四分律比丘含注戒本
Chinese title:四分律比丘含注戒本
Save your scripture progress
Create a free account to save scriptures, track progress, and continue your daily learning path.
Preface
The Four-Part Pratimoksha is the broad path that opens onto myriad practices and the true rule that guides the Three Vehicles.[1] When the Dharma King appeared in the world, responding fittingly to the capacities of the time and delivering sentient beings according to their causes and conditions, he manifested the compassion of a supreme sage while also grieving over the submergence of ordinary beings of lesser capacity.
Therefore, he opened the gate of fearlessness,[2] revealed the profound and esoteric method,[3] expounded the teaching of “speaking without being asked,” and clearly disclosed the direct path for beginners. Thus, in a secluded place, he established the source of this teaching and assembled the Sangha to set forth the wondrous rule. First, he explained its causes, extensively describing the merit of initiating it; afterward, he set forth its principal tenet, encompassing beings of every capacity.
Because the common practice was taught according to the circumstances of the time, the assembly observed it in harmony and purity and listened together; thereby, the true Dharma could long endure. Yet, because the three periods arrived without contention while emotional attachments underwent change, the sutras related the dream of a length of silk,[4] and the Vinaya presented the analogy of the broken staff,[5] causing the teaching to divide according to its wording and its principles to change in conformity with human sentiments.
Consequently, the differing Two Schools and Five Schools arose like layer upon layer of drifting clouds; the differing eighteen schools and five hundred schools stood like range upon range of mountains. If one examines the origin of the establishment of the precepts, all these divisions into schools resulted from attachment to subjective views; but if one investigates their ultimate destination, they all accord with right conduct.[6]
Only toward the end of the Cao Wei period (220–265) was the Pratimoksha transmitted to China.[7] By the beginning of the Sui dynasty (581–618), the Vinaya precepts had already undergone many alterations. Among the texts, some still preserved the original Sanskrit, some had been translated into Chinese, some were based on meaning, and some were based on the circumstances of their institution. Yet, when these various teachings were compared with one another, their conclusions were truly obscure; they deceived earlier generations and left later students in darkness.
In the Sanskrit texts, wording and meaning contradicted one another; in the Chinese texts, wording and meaning likewise failed to cohere. Those based on the Vinaya retained only its principal tenets but lost the analysis of its characteristics. Those who sought according to doctrinal principles, though attaining profound understanding, still failed to eliminate every source of controversy.
Those based on circumstances seemed complete in every respect, yet consisted entirely of private interpretations. This is because the fundamental precepts,[8] namely, the clearly prescribed prohibitions, could be forbidden or permitted by the Buddha alone, while the worthy ones and sages could only silently comply. Therefore, the explanations in Vinaya treatises were all based on the principal scriptures; as for the words of the Buddha or of other sages, whether great or lesser, no one ever dared to speculate about them.
When the foregoing interpretations are now gathered together, it becomes apparent that most followed their authors’ own opinions; as for reexamining the original circumstances, there was truly no time to do so. Now, because the extensive and abbreviated Pratimoksha texts differ, their wording is confined and their meanings concealed. If they are applied, they do not accord with proper deportment; if they are set aside, there is no basis on which to rely.
Unless the characteristics are clearly distinguished, people will find it difficult to follow them.
From childhood, I admired the wondrous Way and revered the pure standards in my heart. In former days, I visited Dharma-preaching monasteries in the capital, earnestly sought teachers and instruction, and spent many years in diligent study, never once setting aside the texts or departing from their words. Nevertheless, I still lamented that the wording and meaning remained obstructed in certain places.
In the gengyin year, the fourth year of the Zhenguan era (630), I traveled everywhere seeking people with whom to discuss the Vinaya tradition. Yet I found only confused and miscellaneous debate and saw no one who reflected deeply and broadly. I also saw that people cared only for lofty discussion, while they were entirely devoid of practical application.
As soon as they learned the terms “five divisions” and “seven groups,” they considered themselves Vinaya masters. Some merely recounted the rise and decline, the strengths and weaknesses, of the teachings and the Vinaya; how could they reveal the pivotal point by which one might make a precise determination and faithfully follow it? If asked about the flourishing and decline of the Vinaya precepts, they skillfully relied on commentaries for their explanations.
If pressed for essential evidence, they had no textual proof and offered only conjecture. There were also those endowed with natural intelligence, widely learned and possessing extensive understanding, whose practice and reputation were both renowned far and wide; yet their application of wisdom followed no standard, and their subjective attachments differed as vastly as heaven and earth. This was why my mind remained unsettled.
Since meaning must be determined by reliance upon the Dharma, thereby ending every dispute, what need is there for many words?
I have now ventured to rely upon the Vinaya text and extract the material fully from the principal scripture.[9] Since I have nevertheless relied on the Buddha’s explanations, I call this work an annotated compilation. Its text comprises only one fascicle, in agreement with the ancient transmitted versions; yet it explains both observance and transgression, and therefore differs from works past and present. In this way, it may perhaps enable both long-standing students and later beginners to cultivate the practice, and both the wise and the foolish to follow it.
Those of shallow understanding may fully comprehend the three grades of Vinaya observance, while those already proficient will know that this is precisely the teaching given by the Buddha throughout his lifetime. Those who seek by relying upon it will attain great accomplishment.
Moreover, every precept has its own originating circumstances, yet from ancient times people have falsely transmitted claims that reject their existence. Without clear understanding, one will ultimately return only to falsehood. Therefore, for each precept I have provided comparative citations and selected the essential points to add, thereby clearly revealing the characteristics of the precepts and clarifying their successive grades. The grave and lighter precepts are all made manifest, sufficient to adorn one’s person and nurture virtue, sufficient to preserve the Buddhadharma and remedy the conditions of the age.
Therefore, when reading the text, one should not adopt erroneous wording; when contemplating its meaning, one should not rely upon the interpretations of other masters. If one can do this, one will not only personally attain the undefiled fruit of the sages but will also bring aid to those with whom one has affinities. Thus, I have taken it upon myself to set brush to paper and compose this preface.
The Sutra of Individual Liberation is difficult to hear,
Even throughout immeasurable kotis[10] of kalpas.
To recite and uphold it is likewise difficult;
To practice according to its teachings is harder still.
FASCICLE ONE
This is an important Vinaya text among the six Vinaya works[11] of Master Nanshan, originating from the Vinaya of Master Dharmagupta.[12] Toward the end of the Tang dynasty, on Mount Taiyi, it was annotated by the śramana Daoxuan.[13]
I bow my head in homage to all Buddhas,
To the Dharma, and to the bhiksu Sangha.
I shall now proclaim the Vinaya Dharma,
That the true Dharma may long endure.
The precepts are like a boundless sea,
Like treasures of which one never tires.
Those wishing to preserve the sacred wealth of Dharma,
Assemble and listen as I speak.
To eliminate the four grounds for expulsion
And eradicate the Sangha-remnant offenses,
To prevent the thirty forfeiture-and-expiation offenses,
Assemble and listen as I speak.
Vipasyin, Sikhin,
Visvabhu, Krakucchanda,
Kanakamuni,
Kasyapa, and Sakyamuni.
All these World-Honored Ones of great virtue
Have spoken of these matters for my sake.
I shall now recite the precepts;
May all of you listen together.
Just as one whose legs are crippled
Is unable to walk,
So too is one who breaks the precepts
Unable to be born among devas or humans.
Those wishing to be born in the heavens
Or to be born in the human realm
Must guard the feet of the precepts
And never allow themselves to transgress.
As when a cart enters a perilous road,
One guards against the pin falling out and the axle breaking,
So too is it with breaking the precepts:
At death, the heart is filled with fear.
As one who looks at oneself in a mirror
Feels joy or sorrow at beauty or ugliness,
So too, when the precepts are proclaimed,
Their completeness or deficiency gives rise to joy or sorrow.
As when two armies engage in battle,
The strong advance and the weak retreat,
So too, when the precepts are proclaimed,
Purity or defilement gives rise to joy or sorrow.
In the world, the king is supreme;
Among all waters, the ocean is greatest.
Among all stars, the moon is brightest;
Among all sages, the Buddha is foremost.
Among all the precepts,
The Pratimoksha Sutra is supreme.
The Tathagata established the precepts and prohibitions,
To be recited once every half-month.
The verse above was composed by the Venerable Dharmagupta[14]. It is the common preface to both the extensive teaching[15] and the concise teaching;[16] it also sets forth at the outset the observance and violation of the precepts, and is the foundation for accomplishing the two acts of reciting and listening.
Beginning with the words “harmoniously assembled” is the main portion of the extensive and concise teachings. This portion is itself divided into three sections: the introductory section, the principal section, and the transmission section.
Question: Has the Sangha assembled?
Answer: The Sangha has assembled.
Question: Is the Sangha in harmony?
Answer: The Sangha is in harmony.
– Harmony
At that time, there were knowledgeable bhikkhus under the same teacher but belonging to different schools who recited the precepts together. In all procedures, they had to comply with the prescribed rules and respectfully follow them, perform the uposatha in the same place, and recite the precepts in harmony. Anyone acting contrary to the foregoing incurred an offense.
The Buddha taught: “There are three conditions of harmony: first, those who should come do come; second, those who should convey their consent do convey their consent; and third, those present who should not raise an objection do not raise an objection.” Acting contrary to these three conditions constitutes the offense of creating a separate assembly.
– The Sangha Assembles
At that time, on the day for reciting the precepts, some bhikkhus were within the boundary or within the designated ordination area but refused to come to the place where the precepts were to be recited. The Buddha taught: “They must be summoned and admonished. This is My instruction.” If a bhikkhu had gone beyond the boundary, or had come to the place of recitation but refused to sit down, he was to be dealt with according to the Dharma.
From that time onward, in every dwelling place, on the day for reciting the precepts, all bhikkhus had to go beforehand to the uposatha hall, sweep it, arrange the sitting mats, pour oil into the lamps, light them, and prepare the tally sticks,[17] and so forth. If other visiting bhikkhus arrived, bringing the total to four or more than four, they should carry out the formal Sangha act of reciting the precepts. If only one person was present, he should mentally affirm his purity. If anyone recited the precepts in a separate assembly, he should be dealt with according to the Dharma.
Question: Have those who have not received full ordination left?
Answer: There is no one here who has not received full ordination. (If such persons were present and have left, answer: Those who have not received full ordination have left.)
At that time, some bhikkhus incited other bhikkhus to obstruct the recitation of the precepts. The Buddha instructed that all such persons be sent to a place where they could neither see nor hear. Apart from those who had not received full ordination, nonhuman beings[18] were permitted to attend. The formal recitation of the precepts must not be performed in the presence of the bhikkhuni community.
Question: Have the absent bhikkhus conveyed their consent[19] and purity?
Answer: Some have conveyed their consent and purity.
– Venerable Sangha, the bhikkhu named …… has, for this lawful act of the Sangha, entrusted his consent and purity to me. I have received his consent and purity.
The senior bhikkhu says: Good.
The recipient of the consent replies: So it is.
If no one has conveyed consent, answer: There is no bhikkhu here who has conveyed his consent and purity.
At that time, on the day for reciting the precepts, some bhikkhus who were ill, caregivers of the sick, or those performing duties for the Three Jewels did not come to hear the precepts. The Buddha taught: “They must convey their consent and purity.” According to the circumstances, they might say more or less. If they could neither indicate it through bodily gestures nor express it verbally, the conveyance of consent was invalid. If a person was gravely ill and bringing him before the Sangha might worsen his illness, the formal act could be performed outside the great boundary. When there was no other expedient means, the recitation of the precepts in a separate assembly could be permitted.
Question: Has the Bhikkhuni Sangha sent someone to request instruction?
Answer: A bhikkhuni has come here to request instruction.
Or answer: No bhikkhuni has come here to request instruction.
The Buddha taught: “If one has come, that person must stand and announce: ‘The Bhikkhuni Sangha, being in harmony, bows at the feet of the Bhikkhu Sangha.’” This is explained fully in the Supplementary Karmavacana. If no one has come, answer: “No bhikkhuni has come to request instruction.”
Question: For what purpose has the Sangha now assembled in harmony?
Answer: To perform the formal Sangha act of reciting the precepts.
The Buddha taught: “On the day for reciting the precepts, no one may remain in his room.” Bhikkhus sitting beside one another must check who has come and who has not. The preliminary announcement must be made before the precepts are recited. If a foolish bhikkhu says beforehand, “I have not memorized the precepts; there are passages I have forgotten,” the recitation of the precepts is invalid.
He must rely upon someone thoroughly familiar with the precepts, or depend upon a bhikkhu of five rains who knows the precepts by heart so that he may receive benefit, or go to rely upon another bhikkhu and study until he fully understands the preface to the Pratimoksha Sutra and the other rules. Upon returning to his former dwelling place, he should continue the recitation in sequence and must not recite again what has already been recited.
If he cannot recite it, he should merely teach the Dharma, chant a sutra, and then dismiss the assembly. If this is not done, he is to be dealt with according to the Dharma.
– Venerable Sangha, listen attentively! Today is the fifteenth day. If it is the appropriate time for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, the Sangha shall perform the uposatha and recite the precepts. This is the announcement!
The Buddha taught: “The days should be reckoned according to the laws decreed by the king, whether by periods of fourteen or fifteen days. Whether it is the bright fortnight or the dark fortnight, each period has fifteen days; state the day according to the month. If four persons are present, this formal announcement should be made. If there are only three persons or fewer, the precepts should be recited through the threefold declaration.[20]
– Venerable Ones! I shall now recite the Pratimoksha.[21]
The Buddha taught: “Because those newly ordained have not heard the precepts, they do not know what they should train in.” Therefore, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to gather in one place and recite the precepts in harmony.
The Pratimoksha is the body of precepts. One should guard one’s deportment, dwelling place, conduct, faculties, head, and face; cultivate wholesome dharmas; attain samadhi; establish what should be established; recite what should be recited; personally confess one’s offenses; and explain, disclose, repeat, and distinguish the precepts.
– Let all bhikkhus assemble in one place.
The Buddha taught: “Those who jointly perform a formal Sangha act must assemble in one place, and they must not censure one who should not be censured.” This is called acting according to the Dharma. If the assembly is large and the speaker’s voice is too soft to be heard clearly, a high seat should be prepared, and the precepts recited while standing upon it. If one encounters any of the eight difficulties or other causes, the precepts may, as circumstances require, be recited in an abbreviated form.
If visiting bhikkhus who have long been gathered outside the boundary arrive, whether many or few, after the entire preface to the Pratimoksha Sutra has already been recited, and they declare their purity, they may be permitted to enter and hear the precepts together with the assembly. Other cases are explained clearly in the Vinaya.
– You must listen carefully and bear this well in mind.
The Buddha taught: “You must calm your minds and listen single-mindedly to the Dharma.”
– If you know that you have committed an offense, you must disclose and confess it yourself.
The Buddha taught: “This refers to an offense that has been committed but not yet confessed.” There are two kinds of wise persons: one who knows that he has committed an offense, and one who, knowing that he has committed an offense, confesses it according to the Dharma. One who wishes to confess must appear before a pure bhikkhu and clearly state the offenses he has committed. Only after the offenses have been removed according to the Dharma may he hear the precepts.
If he has doubts concerning an offense he may have committed, he should likewise state them. If all members of the Sangha have committed offenses and there is no suitable person before whom they can confess, then, whether they are wise or foolish, they must first formally announce their confession and only afterward recite the precepts.
– If you have committed no offense, remain silent. From your silence, it shall be known that all Venerable Ones are pure.
The Buddha taught: “There are two cases in which a person is free of offense: he has never committed an offense, or he committed an offense but has already confessed it.”
– If questioned, you should answer in the same manner.
The Buddha taught: “Just as two bhikkhus question and answer one another.”
– When such a bhikkhu is questioned before the Sangha for the third time, if he remembers and knows that he has committed an offense but refuses to confess it, he incurs the offense of knowingly speaking falsehood. The Buddha said that one who speaks falsehood obstructs the path and the Dharma.
The Buddha taught: “When the Sangha recites the precepts, to remain silent is to speak falsely; therefore, one commits a dushkrita offense.”
Obstructing the path means impeding the four dhyanas,[22] the three formless attainments,[23] and the four fruits.[24] The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “Just as the great ocean never harbors a corpse—even if one enters it, it is cast ashore—so too is My Dharma: it does not harbor corpses.”
A corpse is an analogy for those who are not ascetics practicing the holy life but regard themselves as ascetics practicing the holy life; who violate the precepts, follow evil ways, are impure and defiled, hold wrong views, and conceal their faults; who are inwardly rotten while outwardly appearing perfectly pure. They are like a tree growing in an open field: although they dwell among the assembly, they are always apart from it, and the assembly likewise always remains apart from them. Therefore, only those who know to confess their offenses may hear the precepts.
– If a bhikkhu remembers and knows that he has committed an offense and wishes to attain purity, he should confess it. Having confessed, he will dwell at ease.
The Buddha taught: “Because the training in precepts is pure, purity of concentration and wisdom is thereby attained. This is called attaining the fruits of meditation and dwelling at ease.”
– Venerable Ones! I have recited the introduction to the Pratimoksha. I now ask the Venerable Ones here: Are you pure? (Ask three times.) The Venerable Ones here are pure, for they remain silent. Thus do I understand this matter.
From the beginning to this point, the introductory section has been separately explained. The text that follows explains the principal section.
– Venerable Ones! These are the four parajika rules[25] extracted from the precepts and recited once every half month.
1. The Precept Concerning Sexual Intercourse
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Vaishali. At that time, Sudinna, the son of a wealthy householder, went forth because of his faith in the Buddha. After some time, he returned to his former village and engaged in an impure act with his former wife.
When the bhikkhus learned of this, they said to Sudinna: “Within the Tathagata’s pure and true Dharma, only by not giving rise to desire regarding sexual acts can one cut off craving, destroy its lair, eliminate every fetter, and, when sensual desire has been entirely extinguished, cause nirvana to become manifest. Why, then, did you commit such an evil act?” The bhikkhus therefore reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha had the Sangha assembled.
Knowing that the time had come to establish a precept, and after that bhikkhu had admitted his offense, the Buddha rebuked him, saying: “What you have done is wrong. It is not proper conduct, not the conduct of an ascetic, not pure conduct, and not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. Such a thing ought not to be done.”
