四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

"Venerable sirs, these thirteen saṅghāvaśeṣa dharmas come forth in the half-monthly recitation of the Prātimokṣa Sūtra." This explains the second section. First, [...] the ritual of recitation; next, setting forth the root precepts; and afterward, inquiring into purity. This phrase is its heading. We shall first analyze it comprehensively under nine headings, and afterward [examine] the specific characteristics [...]. As for the comprehensive characteristics: first, arising from the three poisons; second, allocating to body and speech; third, committing oneself or instructing others; fourth, explaining proscriptive versus natural [offenses]; fifth, the categories of original offenses; sixth, the rules of observance and transgression; seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders; eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions; ninth, automatic operation among lower assemblies. Regarding "arising from the three poisons": the first [...] arises and is constituted by a mind of lustful defilement. Next, there are two precepts that arise and are constituted by a mind of hatred. Next, there are two precepts that arise due to three matters and [a mind of] delusion [...] arise and are constituted by hatred and delusion. Second, regarding "allocating to body and speech": these are classified into four positions. The first two are confined to the body. The next two on coarse speech, the two on defamation, and the four on admonition, making eight [...], have assistance. Next, regarding the two precepts on huts: the body is the primary transgressor, while speech is an assisting action. Next, the single precept on matchmaking: body and speech are both primary transgressors. Third, regarding "committing oneself or instructing others" [...], it is divided into three. First, there are five precepts where committing them oneself constitutes a grave [offense], whereas instructing others is either the same or different. Namely, the two on coarse speech, matchmaking, and the two on huts: committing them oneself definitely incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; [...] the same or different: if one instructs another to perform these five and there is personal gain for oneself, one equally incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if one merely instructs another in general without personal gain, it is only a sthūlātyaya. Next, there are two precepts where committing oneself and instructing others uniformly incur the same offense: namely, the two defamation precepts. Whether one commits it oneself or instructs another, whether for oneself or not for oneself, the object of harassment is identical and the intention is expressed without difference; therefore, both self and other incur the same offense. Third, there are six precepts where committing oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while instructing another incurs only a light offense: namely, intentional emission and touching, where committing them oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, but instructing another incurs a sthūlātyaya, because there is no personal gain. In the four precepts on admonition below, transgressing them oneself is the primary offense; instructing another to transgress an admonition also incurs a light offense. If the saṅgha has not yet admonished and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one incurs only a duṣkṛta, because there is no saṅgha command or communal act to be transgressed, so the fault is slight. If the saṅgha is in the process of admonishing and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one immediately incurs a sthūlātyaya offense, because the intention to transgress the saṅgha's command is grave. Fourth, regarding natural versus proscriptive [offenses]: matchmaking and the two on huts are proscriptive evils; the remaining ten precepts are inherently unwholesome in substance, and therefore are natural evils. Fifth, regarding categories: the treatise divides them into four ranks. First, there are five precepts that are all [matters of] lustful attachment: the first precept belongs to the category of sexual misconduct; the two precepts on huts belong to the category of theft; corrupting families and evil conduct belongs to the category of killing; the remaining precepts belong to the category of false speech. Sixth, observance and transgression: among these, the two on huts possess both forms of observance and transgression; however, the former hut is half [...] not removing excessive gravity. The remaining eleven are observance through cessation and offense of commission; also [...] observance through cessation and offense of commission apply across all thirteen precepts; observance through performance and offense of omission apply to a minor part of the former hut and the entire grade of the latter hut, as already analyzed above. Seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders: matchmaking, the two defamations, the four transgressions of admonitions, etc.