重治毗尼事義集要

6. THE PRECEPT AGAINST BUILDING A PRIVATE DWELLING BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED MEASURE

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

The Brahma Net Sutra calls this “wrongful seeking and excessive seeking.” The Bodhisattva Precepts Sutra calls it “having many desires and not knowing contentment.” If it is for the Sangha, there is no offense.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, begging the materials himself, has a dwelling built without a donor and for his own use, it must be built according to the prescribed measure. The prescribed measure here is twelve Buddha-spans in length and seven Buddha-spans in interior width. He must invite the bhikkhus to designate the site. Those bhikkhus must designate a site that is free from danger and unobstructed. If a bhikkhu, at a dangerous or obstructed site, begging the materials himself, has a dwelling built without a donor and for his own use, without inviting the bhikkhus to designate the site, or has it built beyond the prescribed measure, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[1]:

After the Buddha permitted bhikkhus to build private dwellings, the bhikkhus in the country of the Wilderness built large private dwellings, expending much labor and property and making demands upon the faithful, to the point that laypeople would avoid them whenever they saw them. At that time, Venerable Kasyapa went on almsround, but the laypeople in the city of the Wilderness kept far away from him. He inquired, learned the reason, and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

Without a donor: This means that there is no donor—whether one person, two people, or many people—who undertakes the construction. A dangerous site: This means a place where there are tigers, wolves, lions, other fierce beasts, or even ants or termites. If a bhikkhu will not be troubled by such animals or insects, the ground should be leveled.

If there are rocks, tree stumps, or thornbushes, he should have someone clear them away. If there are drainage channels, pits, ponds, or sloping ground, he should have someone fill and level them. If there is a danger of water seepage or flooding, an embankment must be raised as a precaution.

If the land is disputed by others, the dispute must be satisfactorily resolved so that no ill repute arises. Obstructed: This means a place where a cart laden with grass cannot turn around and pass about it.

After the bhikkhu has examined the place and found it free from danger and unobstructed, he should enter the Sangha, remove his sandals, bare his right shoulder, kneel with his right knee touching the ground, place his palms together, and make this request:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen. I, the bhikkhu ... begging the materials myself, wish to build a dwelling without a donor and for my own use. I now come before the Sangha and ask you to verify that this site is free from danger and unobstructed.” (He should make this request three times.)

The Sangha should then consider this bhikkhu. If he can be trusted, it may immediately grant him permission to build. If he cannot be trusted, the Sangha should go to inspect the site. Alternatively, it may send a trustworthy representative of the Sangha to inspect it. If the site is both dangerous and obstructed, free from danger but obstructed, or dangerous but unobstructed, permission to build should not be granted. Only if it is free from danger and unobstructed should permission to build be granted.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If permission has not been obtained from the Sangha, or if the dwelling is built beyond the prescribed measure, a Sanghadisesa offense is committed for each matter. If construction is begun but not completed, a Thullaccaya offense is committed; the same applies if he has someone else build it. If he builds it for another person and it is completed, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; if it is not completed, he commits a Dukkata offense.

If the site is dangerous or obstructed, a Dukkata offense is committed for each matter. Whether he has someone else build it or builds it for someone else, and whether it is completed or not, he commits a Dukkata offense.

(Bhikkhunis and others are not permitted to dwell in an aranya). A novice commits a Dukkata offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

When construction is completed, one incurs a Sanghadisesa offense. When one uses it, one incurs a Vinaya-transgression offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one accepts it only after the building has been completed, there is no offense.

7. THE PRECEPT AGAINST BUILDING A LARGE DWELLING WITHOUT HAVING THE SANGHA DESIGNATE THE SITE

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

The Brahma Net Sutra says: When practicing the dhutanga disciplines, even when entering the rains retreat, one must not enter dangerous places.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu wishes to build a large monastery, provided by a donor for his own use, he must invite other bhikkhus

to designate the site. Those bhikkhus must designate a site that is free from danger and unobstructed.

If a bhikkhu, at a dangerous or obstructed site, builds a large monastery provided by a donor for his own use without inviting the bhikkhus to designate the site, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[2]:

King Udayana and Venerable Chandaka were close friends. The Venerable built a large dwelling according to his own wishes. At that time, in the city of Kausambi, there was a sacred nyagrodha tree beneath whose shade devas and people passing by would often sit and rest. Venerable Chandaka cut down that tree. The laypeople criticized him, and therefore the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Except for the matter of exceeding the prescribed measure, all other cases, whether involving grave or light offenses, are the same as in the preceding precept.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one accepts it only after the building has been completed, there is no offense.

8. THE PRECEPT AGAINST MAKING A GROUNDLESS ACCUSATION

This is an offense by its very nature; the Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

If one speaks of it to an outsider, one commits a grave offense. If one speaks of it to a person under the same precepts, one commits a light offense.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, harboring anger and resentment, groundlessly accuses a bhikkhu who has not committed a Parajika offense of having committed a Parajika offense, wishing to destroy that bhikkhu’s life of pure conduct, and afterward, whether questioned or not, the matter is known to be groundless, and that bhikkhu says, “I spoke thus out of hatred,” then the bhikkhu who speaks thus commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[3]:

The Buddha was staying on Mount Grdhrakuta. Venerable Dabba Mallaputta had been appointed by the Sangha to assign sleeping places to the Sangha and, according to seniority, to invite members of the Sangha to meals. A Mettiya bhikkhu arrived and, because assignments were made according to seniority, received a poor room and poor bedding, whereupon he became resentful.

The next morning, when the Sangha was invited to a meal, the donor learned that the Mettiya bhikkhu had come and accordingly spread poor bedding outside the gate and served inferior food. Mettiya became even more enraged and asked his younger sister, the bhikkhuni Mettiya, to accuse the Venerable falsely of having violated her pure conduct. The Blessed One investigated and learned the truth.

He told the bhikkhus: “Two kinds of persons are certain to enter hell. What are these two? One who does not lead a life of pure conduct yet claims to do so, and one who groundlessly accuses a person who truly leads a life of pure conduct of impure conduct.” After reprimanding them, the Buddha established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

There are three grounds: the ground of having seen, the ground of having heard, and the ground of suspicion.

Suspicion arises in two ways: suspicion arising from what one has seen and suspicion arising from what one has heard.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

When none of these three grounds exists: first, one accuses another of one of the four offenses entailing expulsion; second, one accuses another of other acts incompatible with being a bhikkhu; or third, one alleges that another has committed a disqualifying offense, one of the five heinous acts, an offense involving two grounds, and so forth—regardless of whether that person is pure or impure, if the accusation is stated explicitly, one commits a Sanghadisesa offense; if it is not stated explicitly, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. Accusing a bhikkhuni is the same as above. Accusing another person entails a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense when there is a basis in seeing, hearing, or suspicion; when one speaks in a dream; when one misspeaks; and so forth.

SUPPLEMENT:

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If an upasaka falsely accuses a bhikkhu, the formal act of overturning the alms bowl should be imposed upon him. (This is explained in detail under the procedures for disciplinary action.)

9. THE PRECEPT AGAINST TAKING A PART OF AN UNRELATED MATTER AS A BASIS FOR AN ACCUSATION

In the Mahayana ... light ... grave ... all are the same as in the preceding precept.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, out of anger and resentment, seizes upon some minor detail of an unrelated matter and groundlessly accuses a bhikkhu who has not committed a Parajika offense of a Parajika offense

grounds, wishing to destroy his life of brahmacarya. Later, whether questioned or not questioned, that matter is known to have been based on some minor aspect of a matter belonging to another category, and this bhikkhu himself says: “I spoke thus out of hatred.” Any bhikkhu who speaks thus commits Sanghavasesa.

ORIGIN[4]:

The bhikkhu Mettiya, looking down from Mount Gijjhakuta, saw a male goat copulating with a female goat. He then likened the male goat to the Venerable Dabba Mallaputta and the female goat to the bhikkhuni Mettiya. Mettiya told the bhikkhus: “I saw it with my own eyes.” The bhikkhus investigated, learned the truth, and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

“A matter belonging to another category” means one of the four grave offenses. If one commits any one of these, one is no longer a samana, no longer a son of the Sakyan, and has lost the status of a bhikkhu; therefore, it is called a matter belonging to another category. A minor aspect refers to matters of deportment.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether they have the same name, the same family name, or the same physical characteristics, or whether the offense was committed while still a householder, if one takes some aspect of a similar matter as a basis for slander, then whether the statement is explicit or implicit, and so forth, all is the same as in the preceding precept.

10. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING REFUSAL TO ABANDON AN ATTEMPT TO CAUSE A SCHISM IN THE SANGHA

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

Before the wheel of the Sangha has been broken, the act pertains to a wicked and angry mind and to narrow-minded instruction. Once the wheel of the Sangha has been broken, it becomes an offense of immediate retribution for which repentance is not permitted.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu seeks to destroy the harmony of the Sangha, proceeds in an attempt to destroy the harmony of the Sangha, and obstinately persists without abandoning it, the bhikkhus should admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable sir, do not destroy the harmony of the Sangha. Do not cling to a practice that destroys the harmony of the Sangha, nor obstinately persist without abandoning it. Venerable sir, you should remain in harmony with the Sangha.

For when one is in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing without dispute, training together under one Teacher, and blending in harmony like water and milk, there will be growth in the Buddha-Dharma and one will dwell at ease.” If, when admonished in this way, that bhikkhu still obstinately persists without abandoning it, the bhikkhus should admonish him up to three times so that he will abandon the matter. If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good; if he does not abandon it, he commits Sanghavasesa.

ORIGIN[5]:

Devadatta wished to harm the Buddha and also instructed Ajatasattu to kill his father. His ill repute spread everywhere, and offerings to him ceased. Devadatta then joined with five men who agreed with him and went from house to house for alms.

The Buddha prohibited eating as a separate faction. Devadatta then thought: “Gotama is one who cuts off the food of others. I must break his wheel of the Sangha.” He then taught the bhikkhus five practices: 1.

To live solely on alms for life; 2. To wear rag robes; 3. To dwell in the open air; 4.

Not to consume oil or salt; 5. Not to eat meat or fish. He caused those whose minds delighted in these practices to believe in him, using these as means to break the wheel of the Sangha.

The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha permitted the Sangha to perform a formal act of censure and then established this precept.

The Third Section[6] says:

Devadatta announced that ballots were to be taken, saying: “Whichever Elders agree that these five practices are the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Buddha’s teaching should take a ballot stick.” At that time, five hundred newly ordained, ignorant bhikkhus took ballot sticks and followed Devadatta. Later, Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana taught the Dharma and manifested spiritual powers, thereby bringing them back. The Buddha permitted them to perform the act of repentance for a Thullaccaya offense.

EXPLANATION:

Harmony means performing the same formal acts and reciting the precepts together. Sangha means a community of four bhikkhus or more, up to an innumerable number. Schism involves eighteen matters: Dharma and non-Dharma; Vinaya and non-Vinaya; offense and non-offense; light and grave; remediable and irremediable; gross and not gross; customary practice and non-customary practice[7]; what has been prescribed and what has not been prescribed; what was spoken and what was not spoken.

(Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth matters, according to the Mahisasaka Vinaya, they are: using a formal act of the Sangha to rehabilitate one from an offense, and not using a formal act of the Sangha to rehabilitate one from an offense. The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: “Customary matters” are acts performed by a motion alone, by a motion followed by one proclamation, or by a motion followed by three proclamations; the Uposatha; the Pavarana; and the formal procedures established for the fourteen classes of persons.)

Clinging to a practice that causes a schism in the Sangha means clinging to these eighteen matters.

The Third Section of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

There are two means of causing a schism in the Sangha: false speech and specious speech. There are also two other means of causing a schism in the Sangha: performing a formal act of the Sangha and taking ballots.

If there is only one bhikkhu, or even two or three, although they seek a means to do so, they cannot cause a schism in the Sangha; the same applies to bhikkhunis. There must be a community of four or more on one side and a community of four or more on the other. When they take ballots to divide the Sangha and perform separate formal acts of the Sangha, the harmonious Sangha is thereby split. The offender falls into hell for an entire kalpa before the offense is exhausted. One who restores harmony gains the merit of being reborn in the Brahma heaven and experiencing bliss there for one kalpa.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

I see no other thing that destroys a person’s aspiration for the Path apart from fame and material gain. Devadatta caused a schism in the Sangha because of material gain. Devadatta was possessed of eight non-Dharmic conditions and therefore caused a schism in the Sangha: gain, loss, praise, lack of praise, honor, lack of honor, delighting in evil deeds, and following evil companions.

Four actions are called causing a schism in the Sangha:

– Proclaiming the five practices.

– Personally distributing ballot sticks.

– Taking ballot sticks.

– Performing separate acts of the Sangha within the same boundary.

Furthermore, if a king, a great minister, or the group of six bhikkhus causes the Sangha to be disharmonious, this does not constitute a schism in the Sangha. If one bhikkhu, or as many as seven bhikkhus, are not in harmony, this also does not mean that the Sangha has been split. If they perform an act of the Sangha without consulting the senior elder, this is disharmony, but it is not a schism in the Sangha.

If they do not eat together, or sit separately while eating and quarrel and revile one another, this is also not called a schism in the Sangha. It is essential that, within the same boundary, eight or more bhikkhus divide into two groups and perform separate acts of the Sangha; only then is it called a schism in the Sangha. The instigator of such a matter falls into hell for one kalpa and cannot be rescued.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

There are two kinds of schism in the Sangha:

Schism through formal acts of the Sangha and schism in the wheel of the Dharma.

– Schism through formal acts of the Sangha means separately performing formal acts of the Sangha and the Uposatha within the same boundary.

– Schism in the wheel of the Dharma: “wheel” refers to the Noble Eightfold Path; it means causing people to abandon the Noble Eightfold Path and enter a wrong path.

The Sarvastivada Vibhasa says:

One who breaks the wheel of the Sangha commits an unrepentable Thullaccaya offense of immediate retribution. One who divides the Sangha by separate formal acts commits a Thullaccaya offense that is not an offense of immediate retribution and may be repented. Breaking the wheel of the Sangha requires at least nine persons, with one person proclaiming himself to be the Buddha. Dividing the Sangha by separate formal acts requires at least eight persons, with no one proclaiming himself to be the Buddha.

The wheel of the Sangha may be broken either within or outside a boundary. Dividing the Sangha by separate formal acts must occur within a boundary, where separate formal acts are performed. Only bhikkhus can break the wheel of the Sangha. Bhikkhunis can also divide the Sangha by separate formal acts. Breaking the wheel of the Sangha breaks the Sangha of conventional truth. Dividing the Sangha by separate formal acts also breaks the Sangha of ultimate truth. Breaking the wheel of the Sangha can occur only in the Southern Continent, Jambudvipa. Dividing the Sangha by separate formal acts can occur throughout all three continents.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon completion of the third proclamation of the formal act of the Sangha, one commits Sanghavasesa. If one abandons the matter after two proclamations have been completed, one commits three Thullaccaya offenses. If one abandons it after one proclamation has been completed, one commits two Thullaccaya offenses. If one abandons it after the motion has been made, one commits one Thullaccaya offense. From the moment the motion has been made until one accepts the practice of causing a schism in the Sangha, all such acts constitute Dukkata offenses.

If, while the Sangha is formally censuring and admonishing the offender, someone says: “Do not abandon it,” that person commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one fails to admonish and censure him, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits Sanghavasesa.

There is no offense if one abandons the matter as soon as the admonition begins, or if one opposes what is non-Dharma, non-Vinaya, and non-harmonious, as well as all evil companions, and so forth.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

If the other members of the Sangha know that this bhikkhu intends to cause a schism in the Sangha, they should send one bhikkhu who is close to him, a friend, to admonish him. If he abandons his intention, he should be assigned one dukkata offense to confess. If he does not abandon it, they should send two or three bhikkhus to admonish him.

If he abandons it, he should be assigned two dukkata offenses. If he still does not abandon it, the Sangha should admonish him. If he abandons it, he should be assigned three dukkata offenses.

If he does not abandon it, he should be admonished by a motion and three proclamations. If, after the motion, he abandons it, he should be assigned one thullaccaya and three dukkata offenses. When the three proclamations have been completed, whether he then abandons it or not, he commits a sanghadisesa offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, after being admonished three times, he does not abandon it, he commits a sanghadisesa offense. This bhikkhu must immediately go before the Sangha and declare of his own accord: “Venerable Elders, I, the bhikkhu named..., have committed a sanghadisesa offense.” If he declares it immediately in this way, that is well. If he does not declare it, that day is counted as the first day of concealing the offense.

