四分比丘戒本疏 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Dingbin of the Zhengguo Monastery on Mount Song

Hereafter is the fourth major section, the thirty niḥsargika-prāyaścittika rules. The text is also divided into three parts, as should be understood from what precedes. "Niḥsargika" is translated here as "complete relinquishment." "Prāyaścittika" is translated here as "fall." It means that committing this offence drags one to fall into the three evil destinies; this is termed "fall" based on the general name. If one commits this fall, one must first relinquish the property and afterwards repent of the offence of falling; hence it is called "relinquishment and fall." However, among the thirty precepts, if finely divided, there are thirty-two precepts: namely, the rainy-season bathing robe combines two precepts in its enactment—the two being, first, soliciting beforehand, and second, using it beforehand. Furthermore, the robe offered in haste also combines two precepts in its enactment: first, receiving it beforehand, and second, keeping it afterwards. Together with the remaining twenty-eight precepts, they make thirty-two. Now, when committing these thirty-two precepts, there are broadly four stages: first, relinquishing the property to someone; second, completing repentance of the offence; third, returning that property; and fourth, incurring an offence if it is not returned. In between, there are minor discrepancies according to the precepts, which will be understood when reaching the text. The present name of "relinquishment and fall" is established with reference to the first two stages. Now, inquiring into the enactment of relinquishment: keeping [the article] is illegitimate, and using it gives rise to greed; therefore relinquishment was enacted. Illegitimacy in receiving and keeping has roughly six categories: 1. Illegitimacy through insatiability after acquisition (such as keeping the five kinds of extra items); 2. Illegitimacy through transgressing the teaching by lacking the necessary requisites (such as the two [rules on] being separated from one's robes); 3. Illegitimacy through inviting criticism and incurring ugliness (such as taking robes from a bhikṣuṇī, having her wash robes, carrying wool, or picking wool); 4. Illegitimacy through cherishing and doting on garments (such as soliciting robes from one householder, or asking two householders to increase the price of the weaving); 5. Illegitimacy through disturbing others (demanding robes in excess or taking robes away); 6. Illegitimacy through greedy hoarding that obstructs others (exceeding contentment, trading in the five kinds of spreads or the two kinds of precious things, begging for bowls or thread, or exceeding the proper time for rainy-season robes, robes offered in haste, or [misdirecting offerings] intended for the Saṃgha). According to the *Yogācārabhūmi*, carrying wool on a long journey triggers illness; here it is temporarily subsumed under inviting criticism. When property has these six faults it cannot be used again; since using it involves a mind of greed, relinquishment must be enacted.

2.3

Question: Property under the simple prāyaścittikas also falls into these six faults and is still used with a mind of greed; why is relinquishment not enacted for it? Answer: Regarding the property in the thirty [rules]: first, it can be stored for a long time; second, it is essential for sustaining the body. Once it falls into the six faults, it mostly causes greedy use; therefore, relinquishment must be enacted to remedy the mind of greed. Regarding the property under the simple prāyaścittikas: first, it cannot be stored for a long time, such as separate meals and the like; second, it is not critical for sustaining the body, such as white-colored robes and the like. Therefore, though falling into the six faults, it mostly gives rise to other afflictions and does not mostly give rise to greed; since it does not remedy greed, why would relinquishment need to be enacted? Take, for instance, taking food exceeding three bowls: having already eaten one's fill and then taking more than three bowls, one cannot eat more on that very day, which means it does not give rise to greed. If one wishes to keep it, it cannot last long. This is harming and annoying the donor out of delusion; there is no greed to remedy, so why should relinquishment be enacted? The rules on separate meals and the like are intended to prevent distressing the assembly of monks, and all are explained according to this principle. As for high beds, white robes, and the like, they are kept out of ignorance of the teaching; using them mostly gives rise to delusion and negligence; since it does not remedy greed, why would they need to be relinquished?

2.4

Question: A torn-up quilted mat should be similar to a needle case; why does it fall under relinquishment? Answer: A needle case is a small object; its pursuit brings distraction; there is no greed to be remedied, so it does not fall under relinquishment.

2.5

Question: Exchanging fresh ginger for food cannot be stored for a long time; why does it fall under relinquishment? Answer: In the precept against trading, it is not restricted to trading for food; therefore, it follows the other items and falls under relinquishment.

2.6

Question: Over-roofing beyond three layers should give rise to greed in its use; why does it not fall under relinquishment? Answer: A room is a distant condition, not an urgent essential for sustenance; the sense of greed is also minor. If there are other objections, they should be resolved according to this.

