Vinayasamgraha 3: 根本薩婆多部律攝卷第三

Compiled by the Venerable Viśeṣamitra

Translated under imperial order by the Tripiṭaka Master Yijing

Third Training Rule on Depriving a Human of Life (the remainder of the four pārājika dharmas of the first section)

At that time, the Bhagavat was staying in the country of the Vṛjis. At that time, the bhikṣus heard the Buddha teach the contemplation of impurity. Having practiced it, they developed deep revulsion toward this body of pus and blood, and thereupon sought out the non-Buddhist ascetic with a deer-staff to have him take their lives, and also killed one another. Because all who kill cut off another's life-faculty through inability to endure circumstances and inability to endure defilements, [the Buddha] formulated this training rule:

"Whatever bhikṣu shall intentionally, with his own hand, deprive a human being or a human foetus of life, or hand over a knife, or hold a knife himself, or seek out one who holds a knife, or encourage death or praise death, saying: 'Alas, good man! What use to you is this sinful, burdened, impure, wretched life? It would be better for you now to die; death is superior to life'—following his own mental intention, encouraging and praising him with other words to cause him to die: if he dies as a result of that, this bhikṣu also incurs a pārājika and is not to live in communion."

This offence is established on the basis of a human object, having a mind to kill, perceiving [it] as a human, and using an expedient to deprive [it] of life. Herein, 'object' means a human or a human foetus. 'Human' means possessing the complete six sense faculties. 'Human foetus' means having entered the mother's womb and possessing the body, life, and mind faculties, and thereby being subsumed under the human common category. A female, male, or paṇḍaka, whether the physical form is complete or incomplete, all constitute an object of killing. 'Intentionally' shows that it is not by error that one deprives another of their life-faculty. When the object before one is a human and the mind arises corresponding to it, the expedients are of two kinds: bodily and verbal. Bodily means executing the killing with the hands or the like; or 'handing over a knife' means knowing that the other wishes to commit suicide and placing a knife or the like beside them; or 'holding a knife oneself' means having no strength oneself, but merely holding the knife oneself and having that bystander assist one's hand to execute the killing; or seeking another person to have them hold the knife and kill. Verbal means, wishing to cause another to die, carrying out encouragement, praise, and so forth: toward one who does not wish to die, one urges and persuades them to die; if one desires death, one praises death, saying: 'What use to you is this sinful, burdened [life]...?'—meaning that the faults of remaining alive are heavy and the merit after death is great. 'Impure' means being formed by relying on impurity. Being called 'a wretched life' means being rejected by superior persons. Saying 'death is superior to life' is to cause the other to rejoice. 'Following his own mental intention' means thinking that my urging the other to die will bring merit. 'With other words' means not only speaking this, but further encouraging and praising with different words. 'If he dies as a result of that' shows that it is not by other matters, but solely due to encouraging death that another's life is terminated, incurring a pārājika; if he does not die, one incurs a sthūla. If one previously initiated an expedient and dispatched someone to kill another, but later gave rise to remorse and did not wish him to die, even though that person dies, one incurs only a sthūla. 'Depriving of life establishes the offence' means causing death as a result.