It also says: If, without first admonishing and restraining him with gentle words, they immediately perform a motion and three proclamations to admonish and restrain him, those who perform the formal act commit a dukkata offense. If, before performing a motion and three proclamations, they immediately carry out an act of expulsion, those who perform the formal act commit a dukkata offense. If, before carrying out the procedure of admonishment by speaking three times within the boundary, they separately invite persons to perform the formal act, they commit a thullaccaya offense, because this creates a cause and condition for schism in the Sangha.

If the Sangha knows of this, the Sangha commits an offense.

APPENDIX:

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If they know that someone intends to cause a schism in the Sangha, the bhikkhus should say: “Elder, do not cause a schism in the Sangha. Causing a schism in the Sangha is a grave offense and leads to an evil destination and to hell. I shall give you robes and a bowl, teach you sutras and recitation, and exchange duties of instruction with you.” If he deliberately refuses to abandon his intention, they should tell an influential upasaka: “This person intends to cause a schism in the Sangha.

You should go and admonish him and urge him to abandon this undertaking.” That upasaka should go and say: “Venerable Sir, do not cause a schism in the Sangha. Causing a schism in the Sangha is a grave offense and leads to an evil destination and to hell. I shall give the Venerable Sir robes, a bowl, and medicines for treating illness.

If the Venerable Sir no longer wishes to cultivate the holy life, you may return to lay life; I shall arrange a wife for you and provide you with necessities.” If he deliberately refuses to abandon his intention, lots should be drawn to expel him. After the person concerned has departed, notice should be given in various places: “Venerable Ones, a person who causes schism in the Sangha is coming; you should be aware of this yourselves.” Only when all these measures have been fully carried out and he still deliberately causes a schism in the Sangha is it called causing a schism in the Sangha.

Giving alms to them is said to be giving to a good field of merit. Receiving full ordination from them is said to be validly receiving wholesome precepts. Upon learning who they are, one should leave them.

If one does not leave, one is called a companion of the person who causes schism in the Sangha and a member of his faction. Throughout one’s life, one should neither speak with them, dwell with them, nor eat with them; one should not share with them the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; nor share the uposatha, rains retreat, invitation ceremony, or formal acts of the Sangha. One may say to a renunciant of another path: “There is a seat; if you wish to sit, then sit,” but one must not invite that person to sit.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: Once the wheel of the Sangha has been broken, why are they still called a good field of merit, and why is receiving full ordination from them still called valid? If it is called valid full ordination, why should one leave after learning who they are?

Answer: Causing a schism in the Sangha is a thullaccaya offense, but they have not yet lost their precepts; therefore, they are still called a field of merit. It is like gold: although cut into two pieces, each piece is still gold. Since they have not lost their precepts, they are still members of the Sangha. When one first renounced the household life, one had no understanding and received ordination from them; how could one not obtain the precepts? But after learning the truth, how could one willingly remain a companion of one who causes schism in the Sangha? Therefore, one must leave.

11. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING FAILURE TO ABANDON A FACTION THAT CAUSES SCHISM IN THE SANGHA

In the Mahayana, the lighter and graver aspects are the same as in the preceding precept.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu has a faction consisting of one, two, three, or any number of bhikkhus, and those factional bhikkhus say to the other bhikkhus: “Venerable Ones, do not admonish that bhikkhu. That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma; that bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Vinaya. We approve of what that bhikkhu says.

We accept what that bhikkhu says,” then the bhikkhus should admonish those factional bhikkhus, saying: “Venerable Ones, do not say: ‘That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma; that bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Vinaya. We approve of what that bhikkhu says. We accept what that bhikkhu says.’ Rather, that bhikkhu speaks contrary to the Dharma and contrary to the Vinaya.

Venerable Ones, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha. You should delight in the harmony of the Sangha. Venerable Ones, being in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing together without disputes, and training together under one Teacher, harmonious as water and milk, you will attain growth in the Buddha’s Dharma and dwell at ease.” If, when admonished in this way, those factional bhikkhus persist and refuse to abandon their position, the bhikkhus should admonish them up to three times so that they will abandon it.

If, after being admonished up to three times, they abandon it, that is well. If they do not abandon it, they commit a sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[8]:

Devadatta’s faction told the bhikkhus not to admonish Devadatta. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed the Sangha of bhikkhus to perform a formal act of censure and admonishment, and then established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

The Compendium of the Vinaya says:

“Words of Dharma” means speech that is perfect and complete. “Words of Vinaya” means speech that accords with right principle and is free from error. Furthermore, speech capable of leading to the true meaning is called “words of Dharma.” Gentle speech is called “words of Vinaya.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The lighter and graver offenses are the same as in the preceding precept.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If one bhikkhu is expelled and four bhikkhus follow him, this is called causing a schism in the Sangha. If that bhikkhu is learned, knowledgeable, well-versed, possessed of great virtue, and thoroughly understands the meaning of the Tripitaka, an act of expulsion for refusing to acknowledge an offense should not be performed against him. If he is expelled, a thullaccaya offense is committed, because this comes close to causing a schism in the Sangha.

It also says: If one person expels one person, he commits one dukkata offense. If one person expels two, three, or four persons, he commits respectively two, three, or four dukkata offenses. The same applies when two or three persons expel two, three, four, or one person. If four bhikkhus expel four bhikkhus, they commit a thullaccaya offense, because this creates a cause and condition for schism in the Sangha.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: If one bhikkhu is expelled and four bhikkhus follow him, this is called causing a schism in the Sangha. Does the offense of causing schism in the Sangha belong to those who expelled him, to the one expelled, or to those who follow the expelled bhikkhu?

Answer: If the expulsion was in accordance with the Dharma, the offense belongs to the expelled person and to those who follow him. If the expulsion was contrary to the Dharma, the offense belongs to those who carried out the expulsion and to the Sangha. Nevertheless, even if a bhikkhu who acts in accordance with the Dharma has been wrongfully expelled, he must certainly not remain within the boundary and separately conduct acts of the Sangha.

Another question: If a person who is learned, knowledgeable, and so forth should not be subjected to a formal act of expulsion for refusing to acknowledge an offense, does this mean that when such persons commit an offense, they should be excused?

Answer: Although the offense of a learned and knowledgeable person cannot be excused, he must be skillfully exhorted and persuaded to acknowledge his offense. If a formal act is hastily carried out, it will certainly lead to the fault of causing a schism in the Sangha; therefore, an offense is committed.

12. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING AN EXPELLED PERSON WHO REFUSES TO SUBMIT

The Mahayana likewise prohibits this. Corrupting households refers to the precept concerning seeking gain through gain, managing affairs for laypeople, and so forth. Engaging in bad conduct refers to the precept concerning deliberation upon wrong livelihood and wrong actions, sustaining oneself through wrong livelihood, and so forth. Saying that the Sangha acts out of affection and so forth falls under the precept against slandering the Sangha.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

Any bhikkhu who lives in dependence upon a village or town and corrupts families, whose conduct is bad—the corruption of families is seen and heard by all, and his bad conduct is seen and heard by all—the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu: “Venerable sir, you are one who corrupts families and whose conduct is bad. Your corruption of families is seen and heard by all, and your bad conduct is seen and heard by all! Venerable sir, you corrupt families and your conduct is bad. You should now depart from this village and should no longer live here.”

That bhikkhu may say to those bhikkhus: “Venerable sirs, the bhikkhus act out of partiality, hostility, fear, and ignorance. For there are bhikkhus who have committed the same offense, yet some are expelled and others are not.” The bhikkhus should reply to that bhikkhu: “Venerable sir, do not say: ‘The bhikkhus act out of partiality, hostility, fear, and ignorance, for there are bhikkhus who have committed the same offense, yet some are expelled and others are not.’ The bhikkhus do not act out of partiality, hostility, fear, or ignorance.

Rather, it is because you, Venerable sir, are one who corrupts families and whose conduct is bad. Your corruption of families is seen and heard by all, and your bad conduct is seen and heard by all.” If, when admonished in this way, that bhikkhu persists and does not relinquish his position, the bhikkhus should admonish him three times so that he will relinquish it. If, after being admonished up to three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, it is a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[9]:

In the settlement of Kitagiri there were two bhikkhus, one named Assaji and the other Punabbasuka, who engaged in unlawful conduct: planting flowers with their own hands, instructing others to plant flowers, watering flowers, picking flowers, and even singing, dancing, chanting, playing flutes, beating drums, accepting entertainment, joking, laughing, and so forth. At that time, a large group of bhikkhus came to Kitagiri for alms, their deportment composed and their eyes lowered as they walked.

The laypeople, however, regarded this as improper and undesirable. The bhikkhus investigated and learned the truth, then reported the entire matter to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana to go and perform the karman of expulsion.