—these seven are common offenses. However, although the offenses incurred in the four admonition precepts are equal, the objects are inverted: namely, each transgresses the admonition of their own community. In the three precepts of matchmaking and defamation, the objects and offenses are entirely equal. The remaining six precepts differ between monks and nuns. For emission: for a monk it is grave; for a nun, a prāyaścittika. The Vibhāṣā says: women's afflictions are profound and grave, difficult to restrain; if one were to establish a grave offense for them, it would torment living beings. Furthermore, for a woman, it must occur in a secluded place, with many conditions and much exertion; if it overflows, it is therefore light. For a man it is not so: it can be emitted in accordance with any circumstance, hence it is grave. Furthermore, the affliction of lust differs inwardly and outwardly, so there is lightness and gravity. When a bhikṣu engages in touching, he has the strength to control himself; restricted by boundaries, he incurs only a saṅghāvaśeṣa. For a nun, afflictions are thick and heavy; once subjected to touching, it is feared that violation will occur; established [as an offense] in a deep room, it is therefore concluded as a pārājika offense. Because of four differences, there are grades of offense: first, dead or alive; second, adult or child; third, presence or absence of a lustful mind; fourth, lightness or gravity of bodily contact. A nun fears violation, so it must be alive, adult, etc.; for a monk, based on the affliction of lust, there is no distinction of dead or alive, adult or child, etc. For the two on coarse speech, it is grave for a monk and light for a nun, because it is rare versus frequent; also, for a nun, only when directed toward a grave matter is it so, hence she incurs a sthūlātyaya offense; a monk lacks the mutual reinforcement of the eight factors, hence he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa. Regarding the two precepts on huts: a fully ordained monk incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while a nun committing it incurs a sthūlātyaya. If considering exceeding measurements: a fully ordained monk may travel and lodge alone, and takes pleasure in building a hut alone; hence, a saṅghāvaśeṣa was established. A nun requires a companion; if they build a hut together, there is inherently no fault; therefore, the Vinaya says: "If many people reside in the house, there is no offense; if two people build a hut exposed to the sun, there is no offense." Even if she were to build it alone, because it is rare, it is a sthūlātyaya offense. If so, why do both incur an offense when roofing exceeds three tiers? Answer: this is based on the limits of measurement, so two people do not commit an offense; exceeding three tiers below directly concerns collapse and inviting criticism, without distinguishing large or small, so she shares a prāyaścittika with monks. Question: If for a nun, having a companion makes being alone rare, so that she incurs a sthūlātyaya, then since a nun has a companion, being alone is rare, so she should not share the offense for sitting in screened or open places. Answer: this is judged by the harm of the karma; where harm is slight, it is light; also, even if built alone, it is rare and not frequent, so it incurs a light offense; sitting and the like are judged by criticism: although the act may be rare or frequent, both equally invite the fault of criticism; thus monks and nuns commit the offense equally. If discussing building without authorization: nuns have no dwelling in the wilderness and are prescribed to live in settlements; if a monk happens to have no hut, he ought to construct one; if he does not request authorization, the fault of his intention is slight, so it only constitutes a sthūlātyaya offense; a bhikṣu, being a great man, can sit exposed under trees in the wilderness to settle his body and advance his practice; now, constructing a private hut in a settlement, it must be grave to prevent and punish subsequent transgressions. Eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions: the former nine precepts incur offenses by transgressing the Buddha's prohibitions; the latter four admonition precepts incur guilt by transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. This saṅgha prohibition is itself the Buddha's prohibition; however, if the saṅgha does not perform the act, there is no saṅghāvaśeṣa for transgressing an admonition; because the saṅghāvaśeṣa stems from transgressing the saṅgha, these four precepts are offenses of transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. Ninth, presence or absence of automatic operation: seven precepts allow for automatic operation; the two on coarse speech, the two on huts, the two on defamation, and matchmaking admit of the principle of sending someone to act on one's own behalf; when the instructed matter is accomplished, among the three moral natures, one commits seven saṅghāvaśeṣas; the rest do not involve instructing others, so there is no automatic operation. Among the thirteen: regarding the first nine precepts, if maintained, they protect the community's practice of the Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's practice of the Dharma. Regarding the latter four precepts, if one complies with the saṅgha's command and ceases faults, not making manifest the accomplishment of communal acts, there is the benefit of timely assistance, called protecting the community's doctrinal Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's doctrinal Dharma. Among the former, there are again three: the first five concern internal defilement, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two huts, concern harmony of affairs, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two defamations, concern harmony of sentiments, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma. Among the first five, there are again three: the first one destroys the community's practice of the Dharma without destroying the season; the next three destroy the community's practice and destroy the season; the next one destroys practice slightly and destroys both community and season.