The Buddha further told the bhikkhus: “By innumerable skillful means, I have taught the Dharma for eliminating sexual desire and escaping the bonds of attachment.” The Buddha also said: “This sexual act is like fire, like a torch, and also like a knife or a spear.” Having rebuked him in this way, the Buddha said: “This foolish man has planted many seeds of the outflows and is the first to violate this precept. I must now establish a precept.” He therefore assembled the great community and stated the ten reasons for which the Buddha establishes precepts:
1. To govern the Sangha as a whole.
2. To bring joy to the Sangha.
3. To bring peace and stability to the Sangha.
4. To inspire faith in those who do not yet have faith.
5. To increase the faith of those who already have faith.
6. To discipline those who are difficult to discipline.
7. To bring joy to those who possess a sense of shame.
8. To eliminate present outflow-producing dharmas.
9. To eliminate future outflow-producing dharmas.
10. To ensure that the true Dharma long endures.
These ten principles also serve as the standard when the other precepts are established. In all the subsequent precepts, these ten principles are omitted and not stated. Nevertheless, when one wishes to recite the precepts, they should be stated in this manner.
b. Text of the Precept
Should any bhikkhu, sharing the same precepts with the other bhikkhus, without relinquishing the precepts and without disclosing that his observance has weakened, engage in the impure practice, even with an animal, that bhikkhu is parajika and may no longer live in communion.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: The Buddha said that there are eight kinds of bhikkhus: 1. A bhikkhu in name; 2. A bhikkhu by resemblance; 3. A self-proclaimed bhikkhu; 4. A bhikkhu who begs; 5. A bhikkhu who wears cut cloth; 6. A bhikkhu who has destroyed the fetters; 7. An “Come, bhikkhu” bhikkhu; 8. A bhikkhu who, at the proper place, has duly received full ordination through a motion and three proclamations.
Of these eight kinds of bhikkhus, only the last has received full ordination through the legal act of a motion and three proclamations, has duly attained the proper status, and abides in the Dharma of a bhikkhu. This is the meaning of the word “bhikkhu.”
– With the other bhikkhus: The Buddha taught: “If a bhikkhu has received full ordination together with other bhikkhus through a motion and three proclamations, and abides in the Dharma of a bhikkhu.” This is the meaning of the phrase “with the other bhikkhus.”
– Sharing the same precepts: The Buddha taught: “I have established precepts for My disciples; they should rather die than violate them.” Here it means having one body of precepts, the same precepts, and equal precepts as the other bhikkhus. This is the meaning of the phrase “sharing the same precepts.”
– Without relinquishing the precepts: The Buddha taught: “If a bhikkhu does not delight in the holy life, he is permitted to relinquish the precepts, return to lay life, and go home. If he later wishes to go forth again and practice the holy life within the Buddha-Dharma, he should be admitted to going forth and receiving full ordination.” What is not considered relinquishing the precepts? If the person is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by severe pain, mute, or deaf, and one declares the relinquishment of the precepts before such persons and those around them, that relinquishment is invalid. If the declaration is made in jest, while asleep, to a person without understanding, not spoken by oneself, or before a person who does not understand, that relinquishment is invalid. If one says, “I abandon the Buddha, abandon the Dharma, abandon the Sangha, abandon my preceptor, abandon the precepts and Vinaya; I prefer the household life,” this is called relinquishing the precepts.
– Weakened observance without self-disclosure: The Buddha taught: “What is meant by weakened observance without relinquishing the precepts? If a bhikkhu is constantly burdened by sorrow, does not delight in the holy life, has become weary of the life of a bhikkhu, and wishes to return to household life, he may say: ‘I miss my parents, wife and children, relatives, village, town, fields, gardens, and property. I wish to abandon the Buddha, even to the point of abandoning the rules of training, and so forth.’ If, after thinking in this way, he says, ‘I now relinquish the precepts,’ then his weakened observance results in a valid relinquishment.”
– Engaging in the impure practice: The Buddha taught: “This refers to sexual intercourse. A male has two passages, while a female has three passages. Whether one enters the proper passage through the proper passage, enters an improper passage through the proper passage, or enters the proper passage through an improper passage; whether there is only initial contact or complete penetration, even if penetration is only to the depth of the tip of a hair—in every case it is parajika.”
– Even down to an animal: The Buddha taught, “That is a part with which sexual intercourse can be performed.” There are three classes of beings with whom sexual intercourse can be performed: humans, nonhumans,[26] and animals. There are also five types of persons with whom sexual intercourse can be performed: women, female virgins,[27] hermaphrodites,[28] eunuchs,[29] and males. If a bhikkhu, with lustful intent, approaches any of these persons and performs sexual intercourse through either of the two passages or any of the three passages, he commits the offense as soon as penetration occurs. Even if there is an intervening object, he commits the offense. If he performs sexual intercourse with a person who is asleep, with a corpse that has not yet decomposed, or with a body of which the greater part has not yet decayed, through either of the two passages or any of the three passages, he commits the offense as soon as penetration occurs. Thus the matter is explained in detail. If a bhikkhu is seized by an enemy, brought before a person with whom sexual intercourse can be performed, and forcibly made to engage in the sexual act through either of the two passages or any of the three passages, then if, at the moment of penetration, he experiences pleasure, he commits the offense; if he has no mind of pleasure, he does not commit the offense. Whether there is an intervening object or no intervening object, all is as stated above. If a bhikkhu is forcibly seized by an enemy and compelled to engage in the sexual act, whether he has a mind of pleasure or no mind of pleasure, and whether there is an intervening object or no intervening object, all is as stated above.
– That bhikkhu is pārājika: The Buddha taught, “Just as a person whose head has been severed cannot cause it to grow again, so too, once a bhikkhu has violated this precept, he cannot again become a bhikkhu in accordance with the Dharma. Therefore, it is called pārājika.”
If a bhikkhu devises a means and intends to perform an impure act, then if the act is accomplished, he commits pārājika; if it is not accomplished, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense.[30] If he instructs another bhikkhu to perform an impure act and that person follows his instruction, the instructor incurs a sthūlātyaya offense; if that person does not follow his instruction, the instructor commits a duṣkṛta offense. Except in the case of bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, if he instructs members of the other assemblies and they either act or do not act, in every case he commits a duṣkṛta offense.
If he performs an impure act upon a body that has half decomposed or entirely decomposed, between two joints of the bones, in a hole in the ground, or in a hole in the mud, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense in every case. If it is the proper passage, or he perceives it as the proper passage, or is doubtful, or perceives it as not being the proper passage, in every case he commits pārājika.
If it is not the proper passage, but he perceives it as the proper passage or is doubtful whether it is the proper passage, in every case he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. A bhikkhunī commits pārājika. A śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī commits a duṣkṛta offense. Whoever has committed the transgressions described above is to be expelled.[31] These are the cases constituting an offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: If he is asleep and unaware, does not experience pleasure, and is entirely without sexual intent.
– Persons who do not commit an offense: The first person, before the Buddha established the precept; one who is insane; one whose mind is deranged; and one overwhelmed by affliction.
– Not living in communion: The Buddha taught, “There are two forms of living in communion: participating in the same karma proceeding and gathering at the same place for the recitation of the precepts. Because one may not participate in these two matters, it is called not being permitted to live in communion.”
2. The Precept Against Stealing
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rājagṛha. At that time, the bhikkhu Dhanika practiced meditation in a grass hut in a secluded place. One day, the Venerable One entered the city to seek alms.
When he returned, he found that someone had dismantled his grass hut and taken it away as firewood. Therefore, the Venerable One built another dwelling entirely of fired clay. When the Buddha learned of this, he had someone demolish it.
Afterward, the Venerable One falsely claimed that the king had given him permission to cut and take timber at will. Because of this, the official responsible for guarding the timber was arrested. After the matter was clarified, the Venerable One was reproached by the king, the king’s ministers, and the people, and was expelled from the village and forbidden to return.
When the bhikkhus learned of this, they reported it to the Buddha. On account of this incident, as above, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu, in a village or in a wilderness, with intent to steal, takes what has not been given, and, in accordance with the value of what he has taken without being given, he might be seized by the king or the king’s minister, or put to death, bound, or banished from the country, with the words, “You are a thief; you are foolish; you know nothing,” that bhikkhu is pārājika and may not live in communion.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: The meaning is as explained above.
– In a village: There are four kinds of villages: 1. one enclosed by walls on all four sides; 2. one surrounded by a fence; 3. one having walls and fences that do not completely encircle it; 4. one having houses on all four sides.
– Or in a wilderness: This means an open and secluded area outside the village.
Place:[32] This refers to such places and circumstances as: beneath the ground; upon the ground; placed in a cart; carried on the shoulder; in the air; upon a clothes hook or rack; placed within a village; in an araṇya;[33] in a field; in a territory;[34] aboard a boat; upon a river or other body of water; crossing by ferry without paying the tax; appropriating and refusing to return property entrusted to one; taking water; taking a tooth-cleaning stick;[35] taking flowers, fruit, grass, or trees; taking a legless living being, or a living being with two legs, four legs, or many legs; taking communal property; acting by mutual agreement; investigating; guarding; or taking a circuitous route. These are called places.
– Not given: It is not something another person has discarded; one perceives it as another’s property, perceives it as being guarded by someone, perceives it as having an owner, knows it is not one’s own, and uses it temporarily without obtaining consent.
– Taking with intent to steal: There are five kinds of intent to steal: a darkened mind, a perverse mind, a deceitful mind, a fearful mind, and a mind habitually desirous of stealing others’ property. There are also five ways of stealing: resolving to take something, taking with a fearful mind, taking property entrusted to one, taking immediately upon seeing something, and taking property handed over by another. One may also rely upon the influence of relatives, or use persuasive speech to drive a person into confusion and then take the property.
– In accordance with the value of what is taken without being given: This is determined according to the law of the king. If one takes five coins, or an object worth five coins, taking property of such value incurs the death penalty. Following the royal law, the Buddha established that stealing a full five coins constitutes a grave offense.
– Or by the king: A king is one who is independent and not subject to the authority of another.
– The king’s minister: Ministers are those who assist the king.
– If he is seized, put to death, bound, or banished from the country, with the words, “You are a thief; you are foolish; you know nothing,” that bhikkhu is pārājika.
Bhikkhu is as explained above. If he obtains property from any of the places described above, and steals exactly five coins or more than five coins, he commits pārājika. During the preliminary means of stealing, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense.
If he steals less than five coins, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If he attempts to steal but obtains nothing, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he instructs another person to steal and that person obtains the property, both commit pārājika.
If the person who was instructed independently takes some other property or takes property from another place, the taker commits the grave offense, while the instructor commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If one orders another person to take property and the person ordered has no intent to steal, the one who gave the order commits pārājika, while the person ordered commits no offense. Or, if one orders another person to take property and the person ordered steals it on his own initiative, the person who accepted the order commits the grave offense, while the one who gave the order commits no offense.
If one perceives the property as having an owner, one commits the grave offense; if one is doubtful, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If property has no owner but one perceives it as having an owner, or is doubtful whether it has an owner, one commits a sthūlātyaya offense.
The rules for bhikkhunīs and the four assemblies, and so forth, are all the same as stated under the preceding precept.
– Cases in which there is no offense: If one takes something believing it has been given to oneself, believing it belongs to oneself, believing it to be discarded property, or believing it belongs to a close acquaintance.
– Not living in communion: The meaning is as explained above.
3. The Precept Against Killing
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Vesali. At that time, the Buddha instructed the bhikkhus to contemplate impurity.[36] After those bhikkhus cultivated the meditative concentration of contemplation, they became weary of and disgusted with this bodily life; thus, they praised death and urged others to die. At that time, the bhikkhu Nandi agreed to serve as a hired killer, and the laypeople were exceedingly alarmed by this deed. When the Buddha learned of the matter, he taught the bhikkhus a method of meditative contemplation. The bhikkhus practiced accordingly, and all attained arhatship. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked the preceding offense and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
Should any bhikkhu intentionally take a human life with his own hand, provide a person with a knife, praise death, or encourage someone to die, saying: “Good man, what benefit is there in this evil and miserable life? Death would be better than life!”—and, with such an intention, employ various means to praise death or encourage someone to die, that bhikkhu commits pārājika and may no longer live in communion.
c. Explanation
– “Should any bhikkhu intentionally take ... with his own hand”: this means an act of killing. He may kill someone himself; instruct another to kill; instruct another to kill; send someone to go and return after killing; cause killing through a repeated messenger;[37] cause killing by sending instructions through a succession of messengers;[38] ask a man to kill; send someone to find a man and ask him to kill; seek a knife-wielding person to kill; send someone to find a knife-wielding person to kill; communicate the instruction by bodily gesture; communicate it verbally; communicate it through both body and speech; send someone to praise death; send someone to deliver a letter; instruct someone to deliver a letter; kill by means of a pit or trap; kill by means of a leaning or falling device;[39] administer medicine; provide an instrument for suicide; or employ other means of killing.
– “A human life”: the interval from the first consciousness to the final consciousness is called a human life; bringing it to an end is called taking a human life.
To provide a person with a knife, praise death, or encourage someone to die means saying: “Good man! What need is there for this evil and miserable life? Death would be better than life!” Should a bhikkhu form such an intention and seek various means to praise death or encourage someone to die, that bhikkhu commits pārājika.
If he employs any of the foregoing means to kill a person but the person does not die, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he kills a nonhuman being, an animal intelligent enough to understand human speech, or an animal capable of transforming its form, or employs means to kill any such being, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if the being does not die, he commits a dukkata offense. If he kills an animal capable of transforming its form, he commits a pācittiya offense.
If the being is actually human and he perceives it as human, he commits pārājika; if he perceives it as nonhuman or is uncertain, he commits a thullaccaya offense. The characteristics of offenses for the four assemblies are as stated above.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if one throws away a knife, staff, tile, or stone and it happens to strike and kill a person; if, while constructing a dwelling, one accidentally drops timber or stone and thereby causes a death; or if one assists a sick person in entering or leaving a room—in all such cases, if there was no intention to harm and the person nevertheless dies, there is no offense.
– “May no longer live in communion”: the meaning is as explained above.
4. The Precept on a Grave False Claim
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Vesali. At that time, there was a famine and food was scarce and costly, so the bhikkhus had difficulty obtaining food on their alms rounds. Some bhikkhus spending the rains retreat beside the Vaggumuda River then praised one another as having attained the qualities of superior persons. Hearing this, devout laypeople reduced their own families’ portions of food and offered them to those bhikkhus. After the rains retreat, these bhikkhus went to visit the Buddha. As was customary, the Buddha asked about their practice during the three months of the rains retreat and thereby learned what had occurred. The Buddha therefore rebuked them and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
Should any bhikkhu, without truly possessing such knowledge, claim for himself: “I have attained a quality of a superior person; I know thus; I see thus,” and should that bhikkhu at a later time, whether questioned or not, desire purification and say: “I did not truly know or see, yet I said that I saw and knew; I spoke falsely and told a lie”—except in a case of overestimation—that bhikkhu commits pārājika and may no longer live in communion.
c. Explanation
– “Should any bhikkhu, without truly possessing such knowledge”: this means that he truly has no knowledge of the Dharma in question.
– “Claim for himself: ‘I have attained a quality of a superior person ...’”: he himself claims to possess faith, morality, generosity, learning, knowledge, wisdom, and eloquence surpassing those of others. Human qualities are the human skandhas, the human dhatus, and the human ayatanas. Qualities of a superior person are those qualities capable of bringing about deliverance and the attainment of the Path and its fruits.
– “I have entered the supreme Dharma of the noble ones”: he himself claims that he possesses mindfulness directed to the body, right mindfulness, strict observance of the precepts, aspiration, heedfulness, diligence, meditative concentration, right enjoyment, the Path, cultivation, wisdom, vision, attainment, and fruition.
– “I know that; I see that”: he may say that devas, nāgas, ghosts, or spirits have come to make offerings to him. Or he may say that he has attained the contemplation of impurity, the four dhyanas, the four formless attainments,[40] and so forth.
– “At a later time, whether questioned or not, desiring purification, he says: ‘I did not truly know or see, yet I said that I knew and saw’”: this means that after intending to make the claim, he subsequently regrets his former offense and turns what is true into what is false. Because he created karma through speech, as soon as he finished speaking, he incurred the grave offense.
– “Except in a case of overestimation”: a bhikkhu conceitedly claimed that he had attained the Path, but afterward he practiced diligently and attained the fruit of arhatship. Doubt then arose in his mind, so he asked the Buddha about the matter. The Buddha said: “One who overestimates his attainment does not commit the offense.”
– “That bhikkhu commits pārājika”: if he knows that the matter is untrue but intentionally states it to another person, and the listener understands, he commits pārājika; if the listener does not understand, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If he communicates it by a hand gesture, sends a messenger, delivers a letter, or makes another sign, and the other person understands, he likewise commits the offense. If he says it to an animal incapable of transforming its form, he commits a dukkata offense. As for making such a statement to the other four assemblies, it is as explained above.
– Cases in which there is no offense: one who overestimates his attainment; one affected by karmic retribution; one who does not say, “I have attained it”; one who speaks in jest; one who speaks hastily; one who speaks ambiguously; or one who intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another.
– He may no longer live in communion.
Venerable Ones! I have recited the four pārājika rules. If any bhikkhu violates any one of these four pārājika rules, he may no longer live in communion with the bhikkhus. As he was before, so he is afterward no longer. That bhikkhu has incurred pārājika and may no longer live in communion. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Is this assembly pure? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones in this assembly are pure, for they remain silent. Thus do I acknowledge it.
Venerable Ones! These are the thirteen saṅghādisesa rules, recited once every half-month, as set forth in the Precept Scripture.
1. The Precept on Intentional Emission of Semen
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha journeyed to the city of Sravasti. At that time, because the bhikkhu Kaludayi’s lust was blazing, his body had become haggard and emaciated. He lived alone in a room, with a fine bed and soft blankets, a sitting cloth spread upon the floor, and plentiful food and drink. At his pleasure, he stimulated his genitals until he emitted semen. His faculties became delighted and at ease, and his complexion grew rosy. When the bhikkhus learned of this, they reported the matter to the Buddha. After employing innumerable means to rebuke the bhikkhu Kaludayi, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
Should any bhikkhu intentionally stimulate his genitals and emit semen, except in a dream, he commits saṅghādisesa.
c. Explanation
– “Bhikkhu”: the meaning is as explained above.
– Deliberately manipulating the sexual organ to emit semen: genuinely intending to produce the impure substance. There are six possible objects: one’s own body, another’s body, both one’s own and another’s bodies, water, wind, or no object. Whatever method is used, if the impure substance is emitted, the offense is committed.
