclamation has been completed, or before the third proclamation has been completed, he commits six Dukkata offenses. Once the third proclamation has been completed, whether he abandons it or not, he commits a Payattika offense.”

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE:

The Great Prajnaparamita Sutra says: If one is defiled by sensual desire, it can obstruct even rebirth in the Brahma heaven, how much more the attainment of unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, a bodhisattva renounces sensual desire and goes forth into homelessness, and thereby can attain unsurpassed enlightenment; it is not attained without abandoning sensual desire.

Bodhisattva-mahasattvas feel profound revulsion and apprehension toward the five sensual desires and do not allow their faults to defile or harm them. Through immeasurable Dharma gates, they censure and denounce sensual desires: Desire is a blazing fire that burns body and mind. Desire is filthy and impure, defiling oneself and others.

Desire is the foremost bandit, causing harm in the past, present, and throughout the endless future! Desire is an enemy that lurks throughout the night, waiting to cause injury! Desire is a torch made of dry grass.

Desire is a bitter fruit. Desire is a sharp sword. Desire is a heap of fire.

Desire is a candala disguised as a relative, and so forth. Sariputra! By means of immeasurable analogies such as these, the bodhisattva-mahasattvas censure and denounce sensual desires.”

69) THE PRECEPT AGAINST ASSOCIATING WITH ONE WHO HOLDS WRONG VIEWS

The Mahayana likewise establishes this prohibition.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu knows that a person who has spoken such words has not yet undergone the formal act of rehabilitation and has not abandoned such a wrong view, yet provides him with necessities, participates in Sangha acts with him, sleeps together with him, or converses with him, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN:

Arittha did not abandon his wrong view. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha instructed the Sangha to perform a motion and three proclamations against the person concerned, suspending him for failing to abandon his wrong view. The group of six bhikkhus nevertheless continued providing him with necessities, and therefore this precept was established.

EXPLANATION:

“Has not yet undergone the formal act” means that he has been suspended but has not yet been rehabilitated. “Has not abandoned” means that the Sangha censured and admonished him, but he did not abandon the view. Necessities are of two kinds. The first consists of the Dharma: instruction in the training of higher morality, higher mind (concentration), and higher wisdom, as well as studying and reciting the sutras. The second consists of material support: providing the four requisites, participating in Sangha acts together, and reciting the precepts together.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. (If she follows a suspended bhikkhu and, after being admonished three times, does not abandon this conduct, she commits a Parajika offense.)

There is no offense if one does not know that the person has spoken thus, if one is ill, if there is a misunderstanding, if one is compelled, if one’s life is endangered, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “When speaking together, a Payattika offense is committed for each utterance. When sitting together, a Payattika offense is committed each time. When sleeping together, a Payattika offense is committed each night. When working together, a Payattika offense is committed for each task. Even if he has abandoned the wrong view, if the Sangha has not yet performed the formal act of rehabilitation, a Payattika offense is still committed. If he has given rise to a wrong view but the Sangha has not yet performed the formal act, a Dukkata offense is committed. If one does not know, or if the formal act was not performed in accordance with the Dharma, there is no offense.”

-The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “If one teaches the Dharma to that person, learns the Dharma from him, gives property to him, accepts property from him, or sleeps together with him, in every case a Payattika offense is committed.”

-The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says: “If that person is ill, there is no offense in caring for him. Nor is there an offense in dwelling together with him for the purpose of causing him to abandon the wrong view.”

70) THE PRECEPT AGAINST SUPPORTING AN EXPELLED SAMANERA

This is likewise a training rule in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu knows that a samanera has spoken thus: “I have heard from the Dharma spoken by the Buddha that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an obstacle to the Path,” the bhikkhus should admonish that samanera thus: “Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus.

Samanera, by innumerable skillful means, the Blessed One has said that sexual intercourse is an obstacle to the Path.” When admonished thus by the bhikkhus, if that samanera persists and does not abandon his view, the bhikkhus should admonish him three times so that he may abandon it. If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If he does not abandon it, the bhikkhus should say to that samanera: “From this day forward, depart from here.

You may no longer say, ‘The Buddha is my Blessed One.’ You may not accompany the other bhikkhus. Samaneras are permitted to sleep together with bhikkhus for two or three nights, but you no longer have that privilege. Leave this place; go away from here; you may no longer live here.” If a bhikkhu knows that a samanera has thus been expelled from the assembly, yet entices him to return, supports him, or sleeps together with him, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN:

Bhaddananda had two samaneras who gave rise to such a wrong view. The Buddha ordered the bhikkhus to perform a motion and three proclamations on their behalf, censuring and admonishing them. After being admonished three times, they still did not abandon the view, so the Buddha instructed the Sangha to expel them by a motion and three proclamations. The group of six bhikkhus knew that the Sangha had expelled them, yet enticed them to return, supported them, and slept together with them. The Buddha therefore established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether one supports him oneself or causes another person to do so; whether one personally entices him or tells another person to entice him; or whether one sleeps together with him—in every case a Payattika offense is committed. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense.

There is no offense if one does not know that he has been expelled, if one’s life is endangered, and so forth.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says: “If it is for the purpose of causing that person to abandon the wrong view, there is no offense even though one receives him through skillful means.”

APPENDIX:

-The Vinaya-samgraha says: “In general, one who does not acknowledge an offense is a person who has been cast out; anyone who shares requisites with that person commits an offense of wrongdoing.”

-The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “If a person has incurred the displeasure of his two teachers, other bhikkhus must not entice him by saying: ‘I will provide you with the four requisites. Come and live with me, study the sutras, and recite the sutras.’ If, upon examination, they know that the person would otherwise relinquish the precepts and return home, they may tell him to come and stay with them, while instructing and exhorting him: ‘You should know that the kindness of your two teachers is very great and difficult to repay. You should return and live under the care of your two teachers.’”

71) THE PRECEPT AGAINST RESISTING ADMONITION BY RAISING OBJECTIONS

The Mahayana likewise establishes this prohibition.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, when admonished in accordance with the Dharma by other bhikkhus, says: “I will not train in this precept until I have clearly questioned another wise bhikkhu who is a holder of the Vinaya,” it is a Payattika offense. If he wishes to understand and wishes to train, he should ask.

ORIGIN:

The Buddha established this precept because of the bhikkhu Chanda.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if the person giving the admonition is foolish and ignorant.

72) THE PRECEPT AGAINST DISPARAGING THE RECITATION OF THE PRECEPTS

This is an offense by its very nature. The Mahayana likewise establishes this prohibition.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If any bhikkhu, while the precepts are being recited, says: “What benefit is there in the venerable one’s reciting these minor precepts? Their recitation merely causes people distress, shame, and doubt,” then, for disparaging the precepts, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

When the bhikkhus were reciting the True Dharma and Vinaya, the group of six, fearing that the matters would be clearly explained and their offenses consequently exposed, said: “If anything must be recited, recite the four matters and the thirteen matters; the rest should not be recited...” The bhikkhus perceived that their intention was to destroy the True Dharma, reported the matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

To disparage the Abhidharma or other sutras is a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. (A novice who disparages the precepts he has received... likewise commits a Dukkata offense.)

There is no offense if one says that the recitation should wait until the sick have recovered, or if one advises this for the sake of attaining realization and not for the destruction of the Dharma.

-The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one disparages the Vinaya with the intention of causing others to distance themselves from it and neither read nor recite it, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one disparages the Pratimoksha with the intention of preventing it from enduring, one commits a Sthulatyaya offense. The same applies to disparaging the sutras.

To disparage the other four assemblies or the precepts of the two assemblies of lay followers is a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni who disparages the two collections of precepts commits a Pacittiya offense. To disparage the precepts of the five assemblies is a Dukkata offense.

If, fearing that newly ordained persons will give rise to doubt and abandon their practice, one instructs those who are not yet able to recite the precepts not to do so, there is no offense.

PROOF:

-The Sarvastivada Treatise says: “Why is the offense grave when one disparages the Precept Sutra, but light when one disparages other sutras? It is because the precepts are the level ground within the Buddha’s Dharma, from which myriad wholesome qualities arise. Furthermore, all disciples of the Buddha rely upon the precepts as their abiding place. Without the precepts, they would have nowhere to rely. Furthermore, the precepts are the initial gateway into the Buddha’s Dharma; without them, there is no means of entering nirvana. Furthermore, the precepts are the jeweled adornment of the Buddha’s Dharma, beautifying the Buddha’s Dharma. Therefore, disparaging and reviling them incurs a grave offense.”