2.7

The above questions and answers are exhaustive in principle. According to this, all the property items under the thirty [rules] have: first, the fault at the time of the transgression, as falling into the six faults; second, the fault after the transgression, as a duṣkṛta for using them. All the property items under the ninety [prāyaścittikas] have only the prāyaścittika at the time of the transgression, and not the fault after the transgression. Among the five kinds of extra items in the aforementioned six illegitimate methods, not only is their greedy use a fault after the transgression, but insatiability is also the original underlying fault. Therefore, when relinquishing them, according to traditional transmission, an overnight period must pass before they can be returned, so as to cut off the insatiable mind of seeking and keeping. Thus, the text of the *Dharmaguptaka* states that when relinquishing an extra robe, once the repentance is complete, if this monk has some business and wishes to travel far, one should ask: "To whom do you give this robe?" It should be given according to what he says (meaning that it cannot be returned directly on the very seat, so it is transferred to his intimate friend monk, and the intimate friend monk returns it only after passing the night). Examining this now, according to the *Sarvāstivāda-śāstra*, even if an overnight period passes, if the mind of greed is not cut off, it still cannot be returned. Thus, the fourth fascicle of that treatise states: "If one relinquishes a robe on the same day and repents of the fault on the same day, but the mind seeking robes is not cut off, then up to one month, whether the sought robe arrives or an unexpected robe arrives, all are in continuation (meaning that the mind of keeping is continued in succession) with this robe; therefore, with respect to the former robe, one incurs a relinquishment and fall." Examining that treatise further, not only must an overnight period pass, but the mind must also be cut off. Thus, its text states: "If today one has relinquished the robe and repented of the fault, and on that very day the mind is cut off, and on a later day a circumstance of seeking robes arises again, it does not fall into continuation, because the mind was cut off in the interval." The *Commentary* says: "Since this is so for extra robes, the other rules on extra items naturally follow the same principle." Except for the five kinds of extra items, when the remaining precepts are relinquished and repented, [the items] may all be returned to the original owner on the very seat. If one relinquishes an extra robe together with the five extra items, since it cannot be returned today, if one were to immediately return the robe taken from a bhikṣuṇī or the like, at the time it comes into hand it would be contaminated by that extra robe, causing an offence of keeping an extra item; therefore, following this, all are returned only after passing the night. If the rite can easily be performed, they should be relinquished at different times. The Vinaya text does not speak of robes contaminating medicine or bowls; even if a bhikṣuṇī robe and a bowl are relinquished together, the robe can be returned immediately without being contaminated by the bowl. One should reflect on this accordingly.

2.8

First, explaining the precept on committing the offence of an extra robe. The text has four phrases: first, permitting the transgressing person; second, setting aside the exceptions, meaning the exceptions where no offence is committed. Where the text says "when the robes are completed": carefully examining the intention of the Vinaya, after the previous rains retreat ends, during the one month of Kārttika or when one has received the kaṭhina robe, there is an exemption of five months to make robes without needing vikalpana, and one does not commit the offence of extra robes. Beyond this one month or five months, it means that the exemption for making robes has ended; hence it says "when the robes are completed." Therefore, in the origin story of the precept on separate meals, it says: "After the monks performed the pavāraṇā, they made robes in the month of Kārttika. Thereupon, because of this, the Buddha allowed separate meals during the month of making robes." Furthermore, according to the precept on separate meals, the text explaining its characteristics states: "'The time of making robes' means after pavāraṇā: one month when there is no kaṭhina robe, and five months when there is a kaṭhina robe, down to making a horse-tooth seam on the robe." Clearly, we know that this also generally takes the five months of exemption for making robes. Beyond this one month or five months, all are termed "the robes are completed." Therefore, the text explaining the characteristics of the extra robe precept states: "'The robes are completed' refers to the three robes." The *Commentary* says: "It means having completed the making of the three robes."