– Except in a dream: The Buddha taught: “One who sleeps with an agitated mind incurs five faults: first, having bad dreams; second, not being protected by devas; third, the mind does not enter the Dharma; fourth, one does not recollect the perception of light; and fifth, one emits semen in a dream. If one gathers the mind well before sleeping, one gains five virtues, the opposites of the five disadvantages above.”
– Sanghadisesa: if one employs a method of manipulating the sexual organ but does not emit semen, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If a bhikkhu performs the act himself or instructs another to do it, and semen is emitted, he commits a thullaccaya offense; if semen is not emitted, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense; the three lower orders commit a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: all actions performed without any intention of emitting semen.
2. The Precept Concerning Physical Contact with a Woman
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, because the Buddha had previously established a precept, the bhikkhu Kaludayin remained inside and waited by the outer gate for women to arrive. He then led them into his room, took hold of their hands, and caressed them. Those who liked it laughed and jested, while those who disliked it became angry and reviled and insulted him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha assembled the Sangha and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu, with lustful intent, engages in bodily contact with a woman—whether taking hold of her hand, taking hold of her hair, or touching any part of her body—it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– With lustful intent: a mind of defiled attachment and impurity.
– With a woman: there are four kinds of object: one who is awake, one who is asleep, one who has just died, and one whose body has partially decomposed.
– Body: from the hair of the head to the feet.
– Physical contact: whether grasping, rubbing, rubbing forcefully, pulling toward oneself, pushing away, stroking with the grain, stroking against the grain, lifting upward, stroking downward, seizing, pressing down, or performing any other act of physical contact.
– Whether taking hold of her hand, taking hold of her hand, or touching the whole of any bodily part, it is a sanghadisesa offense: if one touches any of the four kinds of women with a mind of attachment, one immediately commits a sanghadisesa offense. If a woman touches a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu moves his body, he likewise commits the offense. If he does not move his body, he commits only a dukkata offense. If he previously had a defiled mind, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If they touch while clothing intervenes, he commits a thullaccaya offense. If both are clothed, he commits a dukkata offense.
If one touches a hermaphrodite, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If, out of lust, one touches the body of a man, or touches clothing or a sitting cloth, or even touches oneself or an animal, in every case one commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a parajika offense. The three lower orders commit a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: being seized by another; touching a person of the same sex; or touching one another in play.
3. The Precept Concerning Speaking Obscene Words to a Woman
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, after the bhikkhu Kaludayin heard that the Buddha had established the preceding two precepts, he gave rise to a lustful mind in the presence of a woman and spoke obscene words to her. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu, with lustful intent, speaks lewd and obscene words to a woman, freely uttering lewd and obscene speech, it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– With lustful intent, to a woman: a woman who is conscious and alive.
– Obscene words, lewd words: “obscene” means contrary to the holy life. Lewd speech means speaking of the desirable or undesirable qualities of the two passages. One may request, instruct another to request, ask, answer, explain, speak, teach, or revile. To request is to say: “You should perform such an act with me through either of the two passages.” Other such expressions should be understood in the same way.
– Freely uttering lewd and obscene words is a sanghadisesa offense: if one utters an obscene expression once, one commits a sanghadisesa offense. According to the circumstances, whether one speaks many words or few, if they are explicit, each expression constitutes one sanghadisesa offense; if they are not explicit, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one conveys the words by letter, signal, messenger, or gesture and the woman understands, one also commits a sanghadisesa offense. If the woman does not understand, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one speaks about places other than the two passages for defecation and urination, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one speaks obscene words to a female nonhuman being, a eunuch, or a hermaphrodite, and they understand, one commits a thullaccaya offense. If one speaks obscenely to an animal incapable of changing its form, or speaks lewd words to a man, in all the above cases one commits a dukkata offense. Speaking obscene words to a bhikkhuni is a thullaccaya offense. Speaking them to members of the three lower orders is a dukkata offense. Even speaking them to those who have fewer precepts than oneself constitutes a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: teaching the contemplation of impurity, expounding the Vinaya, reciting sutras, or answering because someone has asked a question. Since all such cases are without lustful intent, there is no offense.
4. The Precept Concerning Praising Oneself and Urging a Woman to Make an Offering of Sexual Intercourse
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Sravasti. At that time, after the bhikkhu Kaludayin heard that the Buddha had established the preceding three precepts, he invited women and drew them into his room. He then praised himself and urged them: “You ladies should make an offering of sexual intercourse to me.” The women rebuked the bhikkhu Kaludayin and regarded his conduct as extraordinary. When the bhikkhus learned of this fault, they reported it to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu, with lustful intent, praises himself in the presence of a woman, saying: “Young lady, I practice the holy life, uphold the precepts with diligence, and cultivate wholesome qualities. You should make an offering of sexual intercourse to me. That is the foremost offering,” it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– If any bhikkhu, with lustful intent, is in the presence of a woman: “woman” is as explained above.
– Praises himself: this means praising himself as handsome and refined, or claiming: “I am of the ksatriya lineage; I am a guildmaster, a householder, or a great brahmin.”
– Saying: “Young lady, I practice the holy life”: this means diligently cultivating freedom from every defilement.
– Upholding the precepts with diligence: this means keeping the precepts unbroken, unperforated, and undefiled.
– Cultivating wholesome qualities: such as delighting in secluded places, going on almsround at the proper time, wearing rag robes,[41] observing the practice concerning leftover food, not eating at improper times, eating only one meal, not eating repeatedly, dwelling in charnel grounds, dwelling beneath trees, constantly sitting, sitting wherever there is no habitation (sitting wherever appropriate), possessing only the three robes, chanting benedictions, concealing and cooking food, being learned, frequently teaching the Dharma, preserving the Vinaya, practicing meditation, and so forth.
– “You should make an offering of sexual intercourse to me. That is the foremost offering”—a sanghadisesa offense: if, after praising himself in this way, he tells her to make an offering to him but says nothing about sexual intercourse when the donor comes, he commits a thullaccaya offense. In all other cases, the offenses are as stated in the preceding precepts.
– Cases in which there is no offense: If a bhikkhu says to a woman: “This dwelling place is supremely worthy; this bhikkhu is diligent, observes the precepts, and practices wholesome dharmas. You should make offerings to that bhikkhu through bodily, verbal, and mental actions, and so forth.” If that woman thinks that he is praising himself for her sake; or if, while explaining the Vinaya, he gradually comes to mention this matter; or if the other person thinks that the praise refers to them; or if it is said by mistake—in all such cases, there is no offense.
5. The Precept against Acting as a Matchmaker
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying at La-duyệt-kì. At that time, there was a bhikkhu named Ca-la who had formerly been a high minister and was therefore thoroughly acquainted with worldly customs. Whenever families in the city had marriage matters, they would come to consult that bhikkhu. Then, when someone wishing to marry had found a prospective spouse but did not know whether the match would bring happiness or suffering, that person would come and ask the bhikkhu Ca-la. When the laypeople learned of this, they criticized the bhikkhu Ca-la. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu goes back and forth between the two parties, acting as a matchmaker, conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man, whether to bring about marriage or an illicit liaison, even if only for a moment, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Going back and forth between the two parties, acting as a matchmaker: This means bringing the two parties into a relationship with one another.
– Conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man: There are twenty classes of women: one under her mother’s guardianship; one under her father’s guardianship; one under the guardianship of both parents; one under her brother’s guardianship; one under her sister’s guardianship; one under the guardianship of both brother and sister; one under her own guardianship; one under the guardianship of the law; one under the guardianship of her clan; one under the guardianship of relatives; one who voluntarily wishes to become a female servant; one who becomes a female servant in return for clothing; one who becomes a female servant in return for property; one who becomes a female servant through entering into a partnership; one who becomes a female servant because she was rescued from being swept away by water; one who vows to become a female servant in exchange for exemption from taxes; one who becomes a female servant because she was purchased, or because she was born in her master’s household; one who becomes a female servant by working for hire; one who, after receiving another person’s assistance, asks to become a female servant; and one who becomes a female servant because she was captured in a border region. There are likewise twenty classes of men corresponding to the twenty classes of women just enumerated.
– Whether to bring about marriage or an illicit liaison, even if only for a moment, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense: If he merely agrees to undertake the matter, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he conveys one person’s message to the other but does not return to report the outcome to the first person, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If he returns and reports the outcome to the first person, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. Whether he writes a letter, sends a messenger, makes signs, or uses gestures, and whether he acts as matchmaker many times or only a few times, if he communicates the matter clearly and the other person responds, in every case he commits a Sanghadisesa offense. If the other person does not understand, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. Apart from the two passages, if he refers to other parts of the body in order to arrange a match, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If he acts as matchmaker for a nonhuman being, a paṇḍaka, or a person possessing both sexual organs, he commits a sthūlātyaya offense. If he acts as matchmaker for animals, or between one man and another man, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he helps someone deliver a letter without first examining it, or if, on behalf of laypeople, he sends another person to act, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. A bhikkhuni incurs the same offenses as stated here.
– Cases in which there is no offense: If a man and a woman previously had an illicit relationship, later separated, and are then reconciled; or if he restores friendly relations between parents who are angry with each other. Likewise, there is no offense if he examines a letter and then delivers it to a faithful and diligent layperson. If a bhikkhu serves as a messenger for the sake of the Buddha-Dharma, there is no offense.
6. The Precept against Building an Over-Sized Hut without a Donor
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of La-duyệt-kì. At that time, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to build individual huts. The bhikkhu Khoáng-dã then built a large hut. Because of this, he had to seek and solicit many kinds of materials, thereby causing distress to the laypeople. After repeatedly soliciting but failing to obtain what he needed, he went and cut down a tree inhabited by a deity. The tree deity and the other bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha then went to the bhikkhu Khoáng-dã, rebuked and instructed him, and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu, soliciting materials himself, builds a hut without a donor for his own use, it must conform to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are 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, soliciting materials himself, builds a hut without a donor for his own use on a dangerous or obstructed site, without inviting the bhikkhus to designate the site, or builds it beyond the prescribed dimensions, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Soliciting materials himself: The bhikkhu personally goes from place to place soliciting building materials.
– To build a hut: The character ốc (屋) has the same meaning as the character phòng (房), namely a room or a house.
– Without a donor: This means that he has no donor, whether one person, two people, or even many people.
– For his own use: This means that it is not built for another person.
– It must conform to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are twelve Buddha-spans in length and seven Buddha-spans in interior width. He must invite the bhikkhus to designate the site: Those bhikkhus should inspect the site and ascertain that it is free from danger and does not cause obstruction. The bhikkhu should then enter the Sangha, remove his sandals, bare his right shoulder, bow at the feet of the senior elder, kneel on his right knee, place his palms together, and say:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu named ….., soliciting materials himself, wishes to build an individual hut without a donor for his own use. I now request the Sangha to designate for me a site that is free from danger and obstruction.” He should make this request three times.
– Those bhikkhus must designate the site: The Sangha should then carefully consider that bhikkhu. If he is trustworthy, they may permit the construction. If he is not trustworthy, the Sangha must go to the proposed building site and inspect it again. If the Sangha does not go, it must appoint a trustworthy member of the Sangha to inspect it. If the site is dangerous or obstructed, permission to build must not be granted; if the site is free from danger and obstruction, permission to build may be granted. From among the assembly, a person capable of performing the karman should be appointed—whether the senior elder, the next-ranking elder, one well versed in the Vinaya, or one not versed in the Vinaya—to make the formal announcement:
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu ….., soliciting materials himself, wishes to build a hut without a donor for his own use. He now requests the Sangha to designate a site that is free from danger and obstruction. If the time is appropriate for the Sangha, and the Sangha consents, it should designate for the bhikkhu ….. a site that is free from danger and obstruction. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen! The bhikkhu ….. is building a hut without a donor for his own use and has come before the Sangha to request that it designate a site free from danger and obstruction. The Sangha now designates for the bhikkhu ….. a site that is free from danger and obstruction. Those venerable ones who consent to designating for the bhikkhu ….. a site free from danger and obstruction should remain silent. Whoever does not consent should speak. The Sangha consents because it is silent. Thus do I record this matter.”
The bhikkhu building the hut should know the proper sequence: first, the stones are laid; wherever there is a pond, it must be filled and leveled; and finally, the walls are plastered.
– A place free from danger: although there may be tigers, wolves, lions, various animals, and even insects and ants, if no harm will be caused by these beasts or insects, the ground should be leveled. If there are rocks, trees, tree stumps, or thorny bushes, someone should be asked to dig them up. If there are pits, ditches, pools of standing water, and so forth, someone should be asked to fill and level them. If there is a danger of water accumulating, an embankment should be built to hold it back. If anyone claims that the land belongs to them, the matter must be conclusively settled with them so that no dispute remains. Such is called a place with danger.
– A place where the passage is not obstructed: a place without impediment. It is a place through which vehicles can travel back and forth.
– If a bhikkhu, in a dangerous place or a place where the passage is obstructed, solicits materials himself to build a hut, without a donor, making it for himself, and does not invite the bhikkhus to designate the site, or builds it beyond the prescribed dimensions, he commits a sanghavasesa offense: if any bhikkhu builds a dwelling in a place that is both dangerous and obstructed, he commits two dushkrita offenses. If, without the Sangha’s designation, he builds it beyond the permitted dimensions, he commits two sanghavasesa offenses.
If a bhikkhu builds a dwelling in a dangerous but unobstructed place, or conversely, in a place free from danger but obstructed, he commits the corresponding offense according to the circumstances. If he instructs someone else to build it and it is completed, he likewise commits the offense. If he builds it for another person and it is completed, he commits two sthulatyaya offenses and two dushkrita offenses.
If the land is measured with a cord and construction then proceeds, both the person who agrees to build it and the person who builds it beyond the permitted dimensions commit offenses. If one proceeds on one’s own initiative without reporting back or consulting the other person, one commits a dushkrita offense. A bhikkhuni who acts contrary to the prescribed rule commits a sthulatyaya offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if it is built according to the permitted dimensions or smaller; if it is built on a site designated by the Sangha, in a place free from danger and obstruction; if it is built in accordance with the Dharma; or if the dimensions are correctly measured before construction. There is also no offense if it is built for the Sangha, as a Buddha hall, an assembly hall, a grass hut, a leaf hut, or merely a small cell. Such is called building in accordance with the Dharma.
7. The Precept Concerning Having a Donor Build a Monastery for Oneself Without the Sangha’s Designation
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Kausambi. At that time, King Udayana was constructing living quarters for the bhikkhu Chanda. Relying on his influence, the bhikkhu Chanda willfully felled the ancient trees along the road. Travelers mocked and reproached him. When the bhikkhus learned of this, they reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked him and said: ‘If one cuts down an ancient tree, one commits a dushkrita offense.’ On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu wishes to build a large monastery for himself, with a donor providing it for him, he must invite other bhikkhus to designate the site. Those bhikkhus must designate a site that is free from danger and where the passage is not obstructed. If a bhikkhu, in a dangerous place or a place where the passage is obstructed, desires a large monastery, with a donor providing it for him, and does not invite the bhikkhus to designate the site, he commits a sanghavasesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Wishes to build a large monastery: a large monastery is one whose construction requires the use of many material resources.
– With a donor: this is the opposite of the preceding precept, in which there is no donor.
– Providing it for himself, he must invite other bhikkhus to designate the site: the bhikkhu is as described above. He must go before the Sangha, pay homage at the feet of the senior bhikkhu and so forth, and make his request to the Sangha three times. The formal statement of request is the same as in the preceding precept, except for the words, “with a donor providing it for himself.”
– Those bhikkhus must designate the site: the Sangha should examine the matter. If that person is trustworthy and wise, the Sangha may accept his word and designate the site for constructing the monastery through a motion followed by one proclamation. If he is not trustworthy, the procedure is likewise as explained above: the Sangha may either permit the construction or prevent it.
– A place free from danger: this means that although there may be ferocious animals such as lions, horseshoe bears, humanlike bears, and so forth, if no harm will be caused by them, the procedure should be as explained above: the ground may be filled and leveled. If there is concern that someone might claim the land as their own, the matter must first be clearly settled before construction begins.
– A place where the passage is not obstructed: within the tract of land, there must be space through which vehicles can travel.
– If a bhikkhu, in a dangerous place or a place where the passage is obstructed, desires a large monastery, with a donor providing it for him, and does not invite the bhikkhus to designate the site, he commits a sanghavasesa offense: the form and explanation are the same as in the preceding precept; the only difference is that the words “beyond the prescribed dimensions” are absent.
8. The Precept Against Groundlessly Accusing a Bhikkhu of a Parajika Offense
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, the Venerable Dabba had just attained arhatship, and light emanated from his hand. He served as the steward of the Sangha and was praised by the Buddha as foremost in this capacity. According to his seniority in the community, the bhikkhu Mettiya was assigned poor lodging and also received unpalatable food. Because of this, Mettiya became resentful and instructed his sister, a bhikkhuni, …… to go before the Sangha and revile the Venerable Dabba. Seeing this, the bhikkhus questioned that bhikkhuni, and she admitted that she had fabricated the accusation. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu, harboring hatred, groundlessly accuses another bhikkhu who has not committed a parajika offense of a parajika offense, wishing to destroy that bhikkhu’s pure life, and afterward, whether questioned or not questioned, the matter is known to be groundless, and this bhikkhu says: ‘I spoke thus because of hatred,’ that bhikkhu commits a sanghavasesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Harboring hatred: there are ten causes arising from unwholesome factors that give rise to anger in relation to ten matters. In this case, however, the bhikkhu Mettiya became angry because of two matters.
– Groundlessly accuses another bhikkhu who has not committed a parajika offense of a parajika offense: a valid basis must comprise one of three things: seeing, hearing, or suspicion. A valid basis through seeing means seeing him violate celibacy, seeing him steal five coins, or seeing him kill a human being. Alternatively, another person may have seen it and then reported it. This is called a valid basis through seeing.
A valid basis through hearing means hearing that he violated celibacy, hearing that he stole five coins, or hearing that he killed a human being; hearing him claim that he attained a superhuman state; or hearing another person say that they heard him make such a claim. This is called a valid basis through hearing.
A valid basis through suspicion is of two kinds. The first is suspicion arising from seeing. One sees a bhikkhu enter a forest together with a woman and then come out naked, without any cloth, with his body soiled; or one sees him holding a bloodstained knife or associating with wicked people.
The second is suspicion arising from hearing. While in a concealed place, one hears the sound of a bed moving, the sound of someone turning over, bodily sounds, the sound of people whispering to each other, or someone saying, ‘I violated celibacy,’ up to and including hearing someone say, ‘I attained a superhuman state.’ Apart from the three valid bases stated above, to use other baseless matters to accuse someone is called a groundless accusation.