The Shanjian Vinaya says: If one studies the Vinaya, one will possess five virtues:

1) One personally safeguards the precepts.

2) One is able to resolve the doubts of others.

3) One enters the Sangha without fear.

4) One is able to subdue adversaries.

5) One causes the True Dharma to endure.

Even if there are only five bhikkhus who clearly understand the Vinaya living in the world, they can cause the True Dharma to endure for a long time. If the Buddha’s Dharma has disappeared in Central India but there are five persons in a border region, the conferral of ordination must nevertheless be performed by a full quorum of ten persons(1). If they go to Central India, they are still permitted to confer full ordination upon others; this is called causing the True Dharma to endure for a long time. Likewise, up to twenty persons who release someone from an offense are said to cause the True Dharma to endure for a long time.

Furthermore, one who upholds the Vinaya will possess six virtues:

1) One is a master of the Pratimoksha.

2) One knows how to conduct the Posadha.

3) One knows how to conduct the invitation ceremony.

4) One knows how to confer full ordination upon others.

5) One may accept persons as dependent pupils.

6) One is permitted to maintain novices.

If one does not understand the Vinaya and knows only the sutras and Abhidharma, one may not ordain novices or accept dependent pupils. Because Vinaya masters uphold the Vinaya, the Buddha’s Dharma abides in the world for 5,000 years.”

73) PRECEPT CONCERNING CLAIMING NOT TO KNOW THE PRECEPTS

The Mahayana is studied in the same way.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If any bhikkhu, upon hearing the precepts recited, says: “Only today have I learned that this dharma is recorded in the Precept Sutra, is recited once every half-month, and comes from the Precept Sutra,” and other bhikkhus know that this bhikkhu has previously sat through the recitation of the precepts two or three times, much less many times, that bhikkhu is not absolved of his offense on the grounds of ignorance. If he has committed an offense, he must first be dealt with according to the Dharma, and an additional offense of ignorance must then be imposed upon him.

He should be told: “Elder, there is truly no benefit in this for you, nor have you gained anything good from it, for while the precepts were being recited, you did not apply your mind, remain single-minded, or listen attentively to the Dharma.” For such ignorance, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

One member of the group of six knew that he had committed obstructive offenses and feared that pure bhikkhus would expose them, so he said in advance: “Only today have I learned...” The bhikkhus discerned what had happened, reported the matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the other person’s offense is not formally charged, a Dukkata offense is committed. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. (A novice... who does not know the precepts he has received commits a Dukkata offense.)

There is no offense if one has never previously heard the precepts expounded and is hearing them only now; if one has never previously heard the detailed exposition and is hearing it only now; or if one misspeaks, and so forth.

-The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “After receiving full ordination, one should recite both divisions of the Vinaya. If one cannot do so, one should recite one division. If one cannot even do that, one should recite the first section of the precepts and the verses.

During the Posadha, the five divisions should be recited in full. If one cannot recite them, one should recite the first section and the verses. As for the remainder, one should say: ‘The Sangha has regularly heard them.’ Failure to recite them constitutes a Vinaya-transgression offense.

The Sangha should appoint someone who knows the text by heart to recite it, while all the others listen with concentrated attention; they must not practice meditation or perform other tasks. From the four matters through the seven methods of settling disputes, for each matter in between that one fails to hear, one incurs a corresponding Vinaya-transgression offense. If one hears none of it, one incurs a Pacittiya offense.

This offense may not be confessed before a single person; it must be confessed in the midst of the Sangha, before a precept-holding bhikkhu of dignified conduct, with the utmost reverence. That bhikkhu should rebuke him, saying: ‘Elder, you have lost every good benefit. When the Pratimoksha was recited at the half-month, you did not honor it, direct your mind single-mindedly toward it, or listen attentively to the Dharma.’ After rebuking him, he should require him to confess the Pacittiya offense.

74) PRECEPT CONCERNING OPPOSING AN ACT ALREADY PERFORMED BY KARMAVACANA

The Mahayana is studied in the same way.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If any bhikkhu, after having participated with the Sangha in a karmavacana, subsequently says: “The bhikkhus distribute the Sangha’s property according to personal favoritism,” he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

Dabba Mallaputta administered the affairs of the Sangha. Because his duties prevented him from attending almsgiving assemblies, his robe became worn and torn. The Sangha performed a motion followed by one proclamation to grant him a robe. The group of six also participated in the karmavacana, but afterward spoke as stated above; therefore, the Buddha instituted this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. (Novices... are not permitted to participate in the same karmavacana; nevertheless, if they privately express resentment, they also incur a Dukkata offense.)

There is no offense if the matter is in fact as stated.

-The Sarvastivada Treatise says: “When a person has labored strenuously for the Sangha, or when a venerable one is in need, if the Sangha harmoniously and unanimously grants something to that person, the gift is permitted. Anyone who says that it should not be given commits an offense.”

75) PRECEPT CONCERNING DEPARTING WITHOUT GIVING CONSENT

The Mahayana is studied in the same way.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If any bhikkhu, while the Sangha is deliberating upon a matter that has not yet been concluded, rises and departs without giving his consent, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

The bhikkhus assembled in one place to discuss the Dharma and Vinaya. The group of six suspected that the Sangha intended to perform a karmavacana concerning them, so they rose and departed. Although the Sangha called them back, they continued to leave; therefore, the Buddha instituted this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

A matter: This refers to the eighteen matters that cause schism in the Sangha, from Dharma and non-Dharma through what is taught and what is not taught.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon passing beyond the doorway, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one foot is outside the doorway, and so forth, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if one is occupied with the affairs of the Sangha or the stupa, is tending the sick, or gives consent before departing; if one is mute and unable to speak in order to give consent; or if the karmavacana is contrary to the Dharma, and so forth.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “If one leaves to urinate or defecate and returns shortly thereafter without abandoning the Sangha’s business, there is no offense. If one wishes to expound the Dharma, expound the Vinaya, listen to many bhikkhus recite sutras, listen to someone else study sutras, or listen to someone else recite sutras, one should request permission before departing. If one departs without requesting permission, one commits a Vinaya-transgression offense. If the recitation of the sutra has been suspended and another matter is being discussed, one who leaves commits no offense.”

—The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If the Sangha act is performed in a lower room, each time one leaves, one commits one Pacittiya offense. If the Sangha act is performed on open ground, and one goes a fathom away from the Sangha, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one possessing supernormal powers rises four inches above the ground, one commits a Pacittiya offense.

If the Sangha has not performed a Sangha act but is adjudicating a matter, and one leaves, one commits a Dukkata offense. If a matter is adjudicated in a private room, and one arrives and then leaves, one commits a Dukkata offense. When the Sangha has not performed a Sangha act but is adjudicating a matter, or when a matter is adjudicated in a private room, a novice may remain therein; if the novice leaves, the novice commits a Dukkata offense.

The same applies to a siksamana and a novice nun.”

76) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING REGRETTING AFTER GIVING CONSENT

The Mahayana and the Bhiksu precepts prescribe the same training.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a Bhiksu, having given consent, afterward expresses dissatisfaction, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

Some among the group of six had committed offenses against the precepts. Fearing that the Sangha would separately charge them with their offenses, all six always went together and never separated from one another. The Sangha was therefore unable to perform a Sangha act concerning them.

Later, when robes were being sewn, they were summoned, but they said: “We cannot come because we are sewing robes.” The Sangha said: “If none of you can come, you may send one or two Bhiksus to convey your consent.” They then sent one Bhiksu. The Sangha immediately performed the Sangha act concerning this Bhiksu. When the Bhiksu returned, the group of six regretted their consent and said: “A Sangha act such as this is not a Sangha act; the Sangha act is invalid.

I gave consent for that matter, not for this matter.” The Bhiksus reproached them and reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A Bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

No offense is committed if it truly was not a Sangha act—an invalid Sangha act.

—The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If the Sangha, without having performed a Sangha act, adjudicates a matter, and one afterward criticizes it, one commits a Dukkata offense.”

77) THE PRECEPT AGAINST EAVESDROPPING ON A DISPUTE AND REPEATING WHAT WAS SAID

This is an offense evil by nature. The Mahayana prescribes the same prohibition.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a Bhiksu, after Bhiksus have quarreled with one another, listens to the words of one and reports them to another, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

The Buddha established this precept because of the group of six Bhiksus.