2.9

Question: During the one month or five months, extra robes are also made; why [refer] exclusively to the three robes? Answer: It takes its name from the pre-eminent. Vinaya Master Nanshan says: "The subsequent three precepts all state 'when the robes are finished'; in this precept, 'robes finished' means that the material substance of the three robes has reached completion, and anything beyond them is extra (now examining the intention of keeping: if one intends to make the three robes, one may wait until they are complete; if one does not intend to make the three robes, why wait for completion?). Next, 'robes finished' means that the three robes have been formally received and maintained to completion, and there is the fault of spending a night separated [from them]. Later, 'robes finished' means that the material of the three robes is of equal substance and complete, and if one neither makes robes nor performs vikalpana, etc., it is an offence." Now, examining [this], the former [interpretation] based on the one month and five months applies in meaning throughout the three precepts, because they equally obtain the five advantages. The meaning of the five advantages is as explained below. If it is as explained by Nanshan, the three precepts are each distinct; either interpretation may be preserved. Regarding "the kaṭhina robe has been relinquished": this refers to the conclusion of the previous rains retreat, reaching the sixteenth day of the seventh month. If a donor gives any one robe among the three robes, it is received on that very day, and on that very day a ñattidutiya-kamma is performed to appoint one person, and another ñattidutiya-kamma is performed to entrust this person with the robe. That entrusted person takes this single robe, goes before the saṃgha, kneels on both knees, and presents it to the saṃgha. Those in the saṃgha who wish to receive it hold this robe with their hands, recite the formula, and receive it, sequentially down to the lowest seat until completion. From that time onward until the fifteenth day of the twelfth month, that entrusted person constantly stays within the boundary overnight to guard this single robe. This guarded robe is called in Sanskrit the kaṭhina robe, translated here as the firm-and-solid robe. Because this robe is made of firm and solid material, and causes the donor to receive a firm and solid reward, it also causes the saṃgha to generate and obtain the five advantageous, firm, and solid merits: first, extra robes without vikalpana do not incur the offence of keeping extra robes; second, leaving behind any one robe among the three robes does not incur the offence of spending a night separated [from it]; third, obtaining [permission for] parampara-bhojana; fourth, obtaining [permission for] gaṇa-bhojana; fifth, entering a village before or after a meal without needing to notify [another monk]. Furthermore, the person guarding the robe does not receive the five advantages; he firmly guards it without leaving the boundary overnight to benefit the others, hence it is called the firm-and-solid robe, and also called the merit-robe (kaṭhina). The persons receiving the advantages: within the five months, whenever there are eight kinds of conditions, encountering any single condition immediately results in the loss of the five advantages. Loss is relinquishment; thus it is said "the kaṭhina robe has been relinquished", meaning that after relinquishment, vikalpana must be performed. The third clause, "keeping an extra robe for past ten days without making a pure gift, it may be kept": keeping is permitted within the limit. If lenient, it leads to laxity; if urgent, it causes exhaustion; therefore, within ten days, vikalpana must be completed. As long as it is robe material, whether new or old, inner robe or outer robe, if it measures just one cubit six [inches] by eight inches, vikalpana must be performed. Performing this method of purification demonstrates a mind of contentment, not regarding it as one's own. The fourth clause, "if it exceeds ten days, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika": this establishes the offence. According to the Vinaya text, within ten days, one receives robes day by day; on the eleventh day, all are offences. Although the subsequent nine days have not exceeded the limit, because the first day exceeded the permitted limit of keeping, it taints the nine days, all of which incur [the offence of] forfeiture. This is explained at length as in the Vinaya. Once this offence is committed, it ought to be repented. The method of repentance is briefly divided into three sections: first, clarifying the quantity and presence or absence of accumulated offences; second, distinguishing the sequence and grades of repenting offences; third, directly distinguishing the method of forfeiture, repentance, and return. First, to distinguish quantity: it may comprise up to ten offences: 1. The material substance of the extra robe, separated robe, etc., is present, liable to forfeiture and falling. 2. The extra robe, etc., has already been used and destroyed, straightforwardly repenting the offence. 3. Concealing a prāyaścittika offence incurs a duṣkṛta. 4. Through successive nights, repeatedly concealing this prāyaścittika-duṣkṛta incurs a duṣkṛta. 5. Wearing and using it incurs a duṣkṛta. 6. Concealing this [duṣkṛta] incurs a duṣkṛta. 7. Repeatedly concealing this incurs a duṣkṛta. 8. When the saṃgha recites the prātimokṣa, answering with silence at the two places and three questions incurs the duṣkṛta of false silence. 9. Concealing this incurs a duṣkṛta. 10. Repeatedly concealing this incurs a duṣkṛta. (Among these ten offences, one may have one, two, etc.; repent them according to the circumstances.) Second, clarifying the sequence and grades of repenting offences: one should first forfeit the property, and next repent the various offences. Thus the Treatise That Clarifies says: "First forfeit the item; only afterward openly declare to eliminate the offence (the above is the text of the treatise)." Current practice is entirely like this. The sequence of repentance should be divided into three stages: First, repent the duṣkṛtas of concealing and repeatedly concealing; this is based on the text of the Khandhaka on Persons. Second, regarding the root prāyaścittika offence and the duṣkṛtas of wearing and false silence, since the natures of the offences differ, in principle no single medicine can suddenly eliminate them; therefore, one must again distinguish the difference between prāyaścittika and duṣkṛta. Thus, one first repents the two duṣkṛtas of wearing and silence, and only then repents the prāyaścittika, forming three stages: The first stage repents the six grades of concealing and repeatedly concealing duṣkṛtas under the prāyaścittika, as well as under wearing and silence. The second repents the two grades of duṣkṛtas of wearing and silence. The third stage only then repents the prāyaścittika offence. Contemporary practice is entirely like this. Searching through the vinayas and treatises, repenting a duṣkṛta has two ways: first, blaming one's mind; second, facing a counterpart. Now, since the particulars of these duṣkṛtas are grave, they should all be repented facing a counterpart. Third, directly distinguishing the method of forfeiture, repentance, and return: this is divided into two sections: first, making the vow and directing the mind; second, directly distinguishing the method of forfeiture, repentance, and return. First, regarding directing the mind, as the Treatise That Clarifies says: "Whenever deśanā is mentioned, after first understanding the cause of the offence and the origin, nature, characteristics, faults, etc., one reveals it according to the Dharma before a trustworthy person, and according to the Dharma seeks to receive protective counteraction." Dingbin comments: "Deśanā translates as open display, also called declaring the offence, which is repentance. 'Cause of the offence' means arising from various afflictions such as greed. 'Origin' means that the offence is constituted due to unseasonal eating, drinking liquor, etc. 'Nature and characteristics' means this is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, this is a prāyaścittika, etc. 'Faults' means that whoever commits an offence incurs five faults: 1. able to obstruct nirvāṇa; 2. obstructing the path to nirvāṇa; 3. generating lack of faith in others; 4. increasing one's own unwholesome karma; 5. bringing about retribution in the evil destinies. 'Etc.' includes knowing the time, place, etc., of committing the offence. 