– Wishing to destroy that bhikkhu’s pure life: this means asking the Sangha to expel that person so that one may live at ease.
– Afterward, whether questioned or not questioned: the Buddha instructed the bhikkhus to question the accuser in order to determine whether the matter was true. If that person uses groundless allegations to malign another, he incurs a grave offense.
– It became known that the matter was groundless, and this bhikkhu said: The other bhikkhu said, “Dabba is a pure person; in truth, no such thing occurred.”
– I spoke thus out of resentment: previously, when lodgings and food were assigned in order, that bhikkhu received poor lodging and meager food. He therefore harbored resentment and slandered the other bhikkhu.
– If a bhikkhu speaks thus, it is a sanghavasesa offense: if he makes an accusation based on one of the four groundless matters, expressing it clearly, he commits a sanghavasesa offense; if he expresses it unclearly, he commits a thullaccaya offense. Whether he makes signs, writes a letter, sends a messenger, or uses gestures, whether clearly or unclearly, in every case he commits the corresponding offense. If he slanders another by alleging any of the thirteen disqualifying impediments[42], he also commits a sanghavasesa offense, except when the person slandered is not a bhikkhu in good standing. If he slanders another by means of some other groundless matter, he commits the corresponding offense according to the matter, as explained above.
If he slanders a bhikkhuni, he likewise commits the offense stated above. If he slanders members of the lower assemblies, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni who commits slander likewise commits a sanghavasesa offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: when each of the three—seeing, hearing, and suspicion—has a basis and he speaks truthfully; or when he speaks in jest, speaks hastily, speaks to himself, speaks in a secluded place, or speaks by mistake—in all such cases, there is no offense.
9. The Rule Concerning Slander by Seizing upon a Detail from a Different, Factual Matter Involving a Parajika Offense
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, the bhikkhu Mettiya saw two goats mating and said that the male goat was Dabba and the female goat was the bhikkhuni Mettiya. He then told the bhikkhus, “Today I saw it with my own eyes; this is unlike before, when there was no evidence at all.” When the bhikkhus questioned him closely, Mettiya admitted that it was a false accusation. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu, out of resentment, seizes upon a minor detail from a matter of a different category and makes a groundless accusation involving a parajika offense against a bhikkhu who has not committed a parajika offense, desiring to destroy his life of purity; and later, whether questioned or not questioned, it becomes known that the matter was based upon a minor detail taken from a matter of a different category, and the bhikkhu says, “I spoke thus out of resentment”—such a bhikkhu commits a sanghavasesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Out of resentment: as explained above.
– Seizes upon a minor detail from a matter of a different category: he may seize upon a different offense, a different purpose, a different person, a householder, or a rumor he has heard.
– Makes a groundless accusation involving a parajika offense against a bhikkhu who has not committed a parajika offense, desiring to destroy his life of purity; and later, whether questioned or not questioned, it becomes known that the matter was based upon a minor detail taken from a matter of a different category, and the bhikkhu says, “I spoke thus out of resentment”—such a bhikkhu commits a sanghavasesa offense: the cases of offense and non-offense are the same as under the preceding rule.
10. The Rule Concerning Schism in the Sangha and Resistance to Admonition
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Minilou, where he admitted eight men of the Sakya clan into the monastic life. Afterward, he led them to the country of Campa, where they all attained superior states. Among them, only Devadatta attained the supernormal power of miraculous abilities. Some time later, the Buddha returned to Rajagriha. At that time, Devadatta incited someone to kill the Buddha. When the matter was exposed, his ill repute spread far and wide, and no one offered him food. Consequently, that bhikkhu ate separately from the community and was rebuked by the Buddha. Yet Devadatta would not desist and instead devised a way to create a schism in the Sangha. The bhikkhus pointed out his fault and admonished him, and the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu, desiring to destroy the harmony of the Sangha, undertakes to destroy the harmony of the Sangha, firmly adheres to a course that would disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, and persists without relinquishing it, the bhikkhus should admonish him, saying: “Venerable sir, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha; do not undertake to destroy the harmony of the Sangha; do not firmly adhere to a course that would disrupt the harmony of the Sangha and persist without relinquishing it.
Venerable sir, you should remain in harmony with the Sangha. For when one is in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing without contention, training under the same Teacher, and mingling in harmony like water and milk, there will be growth in the Buddha’s Dharma and one will dwell at ease.” When that bhikkhu is thus admonished, if he persists without relinquishing the matter, the bhikkhus should admonish him as many as three times so that he will relinquish it.
If, after being admonished as many as three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, he commits a sanghavasesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Desiring to destroy: there are altogether eighteen matters by which disruption may be caused: Dharma and non-Dharma; Vinaya and non-Vinaya; offense and non-offense; light and grave; concealment and non-concealment; gross and not gross; customary practice and non-customary practice; what has been prescribed and what has not been prescribed; what has been spoken and what has not been spoken.
– Harmony: performing the same Sanghakamma and reciting the precepts together.
– Sangha: refers to four bhikkhus, five bhikkhus, ten bhikkhus, or even an innumerable number of bhikkhus.
– Undertakes to destroy the harmony of the Sangha, firmly adheres to a course that would disrupt the harmony of the Sangha, and persists without relinquishing it: this means using the eighteen matters to destroy the harmony of the Sangha.
– The bhikkhus should admonish him, saying: “Venerable sir, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha; do not undertake to destroy the harmony of the Sangha; do not firmly adhere to a course that would disrupt the harmony of the Sangha and persist without relinquishing it. Venerable sir, you should remain in harmony with the Sangha. For when one is in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing without contention, training under the same Teacher, and mingling in harmony like water and milk, there will be growth in the Buddha’s Dharma and one will dwell at ease”: they should say to that bhikkhu, “Venerable sir, you should relinquish this matter. Do not cause the Sangha to perform the formal act of admonition and rebuke, thereby bringing upon yourself a grave offense.” If verbal admonition is effective, that is good. If verbal admonition is not effective, they may ask a bhikkhuni, a male lay follower, a female lay follower, a king, an official, or ascetics or brahmins of other paths to assist. Alternatively, they may ask knowledgeable bhikkhus from other places whose admonition the bhikkhu may trust and follow to admonish him. This is admonition.
– When that bhikkhu is thus admonished, if he persists without relinquishing the matter: this means that he resists the admonition.
– The bhikkhus should admonish him as many as three times so that he will relinquish it. If, after being admonished as many as three times, he relinquishes it, that is good: the bhikkhus should assemble the Sangha and perform a Sanghakamma. Having made the formal motion for admonition in accordance with the Dharma, they should again request the Sangha to perform the Sanghakamma, proceeding through the first proclamation of the Sanghakamma and then the second in the same manner.
– If he does not relinquish it: this means that he resists the Sangha’s admonition. The following rule is the same as this rule.
– Sanghavasesa: after the Sangha has completed the second proclamation of admonition, if that bhikkhu relinquishes his intention, he commits three thullaccaya offenses. If he does not relinquish it until the formal motion has been completed, he commits one thullaccaya offense; if he relinquishes it before the formal motion has been completed, he commits only one dukkata offense. If, before the Sanghakamma is performed, he adopts a course leading to schism in the Sangha and persists without relinquishing it, he commits a dukkata offense in each instance. A bhikkhuni commits a sanghavasesa offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he relinquishes the matter immediately upon the first admonition; or if an unlawful Sanghakamma is performed to rebuke and admonish him; or if the matter is contrary to the Dharma, contrary to the Vinaya, and not the Buddha’s teaching; or if he breaks apart evil companions or breaks off an association; or if he seeks to break up a group, or to put an end to conduct that is not in accordance with the Dharma; or if, for the sake of the Sangha, he demolishes a stupa belonging to his preceptor, acarya, or an associate—in such cases, the one who breaks it apart commits no offense.
11. The Rule Concerning Assisting a Schism in the Sangha and Resistance to Admonition
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Rajagriha. At that time, the bhikkhu Devadatta used five practices—living solely on alms for life, wearing rag-robes, always sleeping beneath trees, not drinking milk, and not eating salt, fish, or meat—to instruct the other bhikkhus. When the Sangha admonished the bhikkhu Devadatta, the other bhikkhus who were his companions helped him obstruct the Sangha’s admonition. The bhikkhus reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked them and, on account of this matter, established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu has a faction consisting of one, two, three, or even innumerable members, 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. What that bhikkhu says is pleasing to us.
What that bhikkhu says, we accept.’ Those bhikkhus should say: “Venerable ones, do not say this: ‘That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma. That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Vinaya. What that bhikkhu says is pleasing to us.
What that bhikkhu says, we accept.’ Rather, that bhikkhu speaks contrary to the Dharma and speaks contrary to the Vinaya. Venerable ones, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha. You should rejoice in the harmony of the Sangha.
Venerable ones, being in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing together, free from disputes, training under one teacher, and mingling in harmony like water and milk, you will prosper in the Buddha-Dharma and dwell in peace and happiness.” If, after being admonished in this way, those factional bhikkhus persist and do not desist, the bhikkhus should admonish them up to three times so that they abandon this conduct. If they abandon it after being admonished up to three times, that is good.
If they do not abandon it, it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation:
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Has a faction consisting of one, two, three, or even innumerable members: companions number from four persons upward, even to an innumerable multitude. There are two kinds of adherence. The first is adherence on account of the Dharma. This means instructing others through the Dharma so that they develop in moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom, and recite, study, and receive the teachings. The second is adherence on account of food and clothing. This means providing robes, food and drink, blankets, mattresses, beds, bedding, and medicines.
– 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. What that bhikkhu says is pleasing to us. What that bhikkhu says, we accept.’: This refers to helping an unwholesome faction resist the Sangha’s admonition. They say that Devadatta is thoroughly versed in the Dharma and the Vinaya, and that they are all entirely pleased with him; why, then, should the Sangha perform an act of admonition against that bhikkhu and declare his conduct contrary to the Vinaya?
– Those bhikkhus should say: “Venerable ones, do not say this: ‘That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Dharma. That bhikkhu speaks in accordance with the Vinaya. What that bhikkhu says is pleasing to us. What that bhikkhu says, we accept.’ Rather, that bhikkhu speaks contrary to the Dharma and speaks contrary to the Vinaya. Venerable ones, do not disrupt the harmony of the Sangha. You should rejoice in the harmony of the Sangha. Venerable ones, being in harmony with the Sangha, rejoicing together, free from disputes, training under one teacher, and mingling in harmony like water and milk, you will prosper in the Buddha-Dharma and dwell in peace and happiness.”: This means that the virtuous bhikkhus use the Dharma to admonish them that what Devadatta says is incorrect both in its grounds and in its doctrine, and that they should not foolishly believe and follow him.
– If, after being admonished in this way, those factional bhikkhus persist and do not desist, the bhikkhus should admonish them up to three times so that they abandon this conduct. If they abandon it after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If they do not abandon it, it is a sanghadisesa offense: the rebuke, instruction, and establishment of the precept are the same as explained above.
12. The Precept Concerning One Who Corrupts Families and Is Banished
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Assaji and several other bhikkhus lodged in the village of Kitagiri and corrupted the families there. The bhikkhus reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed the Venerable Sariputra and the other bhikkhus to go to the place where those bhikkhus were staying and carry out a formal act of banishment. While the Venerable Sariputra and the bhikkhus were performing the formal act, those bhikkhus slandered the Sangha and refused to heed their words. The Sangha reported this matter to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu, living in dependence upon a village or town, corrupts families and engages in bad conduct, and his corruption of families is both seen and heard, while his bad conduct is also both seen and heard, the bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu: ‘Venerable one, you corrupt families and engage in bad conduct. Your corruption of families is both seen and heard, and your bad conduct is also both seen and heard. Venerable one, because you corrupt families and engage in bad conduct, you should now depart from this village and no longer dwell here.’ If that bhikkhu says to the bhikkhus: ‘Venerable ones, the bhikkhus act out of favoritism, hostility, fear, and delusion.
Although there are bhikkhus guilty of the same offense, some are expelled while others are not expelled,’ the bhikkhus should reply: “Venerable one, do not say: ‘The Sangha acts out of favoritism, hostility, fear, and delusion. Although there are bhikkhus guilty of the same offense, some are expelled while others are not expelled.’ The bhikkhus do not act out of favoritism, hostility, fear, or delusion. Venerable one, you corrupt families and engage in bad conduct.
Your corruption of families is both seen and heard, and your bad conduct is also both seen and heard.” If, after being admonished in this way, that bhikkhu persists and does not desist, the bhikkhus should admonish him up to three times so that he abandons this conduct. If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If he does not abandon it, it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Living in dependence upon a village: there are four kinds of villages, as explained above.
– Or town: a town is land under the king’s jurisdiction.
And corrupts families: a household contains men and women. There are four ways of corrupting families:
– The first is corrupting one family by relying upon another family. This means taking something received from one family and giving it to another. When the family that donated the article learns of this, it becomes displeased. The family that received the article, meanwhile, thinks that it must repay the favor and says: “Since that person gave us something, we must repay the favor. If that person had not given us anything, why would we have to give something in return?”
– The second is corrupting families by relying upon material gains. Having lawfully received material gains and any food remaining in his bowl, a bhikkhu gives them to a householder. The recipient thinks: “I must repay that person’s kindness. If that person had not given me anything, why would I have to give something in return?”
– The third is corrupting families by relying upon influential persons. If a bhikkhu relies upon a king, an official, or a great minister, whether he acts on behalf of a householder or does not act on behalf of that householder, the householder thinks: “If he acts on my behalf, I should make offerings to him; if he does not act on my behalf, I should not make offerings.”
– The fourth is corrupting families by relying upon a sangharama. If a bhikkhu takes flowers or fruit belonging to the monastery and gives them to a householder, or does not give them to a householder, the one who receives them thinks that he must make offerings, while the one who does not receive them thinks: “I will not make offerings.”
– Engaging in bad conduct: that bhikkhu committed such acts contrary to the Dharma. He planted flowers himself, watered them, picked them, made them into garlands, strung them together with thread, and gave them to others. Or he instructed others to do so. In the village, he sat on the same bed with women, ate from the same dish with them, and laughed and talked boisterously; or he himself sang and danced, or joined in when others did so; or he chanted rhymes, played stringed instruments, beat drums, played flutes, hummed melodies, imitated birdsong, ran, walked with a limp, whistled, fondled his own body, or accepted employment as a paid entertainer.
– His corrupting of households was seen and heard by all. His bad conduct was seen and heard by all: At that time, a bhikkhu spent the night in that village. In the morning, he put on his robe, took his bowl, and entered the village for alms. With his monastic robes properly arranged, he walked with measured steps, his face lowered and his path straight, without looking to either side, going from house to house. When the householders saw him, they discussed among themselves: “What sort of person is this? Why does he walk with his face lowered, never looking to either side, neither laughing nor speaking, associating with no one and greeting no one? We should not offer food to this person. This person is unlike the Venerable Assaji, who associates with everyone and does the things described above. We should make offerings to Assaji.” Thus, the almsgoing bhikkhu obtained food only with great difficulty. After the rains retreat, he went to visit the Buddha. The Buddha asked him, “Was your dwelling pleasant and secure? Was the Sangha harmonious? Were you not troubled in obtaining almsfood?” That bhikkhu related the entire matter to the Buddha. From afar, the Buddha rebuked the bhikkhu Assaji and instructed the Sangha to go and perform the formal act of banishment.
– The bhikkhus should say to that bhikkhu: ‘Venerable Sir, you are one who corrupts households and engages in bad conduct. Your corrupting of households is seen and heard by all. Your bad conduct is seen and heard by all. Venerable Sir, since you corrupt households and engage in bad conduct, you must now leave this village and may no longer live here.’: At that time, Venerable Sariputra taught the Dharma to the householders, inspiring faith and joy in them. After the midday meal, the Venerable assembled the Sangha to perform a formal act declaring the offense, an act of recollection, and an act indicating the offense. Having performed the formal act as stated above, they expelled the bhikkhu Assaji from the village. While the formal act was being performed, the bhikkhu Assaji stood up, reviled and abused the Sangha, and said, “Others commit the same offenses as I do; why are they not expelled, while I alone am expelled?” Thus spoke Assaji.
– That bhikkhu said to the other bhikkhus: ‘Venerable Sirs, the bhikkhus act with favoritism, hostility, fear, and delusion. Although there are bhikkhus guilty of the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.’: At that time, Venerable Sariputra returned and reported the entire matter to the Buddha. From afar, the Buddha rebuked Assaji and instructed the bhikkhus to admonish him.
– The bhikkhus should reply: “Venerable Sir, do not say, ‘The Sangha acts with favoritism, hostility, fear, and delusion. Although there are bhikkhus guilty of the same offense, some are expelled and others are not.’ The bhikkhus do not act with favoritism, hostility, fear, or delusion. Venerable Sir, you corrupt households and engage in bad conduct. Your corrupting of households is seen and heard by all. Your bad conduct is seen and heard by all.” If, after being admonished in this way, that bhikkhu persists and does not desist, the bhikkhus should admonish him three times so that he may abandon the matter. If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If he does not abandon it, it is a sanghadisesa offense. If, before the Sangha performs the formal act, he says that the Sangha acts out of affection, hatred, anger, fear, or delusion; if he does not examine a letter brought to him; or if he conveys messages on behalf of householders, in every case he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni incurs the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he desists as soon as the Sangha first speaks; or if the admonition is not carried out in accordance with the Dharma. If he receives clothing or food and presents it to his parents, gives it to the sick, to children, to pregnant women, to those confined in prison, or to people who work in the monastery, there is no offense. If he plants flowers or fruit, picks or cuts them himself, or even instructs others to make flower garlands as offerings to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, there is no offense in any such case. If someone wishes to assault him, if he is attacked by bandits, if he is frightened in a place endangered by tigers or wolves, or if he carries a load into a village in order to hide there, there is no offense. If he jumps across a river, stream, or ditch in order to cross it, there is no offense. If a companion is walking behind him and, upon looking back and not seeing that companion, he calls out loudly, there is no offense. Or if, for the sake of his parents, a sick person, someone confined in prison, or a faithful layman who is sick or imprisoned, he examines a letter brought to him; or if, for a stupa belonging to the Sangha or for the care of a sick bhikkhu, he carries letters back and forth, there is no offense in any such case.