EXPLANATION:

“Listens” here means eavesdropping.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one spies and hears what is said, one commits a Pacittiya offense; if one spies but does not hear, one commits a Dukkata offense. If one intends to eavesdrop but then desists, or if, wherever it may be, two people are speaking and one fails to snap one’s fingers or clear one’s throat to alert them, one commits a Dukkata offense. A Bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense is committed when this is done to prevent an unlawful Sangha act or an unbeneficial deed.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one silently listens to members of the four lower assemblies speaking, one commits a Dukkata offense.”

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: “If one goes to listen for the sake of harmony, no offense is committed.”

—The Samantapasadika says: “As one goes there, each step constitutes a Dukkata offense. Upon reaching a place from which one can hear, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one goes to listen because one wishes to reform oneself, no offense is committed.”

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “When two Bhiksus are speaking privately inside a dwelling and another Bhiksu wishes to enter, that Bhiksu must snap the fingers or stamp the feet to make a sound. If they become silent, the Bhiksu should withdraw. If they continue speaking without stopping, the Bhiksu may enter without offense.

If one Bhiksu is already seated inside a dwelling and two Bhiksus approach while speaking privately, the Bhiksu already seated within should make a sound. If they become silent, the Bhiksu seated inside should leave. The same applies when walking ahead of or behind them.

If a Bhiksu, harboring hostility and resentment from a dispute with other Bhiksus, reviles them and says: ‘I must kill that wicked man,’ a Bhiksu who hears this is permitted to tell the other person so that he may take precautions. If a visiting Bhiksu says: ‘We shall steal from the storeroom... the objects in the stupa... the Sangha’s storehouse... the robes and bowls of...,’ the steward who hears this should remain silent, return to the Sangha, and announce: ‘Venerable Ones!

The storeroom... the objects in the stupa... the Sangha’s storehouse... the robes and bowls of... must be guarded. I have heard that someone intends to seize them.’ If a Bhiksu has many disciples, at the end of the day he should skillfully inspect their rooms to see whether their way of life accords with the Dharma. If he hears them discussing worldly matters, he should not enter and reprimand them at once.

He should wait until that person comes to him, and then admonish and instruct him. If he hears them discussing sutras, explaining their meaning, and asking and answering questions, he must not enter and praise them at once. He should wait until later; only then is the praise properly given.”

78) THE PRECEPT AGAINST STRIKING A BHIKSU IN ANGER

The Mahayana prescribes the same prohibition.

If one acts in mutual retaliation, one commits a minor offense. If one becomes angry without cause, one’s rage and resentment intensify, and one refuses to repent, one commits a grave offense.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a Bhiksu, being angry, resentful, and displeased, strikes another Bhiksu, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

One member of the group of six, in anger, struck one of the seventeen young Bhiksus. The Bhiksu who was struck cried out loudly: “Do not do that!” Those in a nearby room heard him and reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether one strikes with a stick, a stone, a hand, or anything else, one commits a Pacittiya offense. A Bhiksuni commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

No offense is committed when a sick person needs to be massaged or patted; when one touches someone to make that person attend to what one is saying; or when contact occurs by mistake.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya-Vibhasa says: “If one strikes a novice who possesses the precepts—that is, a novice undergoing training—a person who has lost both eyes, one blind in one eye, a deaf-mute, or a Bhiksu undergoing Parivasa or Manatta, one commits a Pacittiya offense.” (Loss of both eyes is called blindness; loss of one eye is called being one-eyed. If one received the precepts before contracting such ailments, one remains a Bhiksu.)

The Matrka says: “If one strikes any of the following three kinds of persons, one commits a Dukkata offense:

– One who dwells as a thief—who has not obtained the precepts.

– One who was never in harmony—one who has undertaken the five practices.

– One who has already violated the precepts—one who has committed a grave prohibition and lost the nature of a Bhiksu.

If one takes sand, beans, or other objects and throws them at an assembly of Bhiksus, then for every person struck and for every grain that strikes someone, one commits one Pacittiya offense; if nothing strikes them, one commits a Dukkata offense.

—The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one strikes members of the four lower assemblies, or even an animal, one commits a Dukkata offense.”

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “If ferocious elephants, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, or dogs approach, one must not strike them. One may take a staff, piece of wood, potsherd, stone, or the like and strike the ground to frighten them away. If animals enter a stupa or monastery, touch sacred images, or damage fruit trees, one may likewise use a staff, piece of wood, potsherd, or stone to strike the ground and frighten them away.”

79) THE PRECEPT AGAINST STRIKING A BHIKSU IN ANGER

In the Mahayana, the distinction between minor and grave offenses is the same as explained above.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a Bhiksu, being angry, resentful, and displeased, raises his hand and threatens to strike another Bhiksu, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

The circumstances giving rise to this precept were the same as those of the preceding precept; therefore, the Buddha established it.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

For Bhiksunis and others, the ruling is the same as in the preceding precept.

No offense is committed when one raises a hand to ward off another person who intends to strike; when one prevents any kind of danger; when one raises a hand to call someone; or when contact occurs by mistake, and so forth.

—The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: “If one makes a fist and directs it toward another person, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one directs any other part of the body toward a person, one commits a Dukkata offense.”

—The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If the threatening hand reaches the person, it is a Pacittiya offense. If it does not reach the person, it is a Dukkata offense.”

80) THE PRECEPT AGAINST ANGRILY AND GROUNDLESSLY SLANDERING ANOTHER AS HAVING COMMITTED A SANGHADISESA OFFENSE

The Mahayana prescribes the same prohibition. If one says this to a fellow practitioner, one commits a minor offense; if one says it to an outsider, one commits a grave offense.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a Bhiksu, out of anger and resentment, groundlessly accuses another Bhiksu of a Sanghadisesa offense, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

The circumstances giving rise to this precept were the same as those of the preceding precept; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

The three grounds are as explained in the section on Sanghadisesa offenses.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether the accusation is expressed clearly or unclearly, the ruling is the same as in the preceding precept. For Bhiksunis and others, the ruling is likewise the same as in the preceding precept.

No offense is committed when one speaks according to the truth in order to bring about reform, and so forth.

81) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING SUDDENLY ENTERING THE PALACE GATE

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition. In the age of the decline of the Dharma, one should be cautious regarding this matter. Even if invited, one should not enter hastily. If one possesses sufficient spiritual powers and awe-inspiring virtue, there is no offense.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, before a consecrated king of the kshatriya lineage has departed and before the precious objects have been put away, enters the royal palace and steps beyond the threshold, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

Lady Mallika converted and guided King Pasenadi, who came to have profound faith in the Buddha-Dharma. The king permitted bhikkhus to enter and leave the palace without obstruction. Kaludayi entered the palace while the king and the lady were sleeping during the day. Seeing the Venerable One from afar, the lady immediately rose and put on her robe while wiping a seat to invite him to sit. Her robe slipped off and exposed her body. Ashamed, she sat down. The Venerable One returned to the Sangharama and related the matter to the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus found fault with him and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

“The king has departed” means that the king has not yet gone out and the palace women have not yet returned to their customary places.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says: “The king is the lord of the settlement and occupies the highest position.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

For a bhikkhuni, it is a Pacittiya offense. For the three lower assemblies, it is a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if the king has departed and the precious objects have been put away; if there is a matter that must be reported; if one has been invited; or if one is led inside, and so forth.

The Vinaya-samgraha says: “Entering a royal palace entails ten faults and losses:

1) If a woman in the palace becomes pregnant, the bhikshu will be suspected of having engaged in impure conduct.

2) Secrets may be disclosed.

3) Property may be lost from the palace.

4) A prince may be harmed.

5) A member of the royal family may be harmed.

6) A great minister may be appointed.

7) The chief minister of the realm may be dismissed.

8) The people of the country may suffer harm.

9) Troops may be dispatched to attack other countries.

10) Armies may be assembled.

Whenever such events occur, the bhikshu will be suspected.”

82) PRECEPT AGAINST HANDLING PRECIOUS OBJECTS

This is a prohibitory offense. In the Mahayana, when acting for the sake of sentient beings, regardless of the place, one should exercise discretion according to circumstances.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu personally picks up a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or has another person pick it up, except within a Sangharama or lodging place, it is a Pacittiya offense. If, within a Sangharama or lodging place, he personally picks up a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or has another person pick it up, he should think: “If its owner recognizes it, he will take it back.” This is permitted solely for that reason and for no other.