Herein, as for the offender: if a bhikṣu, by means of his own body or external bricks and the like, or both together such as grasping a knife and the like, or with poison, or by digging a pit, or by administering wine and other drugs to derange their mind, or by performing incantations to make the other confused, or by setting a mechanical trap, or by pushing them to fall at a perilous place such as a cliff, moat, or high tower, or by cunningly contriving expedients to send them into water, fire, a place of terrifying calamity, or a perilous place, or by making them freeze in the open ground on a cold night—whether toward a human woman, human man, ṣaṇḍha, or the like, perceiving them as having life, or again generating doubt, initiates an expedient to harm, and death is brought about on account of this, all are defeat offences; if they do not die, one incurs a sthūla. Or, if one raises a whole corpse or raises a half corpse to cause harm to the object before one, the heaviness or lightness of the offence should be known according to the object. There are distinctions here: if those two turn and harm the bhikṣu instead, due to the prior expedient he incurs a sthūla. If the bhikṣu harms that corpse-demon, he incurs two gross offences. If he harms an apparitional form, he also incurs a gross offence. If one has no intent to harm the mother but has a mind to kill the foetus, and tramples on the mother's abdomen: if the foetus dies and not the mother, one incurs a defeat offence; if the mother dies and not the foetus, one incurs only a gross offence; if both die, a pārājika; if neither dies, a sthūla offence. In the same way it should be understood that having a mind to kill the mother and not the foetus is to be recognized by analogy with the above. If in a human woman's womb there is an animal foetus or a non-human foetus, and one intentionally aborts it, one incurs a gross offence. If in an animal's womb one knows there is a human foetus, or knows an entity of the human destiny has transformed into an animal, when one deprives them of life, in both cases one incurs the root offence. If one transforms one's own body into the likeness of an animal and, while having the perception of being a bhikṣu, harms another, one also incurs the root offence. If, wishing to harm someone else, one mistakenly harms one's parents or an arhat, one incurs a sthūla offence, because of having no mind to kill the father and so on. Regarding a non-arhat with the perception that he is an arhat, or an arhat with the perception that he is a non-arhat—the same applies to parents. Or if one undertakes an expedient to kill the mother or the like, but dies oneself before them, in all such cases one incurs a gross offence. If a woman abandons a foetus, another woman takes it up and places it inside her own womb: if one kills the second mother, one does not incur the offence of immediate retribution; when [that child] goes forth, he should ask the second mother. If, toward a human, one has the perception of a human or gives rise to doubt, one incurs the root offence in both cases. If, toward a non-human, one kills with the perception of a human or with doubt, one incurs a gross offence. If, toward a human, one has the perception of an animal, one incurs a duṣkṛta offence; if one has the perception of a non-human, one also incurs a duṣkṛta. When a sentient being is being pursued and a bhikṣu, upon seeing it, informs the pursuers with the perception of killing, an offence is established according to the circumstances. Among many people, when having a harmful mind toward one person one mistakenly kills another, one incurs a sthūla offence. In an indeterminate state of mind, one incurs only a duṣkṛta. If with a playful mind one strikes another, and death is caused thereby, one incurs a duṣkṛta offence. If before full ordination one had already initiated an expedient, and only after full ordination does the life come to an end, the two sets of four alternatives should be constructed as before. If one initiates an expedient and dispatches an emissary to execute the killing, and one's sex changes to a nun, one also incurs the root offence. If two sexes arise, one incurs the former gross offence. If one falls back to being a śrāmaṇera, it is likewise a gross offence. The training rules below should be understood according to the matter and will not be troublesome to restate here.

If one sees a sentient being carried away by water, burned by fire, or oppressed by thirst, and does not reach out a hand or give water, seeing that he is about to die while having the capacity to save him, or though not desiring his death, adopts a mind of equanimity and does not save him, if that person passes away, one incurs a duṣkṛta offence in all such cases. If a person is harmed by another, and due to this circumstance his death is certain, yet while some remaining life still lingers one kills him, one incurs a gross offence; if his death was not certain, one incurs a defeat offence. If a pressing danger comes and one flees with one's body, and without compassion shoves and collides with the person in front without any mind to kill him, and the person in front dies, one incurs a gross offence; if he does not die, a duṣkṛta; if one had a mind to kill, one incurs the root offence. Having gone forth out of reverence for the Dharma to preserve life and seek liberation, if one commits suicide oneself, one incurs a [sthū]la offence. If originally having no mind to kill, with the intention of beating a wall or the like, by this expedient one mistakenly kills a person; or if one moves a sick person not in accordance with his words; or if while treating an illness he passes away as a result: in all these cases there is no offence. If toward a sick person one has no mind to kill, yet what one says causes him to delight in death; or if one places a knife or a rope beside a sick person without careful consideration, or places poison, one incurs a duṣkṛta in all such cases.

One who lacks wisdom must not be allowed to attend to the sick. If there is an urgent matter that makes it necessary [for such a person] to nurse, they should be well instructed and made extremely attentive. If a patient says, "Do not help me up," and one forcibly helps them up, if they die, one incurs a sthūlātyaya. With respect to other bodily postures, one should understand in a similar manner; helping to carry a sick person when traveling on the road should be understood according to this. If one tells a sick person, "First wash, and only then get up," and because of this they pass away, although there is no offense, one still ought not to do so. If there is a severely ill person and they are carried together with others, and they die as a result, there is no offense, but one should also not hastily carry them away. If the nurse becomes weary and tired in mind, or conceives ill intent looking to obtain the patient's wealth, or utters angry words: "Die as you please, I cannot look after you!" and the patient dies as a result, [in all such cases] one incurs a grave offense. If suitable food is available but one gives unsuitable food, the nurse also incurs a grave offense; if no alternative can be obtained, there is no offense. Squeezing an unripened boil so that [the patient] dies incurs a grave offense; if it is ripe, there is no offense. Lancing it open with a knife or needle is not a fault, but one who is not previously skilled in medicine should not perform needle punctures. If one uses a knife to puncture when treating oral diseases, one incurs a sthūlātyaya; if no physician can be found and one punctures it, there is no offense. A person suffering from hemorrhoids should not be cut or excised; one should remove them through the expedient of medicine and mantras. Whenever treating illness, one should consult a physician. If there is no physician, one should ask a bhikṣu who understands medicine. If there is also none such, one should ask someone who has suffered the illness before. If there is no one who has suffered the illness, one should ask the senior elders. Prescribing medicine hastily incurs an offense of transgression. If one who understands medicine is asked by another, they should give rise to compassion and bestow prescriptions and medicines; if there is no desire for gain, there is no offense; if it is done for gain, that is inappropriate. If one sees a wound, one should bandage it in a secluded place so as not to cause laypeople to see it and ridicule the medical art. Having administered a purgative medicine to another, one should not abandon them and leave; if one properly instructs them on what is suitable, leaving is also not an offense. Seeing another bhikṣu sick and on the verge of death, if one no longer cares for one's own robes and bowl, [thinking,] "If he dies, I ought to obtain all his robes and property"—this is the mind of a caṇḍāla, and one incurs an offense of transgression. Furthermore, one must not administer medicine to another with homicidal intent; one should arouse good intentions, wishing to cure their illness. If one sees another administering medicine intending to cause an abortion and does not stop it, one incurs an offense of transgression. When a bhikṣu walks with his head lowered and bumps into and kills someone ahead without intention, it is not an offense. One should not walk looking down; if one does so with malicious intent, one incurs a grave offense; if with homicidal intent, one incurs a principal offense. When a bhikṣu on the road is afflicted with illness and suffering, he should not be pushed to walk, but must rest frequently. One should carry his requisites on his behalf, and one may go only after estimating that they can arrive by mealtime. If one fears it will be late, one should go ahead on one's own, arrive at that monastery, wash the bowl, set out the seat, and then request food to await the sick person; or one may carry food along the road to meet them. If one does not do so, one incurs a duṣkṛta. In general, do not give vinegar to an injured person. If one sees someone choking on food and, out of compassion, pounds [their back] and they die as a result, there is no offense. When pounding, one should be mindful. One should ask the sick person, "Where can the medicine be sought?" and one should seek it as instructed to provide for them.