13. Obstinately Resisting the Sangha’s Admonition
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Kosambi. At that time, Venerable Channa was obstinate and resisted the Sangha’s admonition. Channa retorted: ‘It is I who should instruct the Venerable Sirs. Why? Because my noble master attained perfect enlightenment.’ The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu is obstinate and refuses to accept the counsel of others, and when the bhikkhus admonish him in accordance with the Dharma concerning matters within the training rules, he refuses to accept their admonition and instead says: “Venerable Sirs, do not say anything to me, whether good or bad. Nor shall I say anything to the Venerable Sirs, whether good or bad. Venerable Sirs, cease; do not admonish me.” The bhikkhus should admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable Sir, do not refuse to accept admonition.
Venerable Sir, 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 through mutually instructing one another, mutually admonishing one another, and mutually confessing to one another.” If, after being admonished in this way, that bhikkhu persists and does not desist, the bhikkhus should admonish him three times so that he may abandon the matter.
If he abandons it after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If he does not abandon it, it is a sanghadisesa offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Is obstinate and refuses to accept the counsel of others, and when the bhikkhus admonish him in accordance with the Dharma concerning matters within the training rules: this means instructing him by means of the Vinaya, in accordance with the Dharma. There are seven classes of offenses: parajika, sanghadisesa, pacittiya, patidesaniya, thullaccaya, dukkata, and wrong speech.
– After the bhikkhus have admonished him in accordance with the Dharma: in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.
– He refuses to accept their admonition and instead says: “Venerable Sirs, do not say anything to me, whether good or bad. Nor shall I say anything to the Venerable Sirs, whether good or bad. Venerable Sirs, cease; do not admonish me.”: this is the principal admonition prescribed by this precept. The two subsequent admonitions, in sequence, are likewise words of instruction.
– “Venerable Ones, desist; do not admonish me.” The bhikkhus admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable One, do not make yourself one who refuses admonition. Venerable One, admonish the bhikkhus in accordance with the Dharma, and the bhikkhus will likewise admonish the Venerable One in accordance with the Dharma. In this way, the assembly of the Buddha’s disciples increases and flourishes, instructing one another, admonishing one another, and making amends to one another.” When admonished thus, that bhikkhu persists and does not relinquish the matter. The bhikkhus should admonish him up to 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. If, before the motion and formal act of the Sangha, he becomes still more obstinate and refuses to heed the admonition, he commits one dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni likewise commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: upon being admonished for the first time, he immediately relinquishes the matter; the rebuke is not in accordance with the Dharma, not proper, not in accordance with the Vinaya, and is not the teaching of the Buddha. If admonishing an ignorant person, one should say to him: “The conduct of your preceptor and acariya is likewise. You should study and recite more of the sutras and Vinaya.” If the circumstances are such, or if what was said was mistaken, there is no offense.
Venerable Ones, I have recited the thirteen sanghadisesa rules. Under the first nine rules, the offense is incurred as soon as the act is committed; under the final four rules, the offense is incurred only after the third admonition. If any bhikkhu commits any one of these rules, knows it, and conceals it, he is required to undergo parivasa.[43] After completing parivasa, he must further undergo six nights of manatta.
After completing manatta,[44] he may then confess the offense, and his offense must be confessed before a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus. If even one person is lacking and the assembly does not comprise the full number of twenty bhikkhus, not only is the offense of that bhikkhu not cleared, but the bhikkhus themselves are also blameworthy. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Are you pure in this matter? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones are pure in this matter, for you all remain silent.
Thus do I understand it.
Venerable Ones! These are the two aniyata rules, recited once every half-month, extracted from the Pratimoksha Sutra.
1. The Rule Concerning Sitting in a Concealed Place
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, before the bhikkhu Kaludayi had gone forth, he had been acquainted with the wife of a friend. That woman was named Trai-upasika. She was exceedingly beautiful, and whoever saw her took notice of her. One day, Kaludayi went to that man’s house, and they sat in a concealed place speaking improper words. At that time, Visakha Migaramata happened to look through a crack in the door and saw them. She immediately went to the Buddha and related what she had seen. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked Kaludayi and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu, alone with a woman, sits in a concealed, private, screened place suitable for sexual intercourse and speaks improper words, and a trustworthy female lay devotee states that one of three offenses has occurred—either parajika, sanghadisesa, or pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed this offense,” then he should be dealt with under one of the three rules: either sanghadisesa, pacittiya, or according to the statement of the trustworthy female lay devotee. That bhikkhu should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma. This is called an aniyata rule.
c. Explanation
– If any bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– With a woman: a living woman capable of understanding.
– Alone: this means that there is only one bhikkhu and one woman.
– Sitting in a concealed place: there are two kinds of concealed place. The first is a place concealed from sight, whether because of dust, fog, or darkness, so that they cannot see one another. The second is a place beyond the range of hearing, such that even ordinary speech cannot be heard.
– A private place: a place covered above.
– A screened place: one screened by trees, walls, fences, cloth, or other screening objects.
– A place suitable for sexual intercourse: a place where a sexual act could be performed.
– Speaking improper words: speaking about ways of engaging in sexual intercourse.
– A trustworthy female lay devotee: one who has faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dharma, and faith in the Sangha, and who has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; who abstains from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and drinking intoxicants; who remembers carefully, practices, and does not transgress; and whose statements are all true and not false.
– A trustworthy female lay devotee states that one of three offenses has occurred—either parajika, sanghadisesa, or pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed this offense.” Then he should be dealt with under one of the three rules: either sanghadisesa, pacittiya, or according to the statement of the trustworthy female lay devotee. That bhikkhu should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma. This is called an aniyata rule: this means that the bhikkhu himself states where he intended to go, where he went, whether he sat, lay down, or acted. If he does not state it himself, he is to be dealt with for the offense according to the female lay devotee’s statement.
2. The Rule Concerning an Open Place
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Kaludayi was the first to violate this rule. The circumstances were the same as those of the preceding rule, except that on this occasion it occurred in an open place; therefore, the two offenses differ.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu, alone with a woman, sits in an open place unsuitable for sexual intercourse and speaks lewd words, and a trustworthy female lay devotee states that one of two offenses has occurred—either sanghadisesa or pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed this offense,” then he should be dealt with under one of the two rules: either sanghadisesa, pacittiya, or according to the statement of the trustworthy female lay devotee. That bhikkhu should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma. This is called an aniyata rule.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Alone with a woman, sitting in an open place: this means a place without walls, partitions, or other screening objects.
– A place unsuitable for sexual intercourse: a place not convenient for engaging in sexual intercourse.
Speaking lewd words: that is, speaking about sexual matters and praising the good or bad qualities of the two sexual passages.
– A trustworthy female lay devotee states that one of two offenses has occurred—either sanghadisesa or pacittiya—and the bhikkhu who was sitting there himself acknowledges, “I committed this offense.” Then he should be dealt with under one of the two rules: either sanghadisesa, pacittiya, or according to the statement of the trustworthy female lay devotee. That bhikkhu should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma. This is called an aniyata rule: this means that the bhikkhu himself states where he intended to go, where he went, whether he sat, lay down, or acted. If he does not state it himself, he is to be dealt with for the offense according to the female lay devotee’s statement. Since the particular offense committed cannot be determined here, it is called aniyata, “indefinite.”
Venerable Ones! I have recited the two aniyata rules. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Are you pure in this matter? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones are pure in this matter, for you all remain silent. Thus do I understand it.
Venerable Ones! These are the thirty nissaggiya pacittiya rules,[45] recited once every half-month, extracted from the Pratimoksha Sutra.
1. The Rule Concerning Keeping Extra Robes Beyond the Permitted Period
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti and permitted bhikkhus to keep three robes, but not to possess any extra robes. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus kept many extra robes, wearing one in the morning, another at midday, and another in the evening. Throughout the day, those six bhikkhus arranged and adorned their robes, gathered them together, and stored them away. The bhikkhus reported this matter to the Buddha. After rebuking them, the Buddha made an allowance and then reformulated this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu, after his robes have been completed and the kathina robe privilege has ended, keeps an extra robe, he may retain it for ten days without formally assigning it to another. If he keeps it beyond ten days, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– His robes have been completed: this means that he possesses the full set of three robes.
– The kathina robe privilege has ended: this means that the period for retaining the robe of merit has passed.
– Keeping an extra robe: There are ten kinds of robe. A full-sized robe is one measuring eight of the Tathagata’s finger-breadths in length and four of the Tathagata’s finger-breadths in width.
– It may be kept for ten days without being formally assigned. If it is kept beyond ten days: At first, the Buddha did not permit extra robes to be kept. Later, someone offered Venerable Ananda a fine rag robe. Venerable Ananda wished to present it to Venerable Kasyapa but feared committing an offense, because Venerable Kasyapa would not return to the monastery for ten days. Therefore, the Buddha permitted an extra robe to be kept for up to ten days.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya.
– Cases entailing no offense: There are eight cases entailing no offense: if one has not obtained the robe; if one has formally assigned it; if one has given it to someone; if the robe has been lost; if an old robe has become torn; if one sews articles that are not robes; or if one acts to accommodate a relative’s wishes. Conversely, in the eight corresponding cases contrary to those just stated, one commits nissaggiya pacittiya.
If a robe subject to forfeiture and expiation is not forfeited, and one exchanges it for another robe, one commits one nissaggiya pacittiya and one dukkata. A robe subject to forfeiture and expiation should be forfeited to the Sangha, or even to a single person. It must not be forfeited to a separate faction; if the forfeiture is invalid, one commits a dukkata. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. The three lower assemblies, down to those subject to the lower precepts, also commit a dukkata.
– Cases entailing no offense: if it is kept for no more than ten days; if it is formally assigned; if it is given to someone; if one believes it has been stolen by bandits; if one believes it has been lost; or if one believes it has been burned or swept away by water. If one’s robe has been stolen or lost and one accepts another to wear; if someone gives it to be made into a blanket; or if a person departing on a long journey leaves it in one’s care and then dies along the way—in such cases, even without formally assigning it or giving it to anyone, there is no offense.
2. The Precept Concerning Sleeping Apart from One’s Robes
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus entrusted their robes to close friends and wandered here and there. Those friends took the robes out to air them. Other bhikkhus saw this and asked, “The Buddha permits us to keep three robes and does not permit extra robes. To whom do these robes belong?” The matter was explained to them in detail, and they reproached the bhikkhus concerned. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu, after the robe-making has been completed and the kathina privilege has ended, sleeps overnight elsewhere while separated from any one of his three robes, except with the Sangha’s authorization by a formal act, he commits nissaggiya pacittiya.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– After the robe-making has been completed and the kathina privilege has ended: as explained above.
– The three robes: the sanghati, uttarasanga, and antaravasaka. Altogether, however, there are ten kinds of robe.
– Sleeping overnight elsewhere while separated from any one of the three robes: A place where the robe is not considered lost is a sangharama having only one boundary. A place where the robe is considered lost is a sangharama having several boundaries. The same applies to separate boundaries such as those beneath trees, on threshing grounds, on vehicles, on boats, in villages, houses, assembly halls, storehouses, and granaries. The sangharama referred to here is of the four kinds explained above.
A tree means an area shaded by a tree sufficient for one person to sit in meditation. A threshing ground is a place where grain is dried. On a vehicle includes the place through which the vehicle turns. The boundary on a boat is likewise. Villages are of four kinds. An assembly hall is a structure containing many open spaces. A storehouse is a place where articles are stored. A granary is a place where grain is stored.
An aranya has no fixed boundary. Within a grove, the interval between one tree and another is seven bow-lengths, each bow-length being four cubits of an ordinary person.
The boundary of a monastery: the boundary of this monastery is not the boundary of another monastery, nor is it the boundary of a tree, and still less the boundary of a storehouse, granary, and so forth. Conversely, the boundaries of those other places are not the boundary of the sangharama.
The robe boundary of one sangharama situated beside another sangharama extends as far as a person of average strength can throw a stone or brick. The same applies through to the boundaries of a storehouse or granary. If a bhikkhu leaves his robe in the monastery, or even beneath a tree, and sleeps elsewhere, then before sunrise he must either relinquish the robe, hold the robe in his hand, or reach the point to which the stone was thrown. If he neither relinquishes the robe nor holds it in his hand, or fails to reach the point to which the stone was thrown, he commits nissaggiya pacittiya according to the particular case of separation from the robe.
– Except with the Sangha’s authorization by a formal act: At that time, a bhikkhu suffered from a wasting disease. His rag sanghati was too heavy, and although he had matters requiring him to travel here and there, he could not carry it with him. He reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha instructed that bhikkhu to make the request three times, after which the Sangha was to authorize him to be separated from the robe by a formal act consisting of one motion and one proclamation.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: If one is separated from robes other than the three robes, one commits a dukkata. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases entailing no offense: if the Sangha has performed a formal act authorizing separation from the robe; if, before sunrise, one holds the robe in one’s hand, relinquishes it, or reaches the place to which the stone was thrown; if one believes the robe has been stolen; if one is cut off by a river or sea; if there is an urgent danger; if one is obstructed by bandits or wild beasts; if one is detained by others; if there is a danger that could cause the loss of the holy life; or if one is not separated from the robe and reaches the place to which the stone was thrown. In all the foregoing cases, there is no offense.
3. The Precept Concerning Seeking Robe-Cloth Beyond One Month
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Buddha permitted bhikkhus to keep only three robes. One bhikkhu’s sanghati had become old and torn, but because the Buddha had previously permitted cloth to be kept for only ten days, he could not gather enough cloth to make another robe. The Buddha therefore permitted extra cloth to be kept until there was enough to make a new robe. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus received insufficient quantities of matching cloth, then washed and dyed it, made the formal declaration for its permitted use, entrusted it to someone, and went out to teach. The bhikkhus reported this wrongdoing to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached them and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If a bhikkhu, after the robe-making has been completed and the kathina privilege has ended, obtains robe-cloth outside the proper season, he may accept it if he needs it. After accepting it, he should promptly make it into a robe. If there is enough, that is good. If there is not enough, he may keep it for one month while waiting to obtain enough. If he keeps it beyond that period, he commits nissaggiya pacittiya.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– After the robe-making has been completed and the kathina privilege has ended.
– If a bhikkhu obtains robe-cloth outside the proper season: The proper season is as follows: if there is no kathina, robes may be received for one month following the day of the Pavarana. If there is a kathina, the period for receiving robes is five months following the day of the Pavarana. Outside the proper season means beyond the permitted periods just stated.
– He may accept it if he needs it; after accepting it, he should promptly make it into a robe; if there is enough, that is good: If, within ten days, he obtains enough matching cloth, he should cut and sew it as stated above. If he does not obtain enough, then upon reaching the eleventh day, he commits forfeiture and expiation, whether the quantity of cloth is large or small.
– If there is not enough, he may keep it for one month while waiting to obtain enough: If the nonmatching cloth is insufficient, but on the eleventh day sufficient matching cloth is obtained, he must cut and sew it that very day. Conversely, if he lets it remain until the twelfth day, he commits the offense regardless of whether the quantity of cloth obtained is large or small. The same offense is committed if it is kept until the twenty-ninth day. On the thirtieth day, whether there is enough or not, and whether the cloth matches or does not match, it should be made into a robe that very day.
– If he keeps it beyond that period, he commits nissaggiya pacittiya.
A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if, within ten days, sufficient cloth of the same kind is obtained and the robe is made. Up to the thirtieth day, the robe must be made on that very day. All other cases are the same as in the rule concerning the keeping of surplus robes.
4. The Rule Against Accepting a Robe from an Unrelated Bhikkhuni
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Rajagriha. At that time, the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna brought food into the mountains as an offering to the elder monks. There she saw a bhikkhu wearing an old and shabby patched robe. Seeing this, the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna took off her fine robe and exchanged it with that bhikkhu. She then wore his shabby, tattered robe to see the Buddha. The Buddha found this unusual and questioned her, whereupon he learned that she had exchanged robes with that bhikkhu. On this account, the Buddha reproached the bhikkhu and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu accepts a robe from an unrelated bhikkhuni, except by exchange, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– From an unrelated bhikkhuni: “Unrelated” means that she is not a parent, not an immediate family member, and not a relative within seven generations. The contrary cases constitute kinship. If she is not a relative, one need not consider whether she is able to make the offering. If she is a relative, one must nevertheless consider whether she possesses robes or does not possess robes, and whether one should or should not accept—whether the robe is fine or poor, new or old, and so forth.
– Accepting a robe: There are ten kinds of robes. A bhikkhuni who wished to wear an old, tattered robe went to ask the Buddha for permission. The Buddha said: “You should not do this. I permit you to keep five robes that are intact and durable. As for other robes, you may, as you wish, formally assign them through vikappana or give them to others. Why is this? Even when women wear robes of the finest quality, they are not yet beautiful; how much less so when they wear old and tattered robes.”
– Except by exchange: At that time, the twofold Sangha received new robes and divided them equally, but each side mistakenly took the robes belonging to the other. The Buddha said: “I permit you to exchange them with one another.”
Exchange means exchanging a robe for a robe. If what is exchanged is not a robe, or if non-robe articles are exchanged for a robe—such as a needle, a bamboo tube, a knife, thread, small miscellaneous articles, or even a single medicinal pill—in exchange for a robe.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: the bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
Cases in which there is no offense: accepting a robe from a related bhikkhuni; exchanging robes; or taking a robe for the Sangha or for the Buddha—in all such cases there is no offense.
5. The Rule Against Asking an Unrelated Bhikkhuni to Wash an Old Robe
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Kaludayin and the bhikkhuni Sthulananda were both very handsome in appearance and were attracted to one another. One day, as they sat conversing, Kaludayin emitted semen and soiled his antarvasa.[46] He then told Sthulananda to take it away and wash it. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this account, the Buddha reproached Kaludayin and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu has an unrelated bhikkhuni wash, dye, or beat an old robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Has an unrelated bhikkhuni: as explained above. If an unrelated siksamana or samaneri washes, dyes, or beats an old robe, the bhikkhu commits a dukkata offense.
– Wash an old robe: An old robe is a robe that has been worn even only once. If a new robe is washed, dyed, or beaten, the bhikkhu commits a dukkata offense.
– Or dye, or beat, a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: if he tells or directs her to wash, dye, and beat it, or has these acts performed repeatedly, he commits three nissaggiya pacittiya offenses. If only one person performs the act, then according to whoever performs it, he commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if, because of illness, he asks her to wash, dye, or beat it; if it is done for the Sangha or for the Buddha; or if he borrows another person’s robe and then washes, dyes, or beats it—in all such cases there is no offense.