ORIGIN:

A lay follower of another religion, while traveling along the road, forgot a bag containing one thousand taels of gold. The bhikkhus saw it and took it with the intention of awaiting the owner’s return to claim it. Later, the layman returned and reclaimed it, but then alleged that some was missing and brought suit before King Pasenadi. Upon questioning him, the king discovered that he had lied, confiscated all his property, and placed it in the royal treasury. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

“Except within a Sangharama”: Lady Visakha removed her jeweled necklace and placed it at the foot of a tree before entering to pay homage to the Blessed One. Because her mind was absorbed in the Dharma, she forgot to retrieve it. A bhikkhu reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha permitted it to be taken up and stored safely.

“Lodging place”: A bhikkhu went to a village where there was no monastery and lodged overnight in an artisan’s house. The artisan left gold and silver in the house and went away. Fearing that they might be lost, the bhikkhu had to guard them and did not sleep throughout the night. After returning, he reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “In such a case, it is permitted to take them up and store them safely.”

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says: “‘Precious objects’ refers to the seven treasures. ‘Articles made of precious materials’ refers to weapons, bows, knives, musical instruments, drums, flutes, and the various other kinds.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Regarding precious objects such as those described above, whether one picks them up oneself or instructs another to do so, one should clearly ascertain the appearance of the bag, know the characteristics of its interior, and know how it was tied. One should open it and inspect it, determining how many objects are joined together and how many are separate, how many are square and how many round, and how many are old and how many new.

If someone comes seeking it, one should ask: “What is your property like?” If the person describes it correctly, it should be returned. If the description is incorrect, one should say: “I have not seen any such object.” If two people both come to inquire, one should question and answer them in the same way. If both give correct descriptions, one should bring the object before them and say: “This is your property; take it back yourselves.” If one does not

do so, it is a Dukkata offense. For a bhikkhuni, it is a Pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if objects offered to adorn a monastery or stupa are taken up and stored for safekeeping.

-The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “If one handles a thief’s jewel, it is a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhu should neither sit upon nor use land, beds, or furnishings made of the gold, silver, and jewels of the human realm. But in the heavenly realms, a bhikkhu may walk or sit upon and use land, beds, and furnishings made of gold, silver, and jewels.”

-The Mulasarvastivada Miscellaneous Matters says: “Precious vessels should not be used to hold food. If one ascends to a heavenly realm or goes to a naga palace and no other utensils are available, one is permitted to use vessels made of gold, silver, and jewels to hold food.”

TESTIMONY:

-The Vinaya-samgraha records: The Buddha was on Vulture Peak. While going to the city for alms, he encountered heavy rain. Water poured down, the bank collapsed, and a mass of jewels was exposed.

The Buddha told Ananda: “You should regard this as a harmful poison.” Ananda replied: “Blessed One, it is indeed a fearsome venomous snake.” A man gathering vegetables and fruit nearby came to look. Seeing the mass of jewels, he thought: “May this venomous snake continually inject its poison into my parents, wife, children, relatives, and me; I would not shrink even from such pain.” He then took it home and used it as he pleased.

King Ajatashatru saw that this man had suddenly become wealthy and honored, so he sent an envoy to ask: “Where did you obtain the king’s mass of jewels?” The man replied that he had not picked it up. He was arrested and brought before the king. When questioned by the king, he again said that he had not picked it up.

The king then acted according to the law, had his entire family bound, and delivered them to the executioner. The man wept and lamented as he followed the executioner, crying aloud: “Ananda, this is a venomous snake! This is a venomous snake!” The official in charge of punishment said: “The legal judgment must be reconsidered.” The king summoned the man and questioned him again about the matter.

The man then fully related the events as described above. Only then did the king believe in the Buddha-Dharma. Moved to tears, he said: “It was by relying upon the Blessed One that you obtained these riches.

Your crime merits death, but I now pardon you and all your relatives. You should offer these objects to the Buddha and the Sangha.” After being released, the man immediately prepared a superior vegetarian feast and respectfully invited the Buddha and the Sangha to receive his offering. On that occasion, the Buddha taught them the Dharma, and they attained the first fruit.

Also because of this incident, the Buddha did not permit bhikkhus to handle precious objects.

APPENDIX:

-The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “If a bhikkhu sees a precious object and takes it up for safekeeping, and no one who knows of it comes to claim it, he should keep it for three months. If it was found in a stupa garden, it should be used for the stupa; if found in a Sangha garden, it should be used for the Sangha of the four directions. If the stupa precinct or Sangha dwellings have fallen into disrepair, they should be repaired.

If precious objects are unearthed while digging and there is no trustworthy lay steward, the matter should be reported to the king. If the king requires them, they should be handed over; if he gives them back, they may be used. Even if the objects have already been used, should the king learn of them and demand their return, one should request objects belonging to the stupa or the Sangha with which to repay him.

If there is a trustworthy lay steward, the objects should be kept for three years and then used for the affairs of the stupa or the Sangha. In the circumstances described above, if the precious object bears an inscribed name, one should also answer truthfully. The same applies when an object is found while constructing new Sangha dwellings.”

83) PRECEPT AGAINST ENTERING A SETTLEMENT AT AN IMPROPER TIME

The Mahayana observes the same training.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu enters a settlement at an improper time without informing another bhikkhu, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

Upananda entered a village at an improper time and played a board game with a layman. The layman lost and, becoming resentful, said: “Bhikkhus enter the village in the morning to seek alms; for what purpose do they enter the village at an improper time?” Therefore, the Buddha established this rule.

If there is business concerning the Sangha or a stupa, the nursing of the sick, and so forth, one is permitted to inform another bhikkhu and then depart. If one is staying alone in a room, one should inform a person in an adjoining room before departing.

EXPLANATION:

Improper time: This refers to the period from midday until before the first signs of dawn appear.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon entering the gateway of a village, one commits a pācittiya offense. If one foot is inside the village, or if one has arranged to go but does not go, and so forth, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pācittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if one must pass through a village while traveling, has made a declaration, has been invited, has accepted an invitation, or if there is danger to life, and so forth.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “Another bhikkhu refers to any bhikkhu within one’s sight. If, after making a declaration, one enters a settlement, returns to the dwelling place, and then relies upon the previous declaration to go again to the settlement, one commits a pācittiya offense. If one enters a settlement without making a declaration, one commits as many dukkaṭa offenses as there are main roads and small paths traversed. For each layperson’s house one enters, one commits one pācittiya offense.”

If any one of the eight dangers arises, there is no offense.

-The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “When two bhikkhus staying in an araṇya place wish to depart together, they should inform each other in turn. If one has spoken and departed, and the other subsequently also wishes to depart, the latter should inform another bhikkhu. If no other bhikkhu is present, he should stop along the road, at the gateway, or at the edge of the settlement, and inform any bhikkhu he sees. Only after informing him may he enter.”

The Mātṛkā says: “If no bhikkhu is present, one should inform a member of one of the other four assemblies.”

84) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE MAKING OF A HIGH BED

To be studied in common with the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

When a bhikkhu makes a corded bed or a wooden bed, its legs must be no higher than eight finger-breadths of the Tathagata, measured upward after excluding the mortised portion fitted into the bed frame. If they exceed this, it is a pācittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off.

ORIGIN:

Kaludayin set out a beautiful high bed and sat upon it. The Blessed One rebuked him and established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

-The Vinaya Saṃgraha says: “Eight finger-breadths of the Buddha equal one cubit of a person of average stature.”

-The Sarvāstivāda Treatise says: “Of the Buddha’s eight finger-breadths, each finger-breadth equals two inches.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether one makes it oneself or instructs another to make it, one commits a pācittiya offense. If it is not completed, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. If it is made for another person, whether completed or not, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pācittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if one is given a bed already completed and uses it after reducing its height.

The Third Section says: “With the exception of jeweled beds, one may sit upon any other kind of bed in a layperson’s house.”

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “One should cut away the excess and then confess the offense. If it has not yet been cut away, the Sangha should order that person to cut it away. If the Sangha does not so order, or if the person does not comply, each commits a dukkaṭa offense.”

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “When receiving a high bed, one should think: ‘This bed is not in accordance with the Dharma; I shall cut away the excess.’ If one accepts it without thinking thus, one commits a pācittiya offense.”

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “If one makes it oneself and sits upon it throughout the day, one commits one pācittiya offense. If one rises and then sits down again, each act of sitting constitutes one pācittiya offense. If one sits upon another person’s bed, one incurs a Yue-vinaya offense. If a visiting bhikkhu receives, according to seniority, a bed exceeding the prescribed dimensions, he should say to the steward:

‘Please lend me a saw.’ If asked what it is for, he should reply: ‘This bed exceeds the prescribed height; I wish to saw it down so that it accords with the Dharma.’ If the steward says: ‘Do not saw it, for the donors would be distressed if they saw it,’ then, if the bhikkhu will not stay long, he should dig into the ground and bury the bed’s legs until it conforms to the prescribed height. If he will stay for a long time, the portions of the legs that are buried should be encased in wood or copper at ground level before being buried, so that they do not decay.