During construction work, if a bhikṣu throws a brick and injures another bhikṣu's head causing death, there is no offense. Whenever transporting bricks and the like, pass them hand to hand; one should not throw them from afar causing them to break. If any are cracked, inform the other before handing them over. When climbing a ladder and working up high, the lower robe should be tied up so as not to expose the body; at other times the lower robe need not be tied. Whenever engaging in construction, bhikṣus should assist one another at one time, and should not work the whole day. In spring, they should work before noon; in winter months, they should work in the afternoon. One should observe the time in advance and cease work, so that those who beg for food may wash their hands and feet and return to and from villages without missing the mealtime. If there is regular monastic food and no need to beg, the steward should use other provisions to prepare fine food and drink to supply the laborers; the meals provided are called 'gratifying food'. If the saṅgha is poor, they should urge others to provide offerings according to the time: whether light refreshments, unseasonable drinks, or oil to rub on hands and feet. If they do not do so, the steward incurs a duṣkṛta. If a bhikṣu lifts a heavy load and drops it when his strength is exhausted, thereby striking and killing a craftsman, although this is no offense, one should not lift a heavy load by oneself. If it must be moved, intersperse laypeople among them; lift together at the same time and put it down at the same time. If one drops it without looking out for one another, one incurs an offense. What one ordinary person carries on a shoulder-pole requires two bhikṣus; if it exceeds this, they should not carry or lift it. Bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs should not carry items on their heads or shoulders; if they carry them, they incur a duṣkṛta. If thieves come, one should show alarm, display a shouting demeanor, and throw jugs, pestles, clubs, and the like from afar, either to the side of their bodies or behind them, without arousing homicidal intent that causes injury. Whenever discarding items, tell others to stay far away; if an item strikes someone, although this is no offense, discarding it without warning incurs a duṣkṛta. If fleeing in fright from an ox and one bumps into a child who dies as a result, since it was unintentional, there is no offense. When avoiding an ox, one should be careful in mind. If one binds a person with ropes or reports to the authorities to have their hands and feet cut off, in both cases one incurs a sthūlātyaya. If one calls someone to stay together in a place where there are tigers and wolves, and they are injured and killed as a result, there is no offense. However, one should examine the dwelling place carefully. When a bhikṣu struck his own male organ, the Buddha said: "It is reasonable to strike this; to conversely strike anything else—such a person lacks wisdom and incurs a duṣkṛta." When the venerable Udāyin went to a layperson's house and threw his body down to sit, without carefully looking, he crushed their child to death. Whenever one sits without looking, one incurs a duṣkṛta.

The fourth training rule: Falsely claiming to have attained the dharmas of a superhuman being.

The Buddha was in Vaiśālī by the bank of the Vaggumudā River. At that time, for the sake of food and drink, the bhikṣus praised one another in front of their kin as having attained the dharmas of a superhuman being. Wishing to make the assembly understand that this involved matters of seeking gain and the defilement of seeking gain, he instituted this training rule:

"Whatever bhikṣu, truly without knowing and without fully knowing, knowing of himself that he has not attained the dharmas of a superhuman being—the calm and quiet, noble ones' superior realization, knowledge and vision, and blissful dwelling—should say: 'I know, I see'; and at a later time, whether questioned or unquestioned, wishing to purify himself, speaks thus: 'Venerable sirs! Truly I did not know and did not see, yet I said I knew and I saw. It was empty, deceptive, and false speech'—except for [one with] undue conceit, this bhikṣu also incurs a pārājika and should not dwell together with [the saṅgha]."