2.3

Therefore, the precept on intentional emission is the first. Because this precept is easily transgressed by people, it comes first. 1. The intention behind establishing the precept: desire is an unwholesome dharma, the very source of birth-and-death and the root of obstructing the Path; by principle it should be prohibited and severed to render celibate conduct pure. The Vibhāṣā states: the Buddha established this precept for three reasons: first, to cause the true Dharma to abide long; second, to rectify slanders; third, to engender thoughts of faith and reverence in gods, nāgas, and benevolent spirits. In the Vinayas of the four schools, the Buddha uniformly rebuked [them], saying: "How can one receive people's offerings of faith with such an impure hand?" 2. Explaining the name: moving by expedients with the determined intent of completion is called "intentional"; the substance discharging and overflowing is called "emission"; hence it is called the precept on intentional emission. 3. Possessing the conditions: the general conditions are as above; the specific conditions are three: first, the intention of completion; second, moving by expedients; third, upon emission, an offense is committed. 4. Incomplete conditions: if lacking the first two, there is no offense; if lacking the third, it is either a grave or light sthūlātyaya. Below, the Prātimokṣa text is directly clarified; the passage has three sections: first, brief establishment; second, subsequent allowance; third, full establishment. Regarding "brief establishment": initially, because the bhikṣu Kālodāyin committed a fault, the Buddha briefly established this precept. Later, because other bhikṣus emitted semen in dreams, the Buddha assembled the saṅgha and, because there was originally no intent, allowed an exception for dreams; this is called subsequent allowance. Regarding the full Prātimokṣa text:

2.4

"If a bhikṣu intentionally manipulates his genitals to emit semen, except in dreams, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa." This full Prātimokṣa text is analyzed in four clauses: first, brief heading; next, detailed explanation. Regarding the brief heading: first, the transgressor; second, the action; third, the exception; fourth, conclusion of the offense. Regarding the detailed explanation: "If a bhikṣu": among the eight kinds of bhikṣus, the eighth is one who has properly obtained ordination through a formal motion and three proclamations; this is the meaning of "if a bhikṣu." As for "intentionally manipulates his genitals to emit semen": this explains its objects. First, six names are listed; next, they are explained in order. Regarding the six names: the Vinaya states: with actual intent, deliberately having the intention to discharge semen, the objects before one are six: whether internal form, external form, internal-and-external form, water, wind, or space. If one emits through whatever expedient, an offense is committed. "Internal form" refers to parts of the bodies of living beings; because the mind and mental factors experience pleasure and pain, it is called sentient form. "External form" refers to non-sentient form; because it lacks mind and mental factors to experience, it is called non-sentient form. "Internal-and-external form" refers to the combination of sentient and non-sentient, called sentient-non-sentient form. As for "water, wind, and space," they can be known by analogy: in water, upstream or downstream; in wind, likewise; in space, moving one's body in mid-air, up to other objects. As for "except in dreams": the Vinaya states: sleeping with a distracted mind has five faults: first, bad dreams; second, devas do not protect one; third, the mind does not enter the Dharma; fourth, not contemplating the break of dawn; fifth, emitting semen in dreams. Sleeping with wholesome thoughts has five virtues, which are the reverse of the above clauses. If when about to sleep, one holds [the genitals] with one's hand and sleeps, intending to emit in dreams: if one emits while sleeping, an offense is committed; completion is not within the scope of the exception. If one originally had no intent and did not wish to emit, and it is emitted during a dream, it does not fall within the scope of an offense; hence it says "except in dreams." As for "saṅghāvaśeṣa": this is the name of the offense. The Vinaya states: "saṅgha" means the community; "avaśeṣa" means with remainder; it is named because the practiced dharma is not severed. If a bhikṣu applies expedients to emit semen toward the six kinds of objects as above and subsequently accomplishes his original intention, he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense in all cases. As the Maudgalyāyana Sūtra on Retribution for Offenses states: if a bhikṣu lacks shame and remorse, disparages the Buddha, and slanders, committing a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense, he falls into hell for the equivalent of an eight-thousand-year lifespan of the Paranirmitavaśavartin devas, which in human count is twenty-three billion and forty thousand years. Regarding "no offense": the Vinaya states: if one wakes during an emission in a dream, and out of fear of soiling body and robes presses and discards it with rags or hands; if it is discharged through lustful ideation; if seeing attractive form it is discharged without touching; if when walking it is discharged by rubbing between the two thighs; if discharged by touching robes; if discharged while bathing; if discharged by rubbing with hands—in all such cases where one has no intention to emit semen and it discharges spontaneously, there is no offense.