'Trustworthy person' means that this person has a good mind: if one speaks of the offence to him, he will not turn around and speak of my fault to others, hence 'close'; furthermore, one entrusts that this person's precept conduct is pure, hence 'trustworthy'." Now, entering the degenerate age, spotless purity is difficult to find; therefore, traditional practitioners take someone who has not committed the same offence as the object of repentance. Now the Tripiṭaka Master says: "In the Western Regions' practice, facing someone who has not committed the same offence requires taking someone who has not committed an offence of the same category. 'Seeking to receive protective counteraction' means that one previously lost the mind of protective counteraction, and now permanently severs the continuum, which is receiving it again." Second, directly distinguishing forfeiture and repentance, etc., has four sections: 1. forfeiting the property; 2. repenting the offence; 3. returning the property; 4. the offence incurred by not returning. First, the meaning of committing the offence of an extra robe is explained; the rest may be understood by analogy. First, to clarify forfeiting the property: according to the Vinaya text, [the saṃgha] must assemble completely; forfeiting the property to them as a factional assembly is not permitted. The object one faces applies generally to the rank of the saṃgha, or two or three persons, as well as a single person—all are unobjectionable. If forfeiting to the saṃgha, it must be restricted within a formal karmic boundary. If to two or three, down to one person, it applies generally within a natural or formal karmic boundary. For now, taking the easier path, one forfeits to one person; the rest will be extensively distinguished in another place. Only the precept on begging for an alms-bowl is strictly restricted to facing the saṃgha, as will be known below. Contemporary practice is mostly on the ordination platform or within a natural boundary; the natural boundary has three types, as distinguished above. If the object one faces is senior, one should possess the proper deportment, bare the right shoulder, take off leather sandals, pay homage at his feet, kneel on both knees, hold the robe in hand (if junior, omit paying homage at his feet), and say: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], intentionally kept a length of extra robe (for two or three lengths, etc., state accordingly; if the items are completely numerous and indistinguishable, one may say 'many'; if they can simply be known, one must state the number; if uncut fabric, one must say 'extra material'), exceeding ten days (for those tainted and offending on the subsequent nine days, these words are not needed) without making a pure gift, committing one offence of forfeiture and falling (or two, three, etc.). I now take this robe (or material) and forfeit it to the Venerable One (stated once)." Second, regarding the second repentance of offences: prāyaścittikas and duṣkṛtas differ and are divided into three stages, as distinguished before. In the first stage, first distinguish the six grades of duṣkṛtas of concealing and repeatedly concealing. Within this there are again two parts: one should first request the master of repentance to be faced (taking one who has not committed the same offence, as distinguished before), possessing the proper deportment as before, saying: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], now request the Venerable One to be the master of repentance for duṣkṛtas; may the Venerable One act as the master of repentance for duṣkṛtas for me, out of compassion (stated once)." The master answers: "It is well." Next, repenting the offences, possessing the proper deportment, saying: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], intentionally kept a length of extra robe, exceeding ten days without making a pure gift, committing one niḥsargika-prāyaścittika offence. Moreover, due to wearing and using the robe of forfeiture and falling, I committed duṣkṛta offences, not recalling the number (or recalling the number, stating it according to one, two, etc.). Moreover, having undergone the saṃgha's recitation of the prātimokṣa with its two places and three questions, I committed duṣkṛta offences of false silence, not recalling the number (or stating according to the number). Having committed these three stages of root offences, not disclosing each and concealing them overnight, I committed duṣkṛta offences, not recalling the number (or stating according to the number). Through successive nights, I further committed duṣkṛta offences of repeatedly concealing, not recalling the number (or stating according to the number). Among these six grades of duṣkṛta offences of concealing and repeatedly concealing, I now disclose and repent before the Venerable One, not daring to conceal them. May the Venerable One be mindful of me (stated once)." He should be told: "Blame your mind and generate revulsion." (The offender answers:) "It is well." (The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says 'I shall receive and maintain it on the crown of my head', which is also good.) In the second stage, repenting the two grades of duṣkṛtas of wearing and silence (there is no need to request a master of repentance again, as he was already requested before). Possessing the proper deportment, saying: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], intentionally kept a length of extra robe, exceeding ten days without making a pure gift, committing one niḥsargika-prāyaścittika offence. Having committed this offence, wearing and using the robe (or material) of forfeiture and falling, I committed duṣkṛta offences, not recalling the number (or stating according to the number). Moreover, having undergone the saṃgha's recitation of the prātimokṣa with its two places and three questions, I committed duṣkṛta offences of false silence, not recalling the number (or stating according to the number). I now disclose and repent before the Venerable One (elaborated as before)." In the third stage, directly repenting the root prāyaścittika offence. In this, one must also first request a master of repentance (taking one who has not committed the same offence), possessing the proper deportment, saying: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], now request the Venerable One to be the master of repentance for niḥsargika-prāyaścittika; may the Venerable One act as the master of repentance for niḥsargika-prāyaścittika for me, out of compassion (stated three times)." The master answers: "It is well." Next, directly repenting the offence. Vinaya Master Nanshan says: "One should briefly teach the Dharma." Admonishing him: "The Buddha said: 'I established the precepts for the disciples; rather die than violate them.' As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fascicle fifteen, says: 'A person who breaks the precepts falsely consumes the gifts of the faithful; the bowl he holds is a vessel of molten copper, the robe he wears is a sheet of burning iron, and even due to breaking the precepts he receives the body of a hairless worm or a dung-eater.'" Merely three or five sentences according to the individual's capacity. Or if he is obtuse and dull, and though hearing severe words his mind is not moved, one need not instruct him, nor should one accept his repentance, because [the defilement] continues. Regarding the words of repentance, possessing the proper deportment, he says: "Venerable One, with focused mind take heed! I, monk [so-and-so], intentionally kept a length of extra robe, exceeding ten days without making a pure gift, committing one niḥsargika-prāyaścittika offence. This robe has already been forfeited to the Venerable One (or if forfeited to another person, one should say 'already forfeited to [so-and-so]'). This prāyaścittika I now disclose and repent before the Venerable One, not daring to conceal it. Repenting brings peace and ease; not repenting brings no peace and ease. Mindfully recalling the offence, I disclose it; knowing it, I do not conceal it. May the Venerable One be mindful of my pure body of precepts, fully endowed with the pure poṣadha (stated three times)." He should be told: "Blame your mind and generate revulsion." He answers: "It is well." Or he says: "I shall receive and maintain it on the crown of my head." Third, returning the property: both the intention and the night having intervened, on the following day it is returned, handed over directly by hand without separate formula. If returned by the saṃgha, there is the procedure of ñattidutiya-kamma; once received, vikalpana is performed, and it is again kept according to the Dharma. The words of vikalpana are recited by everyone. Fourth, regarding not returning: the Vinaya states it is a duṣkṛta (forfeiture and repentance facing two or three persons and the saṃgha are somewhat complicated and difficult, hence not recounted).