The two bhikkhus spoke as stated above. Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana returned and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha then had the Sangha perform the karman, rebuked and admonished them, and established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

There are four ways of corrupting families:

a) Relying upon one household to corrupt another household: this means receiving an article from one household and taking it to give to another. The household that donated the article is displeased upon hearing of this, while the household that received it thinks of repaying the favor and says afterward: “If he gives something to me, I shall repay him; if he gives me nothing, why should I give anything to him?”

b) Relying upon gains to corrupt another household: this means that a bhikkhu receives lawful gains, even food remaining in his alms bowl, and gives them to one layperson but not to another. The recipient thinks of repaying the favor... as above.

c) Relying upon influential friends to corrupt another household: this means that a bhikkhu relies upon a king or a great minister to assist one layperson but not another. The person who receives assistance thinks of repaying the favor: “He helped me, so I shall make offerings to him; if he does not help me, I shall not make offerings to him.”

d) Relying upon a Sangha monastery to corrupt another household: this means that a bhikkhu takes the Sangha’s flowers or fruit and gives them to one layperson but not to another... up to: “If he gives me nothing, I shall not make offerings to him.” Engaging in bad conduct means personally planting trees, flowers, and fruit-bearing plants...

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

There are two causes and conditions for corrupting families:

– Dwelling together: lying or sitting on the same bed with a woman, eating from the same tray, and so forth.

– Sharing in use: jointly using trees, flowers, fruit, tooth-cleaning sticks, and so forth.

The Vibhasa says:

Those who have gone forth should harbor no attachment and crave nothing; they should preserve their own purity and make cultivation of the Way their chief concern. If they maintain worldly exchanges with laypeople, they neglect and disrupt their proper vocation. Furthermore, exchanging gifts destroys the wholesome and impartial minds of others.

Toward those from whom they receive things, people feel joy, affection, and reverence; toward those from whom they receive nothing, even if they are sages or noble ones, people feel no affection or reverence. Thus, the profound merit and benefit of others are lost. Moreover, this turns the Buddha-Dharma upside down.

Laypeople should make offerings to those who have gone forth, yet those who have gone forth instead make offerings to laypeople. Furthermore, laypeople ordinarily seek from the Three Jewels a pure field of merit and devote their utmost sincerity to planting wholesome roots. When those who have gone forth engage in reciprocal gift-giving, they act contrary to the way of renunciation, cause laypeople to give rise to expectations and desires, destroy their pure minds of faith and reverence, and also deprive all renunciants of offerings and support.

Even if, by giving a few things to laypeople, one could have a stupa built of the seven precious substances and magnificently adorned, this would not equal sitting peacefully in purity and observing the precepts; for that is an offering to the Tathagata’s true Dharma-body. Even if, by giving a few things to laypeople, one could have a magnificent Sangha dwelling established like the Jeta Grove Monastery, this would not equal sitting peacefully in purity and observing the precepts; for that is a pure offering to the Three Jewels.

Even if, by giving a few things to laypeople, one could obtain the four requisites in quantities sufficient for the entire continent of Jambudvipa and offer them to the whole noble Sangha, this would not equal sitting peacefully in purity and observing the precepts; for that is a pure offering to the entire noble Sangha.

If a powerful person intends to demolish a stupa or smash an image and it is necessary to offer property to prevent this, one should sell the flowers, fruit, or land belonging to the stupa, use the stupa’s money, or employ other expedient means as circumstances permit. If a powerful person intends to damage or diminish Sangha property or Sangha land, whatever property is presently available may be sold for money, and the matter may be handled according to circumstances. If a powerful person intends to damage or diminish the Sangha’s regular annual allotment or its gate-front allotment[10], whatever resources are available within the bounds of that land may be used to resolve the matter.

Because one’s parents are a field of merit, one should be permitted to support them.

Those who work for the Sangha should be assisted.

If a donor wishes to prepare food as an offering to the Sangha and wants to know the proper procedure, one should instruct that person.

Out of compassion, one should assist solitary beggars.

Even when one’s parents pass away, lamentation and weeping are not permitted. Members of all four assemblies who do so commit a dushkrita offense. A bhikkhuni commits a payattika offense because her emotional attachment is still deep and strong.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The distinction between lighter and heavier offenses is the same as in the preceding precept. A bhikkhuni commits a Sanghadisesa offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a dushkrita offense.

No offense is committed if, as soon as the admonition begins, he agrees to relinquish his position immediately; in that case, the root offense is not committed. If one supports one’s parents or assists the sick, children, pregnant women, prisoners, or workers, one does not commit the offense of corrupting families. If one plants flowers and so forth for the Three Jewels; instructs others to pick flowers as offerings to the Three Jewels; runs to escape danger; moves aside to avoid something; leaps across a ditch or channel; or whistles to summon a companion to go along, one does not commit the offense of bad conduct.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, before the karman of expulsion has been performed, one says, “The bhikkhus act according to their own partiality, anger, fear, and delusion,” one commits a dushkrita offense. Such a person should not be left without admonition and restraint.

APPENDIX:

The Third Division of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

One should not shave the head of a layperson unless that person wishes to go forth.

The Fourth Division of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says:

One should not bow to laypeople, nor should one bow at the shrines or temples of laypeople. One also should not deliberately circumambulate them to the left.

– One should not practice divination for others, nor ask others to practice divination.

– One should not personally sing, dance, or blow a conch to make offerings to a stupa; one is permitted to ask a layperson to do so.

– One should not keep parrots and the like, nor should one keep dogs.

– One should not ride in vehicles such as elephant carriages or horse-drawn carriages.

– One should not handle swords or blades. The elderly and sick are permitted to travel in a hand-drawn cart or a cart drawn by a male animal. When escaping danger, one is permitted to ride an elephant or a horse.

If a layperson brings a sword or blade for safekeeping, one is permitted to accept and store it.

Within the Dharma and discipline of the Noble Ones, singing is regarded as weeping, dancing as the behavior of a madman, and frivolous laughter as the behavior of a child.

– One should not visit a layperson’s house in the evening or at night, except on business concerning the Three Jewels, on behalf of a sick bhikkhu, or at the invitation of a donor.

– Habitually visiting laypeople’s homes entails five faults: one frequently sees women; gradually, one associates closely with them; intimacy develops; sensual desire arises; and one may commit a defeat offense or an offense bordering on defeat. (That is, an offense in the first or second division.)

– A lay household may possess the following nine qualities. If its members are not yet donors, they should not be accepted as donors; and if one visits their home, one should not sit down. These nine qualities are:

1. On seeing a bhikkhu, they are unwilling to rise in greeting.

2. They are unwilling to pay homage.

3. They are unwilling to invite the bhikkhu to sit.

4. They dislike seeing the bhikkhu seated.

5. They do not believe or accept what the bhikkhu says.

6. Although they have robes, food, drink, and other necessities, they refuse to give them because they disdain the bhikkhu.

7. Though they have much, they give very little.

8. Though they have good things, they give inferior things.

9. Or they give without a respectful heart.

The Mahishasaka Vinaya says:

Fruit belonging to the Sangha should not be presented as a gift to laypeople; if they ask for it, it may be given.

– If one learns spells for bewitching people or spells that cause the dead to sit up, one commits a Thullaccaya offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

There are five places a bhikkhu should not visit:

– A place where maidens are present.

– A place where widows are present.

– Women’s quarters.

– A courtesan’s establishment.

– A place where bhikkhunis reside.

There are also five further places:

– A bandit’s house.

– A Chandala’s house.

– A house where liquor is brewed and sold.

– A courtesan’s house.

– A butcher’s shop.

The Mulasarvastivada Miscellaneous Vinaya says:

There are five places where one ought not remain:

– A house where singing performances are held.

– A courtesan’s house.

– A house where liquor is brewed and sold.

– The king’s palace.

– A Chandala’s house.

The Samantapasadika says:

If a donor invites a bhikkhu to accompany a funeral procession, he should not go.

The Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago says:

In rites for the deceased, one must not mourn and weep as worldly people do. Properly speaking, one should prepare a clean room for the deceased and, as circumstances permit, hang banners and canopies, recite sutras, recollect the Buddha, and provide incense and flowers in full, praying that the deceased person’s consciousness may be reborn in a wholesome realm. Only then does one fulfill filial duty and repay one’s debt of gratitude.

If a bhikkhu passes away, his body should be cremated. Those accompanying the funeral should sit to one side and ask a capable person to recite a scripture on impermanence, either half a recitation or one complete recitation, without making it overly long. Afterward, everyone should contemplate impermanence.