If a donor’s house has a bed with high legs, one should not climb directly onto it to sit. One should ask for a stool or a brick upon which to step. If there is a bed with high legs in a house of merit, there is no offense in sitting upon it.” (A house of merit is a house where a single meal is offered.)

85) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE USE OF TŪLA COTTON FOR CUSHIONS AND MATTRESSES

To be studied in common with the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu uses tūla cotton to stuff a large mattress, a small cushion, or padding for a corded bed or wooden bed, once it has been stuffed, it is a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

The group of six bhikkhus did this. Laypeople criticized them, saying that they were shameless and lacked loving-kindness. Therefore, the Buddha prohibited it.

EXPLANATION:

Tūla cotton means the floss of the white poplar tree, the willow tree, and the cattail plant, all of which readily breed insects. A large mattress is for lying down; a small cushion is for sitting.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The lighter and heavier offenses are the same as in the preceding precept. The rule for bhikkhunis and others is the same as above.

There is no offense if one uses kurata grass, vanya grass, savā grass, tuṣita-kambala, or inferior mixed materials.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one sits upon it, each act of sitting constitutes one pācittiya offense. If one lies upon it, each act of lying down constitutes one pācittiya offense. If it is given by another and one accepts it, one commits a pācittiya offense. It must first be relinquished, and only afterward may the offense be confessed. Otherwise, the offense becomes more serious.”

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “It must be thrown away and discarded, and only afterward may the offense be confessed. If it has not yet been destroyed, the Sangha should compel that person to destroy it.”

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “If it is stuffed to make a pillow for the head or a support for the feet, one commits a Yue-vinaya offense. If one is ill, there is no offense.”

86) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE MAKING OF A NEEDLE CASE FROM BONE OR HORN

To be studied in common with the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu uses bone, ivory, or horn to make a needle case, and it is hollowed out and completed, it is a pācittiya offense.

ORIGIN:

In the city of Rajagriha, there was a devout craftsman who made needle cases of horn, ivory, and teeth for the bhikkhus. He neglected his household work until he had neither food to eat nor clothing to wear. People said: “In seeking merit, he has instead brought misfortune upon himself.” Therefore, the Buddha prohibited it.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The lighter and heavier offenses are as in the preceding precept. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if it is made of iron, copper, plaster, pewter, wood, bamboo, śāla grass, and so forth.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “It should first be broken, and only afterward may the offense be confessed. If it has not yet been broken, the Sangha should order that person to break it.”

87) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE MAKING OF AN OVERSIZED SITTING CLOTH

To be studied in common with the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu makes a nisīdana, it must conform to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are two spans of the Buddha in length and one and a half spans in width, with an additional half-span added in length and width as a border. If it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off.

ORIGIN:

The Buddha saw that the Sangha’s bedding had become stained and unclean. To protect the body, robes, and bedding, he permitted the bhikkhus to make nisīdanas. The group of six bhikkhus then made very large nisīdanas, so the Buddha established a restriction. Kaludayin had a large body, and the cloth was insufficient for him to sit upon. When he came to sit beside the Buddha, he had to use his hands to stretch out the nisīdana so that he could sit upon it. Therefore, the Buddha permitted an additional half-span on each side.

EXPLANATION:

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “One span of the Tathagata is two feet and four inches, approximately two feet according to the long measure.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The lighter and heavier offenses are as in the preceding precept. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

There is no offense if one receives an item already made and cuts it down to the prescribed dimensions, or if one sews it folded into two layers.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “One should first cut away the excess, and only afterward confess the offense. If it has not yet been cut, the Sangha should order that person to cut it.”

88) THE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE MAKING OF AN OVERSIZED CLOTH FOR COVERING SORES

To be studied in common with the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu makes a cloth for covering sores, it must conform to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are four spans of the Buddha in length and two spans in width. If it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off.

ORIGIN:

A bhikkhu afflicted with sores had blood and pus soil his body, robes, and bedding. The Buddha permitted him to make a soft, delicate cloth to cover the sores and to wear the nivāsana(2). If he went to the home of a layperson and was invited to sit, he should say, “I am ill.” If they said, “Please sit nonetheless,” he should lift up the nivāsana, cover the sores with this cloth, and then sit. At that time, the group of six made many excessively long and wide cloths for covering sores; therefore, this rule was established.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The cases of offense and non-offense are the same as in the preceding rule. The four lower assemblies commit a duṣkṛta.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “When the sores have healed, if it is kept for more than ten days, a pācittiya is committed. (Because this is the same as an extra robe, it entails forfeiture and expiation.) It should be cut up and then the offense confessed. If it has not yet been cut up, the Sangha should instruct the offender to cut it up.”

89) THE RULE AGAINST MAKING A BATHING CLOTH BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED MEASURE

Students of the Mahayana train in the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

If a bhikkhu makes a rains-bathing cloth, he must make it according to the prescribed measure. Here, the prescribed measure is six spans long and three and a half spans wide, measured by the Buddha’s hand. If it exceeds this, it is a pācittiya and must be cut down.

ORIGIN:

This rule was likewise established by the Buddha because of the group of six.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If a bhikkhuni makes a bathing cloth beyond the prescribed measure, she commits a pācittiya.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “It must be cut down before the offense is confessed. If it has not yet been cut down, the Sangha should instruct the offender to cut it down.”

90) THE RULE AGAINST MAKING A ROBE EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE BUDDHA’S ROBE

Students of the Mahayana train in the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

If a bhikkhu makes a robe equal in measure to the Tathagata’s robe, or makes one exceeding that measure, it is a pācittiya. Here, the measure of the Tathagata’s robe is ten spans long and six spans wide, measured by the Buddha’s hand. This is called the measure of the Tathagata’s robe.

ORIGIN:

The Venerable Nanda was only four fingerbreadths shorter than the Buddha. When bhikkhus saw him from afar, they all mistook him for the Buddha and stood up to greet him; only when he approached did they realize that it was Nanda. The bhikkhus were embarrassed, and Nanda was embarrassed as well. The Buddha instructed Nanda to wear a black robe. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus made robes equal in measure to the Tathagata’s robe or longer than it; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The cases of offense and non-offense are the same as in the preceding rule. The four lower assemblies commit a duṣkṛta.

-The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “The dimensions should accord with the person’s height. There are three grades of sanghati. The superior grade is five cubits long and three cubits wide. The middle grade is five cubits and one unextended-hand cubit long, and three cubits and one unextended-hand cubit wide. The inferior grade is four and a half cubits long and three cubits and one unextended-hand cubit wide. The uttarasaṅga is likewise. For the antarvāsa, the superior and middle grades are likewise; the inferior grade is four and a half cubits long and two cubits and two unextended-hand cubits wide.

The Vinaya Saṅgraha says: “If it is smaller than this measure, the principal offense is not incurred. If it exceeds five cubits, an offense of wrongdoing is incurred in every case.”

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “It must be cut down before the offense is confessed. If it has not yet been cut down, the Sangha should instruct the offender to cut it down.”

C. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS

Venerable Ones, I have finished reciting the ninety pācittiya rules. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Are you pure in regard to these rules? (Three times.)

The Venerable Ones are pure in regard to these rules, as evidenced by your silence. Thus do I understand this matter.

APPENDIX:

Diverting property intended for the Sangha to another person. Students of the Mahayana train in the same rule.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If a bhikkhu diverts to another person property that a donor intended to offer to the Sangha, he commits a pācittiya. Because the Buddha had established a rule, Nanda and Upananda did not dare divert the Sangha’s property to themselves; instead, they diverted it to each other. Therefore, this rule was established.”

(The Mahasanghika Vinaya also contains this rule, and offenses should be adjudicated accordingly.)

The ninety pācittiya rules are concluded.

VI. THE FOUR RULES REQUIRING ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Venerable Ones, these are the four pāṭidesanīya rules, drawn from the Pratimoksha Sutra and recited once every half-month.

The Vinaya Saṅgraha says: “However many bhikkhus are presently residing in the dwelling place, each must personally acknowledge the offense face-to-face. This differs from other offenses; hence it bears the distinct name ‘acknowledgment.’ Furthermore, once the offense has been committed, it must immediately be acknowledged without delay; this also differs from other offenses.”