"Without knowing" means: regarding the knowable objects, one does not understand impermanence and so forth, nor that they are to be reviled. "Without fully knowing" means: regarding the preceding objects possessing impermanence and so forth, one does not fully investigate them according to how they actually are; regarding what exists and does not exist, one cannot truly know, falsely producing wrong understanding and expounding non-dharma. Furthermore, "without knowing" means: having never known the dharmas of a superhuman being. "Without fully knowing" means: being unable to fully comprehend the dharmas of the five aggregates. "Knowing of himself that he has not attained" means: knowing regarding one's own person that one has not realized it. "Dharmas of a superhuman being" are the dharmas of the superior stream, meaning that when looked at in relation to the dharmas of all ordinary fools, such as the five hindrances, and base and evil matters, these are superior. "Calm and quiet" means most wonderful. "Noble ones" refers to those who are able to keep far away from sinful and evil dharmas. "Superior realization" refers to that which cannot be obtained through physical strength or cleverness. Another explanation says: "'Calm and quiet' refers to nirvāṇa, because it is free from all defilements. 'Superior realization' refers to the noble ones of the four fruits. 'Knowledge and vision' are respectively paired with the acceptance of the dharma of suffering and the knowledge of the dharma of suffering." Yet another explanation says: "'Knowledge' means comprehending suffering, impermanence, and so forth; 'vision' means seeing devas, nāgas, and so forth." "Blissful dwelling" refers to being able to dwell peacefully in all the virtues within the stages of meditative absorption. And saying, "I know," means knowing the truth of the principles and so forth. "I see" means seeing the devas and so forth. If one previously committed the offense of false speech, even if one does not state it oneself, how could one not incur an offense of defeat? Why is it necessary to speak these words such as "at a later time"? As long as one violates the precept, even if one does not state it oneself, one has already incurred the root offense. Others can only give rise to suspicion regarding him, but have not yet been able to carry out the act of non-cohabitation. Therefore, it requires the words "at a later time" and so forth for non-cohabitation to be established. "Whether questioned" means one speaks only when asked by another. "Whether unquestioned" means speaking without being questioned. In principle, there is no difference between the above three boundary offenses [and this one]; why is it only in the case of falsehood that [the phrase] "questioned and so forth" is stated? From the perspective of the former three, this matter is also present; but because of the origin story, it is stated only here. "Empty" reveals that what is stated has no real substance. "Deceptive" means that the initial intention was to seek food and drink, not for the sake of superior matters that one uttered this false speech. "False speech" means that one first had a deceptive mind and only then delivered what was spoken.