6. The Rule Against Asking Unrelated Laypeople for a Robe
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda taught the Dharma to the people and, on that occasion, asked a man for the garment he was wearing. Only with great reluctance did the man give it to Upananda. After giving it away, the man entered the city wearing only a single garment and said that robbers in Jeta Grove had taken his garment. Because of this, worldly people mocked and reproached the bhikkhus. The other bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this account, the Buddha reproached Upananda and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu asks an unrelated male or female householder for a robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense, except in a special circumstance. The special circumstance is when the bhikkhu’s robe has been stolen, lost, burned, or swept away by water. This is the special circumstance.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Asks an unrelated male or female householder for a robe: the explanation of the wording is also the same as above.
– A nissaggiya pacittiya offense, except in a special circumstance: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– The special circumstance is when the bhikkhu’s robe has been stolen: At that time, a bhikkhu whose robe had been stripped from him by robbers traveled naked. The Buddha said that one should not do this. If one does so, one commits a dukkata offense. If a bhikkhu encounters such a situation, he should cover his body with soft grass or leaves and then go to a nearby monastery, where he should take either a surplus robe or a robe belonging to a nearby friend or acquaintance. If none is available, he should enter the Sangha and ask for a robe that is awaiting distribution. If there is still none, he should ask for a robe or bedding belonging to the Sangha. If these are not given, he may enter the storeroom himself and inspect it, or unpick a mattress or blanket, cut out cloth, and sew himself a robe; he should then go out and seek a robe. If he obtains one, he should return, wash and dye the cloth he took, sew it back together, and leave it in its original place. If he does not return it to its original place, he is to be dealt with according to the rule.
– The robe has been lost, burned, or swept away by water. This is the special circumstance.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if, when one’s robe has been stolen or lost, one asks an unrelated person; asks a relative; asks one who has gone forth; asks on behalf of another person; another person asks on one’s behalf; or, without being asked, someone gives it of their own accord—in all such cases there is no offense.
7. The Rule Against Taking More Robes Than One’s Allowance
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, many bhikkhus were robbed on the road while returning to the monastery at Jeta Grove, and their robes were taken. When these bhikkhus reached Jeta Grove, some householders learned what had happened and together brought a large quantity of cloth to offer to them.
The bhikkhus said to the householders: “Enough! Householders, do not make offerings on account of this matter. The bhikkhus already have complete sets of three robes, so there is no further need.” At that time, the group of six bhikkhus said: “Accept the cloth and then give it to us.” Upon hearing this, those bhikkhus accepted the cloth and gave it to the group of six bhikkhus.
The bhikkhus reported this wrongdoing to the Buddha. On this account, the Buddha reproached them and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule:
If a bhikkhu’s robes have been lost, stolen, burned, or swept away by water, and unrelated male or female householders bring him many robes and invite him to take as much as he wishes, that bhikkhu should know moderation in accepting them. If he accepts more than his allowance, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– The robes have been lost, stolen, burned, or swept away by water: If one robe is lost, he may not accept cloth. If two robes are lost and only one robe remains, whether that robe has two, three, or four layers, he should unpick it and use it to make a sanghati,[47] an uttarasanga,[48] and an antarvasa.
– If there are unrelated male or female householders: all are explained as above.
– When offered much cloth, he may receive according to his needs: if a lay devotee offers much cloth, or pieces of cloth, or thin cloth, or cloth that is not durable, it should be sewn into two, three, or four layers; it should be used to make a border for the robe; it should be folded and placed over the part of the shoulder where one often perspires; or it should be fastened with knots. If any remains, he should say to the lay devotee: “This cloth remains; what should be cut and sewn from it?” If the donor says: “We did not offer this cloth because the Venerable had lost his robes. We freely offer it to the Venerable Ones,” then, if there is a need, he should accept it.
– That bhikkhu should accept with contentment: if all three robes have been lost, that bhikkhu should accept with contentment. Contentment is of two kinds: 1. The contentment of a householder: this means accepting whatever the householder is able to offer. 2. The contentment of one gone forth: only the three robes.
– If he exceeds this: this means that if one robe was lost, he accepts one robe; if all three robes were lost, he accepts as prescribed.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he accepts with contentment; if he accepts less than what is permitted; if much cloth is offered; if pieces of cloth, thin cloth, or cloth that is not durable are offered; if it is sewn into two or three layers; or if there is cloth remaining, as explained above—in all such cases, there is no offense.
8. The Rule Against Encouraging Lay Devotees to Increase a Robe Fund
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a certain lay husband and wife discussed the matter together: “Bhaddananda is an old friend of ours. We should use the robe fund to buy cloth and offer it to him.” Just then, a bhikkhu on alms round happened to pass by, overheard them, and went back to inform Bhaddananda. Bhaddananda then went to that household and encouraged them to have a new robe made that was larger and more durable. Because of this, he was ridiculed by the people. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached him and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If two laymen or laywomen have each set aside a robe fund for a bhikkhu, saying: “I have set aside such-and-such a robe fund to offer a robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so,” and that bhikkhu, without previously having received an invitation from the lay devotees to ask according to his wishes, goes to the two lay households and says: “It would be good if you were to use these respective robe funds intended for me together to make a single robe,” doing so out of a desire for something fine, then, if he obtains it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Two laymen or laywomen: as explained above.
– Have set aside a robe fund for a bhikkhu: this means money, gold, silver, pearls, beryl, precious stones, jeweled necklaces, substances resembling gold, or any of the ten kinds of robe material.
– Each saying: “I have set aside such-and-such a robe fund to offer a robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so.” That bhikkhu, without previously having received an invitation from the lay devotees to ask according to his wishes: if he has received a promise of an offering, he should be asked what kind of robe he needs. The Buddha permitted bhikkhus who have few desires and are content to request robes that they lack.
– Goes to the two lay households and says: “It would be good if you were to use these respective robe funds intended for me together to make a single robe,” doing so out of a desire for something fine: There are two kinds of request: 1. Requesting money: asking the donor[49] to provide a fund for making an outer robe, up to and including asking for an increase of a single coin or one-sixteenth of a coin. 2. Requesting a robe: telling the lay devotee that the robe should be made longer or wider, up to and including increasing it by only a single thread.
– If he obtains it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he had already received an invitation to ask according to his wishes before going there; if he asks only for what is sufficient; if he asks for less than the amount he needs; if he asks relatives; if he asks one who has gone forth; if he asks on behalf of another person; if another person asks on his behalf; or if he obtains it without asking.
9. The Rule Against Encouraging Two Households to Combine Their Robe Funds
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the husbands and wives of two families discussed the matter together and decided to offer robe funds to the bhikkhu Bhaddananda. A bhikkhu on alms round happened to overhear them and informed Bhaddananda. The bhikkhu Bhaddananda then went to those two families and encouraged them to have a robe made for him. When the lay devotees heard this, they ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If two laymen or laywomen have each set aside a robe fund for a bhikkhu, saying: “I have set aside such-and-such a robe fund to offer a robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so,” and that bhikkhu, without previously having received an invitation from the lay devotees to ask according to his wishes, goes to the two lay households and says: “It would be good if you were to use these respective robe funds intended for me together to make a single robe,” doing so out of a desire for something fine, then, if he obtains it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
The definition of the rule, the cases constituting an offense, and the cases in which there is no offense are all the same as in the preceding rule.
10. The Rule Against Pressing for a Robe Beyond the Permitted Limit
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, in the city of Rajagrha, there was a minister who was a close friend of the bhikkhu Bhaddananda and therefore frequently visited him. One day, he sent a man to deliver a robe fund to the bhikkhu Bhaddananda. The bhikkhu Bhaddananda entrusted that robe fund to another person.[50] Later, when a need arose, Bhaddananda urgently pressed him for it and was consequently reviled by that person. When the people saw this, they ridiculed the bhikkhu. The other bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a king, a minister, a brahmin, a layman, or a laywoman sends a messenger with a robe fund for a bhikkhu, instructing him: “Take this robe fund to the bhikkhu named so-and-so,” and the messenger goes to that bhikkhu and says: “Venerable Sir, this robe fund has been sent for you;
please accept it,” that bhikkhu should say to him: “I am not permitted to accept this robe fund. When there is a need, I shall accept a robe at the proper time and in a proper manner.” The messenger should then ask the bhikkhu: “Venerable Sir, do you have a steward[51]?” The bhikkhu who needs a robe should say: “Yes,” and indicate either a resident of the monastery or an upasaka, saying: “That person is the bhikkhus’ steward and regularly attends to matters for the bhikkhus.” The messenger should then go to the steward, hand over the robe fund, return to the bhikkhu, and say: “Venerable Sir, I have handed the robe fund to the steward whom you indicated.
When you have need of it, go there and you will receive a robe.” When the bhikkhu needs a robe, he may go to the steward and remind him two or three times, saying: “I need a robe.” He may remind him in this way two or three times. If he obtains the robe, that is good. If he does not obtain the robe, he may stand silently before the steward four, five, or six times.
If, after standing silently before that person four, five, or six times, he obtains the robe, that is good. If he does not obtain the robe but continues to seek it beyond that limit, then, if he obtains the robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. If he does not obtain the robe, he should himself go, or send a messenger, to the person who provided the robe fund and say: “Previously, you sent a messenger with a robe fund for the bhikkhu named so-and-so, but that bhikkhu ultimately received no robe.
You should recover your money so that it is not lost. This is the proper procedure.”
c. Explanation
– If any bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– A king: one who is independent and not subject to any constraint.
– A minister: one of those who attends upon the king.
– A brahmin: one who lives in the manner of Brahmanical ascetics.
– Or a householder: apart from kings, ministers, and brahmins, all other laypeople are called householders.
– A householder’s wife: the wife of a layperson.
– Sends a messenger to bring robe funds to a bhikkhu, saying: as explained above.
– ‘Take this amount of robe funds to the bhikkhu named so-and-so.’ The person from that place approaches the bhikkhu and says to him: ‘Venerable sir, these robe funds have now been sent to you; please accept them.’ That bhikkhu should say to the person: ‘I am not permitted to accept these robe funds. When there is a need, at the proper time, and in a pure manner, I shall accept a robe.’ The messenger should ask the bhikkhu: ‘Venerable sir, do you have a steward?’ The bhikkhu who needs a robe should say: ‘Yes,’ and indicate a person dwelling in the Sangharama or an upasaka, saying: ‘That person is the bhikkhus’ steward and regularly serves the bhikkhus.’ The messenger then approaches the steward, hands over the robe funds, returns to the bhikkhu, and says: ‘Venerable sir, I have handed the robe funds to the steward whom you indicated. When you need a robe, go there and you will receive one.’ When the bhikkhu needs it, he should approach the steward two or three times to remind him, perhaps by saying: ‘I need a robe.’ To remind him means: whether the steward is at home, in the marketplace, or at his workplace, the bhikkhu should approach him once, twice, or three times and say: ‘I now need a robe; please have a robe made for me.’
– He may remind him two or three times. If he receives the robe, that is good. If he does not receive the robe, he may stand silently before him four, five, or six times: whether that steward is at home, in the marketplace, or at his workplace, the bhikkhu should approach and stand silently before him. The bhikkhu’s steward may ask: ‘Why are you standing here, Venerable?’ The bhikkhu should say: ‘You yourself should know the reason.’
If the person says: ‘I do not know now; does anyone else know?’ the bhikkhu must tell him the reason. This is the procedure for standing silently.
– If, after standing silently before that person four, five, or six times, he receives the robe, that is good: repeating the request once cancels two occasions of standing silently; thus, repeating the request three times cancels all six occasions of standing silently.
– If he does not receive the robe but persistently seeks it beyond that limit, and then obtains the robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– If he does not receive the robe, he himself should go, or send a messenger, to the person who provided the robe funds and say: ‘Previously, you sent a messenger with robe funds for the bhikkhu named so-and-so, but that bhikkhu ultimately did not receive a robe. You should recover your funds; do not let them be lost.’ This is the proper procedure.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he sends someone to inform the donor; or if the donor says: ‘I no longer need the funds, so offer them to someone else.’ That bhikkhu may choose a suitable time and ask for the robe with gentle words; or, because it is to be made into requisites, he may choose a suitable time and ask with gentle words; or he may obtain the robe by asking as circumstances permit.
11. Rule on Making a Bedding Article from Silk
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Kuang-ye. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus went to silkworm breeders’ homes and asked for unfinished silk, finished silk, and assorted silk to make bedding articles. They also watched people expose cocoons to the sun. The householders ridiculed them, saying that they were taking life and that this was not the true Dharma. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu makes a new bedding article from assorted silk, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Makes a new bedding article from assorted silk, nissaggiya: assorted means wool, kapok,[52] cloth, or various kinds of silk fiber. Discarded silk should be crushed or chopped with a hammer or axe, mixed with mud, and used to plaster walls.
– Pacittiya: whether he makes it himself or tells another to make it, if it is completed, he commits the offense. If it is not completed, he commits a dukkata offense. If he makes it for another person and completes it, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni who makes one commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he obtains finished silk, crushes it with a hammer, mixes it with mud, and uses it to plaster a wall or coat the ground, there is no offense.
12. Rule on Making a Bedding Article from Black Wool
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Vesali. At that time, the Licchavis committed many improper deeds. They made cloaks entirely of black wool, covered their bodies completely, and walked about in the darkness of night so that no one could see them. When the group of six bhikkhus saw this, they followed their example and were ridiculed by the Licchavis. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu makes a new bedding article entirely from black or dark-brown goat wool, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Entirely from black or dark-brown goat wool: whether the wool is naturally black or has been dyed black.
– Makes a new bedding article, nissaggiya pacittiya: whether he sews it himself, tells another to sew it, or sews it for another person, he commits an offense in the same manner as under the preceding rule. A bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he obtains a bedding article that has already been made; cuts or slits it so that it is torn; makes it small or thin; patches it into two layers; makes only a small sitting mat; makes a blanket, a cap, an undergarment, a sweat cloth, or socks—in all such cases, there is no offense.
13. Rule on Making a Bedding Article from White Wool
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus used entirely white goat wool to make new bedding articles. They were ridiculed by the householders, who said that they resembled kings and ministers. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu makes a new bedding article, he should use two parts entirely black goat wool, the third part white, and the fourth part gray. If a bhikkhu makes a new bedding article without using two parts black, the third part white, and the fourth part gray, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– In making a new bedding article, he should use two parts entirely black goat wool, the third part white, and the fourth part gray:
White means either wool that is naturally white when it grows or wool dyed white. Variegated wool means wool growing on the head, above the ears, or on the legs, or wool mixed with many different colors. If he wishes to make a bedding article weighing forty pala,[53] he should use twenty pala of black wool, ten pala of white wool, and ten pala of variegated wool. Even for a bedding article weighing as little as twenty pala, he should calculate the appropriate quantities according to the proportions stated above.
– If a bhikkhu makes a new bedding article without using two parts black, the third part white, and the fourth part gray, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: whether he sews it himself, tells another to sew it, or sews it for another person, he commits the offense. A bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if it is made according to the prescribed proportions, or if he obtains a bedding article that has already been made. All other cases are the same as under the preceding rule.
14. Rule on a Bedding Article Used for Fewer Than Six Years
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus found fault with their old bedding articles, saying that they were too heavy or too light, too thick or too thin. Without relinquishing the old bedding articles, they made additional new ones, constantly sought donations, and accumulated a great many. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu makes a new bed-covering, he must retain it for six years. If, before the completion of six years, without relinquishing it, he makes another new one, except with an act of the Sangha, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Makes a new bed-covering, he must retain it for six years. If, before the completion of six years, without relinquishing it, he makes another new one: whether he sews it for himself, has another sew it, or sews it for someone else, all are the same as in the preceding rule.
– Except with an act of the Sangha: At that time, a certain bhikkhu suffered from a wasting illness, while his rag robe and bed-covering were too heavy for him to carry. The Buddha instructed him to go before the Sangha and make his request three times, after which he could sew a new bed-covering. The Sangha should perform a motion followed by one proclamation to authorize that bhikkhu to sew a new bed-covering.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if the Sangha has granted permission; if six years have elapsed; or if, before six years have elapsed, he relinquishes the old one and then makes a new one. If he receives one already sewn, does not sew one, or receives one sewn for him by someone else, in all such cases there is no offense.
15. The Rule Against Failing to Sew a Patch onto a New Sitting Cloth
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. When it was time for the meal, the Buddha told the bhikkhus to go and receive food. As was his custom, after the bhikkhus had gone to receive food, he went through all the rooms and saw old sitting cloths cast about carelessly, with no one putting them away. The bhikkhus had found fault with them as being too thick, too thin, too light, or too heavy, and had then sewn new ones. Therefore, the Buddha instructed them to take a piece from the old cloth and sew it onto the new one. Later, the group of six bhikkhus failed to comply. The other bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu sews a new sitting cloth, he must take a square piece one handspan in size from the old one and sew it onto the new one to disfigure its color. If he sews a new sitting cloth without taking a square piece one handspan in size from the old one and sewing it onto the new one to disfigure its color, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Sews a new sitting cloth, he must take a square piece one handspan in size from the old one and sew it onto the new one to disfigure its color: when that person sews a new sitting cloth, if the old sitting cloth is not yet worn or torn and has no holes, he must wash the old one, dye and mend it, stretch it out, cut from it a piece one handspan in width, and sew that piece onto the new bed-covering. He may sew it around the edge or in the middle, so that the new cloth will be less gaudy.
– If he sews a new sitting cloth without taking a square piece one handspan in size from the old one and sewing it onto the new one to disfigure its color, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: whether he sews it for himself, has another sew it, or sews it for someone else, when the sewing is completed, the offense is the same as in the preceding rule. A bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he cuts a piece from the old cloth and sews it onto the new one; if that person has no sitting cloth and now sews a new one; if he sews one for someone else; if he receives one already sewn; or if it is entirely made from old material—in all such cases there is no offense.
16. Carrying Goat’s Wool Beyond the Permitted Distance
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda obtained some goat’s wool. He hung it from the end of his staff and carried it away over his shoulder. When laypeople saw this, they ridiculed him, saying that the bhikkhu was trading in goat’s wool. The other bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu obtains goat’s wool while traveling and has no one to carry it, he may carry it himself for up to three yojanas. If, having no one to carry it, he carries it himself beyond three yojanas, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Obtains goat’s wool while traveling and has no one to carry it, he may carry it himself for up to three yojanas: whether he obtains goat’s wool while traveling or at his dwelling place, if he needs it, he may accept it. If there is no one to carry it, he may carry it himself for no more than three yojanas. If there is someone present, he should say to that person: ‘I have this article; please carry it for me to that place.’ Throughout that journey, the bhikkhu must not help carry it; if he does, he commits a dukkata offense. If he has a bhikkhuni or a member of any of the four assemblies carry it beyond three yojanas, he commits a dukkata offense. Apart from goat’s wool, if he carries other kinds of cloth, hemp, flax, and so forth, he commits a dukkata offense. Carrying other articles suspended from a staff also constitutes a dukkata offense.