Upon returning to the dwelling place, they should bathe and wash their robes outside the monastery. They should all wear old robes; there is no need to waste new ones. After putting on other dry robes, they may return to their rooms.

With respect to clothing, there is not the slightest distinction. How then could it be permissible to lament for an entire month or to wear mourning garments for three years?

The Mulasarvastivada Nidana says:

One should not sell medicine. If one is skilled in medicine, one should give rise to a compassionate heart and dispense medicine according to the illness, without accepting money from others.

The Admonitions of the Mirror for the Sangha Gate says:

Those whose corrupt minds are bound to craving and defilement, who sell the Dharma for profit, bow to the Buddha, recite sutras, abstain from food, or perform other acts to obtain improper wealth—all such gains are called the requisites of wrong livelihood and are entirely contrary to the Buddha’s teachings.

13. THE PRECEPT AGAINST REFUSING TO ABANDON AN OBSTINATE NATURE

The Mahayana likewise prohibits this.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu is obstinate and refuses to heed admonition, and when the bhikkhus admonish him in accordance with the Dharma concerning matters within the training precepts, he personally refuses to accept their admonition and instead says: “Venerable Ones, do not say anything to me, whether good or bad. Nor shall I say anything to you, whether good or bad. Venerable Ones, desist; do not admonish me.” The bhikkhus should admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable One, do not refuse to accept admonition.

Venerable One, accept admonition. Admonish the bhikkhus in accordance with the Dharma, and the bhikkhus will likewise admonish you in accordance with the Dharma. In this way, the community of the Buddha’s disciples prospers: by mutually admonishing, mutually instructing, and mutually disclosing offenses.” If, after being admonished in this way, that bhikkhu stubbornly persists and does not abandon his conduct, the bhikkhus should admonish him three times to relinquish it.

If he relinquishes it after being admonished up to three times, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.

ORIGIN[11]:

Venerable Chanda had an obstinate nature and would not accept the admonitions of others. The Buddha instructed the Sangha to perform a formal act of rebuke and admonition against him and then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The degrees of gravity are the same as in the preceding precept. Before the formal motion has been made, if one obstinately refuses to accept another’s admonition, one commits a Dukkata offense. For a bhikkhuni, it is a Sanghadisesa offense; for members of the three lower assemblies, it is a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if an ignorant person, upon being admonished, replies: “Your preceptor and acharya also act in this way. You may return to your studies and recitation of the scriptures.”

The Sarvastivada Vinaya says:

If the bhikkhus neither formally accuse nor call upon one to recollect an offense, yet one personally refuses to speak with others, one commits a Dukkata offense. Such a person should not be admonished by formal injunction.

The Samantapasadika says:

“To accuse” means that a bhikkhu says: “Elder, you have committed this offense. You should disclose it and not conceal it; you should remove it in accordance with the Dharma.” “To call upon one to recollect” means that a bhikkhu says: “Elder, do you remember committing such an offense at that time and in that place?”

APPENDIX:

The Fourth Section[12] says:

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I shall explain to you eight kinds of unruly horses and eight kinds of unruly people:

1. There is an unruly horse that, when fitted with bit and whip so that it may be made to advance, instead kneels down and refuses to move.

2. There is an unruly horse that leans against the two shafts of the carriage and refuses to advance.

3. There is an unruly horse that rolls on the ground, injuring its legs and also breaking the carriage shafts.

4. There is one that retreats and refuses to advance.

5. There is one that runs off the road and damages the wheels and axle.

6. There is one that fears neither the driver nor the whip, but keeps neighing and leaping about and cannot be restrained.

7. There is one that rears upright on two legs like a person and spits.

8. There is one that lies on its back with all four legs thrust toward the sky[13].

These are the eight kinds of unruly horses. The following are the eight kinds of unruly people:

1. There is a bhikkhu who, when accused of an offense on the basis of what has been seen, heard, or suspected, replies: ‘I do not remember; I do not remember.’

2. Or, without saying that he has committed an offense or that he has not committed one, he stands in silence.

3. Or he says: ‘Elder, you yourself have also committed offenses. How can you absolve others of their offenses?’

4. Or he says: ‘Elder, you are foolish and need to study again, yet you wish to instruct me?’

5. Or he speaks irrelevantly and then becomes angry in return.

6. Or, fearing neither the Sangha nor the commission of an offense, he refuses to accept the words of the person accusing him. He puts his sitting cloth over his shoulder and walks away, making it impossible to reprimand him.

7. Or he turns his robe inside out in the midst of the assembly, raises his hand, and loudly says: ‘You still dare to instruct me?’

8. Or he says: ‘Elder, you do not give me robes, a bowl, bedding, or medicine. Why then do you instruct me?’ He then renounces the precepts, abandons the monastic life, and embraces the most wretched course. Going to another bhikkhu, he says: ‘I have abandoned the path and will no longer practice. You must be very pleased, are you not?’”

These eight kinds of unruly people are no different from those eight kinds of unruly horses; the Buddha has compassion and pity for them.

C. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS

Venerable Ones, I have finished reciting the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules. For the first nine rules, the offense is incurred upon the first commission; for the last four rules, it is incurred after three admonitions. Any bhikkhu who commits any one of these rules, knowingly conceals it, and must be compelled to undergo Parivasa[14], after completing Parivasa, must be given an additional six nights of Manatta[15].

After completing Manatta, he must still be rehabilitated from the offense. This bhikkhu must be rehabilitated from his offense in the midst of a Sangha consisting of twenty members. If even one member is lacking, and a community of twenty is not complete when that bhikkhu is rehabilitated from his offense, the bhikkhu’s offense is not removed, and the other bhikkhus are also subject to censure.

Such is the proper procedure.

I now ask: Are the Venerable Ones here pure? (Three times.)

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

EXPLANATION:

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

The Buddha rebuked a bhikkhu who concealed an offense as foolish, saying that this was an evil thing. He was not ashamed when violating the precept; why should he be ashamed when repenting of his offense? He then spoke this verse:

Through concealment, one falls;

By not concealing, one escapes samsara.

Therefore, I exhort those who conceal:

Do not conceal, and escape samsara.

The Samantapasadika Vinaya says:

Manatta, in the language of the Han, means subduing arrogance; it is also called humbling the mind. Humbling the mind means complying with the Sangha.

Abbhana: In the language of the Han, it means calling back in; it is also called removal of the offense. Why is it called calling back in and removing the offense? Because one again participates together in the Uposatha recitation of the precepts, the Pavarana, and the common formal acts of the Sangha, it is called calling back in and removing the offense.

The Sarvastivada Matrka says:

Humbling oneself before all bhikkhus is called Manatta, while being brought from an unwholesome state to a wholesome state is called Abbhana.

The Vinaya Matrka Sutra says:

Manatta, in the language of Qin, means delight of mind. One rejoices oneself and also causes the Sangha to rejoice. Abbhana means that purity of precepts arises and pure liberation is attained, so that one remains pure within these precepts and does not transgress them.

CLARIFICATION:

Question:—To rehabilitate one who has committed an offense of the second category requires a complete community of twenty members. Now that we are so far removed from the Buddha’s time and the Vinaya has long fallen into neglect, if someone commits such an offense and there are not twenty members of the Sangha, how can that person be rehabilitated from the offense?

Answer:—Although there may not be a complete community of twenty qualified Sangha members to rehabilitate the person from the offense, if there are four pure members of the Sangha, they may still properly perform the formal acts of Manatta, concealed-offense probation calculated from the original day, and so forth. One should practice in accordance with the Dharma and, afterward, upon encountering a complete community of twenty Sangha members, again request rehabilitation from the offense. If, in the end, a complete community cannot be found, the person is still considered pure, as has been clearly explained in the procedures for dealing with offenses.

The second category, concerning the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules, is finished.

III. THE TWO INDEFINITE RULES

This is also divided into three sections: general introduction, individual enumeration, and concluding questions.

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Venerable Ones, these are the two Indefinite Rules taken from the Pratimoksha Sutra and recited once every half-month.

B. INDIVIDUAL ENUMERATION: divided into two:

1) The Indefinite Rule involving three possible cases

This is an offense by nature and is studied in common with the Mahayana.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in a concealed and secluded place suitable for sexual intercourse and speaks improper words, and a trustworthy upasika states that one of three offenses occurred—either a Parajika, a Sanghadisesa, or a Pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed that offense,” then he should be dealt with under one of those three rules: either Parajika, Sanghadisesa, or Pacittiya, in accordance with the statement of that trustworthy upasika. That bhikkhu must be dealt with according to the Dharma. This is called an Indefinite Rule.