Regarding offences herein: If a bhikṣu says, 'I see devas, nāgas, yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, pretas, piśācas, kumbhāṇḍas, and kaṭapūtanas; I have approached them, or heard their voices, or they have come approaching me and spoken with me,' and, with the thought of deceiving, declares this to the other person, then if the other person understands, he incurs a pārājika. If he says that he together with a pāṃśupiśāca ghost performed the supreme deed, he incurs a sthūlātyaya offence. If he says, 'I have attained the twenty kinds of perceptions—namely, the perception of impermanence, the perception of suffering in what is impermanent, the perception of emptiness in what is suffering, the perception of non-self in what is empty, the perception of revulsion toward food, the perception of unloveliness toward all the world, the perception of peril, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion, the perception of cessation, the perception of death, the perception of the foul, the perception of the bluish, the perception of swelling, the perception of festering, the perception of being devoured by worms, the perception of blood-stained, the perception of scattering, the perception of white bones, and the perception of emptiness'—as he speaks of each one, he incurs the root offence. Or if he says, 'I have attained the four dhyānas, the four formless attainments, the four immeasurables, and the six supernatural knowledges; moreover, an āraṇya bhikṣu whom non-humans do not trouble is a noble person, and as I abide there I am also not troubled; furthermore, in that dwelling, if it is a noble person who sits upon the supreme seat, I also receive his supreme seat'—all such [claims] incur a pārājika. If he says, 'When I am right-minded, I attain the self-nature of dharmas and suppress the defilements,' he incurs a grave offence. If he says, 'Regarding the three fruits, before attaining them I regressed, or having attained them I regressed'; or uses cryptic words: 'I am a śaikṣa, because I train in the Vinaya; I am an aśaikṣa, because I have learned the Tripiṭaka; I have attained nothingness, because I have no extra robes or bowl; I am in my final birth, spoken in reference to previous births; I am a stream-enterer, because I entered the river waters; I have obtained fruit, meaning I obtained the fruit of reciting, or obtained an āmra fruit; I am free from the five fears, because I have no past fears; I have cut off the defilements, because I have no past afflictions; what the Buddha's assembly of disciples ought to attain, I have attained—meaning the scriptures and teachings, and being able to cultivate the sense faculties well; I am the Great Teacher, because I explain the Dharma; I am a Buddha, because I am well awakened to bad matters; I am a śrāvaka disciple of Vipaśyin Buddha, because I take complete refuge in the Buddhas'—if he speaks such words with deceitful intent, covertly uttering cryptic statements, all incur sthūlātyaya offences. If he has no other intention and speaks according to the words, saying of himself, 'I have attained the superior human states,' then he incurs the root offence in every case. Or if he says, 'I have attained stream-entry, but not that fruit [of the noble ones]'; or if he says, 'Those in a certain household are all noble ones; I was in that household, yet I am not a noble one; however, all noble ones are given robes, and I too received robes, yet I am not of their kind; others say that I have attained the fruit of stream-entry, but I have not truly attained it; they speak of other fruits, etc.'—by analogy with these, it should be understood: 'Today I have not attained worldly absorption, nor have I attained the sublime absorption beyond this; in a certain place I attained the first dhyāna, yet it is truly not concordant with the factors of awakening.' If he writes his own name, saying, 'Attained the fruit of the path,' and then tells another, 'The person who wrote this says that I have attained the noble fruit'—all such incur sthūlātyaya offences. Furthermore, for a bhikṣu, as stated before, it constitutes a pārājika. Regarding all actions skillfully deployed to display oneself as possessing superior virtues, saying that a bhikṣu had such matters as attaining the fruits, seeing devas, or obtaining superior absorptions, yet not saying of himself, 'I am that one'—speaking such words is also an unrefined offence, constituting a sthūlātyaya matter, and all are said to be duṣkṛta. If the other person does not understand the words, the gravity is determined in accordance with this. If, when told, 'If you are a noble person, you should take this seat,' he remains silent and accepts the invitation; or if another asks, 'Are you, Venerable Sir, a brāhmaṇa?' and he replies, 'I am, because I am able to eliminate all offences,' or 'because I guard the six faculties well'; or if told, 'If you are an arhat, you should take this food and eat,' and he silently accepts it—all are sthūlātyaya offences; departing, coming, and so forth should be explained in accordance with this. There is also an explanation stating: 'If the matter declared is manifested through physical expression, remaining silent when questioned incurs a defeat.' When directed toward a human being with the thought that it is a human being, or when in doubt, then when the other person understands, he incurs the root offence. When spoken to a non-human with the thought or doubt that it is a human, he incurs a sthūlātyaya offence. When no one is present but he thinks someone is present, or when he has entered absorption, or when the other is asleep, or when directed toward one who has no understanding, or when spoken hastily without the other understanding—all incur sthūlātyaya offences. Regarding cases of non-offence: for instance, when the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana prophesied the victory in the battle of Vaiśālī, prophesied heavenly rain and the birth of a boy, or heard the sound of the king of elephants while in the attainment of nothingness, and so forth—none of these constitute an offence.

Why are the first three defeats spoken in reverse order, with sexual misconduct first and killing afterwards, unlike other places where killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying are the order? This is explained according to the chronological sequence of the circumstances of the offences. Moreover, it is ordered because the earlier brings about the later: through unchaste conduct one comes to commit theft, having committed theft one murders an enemy, and having murdered, when questioned, one tells a lie. Furthermore, the defilement that is strongest is proscribed first. What are the characteristics of these four defeats? They are lack of revulsion, non-forbearance, and non-realization. The lack of revulsion is strongest, so it is established as the first two: first, toward sexual desire; second, toward material wealth. Because of non-forbearance, one commits killing; because of non-realization, one speaks falsely.

'Venerables! I have recited the four pārājika dharmas. If a bhikṣu commits any one of these matters, he may not dwell together with the bhikṣus. As before, so afterwards: he has incurred a defeat and should not dwell together.'

Regarding 'Venerables, etc.': it is intended to clarify that for the four pārājika dharmas, if one commits any single one, he is not permitted to dwell together. Question: 'Previously he was a layperson and had no share of being a bhikṣu; when he violates the precepts afterwards, is his status different from that of the former layperson?' Answer: 'Just as previously as a layperson he was not a bhikṣu, when he violates the precepts afterwards he is no different from before; therefore it is said, "As before, so afterwards." It is not said in reference to before and after among the four defeats.' The concluding text should be understood in accordance with the above regarding the incurring of offences.

Second division: The thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa dharmas, part one

The summary verse says:

Emission, touching, vulgar speech, offerings, matchmaking, a small hut, a large monastery, defaming; / baseless accusation, schism of the saṅgha, following [the schismatic], corrupting [families], and arrogant words.

First training rule: Intentional emission of semen

The Buddha was in Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikṣu Udāyin, with a defiled mind, personally agitated his organ and emitted semen. Based on this sexual matter and sexual defilement, this training rule was instituted.