– If, having no one to carry it, he carries it himself beyond three yojanas, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: a bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he carries it only within three yojanas; has not yet reached three yojanas; has someone help carry it; asks someone to carry it but does not help carry it himself; asks a bhikkhuni or a member of any of the four assemblies to carry it within three yojanas; or carries fine wool, woolen cord, wool growing on the head, or articles sewn into hats or scarves—in all such cases it is permitted.
17. The Rule Against Having an Unrelated Bhikkhuni Dye Goat’s Wool
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Kapilavastu. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus brought goat’s wool and asked bhikkhunis to wash, dye, and tease it apart. On that occasion, the bhikkhuni Mahapajapati had dye stains remaining on her hands from dyeing the goat’s wool. She went to pay homage at the Buddha’s feet and stood to one side. The Buddha knew what had happened but deliberately asked her about it. After hearing the account, the Buddha rebuked the group of six bhikkhus and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu has an unrelated bhikkhuni wash, dye, or comb goat’s wool, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
The bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.
The establishment of the rule, the offenses, and the cases in which there is no offense are all the same as in the rule concerning the washing of an old robe.
18. The Rule Against Possessing Money and Valuables
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, a minister prepared food to offer to the bhikkhu Upananda. The minister’s son exchanged that food for five coins. Later, Upananda came, took the five coins, and deposited them in the marketplace. The bhikkhus rebuked him, and the king and his ministers discussed the matter. On that occasion, the Buddha instructed, admonished, rebuked him, and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu takes money, gold, or silver into his own hand, has someone else take it, or accepts it from where it has been placed on the ground, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Money: that which bears designs and images on its surface.
– If any bhikkhu takes money, gold, or silver into his own hand, has someone else take it, or accepts it from where it has been placed on the ground, it is nissaggiya: the manner of relinquishment under this rule is as follows. Suppose there is a trustworthy gardener or upasaka at that place. The bhikkhu should say to that person: ‘These things are not allowable for me; you should understand this.’ If that person takes them and then gives them back to the bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should accept those articles on that person’s behalf and hand them to a lay attendant for safekeeping. If robes and bowls allowable in accordance with the Dharma can be obtained, the articles should be exchanged for them, and the bhikkhu may accept, keep, and use them. If that upasaka, after accepting the articles, gives the bhikkhu robes and bowls allowable in accordance with the Dharma, the bhikkhu should accept, keep, and use them.
– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. If he does not tell that person about the article but merely points it out, he commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he merely informs him or points out the object to him, the procedure for relinquishment is as above. If that person refuses to return the robe or bowl, another bhikkhu should say to him: “The Buddha taught that it was given to you only so that the procedure might be carried out in accordance with the Dharma; you should return that object to the bhikkhu.” If that person still refuses to return it, the bhikkhu himself should go and say to him: “The Buddha taught that a bhikkhu must perform the procedure of formal giving to you. You should hand it over to the Sangha, to a stupa, to a preceptor, to a spiritual friend, or to the donor; do not intend to cause the loss of that donor’s property.”
19. Precept Concerning Trade in Money, Wealth, and Precious Objects
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagaha. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda entered the marketplace and exchanged one kind of money for another. The householders ridiculed him, saying: “How skillful this bhikkhu is at trading!” When the bhikkhus heard of this, they reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu engages in any form of trade involving money, wealth, or precious objects, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Engages in any form of trade involving money, wealth, or precious objects: this includes exchanging worked gold for unworked gold; unworked gold for worked gold; or worked gold for unworked gold. Silver may likewise be exchanged in these three ways, while money has only one form of exchange. There are eight kinds of money: money made of gold, silver, copper, iron, pewter, lead, wood, and resin.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. Apart from this, the procedures for relinquishment and permitted exceptions are the same, and the method of reclaiming precious objects is also the same as in the preceding precept.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if money or precious objects are exchanged for prayer beads or requisites; if one kind of money is exchanged for another; or if it is done for the Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha.
20. Precept Concerning Trading
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Savatthi. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda went to a village where there was no dwelling place and exchanged fresh ginger for food. After eating, he departed carrying his bowl. Later, the Venerable Sariputta came there for alms, and the donor recounted Upananda’s conduct to the Venerable Sariputta. The Venerable One was ashamed and said nothing. Upananda also exchanged a robe with a non-Buddhist ascetic. Afterward, he regretted it and asked to exchange it back, but was unable to do so. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu engages in any form of commercial exchange, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– In any form: exchanging medicine allowable at the proper time for medicine allowable at the proper time, medicine allowable outside the proper time, seven-day medicine, lifelong medicine, or requisites, and exchanging these mutually in this manner; even exchanging one robe for another.
– Engages in commercial exchange: this means repeatedly raising or lowering the price of an object worth one coin. Raising the selling price means that although its price is only one coin, one says it is three coins. Raising the selling price still further means that although it is worth one coin, one says it is five coins. The same applies when buying. All such cases constitute an offense.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: the five communities of renunciants are permitted to exchange things among themselves, but they must assess the value themselves and must not haggle with one another over higher or lower prices as people do in the marketplace. They may not exchange goods with outsiders. They may have a lay steward make the exchange; if the other person changes his mind, they should allow the exchange to be reversed. There is also no offense in exchanging milk or oil.
21. Keeping an Extra Bowl Beyond the Permitted Period
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Savatthi. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus kept many bowls. They discarded inferior bowls, continually sought fine ones, and accumulated a great many bowls. When householders walking nearby saw this, they ridiculed them, saying: “This is no different from a potter’s kiln.” The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu keeps an extra bowl without formally giving it away, he is permitted to keep it for a period of ten days. If he exceeds that period, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Keeps an extra bowl: there are six kinds of bowls: iron bowls, black bowls, red bowls, bowls from the country of Suma, bowls from the country of Ujjala, and bowls from the country of Ujjaya. The most important, however, are iron bowls and fired-clay bowls. A large bowl holds three dou, and a small bowl holds one and a half dou; these are the prescribed capacities of a bowl. A bowl of this kind should be formally retained or formally given away.
– Without formally giving it away: formal giving and failure to perform formal giving are carried out in eight ways, as in the precept concerning “keeping an extra robe.”
– He is permitted to keep it for a period of ten days: At that time, the Venerable Ananda obtained a precious bowl and wished to offer it to the Venerable Kassapa for his daily use, but the Venerable Kassapa would not return for another ten days. The Venerable Ananda feared committing an offense entailing relinquishment and expiation, so he reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha made an allowance and established that a bowl could be kept for up to ten days.
– If he exceeds that period, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
The analysis of the characteristics of the precept and the cases in which there is no offense are the same as in the precept concerning “keeping an extra robe.”
22. Precept Concerning Improperly Requesting a Bowl
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Savatthi. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda’s bowl broke. He requested many bowls and stored them away. Later, the householders who had donated bowls to Upananda happened to meet one another. When they learned that Upananda had accepted many bowls, they complained: “This bhikkhu receives offerings without ever being satisfied.” The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.
b. Text of the Precept
If any bhikkhu possesses a bowl with fewer than five repairs that does not leak, yet seeks and requests a new bowl out of a desire for something more beautiful, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. That bhikkhu should go before the Sangha and relinquish the bowl. In due order, the most inferior bowl is to be given to him, and he is to retain and use it until it breaks. This is the proper procedure.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.
– Possesses a bowl with fewer than five repairs that does not leak: each repaired place is separated from the next by approximately two finger-widths.
– Yet seeks and requests a new bowl out of a desire for something more beautiful: if a bowl has been repaired a full five times and does not leak, but he again requests a new bowl, he commits a dukkata offense.
– Nissaggiya: the procedure for relinquishment is as follows. Within the Sangha of the dwelling place where he is residing, he relinquishes the bowl and then, through a motion, requests confession. He states the name and category of the offense. At the same time, the Sangha rebukes him, and he gives rise to a sense of revulsion and relinquishes it. If the bowl is a good one, it should be taken back and stored away, and the worst bowl should be given to that bhikkhu. A formal motion is then made to take the bowl, after which it is exchanged in order, beginning with the most senior elder. The senior elder’s bowl is given to the next-ranking bhikkhu, or to that bhikkhu. In this way, they exchange bowls with one another in succession until reaching the most junior bhikkhu.
– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– That bhikkhu should go before the Sangha to relinquish the bowl. Then, proceeding in order down to the most inferior bowl, it should be given to him, and he should be made to retain and use it until it breaks; this is the proper procedure: After the Sangha has performed a motion and second proclamation to assign the bowl, that bhikkhu must take care of it himself. He must not place the bowl where tiles or stones may fall upon it; beneath a place where staffs or swords are propped up; beneath objects suspended overhead; upon a rock or a mound of earth along a road; beneath a fruit-bearing tree; upon uneven ground; inside a window or main doorway; behind a door; beneath a bed or at the corner of a bed, except when placed there temporarily; or between two beds. He must not wash the bowl while standing, lest he step upon it and break it. He should not deliberately break or lose the bowl. If he uses the bowl contrary to the Dharma, he commits a dukkata offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: The bowl is cracked in five places and leaks, or is cracked in fewer than five places and leaks. He requests a new bowl from a relative or a monastic; he requests one on behalf of another; another requests one on his behalf; or he receives one without requesting it. Or he receives one according to the order of offerings; or purchases one with his own money. In all such cases, there is no offense in keeping it.
23. The Rule on Requesting Thread and Having an Unrelated Weaver Weave It
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, because Bhikkhu Upananda needed to mend his sanghati, he requested thread and obtained a great quantity of it. He then took the thread and asked others to weave it, or himself set the warp upon the loom and watched the weavers. When the householders saw this, they ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that account, the Buddha rebuked him and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu personally requests thread and has an unrelated weaver weave it into the three robes, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Personally requests thread: The bhikkhu requests it from various places. There are ten kinds of thread in all.
– Has an unrelated weaver weave it into the three robes: If both the weaver and the person who gives the thread are relatives, there is no offense. If the person who gives the thread is not a relative, the bhikkhu commits a dukkata offense. If he watches the weaving, weaves it himself, or merely sets the warp upon the loom, he commits a dukkata offense.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: Both the person who gives the thread and the weaver are relatives; or he weaves it himself to make a bowl bag, a shoe bag, a braided needle case, a meditation belt,[54] a waist cord, a cap, socks, a scarf, or socks worn with shoes. All these are permissible.
24. Instructing a Weaver to Add More Thread
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a householder gave thread to a weaver and asked him to make a robe for Bhikkhu Upananda. Afterward, Bhikkhu Upananda went to the weaver’s house, selected fine-quality thread and gave it to the weaver, promising to pay him additional money. When the householders learned of this, they ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that account, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a householder or a householder’s wife has commissioned a weaver to weave a robe for a bhikkhu, and that bhikkhu has not previously received an invitation to make requests at will, but goes to the weaver’s house and says: “This robe is being made for me. Make it as fine as possible; make it broad, large, and durable. I will pay you additional money.” If that bhikkhu offers payment, even merely the value of one meal, and receives the robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– If a householder or a householder’s wife has commissioned a weaver to weave a robe for a bhikkhu, and that bhikkhu has not previously received an invitation to make requests at will: If a householder provides money to make a robe for a bhikkhu, bhikkhus who have few desires and are content are permitted to accept it. Being invited to request whatever one wishes is called an invitation to make requests at will.
– But goes to the weaver’s house and says: “This robe is being made for me. Make it as fine as possible; make it broad, large, and durable. I will pay you additional money.” If that bhikkhu offers payment, even merely the value of one meal, and receives the robe, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: If he requests the robe but does not obtain it, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: If he asks that it be made smaller, makes the request of a relative, makes the request of a monastic, or another person makes the request on his behalf, it is permissible.
25. The Rule on Taking Back a Bhikkhu’s Robe
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a disciple of Bhikkhu Upananda was highly skilled in exhorting others to make offerings.[55] Bhikkhu Upananda wished to travel together with him, so he had previously given a robe to another bhikkhu. Another bhikkhu said: “That bhikkhu is foolish and does not know how to recite the precepts, expound the precepts, conduct the uposatha, or perform Sangha acts.” Afterward, Bhikkhu Upananda returned and went to that bhikkhu to reclaim the robe, but the bhikkhu would not give it back. Bhikkhu Upananda therefore forcibly took back the robe. The bhikkhus rebuked him and charged him with the offense. On that account, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If a bhikkhu first gives a robe to another bhikkhu and later, out of anger or resentment, either takes it back himself or has someone else take it back, saying: “Return the robe to me; I will no longer give it to you,” and if the other bhikkhu returns the robe and that bhikkhu receives it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– First gives a robe to another bhikkhu and later, out of anger or resentment, either takes it back himself or has someone else take it back, saying: “Return the robe to me; I will no longer give it to you”: If, out of anger or resentment, he takes it back himself or has someone else take it back and then keeps it, he commits the offense. If he has obtained it but has not yet put it away, he commits a dukkata offense. If the robe is draped over a tree, hung upon a rack, hooked onto a bed, or placed elsewhere, and he moves it from its original place, he commits the offense entailing forfeiture. If he takes hold of it but has not yet removed it from its original place, he commits a dukkata offense.
– If the other bhikkhu returns the robe and that bhikkhu receives it, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: He does not act out of anger or resentment. Or he says: “I regret giving it to you; please return the robe to me.” The other bhikkhu, knowing that he regrets it, returns the robe. Or another person says to that bhikkhu: “That bhikkhu regrets giving it; you should return the robe to him.” If someone borrows another person’s robe and then leaves it in a secluded place, a place without a path, or a village, there is no offense in taking it back. This may be done out of fear that it will be lost or torn. Or the other bhikkhu has corrupted the precepts, right view, or proper deportment. If he has been formally charged with an offense warranting expulsion, he should be driven away. Or the matter may lead to danger to life or danger to the holy life. In all the cases just mentioned, if he takes the robe back, does not keep it for himself, and makes the matter known to everyone, there is no offense.
26. The Rule on Keeping Seven-Day Medicines Beyond the Prescribed Period
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhus were afflicted by the autumn winds and became ill; their bodies grew emaciated, and they developed sores. The Buddha said: “There are five substances—butter, oil, thickened butter, honey, and fat—which those who are ill are permitted to consume both at the proper time and outside the proper time.” On one occasion, when the Buddha was in the city of Rajagrha, the community of Bhikkhu Pilindavaccha stored so much of these substances that they overflowed into the road, for which worldly people criticized them. When the Buddha learned of this, he rebuked the bhikkhus and then established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu, being ill, has leftover medicines such as ghee, oil, fresh butter, honey, or molasses, they may be used for seven days. If he continues to use them after seven days, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Being ill: this means that a physician has instructed him to take them. These are the medicines in question.
– Leftover medicines such as ghee, oil, fresh butter, honey, or molasses may be used for seven days: the wording and meaning of the eight categories are the same as in the rule concerning robes above.
– If he continues to use them after seven days: after that bhikkhu has relinquished the medicine to the Sangha and declared the formal act for dealing with the offense, the Sangha should, in accordance with the Dharma, return the medicine to that bhikkhu; or, on the seventh day, he may relinquish it to another bhikkhu. That bhikkhu should receive and use it. If more than seven days have passed, the ghee or oil may be used to coat doors, while the honey and molasses should be given to the monastery gardener. If seven days have not yet elapsed, it may be returned to the bhikkhu by a formal act with one motion and one proclamation; the bhikkhu should receive it for rubbing his feet or fueling lamps.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: apart from the cases of relinquishment, use, and so forth described above, there is no offense.
27. The Rule on Requesting and Using a Rain-Bathing Cloth Before the Rains Retreat
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, Visakha Migaramata invited the Buddha and the Sangha to her home for a meal. The next morning, Visakha Migaramata sent a maidservant to the monastery to invite the Buddha and the Sangha. Upon arriving, the maidservant saw the members of the Sangha bathing naked in the rain. Having seen this, she returned and reported it to Visakha Migaramata. On that occasion, Visakha Migaramata made eight vows and was praised by the Buddha. Later, the group of six bhikkhus frequently requested rain-bathing cloths. On account of this, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
When one month remains in the spring, a bhikkhu may request a rain-bathing cloth; when half a month remains, he may use it. If any bhikkhu seeks a rain-bathing cloth earlier than one month beforehand or uses it earlier than half a month beforehand, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– When one month remains in the spring, he may request a rain-bathing cloth: a rain-bathing cloth is a cloth used by a bhikkhu when bathing in the rain. Such cloth is of ten kinds. A bhikkhu is permitted to begin requesting this cloth from the sixteenth day of the third month.
– When half a month remains, he may use it: a bhikkhu is permitted to begin using the rain-bathing cloth fifteen days before the first day of the fourth month.
– If any bhikkhu seeks a rain-bathing cloth earlier than one month beforehand: this means seeking a rain-bathing cloth before the sixteenth day of the third month.
– Uses it earlier than half a month beforehand: this means using it before the first day of the fourth month.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits a duskrta offense.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he relinquishes it for another use, or wears it while bathing, washes it, or dries it, there is no offense in any such case.
28. The Rule on Receiving an Urgently Offered Robe Before the Appointed Time and Keeping It Beyond the Appointed Time
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying at Veranja. At that time, he permitted the bhikkhus to receive summer robes. Knowing that the Buddha had permitted the receiving of robes, the group of six bhikkhus frequently requested and received robes. The bhikkhu Upananda spent the rains retreat in one place but went elsewhere to receive robes. While the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti during the rains retreat, a minister offered robes before the retreat had ended. On account of this, the Buddha made an allowance permitting bhikkhus to receive urgently offered robes and established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
When ten days remain before the completion of the three-month rains retreat, bhikkhus may receive an urgently offered robe. A bhikkhu who knows it to be an urgently offered robe may accept it and, having accepted it, may keep it until the robe season. If he keeps it beyond the permitted period, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– When ten days remain before the completion of the three-month rains retreat: this refers to the period from the sixth day of the seventh month onward through the fifteenth day of the seventh month.