ORIGIN[16]:

Kaludayin and the wife of a close friend, named the upasika Trai, were attracted to one another. At the time for almsround, Kaludayin went to her house, sat together with her on the same bed, and spoke improper words. Visakha Migaramata heard them speaking, looked in and saw them, and reported the matter to the Buddha, who established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

Alone: means one bhikkhu and one woman.

– Concealment and seclusion are of two kinds:

– Concealed from sight by dust, mist, or darkness.

– Beyond hearing, meaning a place where ordinary speech cannot be heard.

A screened-off place: screened by a tree, a wall, a fence, clothing, or some other object serving as a covering.

A trustworthy upasika: one who has undertaken the Three Refuges and Five Precepts, accurately remembers events, and neither confuses nor forgets them.

The Sarvastivada Vibhasa says:

A trustworthy upasika is one to whom someone might say, “If you agree to lie, your life will not be harmed; if you refuse to lie, you will be killed.” She then thinks, “If I do not lie, only this body will be harmed; I will lose merely one body. If I lie, however, I will harm immeasurable bodies, including the Dharma-body. Therefore, I vow never to lie.” Again, someone might say, “If you agree to lie, your parents, brothers, sisters, and all your relatives will be allowed to live.

If you refuse to lie, they will all be killed.” She reflects, “If I do not lie, only my relatives in this one lifetime will be harmed. If I lie, however, I will wander through the three evil destinies and repeatedly lose relatives and kin throughout many lifetimes among humans and devas. I will also lose the lineage of the noble sages in the supramundane realm.

Therefore, I vow never to lie.” Again, someone might say, “If you agree to lie, I will give you every kind of wealth and benefit, including precious treasures. If you refuse to lie, I will not give you those things.” She then thinks, “If I do not lie, I will lose only the wealth and benefits of this world. If I lie, however, I will lose the Dharma-wealth of the noble ones.

Therefore, I vow never to lie.” Such a person is called a trustworthy upasika.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the bhikkhu himself says, “I was on the road leading to that place; I went to that place; I sat down; I lay down; I acted in such a way,” he should be dealt with according to the bhikkhu’s own statement. If the bhikkhu does not himself say that he acted, lay down, sat down, or went to that place, but says only that he was on the road leading there, then with respect to going to the place, sitting, lying down, and so forth, he should be dealt with according to the upasika’s statement. Because it pertains to a rule under which the offense is not determined, it is called an Indefinite Rule.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If the bhikkhu does not himself acknowledge such an offense, then, in accordance with the trustworthy upasika’s statement, the Sangha should perform a formal act of seeking the truth concerning the offense. After the formal act has been performed, he must act in conformity with it and may not confer full ordination upon another, and so forth. If he does not practice according to the Dharma, he may not relinquish this formal act for the rest of his life.

The Sarvastivada Vibhasa says:

After the formal act has been performed, if he confesses the previous offense, the formal act should be rescinded, and he should be dealt with according to the gravity or lightness of the offense. If he does not confess the offense, that formal act is never to be rescinded throughout his life.

2) The Indefinite Rule involving two possible cases

The originating circumstances, that is, the cause, are the same as for the preceding precept.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu sits with a woman in an open place unsuitable for sexual intercourse and speaks lewd words, and a trustworthy upasika states that one of two offenses occurred—either a Sanghadisesa or a Pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed that offense,” then he should be dealt with under one of those two rules: either Sanghadisesa or Pacittiya, in accordance with the statement of that trustworthy upasika. That bhikkhu must be dealt with according to the Dharma. This is called an Indefinite Rule.

C. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS

Venerable Ones, I have finished reciting the two Indefinite Rules.

I now ask: Are the Venerable Ones here pure? (Three times.)

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

The third category, concerning the two Indefinite Rules, is finished.

IV. THE THIRTY NAIḤSARGIKA-PĀYANTIKA RULES

This is also divided into three parts: a general statement, a separate enumeration, and concluding questions.

A. GENERAL STATEMENT

Venerable Ones, these are the thirty Naiḥsargika-Pāyantika rules set forth in the Pratimoksha Sutra, recited once every half-month.

EXPLANATION:

Naiḥsargika is translated into Chinese as Forfeiture. Pāyantika is translated as Downfall. This means that all thirty offenses arise in connection with material possessions. The object must be forfeited, and the Pāyantika offense must be confessed in order to be removed.

B. SEPARATE ENUMERATION: 30 MATTERS.

From the first rule, concerning extra robes, through the thirtieth rule, concerning diverting an item belonging to the Sangha to oneself.

1. THE RULE CONCERNING KEEPING EXTRA ROBES

This belongs to the category of a prohibited offense. In the Mahayana, although bodhisattvas do not train in precisely the same rules, for the sake of sentient beings they must nevertheless make a declaration of purification.

The Collection of Admonitions at the Gateway to the Realm of Knowledge says:

The Treatise on the Stages states that whatever surplus things a bodhisattva stores are all impure. In order that the mind may be purified, they should be offered to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions, just as a bhikshu presents robes and other articles in his immediate possession to his preceptor, acarya, and so forth.

The Nirvana Sutra says:

Although one is permitted to receive and keep things, it is essential that they be given as purified gifts to devout donors. Nowadays, in matters of teaching and study, people think only of profit and fame. They feel no shame regarding the five forms of wrong livelihood[17], and many store up the eight kinds of defilement[18].

They merely pursue the frivolous ways of worldly life and do not remember the teachings of the sages. After receiving the precepts and passing through many rains retreats, they have never absorbed even a single drop of the Dharma of purification. How could they know that all articles used in daily life are nothing other than defiled objects?

What is stored in chests and bags is all property entailing an offense. They slight the Dharma and deceive their own minds, thereby leaving calamity for themselves. Students of the Vinaya knowingly and deliberately transgress; as for those of other schools, there is nothing more to be said.

Who understands that karmic retribution is brought to fruition according to the mind? Who believes that effects arise from causes? In this life they cease to wear the kasaya; in the next, sheets of iron will enwrap their bodies.

If born as human beings, they will be born into poverty, clothed in filthy garments and blankets. If born as animals, they will fall into unclean places, with foul-smelling fur and feathers. Moreover, both the Mahayana and the Hinayana designate this as the Dharma of purification.

If one has profound faith, why should one hesitate to put it into practice? Therefore, Master Jingxi's Record of Supplementary Practice states: “Some say that, regarding all possessions, one should conceive of them as not one's own and use them when beneficial; why make a declaration of purification?” I now ask: If none of them are one's own, are they not then possessions belonging throughout the four seas? If they are to be used when beneficial, why not send them directly to the two fields of merit—the field of compassion and the field of reverence—instead of locking the door to one's room and sealing one's chests and caskets?

If one regards an object as belonging to another and then uses it, one certainly incurs an offense. If one regards it as one's own, why does one not make a declaration of purification[19]? What principle is obstructed by making a declaration of purification in order to relinquish it as a gift?

One should not regard it as one's own, so that later generations may follow this example. Thus one should know that those who do not make declarations of purification gravely violate the Buddha's teaching. They belong to neither of the two vehicles and are not included among the three capacities[20].

Is such renunciation of the household life not utterly vain and corrupt?

THE PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu, after the robes have been completed and the Kathina robe has been relinquished, keeps an extra robe, he is permitted to retain it for ten days without giving it as a purified gift. If he keeps it beyond ten days, it is a Naiḥsargika-Pāyantika offense.

ORIGIN[21]:

The Buddha permitted bhikshus to keep three robes, but no more. The group of six bhikshus kept extra robes, obtaining robes for the morning, robes for midday, and robes for the afternoon; therefore, this prohibition was established. Venerable Ananda received a rag robe and wished to give it to Mahakasyapa. At that time, Mahakasyapa was away. Venerable Ananda reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha asked, “When will Mahakasyapa return?” He was told, “After ten days.” The Buddha then permitted the robe to be kept for ten days.

The Khandhaka concerning robes[22] records:

The Buddha saw bhikshus traveling on the road carrying many robes and other belongings. The Buddha thought, “A fixed number of robes should be established; they should not keep too many.”