'If a bhikṣu with intentional mind emits semen, except in a dream, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa.'

The four precepts below are also identical to this. In this first training rule, there is no object of a woman; although there is no such object, he experiences pleasure. The next two training rules refer to preliminary actions done by body or speech. The fourth feigns an alternate path in pursuit of sensual pleasure. The fifth performs preliminary actions for another's sexual act. There are five kinds of semen: that of a wheel-turning king and an anointed crown prince is blue; that of other sons is yellow; that of the ministers of a wheel-turning king is red; that of one whose organ is fully developed is thick; that of one whose organ is not yet developed is thin. This is stated based on original nature. If injured by a woman, or damaged by other conditions, these five kinds of semen may be present in a single person. Regarding 'except in a dream': it means that except for in a dream, in all other cases an offence is incurred. Although in a dream there is sentient consciousness, there is no clearly defined real object to be sought; therefore, an offence is not elucidated on this basis. Even if in the waking state he has the intention to emit, when it emits in a dream it is also not the root offence. Regarding 'saṃghāvaśeṣa': first, because the matter depends on the saṅgha; second, because its nature has a remainder and requires the saṅgha to be cleared, indicating it is not the foremost grave [offence]. Saṅgha is the assembly; avaśeṣa is instruction: by submitting to the instruction of the saṅgha, the offence is cleared away. Furthermore, the first four precepts in essence have no remainder, while these have a remainder because they can be remedied.

Regarding offences herein: If a bhikṣu, for pleasure, or for medicine, etc., or wishing to test his strength, intentionally causes semen to flow from his own internal body or an external sentient being, he incurs the offence requiring the instruction of the saṅgha. Other texts state that even if it is on an external object that is not a sentient being, intentionally emitting semen also violates the instruction of the saṅgha. If he undertakes the preparatory effort, either grasping or squeezing, with the thought of experiencing pleasure and wishing to emit semen, if it emits, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if it does not emit, he incurs a sthūlātyaya. If the waking state provides the preparatory effort and the emission occurs in a dream, or conversely, if in [waking] he forms the intention and experiences pleasure; or if he first initiates the preparatory effort and afterwards desists; or if he initiates the preparatory effort and when the semen is about to stir he immediately gathers mindfulness—all incur an unrefined offence. 'About to stir' means the semen has not left its original place, but immediately following this the impurity is about to flow, and though the semen has not flowed, there is already an altered state. Or if it is emitted within the body, it means the semen has already moved and left its original place. Or if he intentionally dances or frolics, or shakes his body in the air, or by beating and pounding, or through massaging, or rubs an itch with medicine, or moves his organ against the flow, or rubs against a felt mattress, or a stone, wood, jar, etc., or intentionally emits semen against a lump of flesh—all are sthūlātyaya offences; if it does not emit, all incur duṣkṛta. If he emits it upon the head, neck, ears, nose, or other parts of the body, or upon a bluish, swollen, or festering place, all are the root offence. To what extent is it called 'emitting semen'? It means flowing out from within the body. If he grasps another's organ and intentionally causes semen to be emitted, or if he measures his own organ, or grasps and squeezes it with his hand, rubbing it for pleasure to cause an erection—all incur sthūlātyaya offences. If with a defiled mind he looks at his own organ, he incurs a duṣkṛta offence. Regarding cases of non-offence: when scratching a scabies itch, it subsequently emits; or if jumping across a ditch, running swiftly, rubbing the thighs, touching clothes, recollecting past experiences, seeing a pleasing object, receiving rubbing and massage upon entering a bathhouse, or hurriedly touching a woman's body, strong and vehement defilements arise and it immediately emits, as with the bhikṣu Nanda, or when mother and son meet and inadvertently embrace each other—in all such cases there is no offence. If one has excessive desire, he is permitted to keep a leather pouch made of sheep or deer skin, tanned until soft, filled with sand, etc., and fastened to the waist with a strap; he should not wear it into the assembly, into the fragrance terrace, or into a caityavandana; he should wash it clean and dry it in the sun so that it does not rot and stink. If it becomes worn out, he should store another in a secluded place for use.

Second training rule: Touching a woman

The Buddha was in Śrāvastī. At that time, a woman came to the bhikṣu Udāyin to view the rooms together. Because of preaching the Dharma to her, a defiled mind arose, and he touched her body to derive pleasure as he wished, the disturbance of the matter being identical to the previous. [The Buddha] instituted this training rule.

'If a bhikṣu, with a mind entangled in defilement, engages in physical contact with a woman's body, whether seizing her hand, seizing her arm, seizing her hair, or touching any part of her body with the thought of experiencing pleasure, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa.'