2.10

Second: the precept against staying overnight separated from one's robes. The original intention of instituting this precept was for newly ordained persons. If explained broadly right away, it would be difficult to comprehend in haste; but if it is always kept on one's person, it does not constitute an offence. If one wishes to comprehend it thoroughly, one should seek broad learning; here it is omitted for brevity. Regarding "except by a saṃgha-karma": if one's body is ill and the robes are heavy, and having cause, one must travel, one makes three requests to the Saṃgha. The Saṃgha performs a ñattidutiya-kamma, permitting one to leave behind whichever one among the three robes. Even if the appearance of dawn passes, one does not commit the offence of staying overnight separated from one's robes; the detailed explanations are as in the Vinaya. As for the procedures for making robes, formally resolving to keep robes (adhiṣṭhāna), and so forth, there is no leisure to set them forth extensively.

2.11

Third: the precept regarding seeking new material to replace old robes of the set of three up to one month. Nanshan named this the precept of robes awaited for a month; of old it was named the one-month robe precept. As both meanings are subtle and obscure, it is emended here. The prātimokṣa text has five clauses: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, excluding exceptional conditions, because during the robe-making time there is no fault of extra robes; third, urging prompt completion. The text says "obtains an out-of-season robe": this means that outside the one-month or five-month robe-making period, when one awaits newly cut material, it is called an "out-of-season robe." For ten days within this out-of-season period, because this is an ordinary exemption, one does not need to complete it promptly. On the tenth day, if one has obtained sufficient material, it must be completed promptly on that day; if it is insufficient, an exemption is granted up to the eleventh day; if it is sufficient on the eleventh day, it must be completed promptly on that day. If it is insufficient, an exemption is granted up to the twelfth day, and applying this successively up to the twenty-ninth day, every day holds the sense of requiring prompt completion on that day; hence it says "promptly complete the robe." It also says "if it is sufficient, it is good," which means there are twenty instances of the goodness of prompt completion. Fourth: properly clarifying the continuing search for new material up to one month. The text says: "If it is insufficient, one is permitted to keep it for up to one month": from the tenth day to the twenty-ninth day, there are twenty days in all during which continuing to acquire material has not yet reached sufficiency, and one is permitted to keep it until the thirtieth day without committing the offence of keeping extra robes; hence it says "permitted to keep it for one month." The text says "in order to make it sufficient": this means there are twenty instances of continuing to acquire it in order to make it sufficient. Fifth: specifying the offence of keeping it beyond the limit. Upon reaching the thirtieth day, regardless of whether the new material is sufficient or insufficient, one must immediately perform vikalpana, send it to another person, make it into a robe, and so forth. If one exceeds thirty days, it is categorically an offence; hence it is stated thus. Ancient tradition explained the intention of this precept by saying that a practitioner of superior conduct keeps only the three robes, and when the old robes become worn and ruined, they are suitable only for formal keeping, not for wearing; now, having obtained new material, one does not intend to perform vikalpana, so one is permitted to wait for sufficiency up to a maximum of one month. In my present examination, I fear this may not be correct: if a practitioner of superior conduct did not wish to perform vikalpana, how could he suddenly be made to perform vikalpana on the thirtieth day, ruining the resolve of his superior conduct? Thus we know that as long as one has set one's intention on replacing the old robes, one may extend the period of keeping them, without distinguishing practitioners of superior conduct.