B. INDIVIDUAL ENUMERATION

There are four rules, from the first rule concerning accepting food from one who is not a relative through the fourth rule concerning accepting food in a place where there is danger.

1) THE RULE CONCERNING ACCEPTING FOOD FROM ONE WHO IS NOT A RELATIVE

In the Mahayana, one considers only whether the food should or should not be accepted, without reference to whether the giver is a relative. Nevertheless, in the Dharma-ending age, this especially should not be done in relation to bhikkhunis.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

If a bhikkhu enters a village and, while not ill, personally accepts food from the hand of a bhikkhuni who is not a relative and eats it, that bhikkhu must disclose the offense before another bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable Sir, I have committed a blameworthy act, something that ought not to have been done. I now disclose it before you, Venerable Sir, and ask to confess and repent.” This is a rule requiring acknowledgment.

ORIGIN:

At that time, there was a famine in the city of Shravasti, and almsfood was difficult to obtain. As soon as the bhikkhuni Utpalavarna had obtained almsfood, she offered it to a bhikkhu. Later, an elder traveling by carriage to have an audience with the king caused the nun, as she moved aside to clear the road, to fall into a deep muddy pool, where she lay submerged in the mud. The elder took pity on her and had someone help her up. Upon learning what had happened, he took offense and reproached them, saying: “The bhikkhu did not understand the principle of yielding to another.” Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “Illness does not mean a slight ailment but a serious disease, such as giới lại disease (watery leprosy), huỳnh lan, sang di (ulceration), ung tọa (abscesses), and so forth, which people find repulsive.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If, while not ill, one personally accepts food, one pāṭidesanīya offense is committed with each mouthful. A novice commits a duṣkṛta.

There is no offense if the bhikkhuni is a relative; if one is ill; if she places the food on the ground and gives it; if she has another person give it; if it is given within a Sangharama; if it is given at the home of a relative; or if it is given at a bhikkhuni monastery.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If the bhikkhu is outside the village and the bhikkhuni is inside the village; or the bhikkhu is inside the village and the bhikkhuni is outside the village; or the bhikkhu is in the air and the bhikkhuni is on the ground; or the bhikkhu is on the ground and the bhikkhuni is in the air—if food is accepted in such circumstances, a duṣkṛta is committed.”

2) THE RULE CONCERNING FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A BHIKKHUNI WHO SOLICITS FOOD ON ONE’S BEHALF

Students of the Mahayana train in the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

If bhikkhus are eating in the home of a layperson and a bhikkhuni there says, “Bring soup to this venerable one; offer rice to that venerable one,” the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhuni: “Sister, desist; let the bhikkhus take their meal undisturbed.” If not one bhikkhu says to that bhikkhuni, “Sister, desist; let the bhikkhus take their meal undisturbed,” then these bhikkhus must disclose the offense before another bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable Sir, I have committed a blameworthy act, something that ought not to have been done. I now disclose it before you, Venerable Sir, and ask to confess and repent.” This is called a rule requiring acknowledgment.

ORIGIN:

The group of six were taking a meal together with the community of bhikkhus at the home of a layperson. The group of six bhikkhunis solicited soup and rice for the group of six bhikkhus, causing the food to be distributed out of order, so that the bhikkhus seated in the middle received no food. Therefore, the Buddha established this rule.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A novice commits a duṣkṛta.

There is no offense if the bhikkhuni is the donor, or if the donor has asked the bhikkhuni to distribute the food and she has no intention of showing partiality in apportioning it.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If members of the other two female assemblies call for additional food and a bhikkhu does not tell them to desist, he commits a duṣkṛta. If a bhikkhu calls for additional food to be distributed unequally, he commits a duṣkṛta.”

3) THE RULE CONCERNING ACCEPTING FOOD FROM A FAMILY IN TRAINING

Mahayana bhikkhus train in the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

If there is a family for whom the Sangha has performed the formal act designating them a trainee family, and a bhikkhu, knowing it to be a trainee family, without having been invited beforehand and while not ill, personally receives food and eats it, that bhikkhu should disclose the offense before another bhikkhu, saying: “I have committed a blameworthy act, doing what ought not to be done. I now disclose and repent it before the Venerable One.” This is called a rule requiring acknowledgment.

ORIGIN:

In the city of Rajagriha there was a lay household whose husband and wife were both rich in faith. They withheld nothing from the bhikkhus and regularly offered them food and other requisites. Eventually, they became impoverished and lacked sufficient food and clothing, causing neighboring households to criticize them. The Buddha instructed the bhikkhus to perform the formal act designating them a trainee family and established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

The Vinaya-samgraha says: “A trainee family means those who have attained the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, or the fruit of non-returning.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni who violates this commits a dukkata offense.

After that family once again possessed abundant wealth, they came and requested that the Sangha revoke the formal act designating them a trainee family. The Buddha permitted the Sangha to revoke that formal act for them.

There is no offense if one had previously accepted an invitation; if one is ill; if the food is placed on the ground and given; if one has another person give it; or if the formal act has been revoked.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If the wife is a noble disciple and the husband an ordinary person, or the wife is an ordinary person and the husband a noble disciple, the formal act designating them a trainee family should not be performed. Only if both husband and wife are noble disciples, no longer possess a miserly mind, and their wealth has been entirely exhausted should the formal act designating them a trainee family be performed.

If the Sangha has fields or gardens, it should allow them to work there. The monastery should receive its customary share and give them the surplus for their livelihood. If the Sangha has no fields or gardens, then whatever offerings are available at the Sangha’s monastery, they should be allowed to work for them so that they may receive support.

If even this means is unavailable, after obtaining almsfood, the monastics should go to their home to eat and give them what remains. If that is not possible, they should bring them into the Sangha’s monastery, provide them with lodging and bedding, give them food in due order and drinks at the improper time, and, when robes are distributed, also give them a share. The bhikkhunis should likewise provide for women from trainee families.”

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “If a layperson’s wealth diminishes and does not increase, whether or not the layperson requests it, the formal act designating the household a trainee family should not be revoked. If the wealth increases, whether or not the layperson requests it, the formal act should be revoked. If the wealth neither increases nor decreases, it should be revoked if requested, but should not be revoked if no request is made.”

4) THE PRECEPT ON RECEIVING FOOD IN A DANGEROUS PLACE

The Mahayana is studied in the same manner.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu dwells in a remote and secluded aranya, a place that is suspicious and dangerous, a bhikkhu residing at such an aranya dwelling should first inform the donors and should receive food outside the Sangharama. If, instead, while not ill, he personally receives food inside the Sangharama, that bhikkhu should disclose the offense before another bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable One, I have committed a blameworthy act, doing what ought not to be done. I now disclose and repent it before the Venerable One.” This is called a rule requiring acknowledgment.

ORIGIN:

Women brought food and drink to the Sangharama as offerings. A band of thieves learned of this, and the women were molested along the road. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said: From now on, the women should be told not to set out, because there are terrifying bandits on the road.

If they have already left the city, they should be told not to come to the Sangharama, because there are terrifying bandits on the road. He then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A novice who violates this commits a dukkata offense.

There is no offense if the donors have been informed beforehand; if one is ill; if the food is placed on the ground and given; or if one instructs another person to give it.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “There is no offense if a passing army gives food, or if the bandits themselves bring food and offer it.”

C. CONCLUDING RECITATION

Venerable Ones, I have finished reciting the four patidesaniya rules. I now ask the Venerable Ones assembled here: Are you pure in this regard? (Three times.)

The Venerable Ones assembled here are pure in this regard because they remain silent. Thus do I understand this matter.

The four rules requiring acknowledgment are concluded.

VII. THE SEKHIYA RULES

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

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

For each precept herein it is said: Sikkha-karaniya (this should be trained in).

Venerable Ones, these are the one hundred sekhiya rules drawn from the Pratimoksha Sutra and recited once every half-month.

The Vinaya-samgraha says: These sekhiya rules are generally classified into eight categories:

1) Matters concerning the wearing of robes.

2) Matters concerning entering a village.

3) Matters concerning standing and sitting.

4) Matters concerning eating.

5) Matters concerning protecting the alms bowl.

6) Matters concerning urination and defecation.

7) Matters concerning teaching the Dharma.

8) Matters concerning looking about.

(The rules concerning Buddha stupas and related matters are incomplete in every Vinaya school and are therefore not included.)