"With a mind entangled by lust": one may have a lustful mind without it being entangled, which should be formed into four permutations. The first permutation is where lustful attachment arises in the mind; the second permutation is where a mind bound by affection arises toward the object before one; the third permutation is where both occur; the fourth permutation is where neither occurs. "A woman" means one capable of sexual union whose bodily parts are free from injury. "Hand" means before the wrist. "Arm" means behind the wrist. "Hair" means head hair and cloth bound to the hair. As for the offence herein: when with a prior lustful mind one approaches a woman capable of sexual intercourse, and without clothing intervening between each bodily part, an offence is incurred in all nine acts: touching, repeated touching, leaning against, grasping, pulling, dragging, raising up, pressing down, and clasping all over. "Touching" means initially making contact with the hand. "Repeated touching" means rubbing and touching frequently. "Leaning against" means resting the body against hers. "Grasping" means seizing and holding with the hand. "Pulling" means drawing her from afar. "Dragging" means hauling her close by. "Raising up" means lifting upward from below. "Pressing down" means pushing downward from above. "Clasping all over" means embracing tightly in full. If a bhikṣu, regarding a woman, performs these nine acts with a mind that experiences pleasure, in all cases he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa. If he intends to engage in impure conduct, even if touching her body without clothing intervening, he incurs a sthūlātyaya offence. If one body is decayed, if both are decayed, if the body has much scabies and eczema, if wishing to touch this one he mistakenly touches that one, if he touches hair, body hair, nails, or teeth with hair, body hair, nails, or teeth or touches dry, parched bones, if doubt arises as to whether it is this or that, if he touches a bhikṣuṇī who has entered the cessation attainment, or if he touches a blue-black corpse up to a skeleton—all incur a sthūlātyaya offence. If a bhikṣu with a lustful mind touches a woman, and she transforms into a man, or he himself transforms, or both transform, he incurs offences such as sthūlātyaya, or a pārājika offence. If a bhikṣu touches a man and he transforms into a woman, he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa offence; if he himself transforms or both transform, the offences incurred are as above. As to whether perception transforms or does not transform, and a nun touching a woman or a man, the gravity of the offences is expounded at length according to the circumstances. Thus one should know that toward an incapable young girl, an adult man, or a paṇḍaka, when there is no intervening object, all incur a sthūlātyaya offence. If there is an intervening object, and likewise toward animals, in all cases a duṣkṛta is incurred. Touching a human woman with the perception of a human woman, or with doubt, with a lustful mind, in all cases incurs the root offence. Toward a non-human female with the perception or doubt of a human woman: a sthūlātyaya. Toward a human woman with the perception of a non-human female: a duṣkṛta offence. In the case of a person with both characteristics, if the female is dominant, he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if otherwise, he incurs only a gross offence. When touching the body of his mother, daughter, or sister with a mind that experiences pleasure, he also incurs a gross offence, because the perception of pleasure does not arise toward an object evoking shame; if there is no shame, he incurs the root offence. If one kicks the female genital organ with a toe, or strikes it with earth or a potsherd, each incurs a sthūlātyaya. In general, bhikṣus should not paint the forms of women or other sentient beings; all are duṣkṛta offences. As for those without offence: if depicting white bones, if drawing skulls, if decorating the ground with fragrant mud with various floral patterns, if touching mother, daughter, sister, and the like without a lustful mind, if conceiving toward others the perception of a mother and so forth, if when touching the mind is as if touching the earth, or if with good intentions one wishes to inspect the heat, coldness, hardness, or softness of a woman's body.

If a woman falls into fire, is seen taking poison, holding a blade to harm herself, falling into a pit, or being carried away by water, one should in all cases rescue her. The procedure for rescuing the drowning will now be explained: If one sees a woman being carried away and drowning in water, one who is capable should rescue her; without giving rise to lustful thoughts, conceiving the perception of a mother or daughter, he should pull her out. If the drowning person cannot move, she should be placed face down on the sand, but must be watched over and not abandoned. A bhikṣu should not dwell too close to her; when he must leave due to circumstances, he should have another watch over her. One devoted to recitation should recite sūtras; one practicing meditation should restrain his thoughts; or he may entrust a cowherd to watch over her before he goes for alms. Having eaten, he may return to examine whether she is dead or alive; the matter must be closely checked. There are five kinds of animals one may rely upon to cross a river: elephants, horses, oxen, water buffaloes, and yaks. One must not rely upon female animals to cross. If one carries a float-bag to serve as an aid for crossing, the bag must be dyed and treated; it should not be painted with colors. If a mother comes to embrace him, if a girl sits in his lap, if he suddenly falls to the ground upon a woman, or if he brushes a woman's shoulder at a narrow street opening, in all these cases there is no offence. When entering to beg for alms, one must be cautious: if a woman has lustful intentions and, when begging for water to drink, drinks water with her hands pressed close to her mouth, the bhikṣu must not pour water continuously, but should have her cup her hands to drink and wait until it is finished before pouring again; if otherwise, he incurs a duṣkṛta. If the woman has no lustful mind and he pours continuously, there is no offence.