2.12

Fourth: the precept against accepting robes from an unrelated bhikṣuṇī. "Related" strictly requires relations within seven generations through father and mother, which is permitted without offence. A disciple who has received the precepts from oneself is also considered unrelated.

2.13

Fifth: the precept against having an unrelated bhikṣuṇī wash old robes. Washing, dyeing, and beating constitute three niḥsargika offences. Down to having been worn on the body just once, it is called "old."

2.14

Sixth: the precept against begging for robes from an unrelated lay family. This is an offence regarding robes of proper measure. Except when one's robes have been robbed by bandits or the like, begging from them incurs no offence.

2.15

Seventh: the precept against accepting robes beyond knowing contentment. The text has five clauses: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, encountering the condition of having lost robes; third, "an unrelated layperson, because of the loss of robes, spontaneously offers robes and bids the monk to take as many as are sufficient"—meaning that when invited up to three times, one should know it to be sufficient. If they are related, there is no offence, hence it says "unrelated." Fourth, "that monk should accept robes knowing contentment": this means accepting after measuring. Thus the Vinaya says: "If one has lost one robe, one should not accept. If one has lost two robes, and of the remaining one robe it is double, triple, or quadruple-layered, one should pluck it apart to make a saṃghāṭī, uttarāsaṅga, and antarvāsaka. If all three robes are lost, one should accept knowing contentment." The Commentary states: "This means that if one robe is lost, one is definitely not permitted to accept, because the two robes are sufficient for use when going out and remaining in. If two robes are lost, according to the Vinaya's intention, one is likewise not permitted to accept: if the remaining one robe is double-layered, plucking it apart makes two robes, so one is lacking only one robe, the sense of which is identical to losing one; clearly one is not permitted to accept. If it is triple-layered, plucking it apart makes three robes, and plainly one does not accept. Only when all three are lost may one accept three according to the offering, so as to nurture faith and respect." If judged according to the Samantapāsādikā, when all three robes are lost, one is only permitted to accept two, and the remaining one must be sought elsewhere. The intention of the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya here is not the same as that. Fifth: specifying the offence of accepting in excess.

2.16

Eighth: the precept against urging an increase upon hearing that a single household wishes to make an offering, causing them to buy fine robes. Ancient authorities called this the precept against urging and praising a single householder to increase the robe's price; its meaning was largely obscured. The text has four clauses: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, having fixed a price limit with the intention of buying for the monk; third, "this monk, not having previously been invited by the donor to ask freely, nevertheless urges an increase"; the Vinaya says, "If one increases by a single thread, or increases by one-sixteenth of a coin, it is an offence in all cases." Fourth: specifying the offence of obtaining the robe.

2.17

Ninth: the precept concerning two households wishing to make an offering. Its meaning is judged in the same manner as the preceding one.

2.18

Tenth: the precept against pressing the attendant excessively to demand robes. The text has two sections: first, clarifying the offence of obtaining robes beyond the limit; second, clarifying the method of not exceeding and not obtaining. In the first section there are three parts: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, the procedure of entrusting the treasure and seeking the robe; third, the offence of demanding and obtaining beyond the limit. In the second part, there are: first, entrusting the treasure; second, seeking the robe. Within entrusting the treasure, the text is divided into six: first, the donor prepares the treasure; second, sends a messenger to deliver it to the monk; third, the monk declines and instructs that it is not proper; fourth, the messenger asks for the attendant's location; fifth, delivers the treasure to him; sixth, returns to report to the monk. In the second part on seeking the robe, there are two parts: first, clarifying the three spoken requests; next, clarifying the six silent stands. Both passages each have the proper protocol for seeking robes and the goodness of obtaining robes. Regarding the earlier three spoken requests, the text says: "The monk in need of a robe should go to where the attendant is, and say up to: 'I need a robe'": according to the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, it is for the duration of a person entering a storeroom to fetch goods and place them on the shop counter, or for the duration of wrapping up items in a cloth. The text says "if after two or three returns up to obtaining the robe, it is good": this explains the goodness of obtaining the robe, meaning conforming to the instruction. Next, clarifying the six silent stands. The text says: "If he does not obtain the robe, standing silently before him four times, five times, six times": in the text, one ought to accumulate from one and two times up to six times, but the text follows the flow of the passage to connect them. The Samantapāsādikā says: "Standing silently means not speaking with the mouth, not sitting when invited to sit, not accepting when offered food, and neither expounding the Dharma nor making aspirational prayers. If he says, 'Why have you come here?' one replies, 'The householder knows for himself.'" Furthermore, according to the Vinaya text, "if he says 'I do not know,' and another person knows, the monk should say to him, 'That person knows it.'" Moreover, one spoken word breaks two silent stands; hence, demanding purely by speech can reach up to six times, while demanding purely in silence can reach up to twelve times. The variations between them may be known by reflection. The remainder of the text is intelligible. Next, clarifying the method when one does not exceed and does not obtain. The meaning of the text is: "If he does not obtain it, he reports to the original donor so that he may demand it back. This is the proper time": it is the proper time in accordance with the Dharma so that the offering of faith is not lost.