At that time, during the first watch of the night, the Buddha put on the first robe. At midnight, feeling cold, he put on the second robe. During the last watch of the night, feeling cold, he put on the third robe and then felt comfortable. Consequently, he permitted bhikshus to keep three robes, but no more.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

My disciples all use three robes, which are sufficient to ward off cold and protect against heat, avoid horseflies and mosquitoes, cover what modesty and shame require to be concealed, and preserve the lineage of the sages. If one cannot endure the cold, one is permitted to sew as many layers as desired from old robes.

EXPLANATION:

“The robes have been completed” means that the three robes are complete. Kathina robe is translated into Chinese as “robe of merit.” It is explained clearly in a later passage. An extra robe is one measuring eight finger-widths of the Tathagata in length and four finger-widths in breadth (one chi and six cun long and eight cun wide, sufficient to make one panel of the three robes).

The Vinaya Compendium says:

One should know that the three robes have different uses. When working, traveling, or staying in the monastery, one ordinarily uses the five-panel robe. When performing ceremonies or eating and drinking, one should wear the seven-panel robe. To ward off cold, enter villages to seek alms, receive a meal, or pay homage at a stupa, one should wear the great robe. The latter two robes should be cut into pieces and sewn together. If one is poor, the last robe must certainly be cut and sewn in this manner.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

The ninety-six groups of non-Buddhist practitioners have no Dharma of purified giving. Through the skillful power of great compassion, the Buddha taught the Dharma of purified giving, enabling his disciples to keep surplus possessions without violating the precepts.

Question: Why did the Buddha not directly permit surplus possessions to be kept, but instead strictly established a precept and then instituted this expedient means?

Answer: The Buddhadharma takes fewness of desires as its foundation; therefore, the precept was established to prohibit keeping surplus possessions. Since sentient beings differ in their faculties and dispositions, some may first store abundant provisions and only afterward cultivate the path and realize the Dharma of the sages. Therefore, the Tathagata first established the precept for them and afterward instituted an expedient means. This presents no obstruction to the True Dharma and enables sentient beings to obtain

benefit.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Within the ten-day period after obtaining robes, there may be days on which robes are obtained and days on which none are obtained. When the sign of sunrise appears on the eleventh day, all such robes incur the offense of Forfeiture and Downfall. The same applies whether they have been given as purified gifts or not, entrusted to someone, lost, worn out or damaged, made into a non-robe article, taken with the intention of later intimacy, or forgotten, and so forth.

(“Given as purified gifts” means actually giving them to someone or making a declaration of purification before another person. Anything other than this is called “not given as a purified gift.” “Entrusted to someone” refers to giving them as purified gifts through successive transfer. “Lost” means stolen, or separated from the robe while sleeping, and so forth.

“Worn out or damaged” means decayed, and so forth. “Made into a non-robe article” means made into some other implement. “Taken with the intention of later intimacy” means taken away by someone intending later to establish an intimate relationship.

In this case, from the first day on which a robe is obtained through the tenth day, within that ten-day period there may be days on which robes are obtained and days on which no robe is obtained. Those that are obtained may be given as purified gifts or may not be given as purified gifts, and so forth. One considers only the force of the robe obtained on the first day; during those ten days, it is called an extra robe that may be kept.

When the sign of sunrise appears on the eleventh day, all incur the offense of Forfeiture and Downfall. For example, if one first obtains an article and subsequently performs purified giving and so forth with respect to it, it should no longer be counted as an extra article. If, one day later, one obtains another robe, that day is then counted as the first day, and one may keep it freely through the tenth day without committing an offense.)

If one does not forfeit a robe entailing Forfeiture and Downfall but exchanges it for another robe, one incurs one offense of Forfeiture and Downfall and one Duskrta offense. This robe must be forfeited before the Sangha, before a group of several persons, or before one person; it may not be forfeited before an incomplete assembly. (According to whether there are many or few persons at that dwelling place, they should be gathered together in one place, and only then should the forfeiture be made.) If the act of forfeiture is performed but does not constitute a valid forfeiture, one commits a Duskrta offense.

He should go before the Sangha, bare his right shoulder, remove his footwear, face the senior monk, join his palms, kneel, and make this declaration:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen. I, the bhikkhu named..., have intentionally kept an extra robe for more than ten days and have committed a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. I now relinquish it to the Sangha.”

After relinquishing the robe, he must confess. The monk receiving the confession should say:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu named... intentionally kept an extra robe and committed a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. He has now relinquished it to the Sangha. If the Sangha considers the time appropriate, may the Sangha consent that I receive the confession of the bhikkhu named.... This is the motion.”

The offender should then address that monk, saying:

“Venerable Sir, with single-minded compassion, please attend to me. I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally kept an extra robe and committed a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. The robe has already been relinquished before the Sangha. This is a pacittiya offense. I now confess it to the Venerable Sir and dare not conceal it. Having confessed, there is well-being; without confession, there is no well-being. Please acknowledge me as one who, having transgressed, reveals the offense, knowing it and not concealing it. May the Venerable Sir acknowledge that I am pure, that my body of precepts is complete, and that my Uposatha is purified.” He should say this three times.

The monk receiving the confession should say to him:

“Reproach yourself in your own mind.” The offender replies: “Yes.”

If the Sangha is very large and difficult to assemble, and this bhikkhu wishes to travel far away, he should be asked: “To whom do you wish this robe to be given?” It should be given to whomever he names. The Sangha then returns the robe to that bhikkhu. It should be returned through a motion and one proclamation as follows:

“Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu named... intentionally kept an extra robe and committed a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. He has now relinquished it to the Sangha. If the Sangha considers the time appropriate, may the Sangha consent to give this robe to the bhikkhu named.... The bhikkhu named... should return the robe to this bhikkhu. This is the motion.”

After the karman has been performed, if the robe, once relinquished, is not returned, a dukkata offense is committed. If someone says, “Do not return it,” that person commits a dukkata offense. If one instead makes it a formally assigned allowable possession, directs that it be given to someone else, uses it to make the three robes, makes a parikara robe[23] (the Samantapasadika says: The culla-parikara of bhikkhunis is called in Chinese the “miscellaneous patchwork sanghati”), allows it to become old and ruined or burned, converts it into something other than a robe, or wears it continuously until it becomes worn and torn, in every case a dukkata offense is committed. A bhikkhuni commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if, within ten days, one formally assigns it as an allowable gift, directs that it be given to another person, or believes that it has been stolen, burned, swept away by water, and so forth. Although it has neither been formally assigned nor directed to be given to another, there is no offense if the person entrusted with the robe has died, traveled far away, left the monastic life, or met with danger from bandits, wild beasts, or floodwaters.

The Robe Khandhaka says:

A robe belonging to the Sangha may be kept for more than ten days without incurring a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If articles are collected and assembled in one place as offerings to the Buddha or the Sangha, no offense is committed even if they remain unused for a long time.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If robes are kept for the Triple Gem, there is no offense. Or if the donor says, “This article belongs to me; may the venerable one make use of it,” then even though no formal assignment has been made, there is no offense in using it (for this is equivalent to its having been formally assigned).

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense and neither relinquishes the robe nor expresses remorse, or although expressing remorse does not allow a night to pass, then whatever one subsequently receives becomes subject to relinquishment and entails a pacittiya offense because it has been tainted by the previous offense. If one relinquishes the robe, confesses the offense, and allows a night to pass, then whatever gifts one receives thereafter entail no offense.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya says:

It must not be relinquished to another individual or to a nonhuman being. Only after relinquishing it should one confess. If one neither relinquishes it nor confesses, the offense becomes increasingly grave.

Apart from keeping the three robes, if one keeps any other cloth, even a handkerchief, for more than ten days, one commits a dukkata offense. If it has been formally assigned as an allowable gift, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya-vibhasa says:

If, on the first day that one receives a robe, one is suspended for refusing to acknowledge an offense, suspended for refusing to make amends (that is, one is formally charged because one refuses to confess), or suspended for refusing to relinquish a pernicious wrong view; or if one becomes insane, mentally deranged, or mentally incapacitated by illness, then until the suspension is rescinded or mental stability is restored—even until death—one does not violate this precept.

After the suspension is rescinded or mental stability is restored, the days are counted from that point, and the offense is incurred accordingly. If, on the first day one receives the robe, one immediately enters a celestial palace or goes to reside in Uttarakuru, one does not violate this precept for as long as one remains there, even throughout one’s life. Upon returning to one’s original place, the days are counted from the day of return, and the offense is incurred accordingly.

If, from the first day one receives the robe until the fifth day, one is suspended for refusing to acknowledge an offense, and so forth, then after the suspension is rescinded or mental stability is restored, the five earlier days are combined with five subsequent days; only thereafter is the offense incurred.

