Bu Pc 7171. Not accepting legitimate correction
Pāli / Sanskrit:Sahadhammika
A monk who uses a ploy as an excuse for not keeping the monastic code must confess the offense.
Save your scripture progress
Create a free account to save scriptures, track progress, and continue your daily learning path.
Theravāda Collection on Monastic Law The Great Analysis
The chapter on offenses entailing confession The subchapter on legitimate correction 71. Not accepting legitimate correction
Origin story
At one time when the Buddha was staying at Kosambī in Ghosita’s Monastery, Venerable Channa was misbehaving. The monks told him, “Don’t do that, Channa, it’s not allowable,” and he would reply, “I won’t practice this training rule until I’ve questioned a monk who is an expert on the Monastic Law.”
The monks of few desires complained and criticized him, “How could Venerable Channa say this when legitimately corrected by the monks?” … “Is it true, Channa, that you said this?”
“It’s true, sir.”
The Buddha rebuked him … “Foolish man, how could you say this when legitimately corrected by the monks? This will affect people’s confidence …” … “And, monks, this training rule should be recited like this:
Final ruling
‘If a monk, when legitimately corrected by the monks, says, “I won’t practice this training rule until I’ve questioned a monk who is an expert on the Monastic Law,” he commits an offense entailing confession. A monk who is training should understand, should question, should enquire. This is the proper procedure.’”
Definitions
A: whoever … Monk: … The monk who has been given the full ordination by a unanimous Sangha through a legal procedure consisting of one motion and three announcements that is irreversible and fit to stand—this sort of monk is meant in this case. By the monks: by other monks. Legitimately: the training rules laid down by the Buddha—this is called “legitimately”. When corrected in regard to this, he says, “I won’t practice this training rule until I’ve questioned a monk who’s an expert on the Monastic Law.” If he says, “I’ll question one who’s wise,” “I’ll question one who’s competent,” “I’ll question one who’s intelligent,” “I’ll question one who’s learned,” “I’ll question an expounder of the Teaching,” he commits an offense entailing confession.
Permutations
If the one who corrects him is fully ordained, and he perceives him as such, and he says such a thing, he commits an offense entailing confession. If the one who corrects him is fully ordained, but he is unsure of it, and he says such a thing, he commits an offense entailing confession. If the one who corrects him is fully ordained, but he does not perceive him as such, and he says such a thing, he commits an offense entailing confession.
If he is corrected about something that has not been laid down: “This isn’t conducive to self-effacement,” “This isn’t conducive to ascetic practices,” “This isn’t conducive to being inspiring,” “This isn’t conducive to a reduction in things,” “This isn’t conducive to being energetic,” and he says, “I won’t practice this training rule until I’ve questioned a monk who’s competent,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s an expert on the Monastic Law,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s wise,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s intelligent,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s learned,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s an expounder of the Teaching,” he commits an offense of wrong conduct.
If he is corrected by one who is not fully ordained about something that has or has not been laid down: “This isn’t conducive to self-effacement,” “This isn’t conducive to ascetic practices,” “This isn’t conducive to being inspiring,” “This isn’t conducive to a reduction in things,” “This isn’t conducive to being energetic,” and he says, “I won’t practice this training rule until I’ve questioned a monk who’s competent,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s an expert on the Monastic Law,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s wise,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s intelligent,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s learned,” “… until I’ve questioned a monk who’s an expounder of the Teaching,” he commits an offense of wrong conduct.
If the one who corrects him is not fully ordained, but he perceives them as such, he commits an offense of wrong conduct. If the one who corrects him is not fully ordained, but he is unsure of it, he commits an offense of wrong conduct. If the one who corrects him is not fully ordained, and he does not perceive them as such, he commits an offense of wrong conduct.
More Definitions
Who is training: who wants to train. Should understand: should find out. Should question: should ask, “Venerable, how is this? What’s the meaning of this?” Should enquire: should reflect, should weigh up. This is the proper procedure: this is the right method.
Non-offenses
There is no offense: if he says, “I’ll find out and I’ll train;” if he is insane; if he is the first offender.
The training rule on not accepting legitimate correction, the first, is finished.
The “…” is an abbreviation carried over from the Pāli original itself, called peyyāla. The early canon was memorized and recited, so passages repeated verbatim from a preceding discourse were commonly contracted to an elision mark rather than written out in full. Venerable Thích Minh Châu's translation preserves this convention. Some texts therefore look short — but that is the canonical form, not missing content or a truncated translation. The elided passages can be read in full in the preceding discourses of the same chapter.
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.