2.19

Eleventh: the precept against soliciting wild silk floss to make a rug for oneself. According to the origin story in the Vinaya, it was instituted because of harming life and inviting censure. As for "sleeping gear" (rug), ancient tradition, Vinaya Master Nanshan, and others all said it refers to the three robes; Tripiṭaka Master Yijing said it refers to mats, cushions, and the like. In my present examination, it is the sleeping quilt (pei) of this land. Therefore, the exemption clause in the precept on black wool rugs states: "Making a mattress or making a felt rug incurs no offence." Since it is called "sleeping gear," we know it is a quilt. If one says it refers to the three robes, just as with the precept against making a new one within less than six years without giving up the old, one would commit an offence upon making a new one; how could it be that with the three robes one must give up the old before being permitted to make a new one? And in the one-month robe precept, when seeking new material, must one give up the old? Therefore the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra calls it a "spread" (āstaraṇa), and Tripiṭaka Master Yijing also calls it a "spread"; this might be due to differing schools, or both what is spread above and spread below are called spreads—generally speaking, it is a quilt. Moreover, because a sleeping quilt can also be formally resolved and used as the three robes, there is confusion in the various teachings. Furthermore, because a sleeping quilt is an essential requisite, there ought to be these various regulations. This precept involves harming life, so if one commits an offence and forfeits it, the Vinaya requires it to be cut up and destroyed, unlike other precepts.

2.20

Twelfth: the precept concerning rugs made of pure black wool. According to the Vinaya, it was instituted because it was a practice of lax and idle people.

2.21

Thirteenth: the precept concerning adding fine wool to make a rug. Ancients called it the precept of rugs with white wool. In my present examination of the Vinaya text, adding mixed-colour wool incurs no offence, while adding other wools incurs an offence; it is not restricted to white wool. That is to say, even if one adds black, it does not violate the previous precept, because the previous precept was instituted against pure [black wool]. The precept text ought to say two parts black, a third part white, and a fourth part mixed-colour; then the meaning becomes self-evident. For instance, if four catties are used to make a rug: two catties of pure black, one catty of white, and one catty of mixed-colour. The rest can be understood by analogy.

2.22

Fourteenth: the precept against making a new rug in less than six years. The intention of this precept is to explain the formal resolve (adhiṣṭhāna) of keeping a rug. Texts such as the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra require all auxiliary bodily robes to be marked and formally resolved for keeping; in the Dharmaguptaka text, staying overnight separated from any robe other than the three robes constitutes a duṣkṛta—truly for this reason. If it reaches six years and is no longer fit for use, the formal resolve is lost. If, before six years, one renounces the formal resolve, making another incurs no offence. If one wishes to travel far, one's body is ill, and the robes are heavy, the Saṃgha grants a ñattidutiya-kamma permitting one to make a new one within less than six years; one takes the new one on the journey, and the old one receives the legal procedure to remain overnight separated (without guilt). When one returns from the journey and the illness is cured, one performs vikalpana on the new one and keeps the old one again; the intention lies herein. If one uses material that has undergone vikalpana to make rugs and so forth, why would six years be considered? Why would one need to renounce the old? Even if it is less than six years, it is not within the limit of the offence.

2.23

Fifteenth: the precept regarding the border of the sitting mat. "One span": the fifth fascicle of the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra states, "It is one Sugata span around the perimeter." "Disfiguring the colour": spoiling the new colour to cause detachment from greed. According to the Mahāsāṃghika, if one does not have an old one oneself, one seeks it from another. In accordance with this Vinaya, if one does not have an old one oneself, omitting it incurs no offence.