2. THE PRECEPT ON SLEEPING APART FROM ONE’S ROBE

This is a preventive offense and is likewise prescribed in the Mahayana. It pertains to the eighteen requisites.

THE PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, after the robe-making has been completed and the kathina robe privilege has ended, sleeps elsewhere apart from any one of his three robes, except with the authorization of the Sangha through a karman, he commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN[24]:

The group of six bhikkhus, while traveling through the countryside, entrusted their robes to bhikkhus who were their friends. Those friends frequently took the robes out to air them. When the other bhikkhus inquired and learned of the matter, they reported it to the Buddha, who established this precept. At that time, a bhikkhu suffering from sores had reason to travel through the countryside, but his rag-robe sanghati was too heavy for him to carry. His companions reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha permitted the Sangha, through a motion and one proclamation, to authorize that the sick bhikkhu would not lose his robe status while separated from the robe.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one leaves the robe in the sangharama and sleeps beneath a tree or elsewhere, then when dawn appears, one commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense according to the place of separation from the robe. The same applies if one leaves the robe elsewhere and sleeps in the sangharama. Apart from the three robes, separation from another robe entails a dukkata offense. Relinquishment and confession are the same as in the preceding precept. The Sangha should return the robe to this bhikkhu through a motion and one proclamation. If it is not returned, or if it is worn until ruined and torn, a dukkata offense is committed in every case. A bhikkhuni commits a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

There is no offense if, before dawn appears, one touches the robe with one’s hand, mentally relinquishes the robe, or comes within a distance from which a thrown stone could reach the place where the robe is kept, and so forth. (The narrow boundary for a robe is the range within which it can be touched by the hand; the broad boundary for a robe is the range from which a stone can be thrown to that place. In either case, one is said not to be separated from the robe.

If one can neither touch the robe nor throw a stone as far as that place, then before dawn appears one must promptly form the intention that the robe is lost. Because regarding the robe as lost and “relinquishing the robe” incurs only a dukkata offense for lacking a robe, whereas not relinquishing it incurs a nissaggiya offense for separation from the robe, one thus avoids the grave offense and accepts the lighter one.)

The Samantapasadika says:

The karman authorizes one to sleep apart from the robe while the illness remains uncured. If, after the Sangha has performed the karman, one travels apart from the robe to another region, recovers from the illness there, and wishes to return, but encounters danger on the road and cannot return, then so long as one continually intends to return, one does not lose the robe status even though the illness has completely abated. If one definitively has no intention of returning, one loses the robe status, and after ten days commits the offense of keeping an extra robe. If one recovers from the illness in another region, returns to the place where the robe was left, and the illness then recurs, and one wishes to travel elsewhere, one may rely on the previous karman and need not perform another.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya-vibhasa says:

If the three robes are heavy because they have been patched with many layers, and one finds some appropriate means to divide them up and carry them separately, this is called sleeping without being separated from one’s robes.

The Mulasarvastivada Ksudraka-vastu says:

If one temporarily goes elsewhere and will return immediately, one need not carry the robes along. It also says that if one intends to go and then return but, upon arriving there, it is already late in the evening and the return journey would take place at night, so that one fears harm from insects or bandits, then in such a case one should remain and sleep there and should not travel at night. One should mentally relinquish the robes one has undertaken to keep, and may go to a nearby fellow practitioner of the holy life to borrow three other robes temporarily, thereby completing the required number.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

Wherever one goes, one should have all three robes and the alms bowl for gathering alms, just as a bird’s two wings always remain attached to its body.

CLARIFICATION:

Question: It has been said that one should always have the robes and bowl complete, just as a bird has its two wings. Why, then, does separation from the robes constitute an offense, while separation from the bowl does not?

Answer: The robe is for covering the body, and the bowl is for seeking alms; both should always be kept with oneself. However, when taking the daily meal within the Sangha or when accepting an invitation, one cannot dispense with using one’s own bowl; as for the robe, in principle it cannot be left behind. Thus, there are cases in which the boundary is established and cases in which it is not.

ESSENTIAL COMPENDIUM OF THE MEANING OF MATTERS IN THE REVISED VINAYA

END OF VOLUME FOUR

Notes:

1 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 584a16, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

2 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 586b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

3 Four-Part Vinaya 3, p. 587a25, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

4 Four-Part Vinaya 4, p. 589b11, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

5 Four-Part Vinaya 4, p. 591c16, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

6 Four-Part Vinaya 46, Part Three, the Sangha-dharma Skandhaka, p. 909b08, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

7 Customary practice and non-customary practice: Customary practice refers to the eight factors of the Noble Path. Non-customary practice refers to the five points of Devadatta.

8 Four-Part Vinaya 5, p. 595c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

9 Four-Part Vinaya 5, p. 596c17, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

10 Thường lạp 常臘 and Diện môn lạp 面?門臘: Thường refers to the property of the permanently resident Sangha. Diện môn refers to the property of the Sangha present at that time. Lạp refers to property associated with the pravāraṇā, property belonging to a Buddha stupa, all of which is collectively called lạp. It is unclear which meaning is intended here.

11 Four-Part Vinaya 5, p. 599a16, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

12 Four-Part Vinaya 60, Part Four, the Vinaya Ekottara chapter, p. 1010a07, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

13 Master Zhixu mistakenly quoted this sentence. Essential Compendium of the Meaning of Matters in the Revised Vinaya 4, p. 377c12, Manji 40, no. 719: “Hoặc phản tồn ngọa 或?反蹲臥.” Four-Part Vinaya 60, Part Four, Vinaya Ekottara, p. 1010a19, Taishō 22, no. 1428: “Hoặc tồn hoặc ngọa 或?蹲或?臥.” Translation: (There is a vicious horse that, when bridled and whipped so that it will move forward,) instead crouches down or lies down.

14 Ba-lợi-bà-sa 波利婆沙Å: Sanskrit Parivāsa. In the Four-Part Vinaya, Ba-lợi-bà-sa is translated as “concealment”; in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, it is translated as “separate residence.” According to these two meanings, when a person commits a sanghāvaśeṣa offense and conceals it, that person must undergo separate residence for as many days as the offense was concealed and may not reside together with the Sangha.

15 Ma-na-đỏa 摩那埵: Sanskrit Mānatta, meaning a joyful mind—gladness or delight. Any bhikshu who commits a sanghāvaśeṣa offense without concealing it must undergo six nights of Mānatta repentance. Through this, the offense is purified, bringing joy both to oneself and to others.

16 Four-Part Vinaya 5, p. 600b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

17 Five forms of wrong livelihood: When a bhikshu, for the sake of making a living, schemes to engage in activities contrary to the Dharma, this is called wrong livelihood. There are five forms of wrong livelihood: 1) Displaying deceptive, unusual, or extraordinary appearances before laypeople in order to seek offerings. 2) Proclaiming one’s own abilities and virtues for the purpose of seeking offerings. 3) Reading favorable and unfavorable signs, studying divination, and predicting others’ good or ill fortune in order to seek offerings. 4) Speaking loudly and intimidatingly, using boastful and embellished speech, and making a display of authority for the purpose of seeking offerings. 5) Speaking of the gains one has obtained in order to stir others’ minds,

likewise for the purpose of seeking offerings.

18 Eight defilements: 1) Purchasing houses, fields, or land. 2) Cultivating crops. 3) Storing and accumulating grain and rice. 4) Keeping male and female servants. 5) Keeping livestock. 6) Accumulating gold, silver, money, wealth, and precious jewels. 7) Accumulating carved ivory and other such objects. 8) Accumulating copper and iron utensils, cauldrons, and steamers for cooking one’s own food. These are the eight impure defilements in which a bhikshu must not become involved.

19 Declaration of purity: Sanskrit Vikalpa, Pāli vikkpa; also called “pure offering” or “making pure.” Master Yijing translated it as “discrimination”; that is, to regularize or render something legitimate.

20 Three roots: This refers to the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion. Because these three frequently give rise to unwholesome karma, they are called roots. Here, however, the three roots refer to the three uncontaminated roots: morality, concentration, and wisdom.

21 Four-Part Vinaya 6, p. 601c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

22 Four-Part Vinaya 40, Part Three, the Robe Skandhaka, p. 856c25, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

23 Y ba-lợi-ca-la 波利迦羅衣Â: Sanskrit and Pāli parikara, a belt or sash used to fasten one’s robes. (Note in the Four-Part Vinaya translated by the Most Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

24 Four-Part Vinaya 6, p. 603a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.