B. INDIVIDUAL ENUMERATION

Regarding these sekhiya rules, the various Vinaya schools differ in how they divide or combine them and in whether they present them in detail or in brief. Some enumerate more than 110, while others fewer than 50. All concern conduct that safeguards proper deportment. Since they differ from the preceding four classes of rules, their number is not fixed. Only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya takes one hundred rules as its standard.

Below, for each precept, only its number is recorded; the rules are not separately arranged into topical divisions. The causal circumstances are clearly recorded only for the first rule, while those of all the subsequent rules are abbreviated. Explanations of meaning, characteristics of offenses, and so forth are likewise not repeated, as all may be understood by inference.

Nevertheless, these one hundred rules are also to be studied by followers of the Mahayana for the protection of sentient beings and should therefore be observed with even greater purity and strictness. This excludes those who already abide in the Surangama Samadhi and manifest conduct contrary to convention; we dare not discuss them here. Those who have not reached such a state should not neglect the subtleties of conduct and thereby impair their great virtue.

They should constantly reflect upon these profound blessings.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

1) One should wear the nivasa neatly and evenly; this should be trained in.

ORIGIN:

Because the group of six bhikkhus dressed in a manner resembling kings, great ministers, elders, and householders, or like performers who sing, dance, and make sport during festivals, the laypeople criticized them. The Buddha therefore established this rule.

(The circumstances giving rise to the subsequent rules are generally similar.)

EXPLANATION:

“Not neat and even” means tying the waistband too low or too high; letting one corner hang down in front like an elephant’s trunk; letting two corners hang down like the leaves of a tala tree; or having the garment wrinkled and uneven all around.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one intentionally dresses in this manner, one commits a dukkata offense that should be confessed. (The Yathapatti Karmavacana says: One should invite a master of confession.) If one does so unintentionally, one commits only a dukkata offense. (The Yathapatti Karmavacana says: One should merely reproach oneself inwardly.)

Members of the other four assemblies who violate this commit a dukkata offense.

(The following rules are mostly the same. Where they differ, they will be explained according to the particular matter.)

There is no offense if one must wear it lower because of a sore at the navel; if one must wear it higher because of a sore on the leg; or when one is within the Sangharama or outside a village, while working or traveling.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “If one does not understand, does not ask, and wears it in this manner, one incurs a dukkata offense. If one understands but, through carelessness, wears it in this manner, one incurs a dukkata offense. If one understands but, out of contempt for the precept and contempt for others, deliberately wears it in this manner, one incurs a pacittiya offense. The same applies to a bhikkhuni.”

CLARIFICATION:

Question: The precepts concerning the improper wearing of robes all state that there is no offense within the Sangharama or outside a village. Yet a dignified and careful person should be so at all times. If negligent habits have already formed within the Sangha’s residence, how can one avoid presenting an unseemly appearance upon entering a village? Since this is permitted here, what is its meaning?

Answer: Careless conduct is not permitted either within the monastery or outside a village. However, if one is within the monastery or certain circumstances make it impossible to dress neatly, the matter may reasonably be excused. When entering a village, however, one must guard against giving cause for criticism and inspire faith and joy in others; therefore, an offense is established.

APPENDIX:

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Miscellaneous Matters says: “In hot weather, when a bhikshu is in his private room, he may wear only his lower garment and saṃkakṣikā(3), and may freely recite, teach the Dharma, sew robes, and so forth. Whether walking, standing, lying down, or sitting, he commits no offense.

2) One must wear the three robes neatly and properly; this should be learned

To wear them improperly means allowing the lower edge to hang below the elbows, exposing the chest, or raising it above the shins; letting one corner hang down, or letting the two front corners hang down; or lifting the back high, folding it into a small bundle, and grasping it.

No offense: If there is a sore on the shoulder or arm, the robe may be worn lower. All other circumstances are the same as in the preceding rule.

The Śāriputra-Praśna Sūtra says: “When performing service or making offerings, one should bare a shoulder for ease in carrying out the work. When serving as a field of merit, one should cover both shoulders so that the appearance of a field of merit is clearly manifested.”

What is meant by “performing service or making offerings”? It is, for example, when seeing the Buddha, greeting the teachers and Sangha, shaking out bedding, sweeping the ground, gathering up one’s robes, or moving any articles of offering.

What is meant by “serving as a field of merit”? It is when accepting an invitation, going for alms, practicing seated meditation, reciting sutras, or walking in meditation beneath a tree, so that those who see one behold a dignified and pleasing appearance.

3) One must not wear the robe thrown back when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means throwing the robe back to the right or left, or carrying it over the shoulder.

No offense: If there is a sore on the side or ribs.

4) One must not wear the robe thrown back when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

5) One must not wrap the robe around the neck when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means grasping the two corners of the robe and wrapping them over the right and left shoulders.

No offense: If there is a sore on the shoulder or arm.

6) One must not wrap the robe around the neck when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

7) One must not cover the head when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means covering the head with leaves, miscellaneous objects, or a robe.

No offense: If one fears the cold, has a sore on the head, or faces danger to life or danger to the holy life.

8) One must not cover the head when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

9) One must not skip or leap when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means leaping with both feet.

No offense: If one is being beaten; if there is a dangerous beast or thorns; or if one is crossing a puddle, a water-filled pit, or muddy ground.

10) One must not skip or leap when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

11) One must not squat in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means squatting on the ground or on a seat without the buttocks touching the surface.

No offense: If there is a sore near the anus; if something must be handed over; or when paying homage, confessing an offense, or receiving instruction.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “One must not sit embracing the knees or with the legs crossed.”

12) One must not walk with the hands on the hips when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

No offense: If there is a sore below the waist, or if one is within the Sangharama, and so forth.

13) One must not sit with the hands on the hips in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

Placing the hands on the hips obstructs those sitting nearby.

The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: “One must not sit with the chin or cheek resting on the hand.”

14) One must not sway the body when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

Swaying the body means leaning to the left and right while walking briskly. A bhikshuni who does so commits a pāyattika offense.

No offense: If one has an illness that causes this; if one is being beaten and leans aside to avoid the blows; if one is endangered by a fierce elephant, a lion, and so forth; if one encounters a person carrying thorns and leans aside to avoid them; if one is crossing a pit, muddy ground, or a place covered with water and must lean the body to pass; or if, while putting on a robe, one turns the body to see whether it is properly arranged.

15) One must not sway the body when entering and sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

16) One must not swing the arms while entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

This means thrusting the hands forward in rhythm with one’s steps.

No offense: If a companion cannot keep pace and one beckons with the hand to call them. All other circumstances are the same as above.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “If one wishes to call someone, one must not beckon with both hands; one should use only one hand.”

17) One must not swing the arms when entering and sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “One must not move the hands or feet about while sitting in a house.”

18) One must keep the body properly covered when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

Not keeping the body properly covered means leaving any part exposed.

No offense: If one is bound, or if the wind blows the robe aside.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “The antarvāsa (the five-panel robe) should be made of strong, thick cloth. If the cloth is loosely woven, it should be made with two or three layers. If the antarvāsa is loosely woven, the uttarāsaṅga (the seven-panel robe) should be made of strong, thick cloth. If the uttarāsaṅga is loosely woven, the saṅghāṭī (the nine-panel robe) must be made of strong, thick cloth. If the saṅghāṭī is loosely woven, the uttarāsaṅga must be made of strong, thick cloth.

Question: —It is presently handed down that the Buddha prescribed that all three robes(4) be made of coarse, loosely woven hemp cloth. Is this so?

Answer: —The three robes of a bhikshu are intended to protect against cold. As fully set forth in the Vinaya, there are ten kinds of robe, including robes of karpāsa cloth, robes of śauma cloth, and so forth. How could only coarse, loosely woven hemp cloth be used, as stated?

This tradition arose merely because, when the Blessed One first renounced the household life and had removed the precious garment of a prince, a tree deity offered him a hempen robe. This hempen robe had been left behind by a pratyekabuddha one hundred years earlier and was exceedingly fine and smooth; it was by no means coarse. In later generations, the tradition was successively transmitted in this manner.

Now, although this region has its own customary manner of dress, robes of not merely two but even three layers may be used. Yet to say that only coarse hemp cloth is permitted and that cotton is not permitted is truly not the teaching of the Vinaya.

19) One must keep the body properly covered when sitting in the house

of a layperson; this should be learned

In this rule and Rules 21, 23, and 25—four rules in all—the word “entering” appears before the words “the house of a layperson.”