– Bhikkhus may receive an urgently offered robe: because it can be obtained if accepted but will be lost if not accepted, it is called an urgently offered robe. Robes are of ten kinds.
– A bhikkhu who knows it to be an urgently offered robe may accept it and, having accepted it, may keep it until the robe season: the robe season means that, after the invitation ceremony, a bhikkhu who has not received the kathina robe may receive robes for one month, while a bhikkhu who has received the kathina robe may receive robes for five months. If he receives an urgently offered robe when ten days remain before the invitation ceremony, then, having accepted it, he may keep it for a period of one to five months. Even if the invitation ceremony[57] is to be held the following day, he should accept the robe and may keep it for a period of one to five months. As an exceptional allowance, he may keep it for nine additional days.
– If he keeps it beyond the permitted period, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense: with respect to an urgently offered robe, receiving it before the permitted time or keeping it beyond the permitted time constitutes a pacittiya offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.
– Cases in which there is no offense: if he neither receives it earlier than the permitted time nor keeps it beyond the permitted time, there is no offense. If the robe is stolen or lost, receiving it before the permitted time is not an offense. If he entrusts the robe to another bhikkhu and travels far away, but the roads are then cut off and he cannot return in time, receiving the robe after the permitted period is not an offense.
29. Staying in a Wilderness Dwelling Where There Is Danger and Being Separated from a Robe Beyond the Permitted Period
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, bhikkhus dwelling in a wilderness place were attacked and robbed, and all ten of their possessions were taken.[58] Therefore, the Buddha permitted a bhikkhu to leave one of his three robes in a house within a village. When the group of six bhikkhus heard that the Buddha had given this permission, they left their robes there and departed. The bhikkhus learned of this and reported it to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
When the three-month rains retreat has ended and the subsequent month of Kattika[59] has passed, a bhikkhu may be staying in a wilderness place where there is suspicion and fear. A bhikkhu living in such a dwelling place may, if he wishes, leave one of his three robes in a house within a village. If there is a reason, bhikkhus may sleep apart from that robe for up to six nights. If they exceed that period, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– When the three-month rains retreat has ended and the subsequent month of Kattika has passed: this means after the latter half of the eighth month.
– In a wilderness place: five hundred bow-lengths[60] from a village. According to the standard of the country of Camara, one bow is four cubits long, measured using the forearm of a person of average stature.
– Where there is suspicion: there is suspicion that thieves or robbers may be present.
– And fear: in that place there is fear of thieves or robbers.
– A bhikkhu living in such a dwelling place may, if he wishes, leave one of his three robes in a house within a village: “village” means a settlement, that is, a hamlet.
– If there is a reason, bhikkhus may sleep apart from that robe for up to six nights: if a bhikkhu has some necessary business and sleeps apart from the robe, then before the appearance of dawn on the seventh night he must either relinquish it, take possession of it, or come within a place from which a stone could be thrown to reach it. If none of these occurs, he commits an offense.
– Nissaggiya pacittiya: the allowances made when there is a valid reason are the same as in the rule concerning separation from one’s robe explained above.
30. The Rule on Diverting Property Belonging to the Sangha
a. Origin
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. One day, a layman wished to offer food and robes to the Buddha and the Sangha. When the bhikkhu Upananda heard this news, he said to that layman, “Many people make offerings to the Sangha; now you may make an offering to me.” Later, the layman encountered an elder bhikkhu whose deportment was perfect, whereupon he regretted what he had done and lamented. The bhikkhus reported this wrongdoing to the Buddha. On account of this, the Buddha established this rule.
b. Text of the Rule
If any bhikkhu knows that an article belongs to the Sangha but solicits it for himself, it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
c. Explanation
– Bhikkhu: as explained above.
– Knows: if he does not know, there is no offense.
– This is property belonging to the Sangha, of which there are three kinds: 1. Property belonging to the Sangha: the donor has promised to offer it to the Sangha; 2. Property intended for the Sangha: they have procured it for the sake of the Sangha but have not yet promised to offer it to the Sangha; 3. Property already given to the Sangha: it has been promised to the Sangha and relinquished to the Sangha. “Property” includes even implements used for drinking water.
– Yet one personally asks to obtain it for oneself: having promised it to the Sangha, one diverts it to the construction of a stupa; having promised it to the Sangha of the four directions, one diverts it to the Sangha presently assembled; one gives it to the Bhikshuni Sangha; one gives it to the Sangha at another dwelling place; one acts contrary to the prior agreement; or one gives rise to doubt—all such cases constitute a duṣkṛta offense.
– Niḥsargika-pātayantika.
– There is no offense if one did not know; if no promise had been made; if little had been promised but one successfully solicited much; if it had been promised to a few people but was given to many; if one encouraged the giving of superior goods; or if the statement was made jokingly or mistakenly.
Venerable Ones! I have recited the thirty Niḥsargika-pātayantika rules. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Is this assembly pure in this regard? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones in this assembly are pure, for they remain silent. Thus do I hold this matter.
Notes:
[1] Three Vehicles 三乘: the Śrāvaka Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Bodhisattva Vehicle.
[2] Gate of Freedom from Concealment 不諱之門: That is, the gate of the Vinaya. “Concealment” here means transgression or fault.
[3] The profound and secret art 祕密之深術: This also refers to the Vinaya, because the Vinaya is transmitted only among the four assemblies.
[4] The dream of the silk cloth 經陳夢[疊*毛]之徵: The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra records: “The king dreamed that a piece of white silk fell from the sky and tore into five sections. Alarmed, the king went to ask the Buddha about it. The Buddha said, ‘This matter does not concern Your Majesty. After I enter nirvana, my disciples will divide the Vinaya into five schools.’”
[5] The simile of the broken staff 分杖之喻: King Bimbisāra dreamed that a golden staff broke into eighteen pieces. Frightened, the king went to ask the Buddha about it. The Buddha said: “More than one hundred years after my parinirvana, a king named Aśoka will rule Jambudvīpa. At that time, the bhikshus will divide the teaching into eighteen parts leading toward the gate of liberation, but the destination of all eighteen parts will be one and the same. This is a portent of that event; Your Majesty need not be concerned.”
[6] Right action 正業: purity of the three karmas of body, speech, and mind, free from all evil conduct such as killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct.
[7] In the second year of the Jiaping era (250), Dharmakāla came to Luoyang and translated the Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa. Two years later, Dharmasatya translated the Dharmaguptaka Karman. Among the Indian monks who came to the state of Wei during this period, Dharmakāla and Dharmasatya were the first to propagate the Vinaya.
At that time, there were already renunciants in China, but they did not yet know how to perform the ordination procedure. It may therefore be said that the Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa was the foundational code of discipline for renunciants, while the Dharmaguptaka Karman provided the first method for conducting ordination in China. Dharmakāla was thus the first patriarch to transmit the Vinaya to China.
At the same time, Zhu Shixing was the first Chinese person to renounce household life and receive ordination.
[8] Right precepts 正戒: Before the Buddha appeared in the world, a Wheel-Turning Monarch would also teach people the ten wholesome dharmas: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, not engaging in divisive speech, not speaking harshly, not engaging in frivolous speech, not coveting, not becoming angry, and not holding wrong views. These are called the right precepts.
[9] Correct scripture 正經: “Correct” means that it is included among the authoritative records; “scripture” means that it accords with the Dharma and with what is constant. It is therefore collectively called Correct Scripture.
[10] Koṭi 俱胝 (S: Koṭi): an Indian numerical unit.
[11] Six works 六部: These are: 1. The Annotated Prātimokṣa for Bhikshus of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (3 fascicles); 2. The Commentary on the Practice of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (3 fascicles); 3. The Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Karman (4 fascicles); 4. The Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Prātimokṣa (4 fascicles); 5. The Commentary on the Meaning of the Ten Vinaya Matters (4 fascicles); 6. The Abridged Explanation of the Meaning of the Bhikshuni Vinaya (3 fascicles).
[12] Dharmaguptaka 曇無德 (S: Dharmaguptaka): founder of the Dharmaguptaka school, one of the twenty schools of the Śrāvakayāna, and a disciple of the patriarch Upagupta. At the First Council, Venerable Upāli recited the Vinaya Piṭaka eighty times, and it was called the Vinaya of the Eighty Recitations. Later, as its transmission developed, Dharmaguptaka compiled material from the Vinaya of the Eighty Recitations and established a school called the Dharmaguptaka school, also known as the Dharma Treasury school. Dharmaguptaka was the founder of the Vinaya tradition; hence, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition is also called the Four-Part Vinaya tradition.
[13] Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667): An eminent Chinese monk of the Tang dynasty. His family name was Qian, his courtesy name was Fabian, and he was a native of Wuxing in Zhejiang Province. He was the First Patriarch of the Nanshan Vinaya school. According to another account, he was from Dantu, Runzhou, in Jiangsu Province. He was born in the sixteenth year of the Kaihuang era (596) during the Sui dynasty. He later received full ordination under Master Zhishou (567–635) in Chang’an and specialized in studying the Vinaya. Because he initially served as abbot of Fengde Monastery on Zhongnan Mountain, he became known as the Vinaya Master of Nanshan. He passed away in the second year of the Qianfeng era (667), at the age of seventy-two.
[14] Venerable Dharmapāla 法護尊者: This is Dharmaguptaka.
[15] Extensive teaching 廣教: the teaching expounded in full. During approximately the first twelve years after the Buddha attained awakening, the entire assembly was pure and no one committed transgressions. The Buddha therefore had not yet established the precepts and taught only: “Commit no evil deeds…” This method of admonishing disciples is called the concise teaching or concise precepts. After twelve years, transgressions of the precepts gradually became more frequent among the disciples. The Buddha therefore had to proclaim numerous disciplinary rules and point out the faults pertaining to each rule individually. This is called the extensive teaching or extensive precepts.
[16] Concise teaching 略教: For approximately the first twelve years after Śākyamuni Buddha attained awakening, his disciples did not transgress the precepts, so the Buddha delivered only a concise admonition.
[17] Preparing tally sticks 舍羅 (S: Śalākā): Small tallies made of bamboo, wood, copper, or iron, used to count the number of bhikshus participating when the Sangha performs a procedure for settling disputes or conducts the poṣadha.
[18] Nonhuman being 非人 (S: Amanuṣya): A general term for devas, nāgas, yakṣas, malevolent spirits, asuras, hell beings, and others that are not human and cannot be seen by human eyes.
[19] Declaring one’s consent 說欲: reporting to the Sangha the intention of an absent bhikshu when a formal Sangha act is performed. A bhikshu may wish to participate in Sangha matters, such as ordination or the recitation of the precepts, but be unable to attend because of other obligations. He therefore entrusts another bhikshu with his intention and approval. After receiving that consent, the other bhikshu presents it before the Sangha; this is called “declaring consent.” Entrusting one’s consent to another bhikshu who will attend the assembly is called “giving consent.” A bhikshu who accepts this commission from another bhikshu is said to “receive consent.”
[20] Three-phrase recitation of the precepts 三語說戒: This consists of stating the following three matters: 1. May the two Venerable Ones be mindful of me; 2. Today, on the fifteenth day, the Sangha recites the precepts; 3. I, the bhikshu named …, am pure.
[21] Prātimokṣa 波羅提木叉 (S: Prātimokṣa-saṃvara): One of the three kinds of moral restraint. It is the discipline that each of the seven assemblies separately receives and upholds in order to abandon evil in the seven branches of bodily and verbal conduct. Because the essence of the precepts arises from receiving the precept Dharma in the Desire Realm, it is also called the discipline bound to the Desire Realm and belongs to the category of conditioned, outflow-bound morality.
[22] Four dhyānas 四禪 (S: Catvāri dhyānāni): the four fundamental kinds of meditative concentration used to counteract delusions and karma and to generate merit and virtue. They also refer to the First Dhyāna, Second Dhyāna, Third Dhyāna, and Fourth Dhyāna of the Form Realm, and are therefore also called the concentrations of the Form Realm.
[23] Three kinds of emptiness 三空: three kinds of emptiness established on the basis of beings’ attachments: emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas, and emptiness of both.
[24] Four fruits 四果: the four stages of fruition attained by śrāvakas of the Lesser Vehicle. In successive order, they are: the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, the fruit of non-returning, and the fruit of arhatship. According to one explanation, the term refers only to the fruit of arhatship.
[25] Pārājika 波羅夷 (S: Pārājika): the fundamental precepts concerning the gravest offenses, which bhikshus and bhikshunis must observe after receiving full ordination; one of the five divisions, one of the six classes, and one of the seven classes. If practitioners violate such a precept: 1. They lose their status as bhikshus or bhikshunis and may no longer dwell together with the Sangha; 2. They are expelled from the monastic community and may no longer reside with the Sangha; 3. After death, they fall into hell.
[26] Nonhuman being 非人 (S: Amanuṣya): a general term for beings such as devas, nāgas, yakshas, evil spirits, asuras, and hell beings, who do not belong to humankind and cannot be seen by human eyes.
[27] Maiden 童女 (S: Kumārī): an underage young woman.
[28] Person with both sexual characteristics 二形 (S: Ubhayavyañjanaka): a person possessing both male and female sexual organs and having an atypical physiology. Under Buddhist Vinaya, such a person is not permitted to renounce the household life or receive ordination.
[29] Paṇḍaka 黃門 (S: Paṇḍaka): a person whose male sexual faculty is impaired. According to fascicle 21 of the Ten Recitations Vinaya and fascicles 35 and 59 of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, paṇḍakas are divided into five kinds, called the five kinds of paṇḍakas, the five kinds of men incapable of sexual functioning, or the five kinds of non-males. These five are: 1. One incapable from birth; 2. One incapable for half of each month; 3. One rendered incapable through jealousy; 4. One rendered incapable through transformation; 5. One rendered incapable through illness.
[30] Thullaccaya 偷蘭遮 (S: Thullaccaya): offenses that, if completed, would constitute a pārājika or saṅghādisesa offense, but have not yet become pārājika or saṅghādisesa offenses. Among offenses belonging to the five divisions, apart from duṣkṛta offenses, all remaining causal and resultant offenses, whether grave or light, are collectively called thullaccaya. It is one of the six classes and one of the seven classes of precepts established by the Buddha. Thullaccaya is divided into two principal types: independent thullaccaya and preliminary thullaccaya.
[31] Expulsion 滅擯 (S: Nāśanīyaṃ): a disciplinary procedure in the Vinaya and one of the seven methods of disciplining bhikshus. It may also refer to the deprivation of one’s monastic status and is therefore also called deprivation of status. When a bhikshu commits a grave offense yet feels no remorse, his monastic status is revoked and he is expelled. This penalty is equivalent to capital punishment in secular society.
[32] Place 處: “place” here means the location where an object is presently situated.
[33] Araṇya 阿蘭若 (S: Araṇya): generally refers to a secluded forest without ferocious beasts.
[34] Locality 處所: refers to the area in which a person resides.
[35] Tooth-cleaning stick 楊枝 (S: Danta-Kāṣṭha): a small, thin piece of wood used to clean the teeth and scrape the tongue; one of the eight requisites that the Buddha prescribed for bhikshus.
[36] Contemplation of impurity 不淨觀 (S: A-śubhā-smṛti): the contemplation of impurity is one of the five contemplations for stilling the mind, employed to counteract the affliction of sensual desire.
[37] Successive messengers 重使: one messenger following another, forming a chain of messengers.
[38] Relay messengers 展轉使: messengers who successively kill one another in order to eliminate evidence of the perpetrator.
[39] Setting a lethal device where another leans 倚撥: knowing where another person habitually leans and placing there implements capable of injuring or killing that person.
[40] Four formless concentrations 四空定 (S: Catasra ārūpya-samāpattayaḥ): four states transcending the constraints of material form, being concentrations attained through contemplation of the Four Formless Realms. Those who wish to be reborn in the Four Formless Realms must cultivate the four formless concentrations. In other words, the four formless concentrations are practices that counteract the constraints of material form, eliminate all sensations and perceptions concerning external objects, and lead through this cultivation to a pure and undefiled spiritual state, tranquil like empty space.
[41] Rag robe 糞掃衣 (S: Pāṃsu-kūla): a kāṣāya sewn from torn cloth gathered from a refuse heap and then washed clean.
[42] Thirteen impediments 十三難: the thirteen prohibitive impediments examined before bhikshu ordination, namely: 1. Having committed a pārājika offense; 2. Having violated the chastity of a bhikshuni; 3. Having fraudulently dwelt among the Sangha; 4. Having defected between Buddhism and another religion; 5. Having killed one’s father; 6. Having killed one’s mother; 7. Having killed an arhat; 8. Having caused a schism in the harmonious Sangha; 9. Having maliciously wounded the body of a Buddha; 10. Being a paṇḍaka; 11. Being a nonhuman being; 12. Being an animal; 13. Possessing both sexual characteristics.
[43] Parivāsa 波利婆沙 (S: Parivāsa): translated into Chinese as “concealment” or “separate residence,” meaning to conceal or to reside separately.
[44] Mānatta 摩那埵 (S: Mānatta): a method by which a bhikshu removes an offense and performs repentance after committing the grave offense of saṅghādisesa. Upon committing a saṅghādisesa offense, one must immediately disclose it and repent. For six days and six nights, one must reside separately and perform strenuous duties on behalf of the Sangha, such as sweeping and cleaning stupas, monastic quarters, latrines, and bathhouses. One may enter among the Sangha but may not engage in discussion with others. During this period of discipline, the offender must repent with utmost sincerity and bring joy to the Sangha.
[45] Nissaggiya pācittiya 尼薩耆波逸提: a type of light offense. It means that if one repents of the transgression, the offense is removed; if one does not repent of the wrongdoing, one will fall into the lower realms of hell beings, hungry ghosts, or animals. There are two kinds: forfeiture with downfall and simple downfall. Forfeiture with downfall is an offense requiring one to relinquish the material object and repent. Simple downfall is an offense for which one need only repent before another person to become pure again.
[46] Antarvāsa robe 安陀會衣 (S: Antarvāsa): a Dharma robe sewn from five joined pieces of cloth. Because this robe is worn underneath, it is called the lower robe. It is ordinarily worn while working or sleeping and is the lowest of the three robes. It is sewn by joining one long and one short piece of cloth to form a panel, making five panels in all, and must be made from hempen cloth dyed an impure color.
The version you're viewing was faithfully rendered by Inti AI in keeping with the tradition. Switch to the other language tab to read a human translation.
Translations belong to the translator/source credited above. The bilingual compilation, presentation, and AI translations compiled by Inti are © Inti Foundation. Please attribute when quoting; do not bulk-copy or use commercially without permission.