Third Training Rule on Speaking Lewd Words

The Buddha was in Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikṣu Udāyin saw women coming into the monastery to look around, and addressed lewd words to them, teasing them with a lustful mind. He thereby brought upon himself ridicule and disgust. The circumstance of distress was the same as before. The Bhagavān instituted this training rule:

"Whatever bhikṣu, with a mind entangled by lust, speaks lewd and improper words to a woman, words connected with sexual desire like a husband and wife: it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa."

The meaning of "entangled by lust" is as above.

"A woman" means a human female who understands good and bad speech. Here, it is explained through fault, common characteristic, individual characteristic, and simile. "Fault" means that speaking lewd words is defiled in both essence and cause, being base and filthy at present and leading to rebirth in evil destinies in the future. "Common characteristic" means that improper speech violates proper rules of conduct and is rejected by superior persons, being universally recognized as non-Dharma. "Individual characteristic" means words connected with sexual desire. "Simile" means like a husband and wife. As for the offence herein, there are nine kinds of speech that all incur the root offence: If a bhikṣu with a lustful mind, toward a human woman who understands, speaks praisingly, speaks insultingly, directly begs, begs by pretext, directly inquires, obliquely inquires, cites a precedent, offers praise, or scolds in anger—in these nine matters, if combined with lewd words, he commits a saṅghāvaśeṣa. If she does not hear, or hears but does not understand, or if there are no lewd words, he incurs a sthūlātyaya offence. Likewise, if a human woman comes to a bhikṣu and speaks of these nine matters, and he receives them with a lustful mind and answers according to her words, speaking improperly together, he also incurs the root offence. "Speaking praisingly" means: 'Your three sores are truly delightful.' "Speaking insultingly" means: 'Your three sores are not good things.' "Directly begging" means: 'Come and engage in such-and-such an act with me.' "Begging by pretext" means revealing affection: 'I shall give rise to immense affection for you.' "Directly inquiring" means: 'If a woman does such an act, she will surely be cherished by men; you too may now do such an act, and I will cherish you.' "Obliquely inquiring" means: 'If a woman does such an act, she is loved by men; could you now do such a thing?' Because he asks indirectly, it is called obliquely inquiring. "Citing a precedent" means: 'A certain woman previously engaged in such an act with me; you too should do it with me now.' "Offering praise" means: 'Sister, if you can do such an act with me, you will bring about heavenly bliss.' "Scolds in anger" means speaking lewd words by way of cursing; that is, when explicitly speaking lewd words of sexual union, each incurs the root offence. If there are other spoken words that involve sexual intercourse, they also incur the root offence. If one speaks lewd words on behalf of another, whether sending an envoy, transmitting a message, written on an impression, by hand gesture, or saying: 'Your organ is mutilated and a sinful, evil thing; you may unite with me and lie with me; what you love can be shared'—yet this is not spoken combined with the lewd word *yabha*; or if toward a nun who has entered the cessation attainment; or if one tells her: 'Sister, grant me *yabhitvā*,' and the woman understands the meaning; or seeing a bhikṣuṇī wearing fine clothes, one speaks thus: 'Sister, you wear lustful attire, seeking a man'; or if one says: 'Young woman, if you cannot endure sexual desire, why do you not insert a burning brand into your organ?'; or if one says: 'You may do such an act with an animal; you may give me the thing below your waist; you should bestow upon me what you love,' and the woman understands the meaning, replying: 'I can arrange it now'; or if one says: 'Give me water,' the woman says: 'There is no water,' and the bhikṣu replies: 'You are water'; up to: 'Give me a cake,' 'You are the cake'—yet the woman understands the meaning; or if the woman asks: 'Why are you unhappy?' and he replies: 'Because I desire to have you'—if a person is naturally inclined to speak lewd words, or if toward an adult man or an adult ṣaṇḍha, where there is no woman, he conceives the perception of a woman and speaks lewd words, all these incur a sthūlātyaya offence. Toward a young boy, a young ṣaṇḍha, or an animal, or where there actually is a woman but he conceives the perception of no woman, he incurs a duṣkṛta offence. If his mind makes no distinction, whenever a woman is present, he incurs the root offence. If he has a limited intention, thinking not to speak to that one but speaking to this one, if that one is present he incurs a sthūlātyaya. When they are truly lewd words but he perceives them as not lewd, there is no offence. Lewd words with the perception or doubt of lewd words, and toward a human woman with the perception or doubt of a human woman: a saṅghāvaśeṣa. Toward a non-human with the perception or doubt of a human: a sthūlātyaya. Toward a human with the perception of a non-human: a duṣkṛta offence. It is said elsewhere: If a woman speaks lewd words and he accepts them with speech, enjoying the matter in his heart, even if he does not speak lewd words himself, he also incurs the root offence. If when saying *yabhitvā* his intention meant chaff and barley, even if he utters the word *yabha* and other lewd words, if according to local custom these words are not taboo, there is no offence in speaking them.