20) One must not look from side to side when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

No offense: If one raises the face to look at the sun; if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life; if one looks to both sides to find a convenient path; or if one wishes to flee.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “When carefully watching the road while walking, one should not walk with the head lowered like a horse. One should walk looking ahead in a normal manner, guarding against fierce elephants, cattle, or horses. One should proceed like a person pulling a cart and must not look east and west. When one wishes to look at something, one should turn the body toward the place one needs to see.”

The Saṃgraha Vinaya says: “One must not walk looking upward. One should walk looking ahead for a distance of about one yogā-bhūmi. One yogā-bhūmi equals four cubits.”

21) One must not look from side to side when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya says: “Before being invited to sit, one should not hastily sit down. One should not sit without first carefully observing the place.”

22) One must remain quiet when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

Not remaining quiet means shouting loudly.

No offense: If the other person is deaf and cannot hear an ordinary call.

23) One must speak softly when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

24) One must not laugh boisterously when entering the house of a layperson; this should be learned

Laughing boisterously means laughing with the teeth exposed.

No offense: If pain in the lips prevents one from covering the teeth, or if one reflects upon some Dharma, becomes joyful, and smiles.

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: “If something amusing occurs, one must not pout the lips, bare the teeth, and laugh loudly. One should restrain laughter by giving rise to contemplation of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and the signs of death. If one still cannot suppress it, one should cover the mouth with the corner of the robe.”

The Mātṛkā says: “If one yawns without closing the mouth, one commits a duṣkṛta offense.”

25) One must not laugh boisterously when sitting in the house of a layperson; this should be learned

26) One must be attentive when receiving food; this should be learned

If one is inattentive, rice and soup will fall upon the seat or dining table.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “Receive food single-mindedly; with the left hand, hold the bowl with undivided attention, and with the right hand, hold its rim.”

27) One should train to receive food only up to the rim of the bowl

Not level with the rim means that the bowl is overfilled.

There is no offense if the bowl is too small or food spills onto the table.

28) One should train to receive soup only up to the rim of the bowl

The group of six monks received so much rice that there was no room left for soup; therefore, this rule was established.

29) One should train to eat rice and soup in equal proportion

Not in equal proportion means that the rice has been finished before the soup arrives, or the soup has been finished before the rice arrives.

There is no offense if one needs soup but not rice, or needs rice but not soup; if it is very near noon; or if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life and one needs to eat quickly.

30) One should train to eat in proper order

Not eating in proper order means digging into the food here and there throughout the bowl.

There is no offense if the rice is hot and one digs into it to let it cool, or if it is very near midday.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: “One must not select and eat the tastiest portions in the bowl first.”

31) One should train not to dig into the center of the bowl when eating

This means leaving food around all four sides while digging down through the center to the bottom of the bowl.

There is no offense if, fearing that the food is hot, one digs into it to let it cool, or if it is very near noon.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: “One must not bend one’s fingers to scrape the bowl while eating, nor smell the food before eating it.”

32) A bhikkhu who is not ill should train not to demand rice or soup for himself

This refers to occasions such as when one is hungry or thirsty.

There is no offense if one is ill and requests it for oneself, requests it for another, or another person requests it on one’s behalf.

33) One should train not to cover the soup with rice in the hope of receiving more

34) One should train not to glance into the bowl of the person sitting nearby and give rise to envy or resentment

To look means examining who has more and who has less.

There is no offense if the person sitting nearby has poor eyesight and one looks to see whether that person has received food, whether it is pure or impure, and so forth.

35) One should train to eat with one’s attention fixed upon the bowl

Not keeping one’s attention upon it means looking this way and that.

There is no offense if the bhikkhu sitting nearby has poor eyesight and one needs to look after him, or if one looks to determine the time.

36) One should train not to eat large morsels of rice

Large means a morsel too large for the mouth to contain.

There is no offense if it is very near noon, if there is danger to life, and so forth, and one eats quickly.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “The morsel should be neither too large nor too small, like a courtesan eating only two or three grains at a time. One should eat morsels of a size suited to the mouth.”

37) One should train not to open one’s mouth wide in anticipation of a morsel of rice

The cases in which there is no offense are the same as in the preceding rule.

38) One should train not to speak with rice in one’s mouth

There is no offense if one is choking and asks for water, or if danger to life and so forth causes one to make a sound while eating.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “If either of one’s two teachers or a senior monk calls, and one has not yet finished swallowing, one should answer if one can do so without altering the sound of one’s voice. If one cannot, one should swallow first and then answer. If that person reproaches one, one should say: ‘There was food in my mouth, so I could not answer immediately.’”

-The Five-Part Vinaya says: “When more food is brought, one is permitted to say: ‘I need it,’ or ‘I do not need it.’ One must not disparage the food.”

39) One should train not to toss morsels of rice into one’s mouth

There is no offense if one is bound.

40) One should train not to let rice fall while eating

This refers to holding half the morsel outside the hand and half inside the mouth.

There is no offense when eating thin cakes, dry rice, melons, oranges, or sugarcane.

41) One should train not to eat with bulging cheeks

This means deliberately filling the mouth so full that both cheeks bulge outward.

There is no offense if noon is imminent.

42) One should train not to make noise while chewing rice

There is no offense when chewing plain cakes, dry rice, melons, fruit, and so forth.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: “One should not make noise while sipping gruel. When eating stalks, roots, and so forth, one should not make loud sounds.”

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “One must not swallow food whole, causing a gulping sound. If one has an ailment of the throat, there is no offense.”

43) One should train not to suck rice noisily into the mouth while eating

This means opening the mouth wide and sucking it in.

There is no offense if one’s mouth is sore, or when eating soup or drinking milk, buttermilk, and so forth.

44) One should train not to lick with the tongue while eating

There is no offense if one is bound or one’s hands are soiled.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “One must not lick one’s hands while eating. If ghee, oil, and so forth adhere to the hands, one should gather them into the bowl, collect them in one place, and then consume them. One must not suck one’s fingers while eating. If honey, salt, and so forth adhere to the fingertips, one may suck them without offense.”

45) One should train not to shake one’s hands while eating

There is no offense if there is grass or an insect in the food, or if one’s hands are unclean and one wishes to shake them clean.

46) One should train not to pick up and eat scattered grains of rice with one’s hand

Scattered rice means rice that has fallen and spilled out.

There is no offense in the circumstances stated in the preceding rule.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: “Food that falls upon grass or leaves should be eaten. If soil adheres to it, one should blow the soil off and eat it. If much soil adheres to it, one may wash it with water and then eat it.”

47) One should train not to handle a food vessel with dirty hands

This means handling food when soil adheres to one’s hands.

There is no offense if one receives it upon grass or leaves, or if one’s hands have been washed clean.

48) One should train not to pour water used for washing the bowl inside a layperson’s house

There is no offense if the water used to wash the table is collected and carried outside to be poured away.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says: “One must not leave leftover food in a bowl containing water.”

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says: “When eating, one should estimate the capacity of one’s stomach and receive food accordingly; one should not receive too much. If a temple attendant brings too much, before eating it one should share it with a bhikkhu sitting nearby. If the person sitting nearby does not accept it, one should give it to a novice or the monastery gardener. When washing the bowl, one must not allow rice to fall upon the ground. If any does fall, one should gather it and place it upon a board or a leaf. If the pieces are as small as strands of vermicelli and cannot be gathered, there is no offense.”

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

END OF THE NINTH FASCICLE

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

END OF THE NINTH FASCICLE

Notes:

(1) As a rule, for the conferral of full ordination to be valid, the Three Preceptors and Seven Witnesses—ten persons in all—must be assembled in capitals and cities. In frontier regions, however, the Three Preceptors and Two Witnesses—five persons in all—are sufficient (according to the upper fascicle of the Guide to the Practice of the Vinaya).

(2) Nivāsana (NIVĀSANA), also called Nê-hoàn-tăng, Nê-phược-đa-na, or Quyết-tu-la, means an undergarment, referring to short trousers.

(3) Saṃkakṣikā: a modern transcription of the Sanskrit term Saṃkakṣikā; the older transcription is Tăng-kỳ-chi. It is a garment used by bhikkhus to cover the thighs, armpits, shoulders, and so forth.

(4) The three robes:

1) Antarvāsa (the five-strip robe), classified as the middle or inner robe and also called the lower robe, worn while performing ordinary daily work.

2) Uttarāsaṅga (the seven-strip robe), classified as the upper robe, worn when paying homage to the Buddha, going for alms, or entering the refectory.

3) Saṅghāṭi (the nine-strip robe), classified as the great robe and also called the composite robe, worn when entering a royal palace or a village to teach the Dharma.