2.24

The sixteenth precept: on carrying wool. The seventeenth precept: on having an unrelated person wash wool. The eighteenth precept: on accepting treasures. According to the fifth fascicle of the *Sarvāstivāda-śāstra*, discussing the precept on storing treasures: grasping treasures falls under the ninety precepts [of prāyaścittika], while storing treasures falls under the thirty precepts [of niḥsargika-prāyaścittika]. That śāstra states that five modes of taking all constitute offences: first, grasping and taking with the hand; second, taking from another with a robe; third, taking from another with a vessel; fourth, saying, “Put it in here”; fifth, saying, “Give it to this purificatory attendant (kappiya-kāraka).” Because all these are for the purpose of storing, they constitute offences. Furthermore, according to the fourth fascicle of that śāstra, under the precept on extra robes, one should seek two kinds of purifying masters: First, for money and treasures, one should first seek a lay purificatory attendant who understands the Dharma, conveying the intention so that he understands: “In my practice as a bhikṣu, I do not store money or treasures. I now make you, dānapati, my purifying master; whatever money and treasures I obtain hereafter, I give entirely to you, dānapati.” (The above formula of request must be understood in its meaning.) Whenever money or treasures are obtained thereafter, one performs vikalpana beside a bhikṣu, without needing to state the purifying master's name. Having performed vikalpana, one may keep it for any duration, long or short. Furthermore, according to that śāstra, the text of the treatise states that there are two kinds of vikalpana for money and treasures, but an examination of the text in detail reveals three kinds: First, a layperson brings money or treasures to give to the bhikṣu, and the bhikṣu merely says: “This is an impure object; I should not store it. If it is purified, I shall accept it.” Second, the bhikṣu says, “I should not store it,” and the purificatory attendant says, “Exchange it for a pure object and keep it”; this constitutes performing purification (according to the śāstra, this one is subsumed within the previous procedure). Third, if it is placed directly on the ground and left, if there is a bhikṣu present, one should perform vikalpana with him (in principle, the formula corresponds to the first text). As for the second purifying master: if robes or cloth for robes meet or exceed the prescribed measure, one should seek someone among the five assemblies who observes the precepts, has heard much, and possesses virtue to act as the purifying master. If a robe meeting the measure is not purified through vikalpana, it is an offence of forfeiture and fall (niḥsargika-prāyaścittika). If it does not meet the measure and is not purified, it is an offence of forfeiture, and one repents it as a duṣkṛta. It is detailed in that śāstra. That śāstra also says: “There are five kinds of things that should be purified: first, heavy treasures; second, coins and treasure-like objects; third, robes or cloth for robes that meet or exceed the prescribed measure; fourth, all robes or cloth for robes that do not meet the prescribed measure; fifth, all grains and rice.” Grains, rice, and the like must be purified on the very day. If there is no layperson, one performs vikalpana beside members of the four assemblies. If one does not perform vikalpana, when the ground is cleared [at daybreak], one commits an offence of forfeiture and must confess it as a duṣkṛta. In the present precept, the primary intention is to treat heavy treasures and money; the rest are treated by association. Furthermore, according to the Vinaya, once this precept or the subsequent precept has been transgressed, one should forfeit [the item] to a purificatory attendant, saying: “This object is not suitable for me; you should take charge of it.” (According to this, this is the formula for vikalpana. Therefore the *Sarvāstivāda-śāstra* says: “Having performed vikalpana, one only then enters the assembly to confess one's fault.”) Furthermore, previous masters said: “Confessing the storing and trading of the two types of treasures is restricted to confession before an individual (or gaṇa).” Now, considering that the *Sarvāstivāda-śāstra* says “enters the assembly,” we know that it also allows entering the Saṃgha to confess. Once the confession is completed, if the other person trades it for pure objects such as robes or bowls and returns them, that is in accordance with the Dharma. If they send them directly, one accepts them thinking of them as property of the purifying master, utters words acknowledging their purification, and directs the purificatory attendant to know that pure objects were exchanged for, taken, and maintained. If one does not say, “Look at this,” or “Acknowledge this,” it is a duṣkṛta. This should be known in accordance with the Vinaya. If he does not return it, one employs skilful means to demand it, which is also explained in accordance with the Vinaya. For now, regarding confession before an individual, the forfeiture of the property is as described above. Next, regarding the confession of the offences: there are the duṣkṛta for using forfeited property, the duṣkṛta for remaining silent out of deceit, and the fundamental prāyaścittika offence—each having the six grades according to whether it was concealed or unobserved—together with the duṣkṛta for use and for silence out of deceit, making a total of eight grades of duṣkṛta, etc., which are confessed in accordance with the aforementioned precept on extra robes.

2.25

The nineteenth precept: on trading in treasures. This refers to trading treasures back and forth; committing this with respect to any of the seven assemblies constitutes an offence, and doing it oneself or instructing others to do it all constitute offences. The text's phrase “buying and selling” is simply an alternate name for trading back and forth. According to the *Sarvāstivāda-śāstra*, trading them back and forth after performing vikalpana still constitutes an offence. The forfeiture and confession should be understood as being identical to the preceding precept.

2.26

The twentieth precept: on merchandising. This refers to trading with laypeople using foods of the proper time, improper time, seven-day period, lifetime allowances, as well as new robes and articles, bargaining back and forth in the manner of marketplace commerce. If one trades with the five assemblies of renunciants, it is not an offence. This should be known in accordance with the Vinaya.

2.27

The twenty-first precept: on keeping an extra bowl. Interpreted in accordance with the extra robe [precept]: this refers to when a donor generates the mind to give one, or when one buys it oneself, one incurs an offence under this precept. If one begs it from another, one incurs an offence under the subsequent precept.

First 27 of 151 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

四分比丘戒本疏 — Classical Chinese