2.5

The second precept: on rubbing and touching a woman. 1. The intention behind laying down the precept. According to the Vibhāṣā, the Buddha laid down this precept on account of six reasons: First, a renunciant is detached and without support; this precept is laid down to serve as a companion for him so that he has something to rely upon. Second, to quell strife, because this is the root of contention. Third, to put an end to suspicion and resentment; [people] would not think it was merely grasping, but would think that a grave evil had been committed. Fourth, to sever the source of grave evil, by prohibiting subtle [transgressions] and preventing attachment. Fifth, to guard right mindfulness, because if one touches a woman, one will certainly lose right mindfulness. Sixth, renunciant bhikṣus by right ought to transcend worldly defilements, settle their minds outside entanglements, and serve as models for the world; if one touches a woman, one causes worldly people to lose their reverence. 2. Explaining the name: Touching and feeling physical forms is "rubbing" (mó); the mutual encounter of two objects is called "touching" (chù). Therefore it is called the precept on rubbing and touching. 3. Complete conditions. General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are five: First, a human woman, distinguishing her from goddesses and female animals, and different from men, etc. Among women, it does not distinguish between dead or alive, adult or child, grave or light, etc.; furthermore, it applies to both lay and monastic, kin and stranger—as explained at length, it may be known. Second, perceiving her to be a human woman. Third, a defiled mind. Fourth, mutual contact. Fifth, experiencing pleasure—whereupon an offense is committed. 4. Incomplete conditions. If the first condition is incomplete, there are eleven sthūlātyayas: in discrepancies of the human object, there are three clauses: the first clause is wishing to grasp a human woman, but the object in front turns out to be a human male, incurring a sthūlātyaya based on the prior intention; or, if a human male comes to the place of the beard and one perceives him as a human woman, it is also a sthūlātyaya. The second [clause] is if it changes into a hermaphrodite, or a hermaphrodite's beard [...]; the third is if it changes into a male paṇḍaka, or a paṇḍaka's beard. Non-humans and animals each have four classes, which can be understood analogously to the above; thus together they make eleven. When the second condition is incomplete, there are thirty-three sthūlātyayas, perception and doubt; when both are incomplete, each holds one. When the third is incomplete, there is no offense. When the fourth is incomplete: if both are clothed, fifty-four duṣkṛtas; if one is clothed and one is not, ninety sthūlātyayas. When the fifth is incomplete, it is a sthūlātyaya. Below, the Prātimokṣa text itself is properly clarified.

2.6

If a bhikṣu, with lustful intent, has physical contact with a woman, whether grasping her hand, grasping her hair, or touching any part of her body, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa. This complete Prātimokṣa text is analyzed in five clauses. First, a brief identification, and later, an extensive explanation. In the brief [identification]: 1. The offender. 2. Internally having a defiled mind. 3. The object touched. 4. Mutual physical contact. 5. From "if touching any part" down concludes the offense. Now for the extensive explanation: "If a bhikṣu" has the meaning analyzed as above. "Lustful intent" means an affectionate, defiled mind. "Woman" is as explained above under the precept on sexual intercourse; in order to comprehensively cover the four kinds of objects, such as conscious and unconscious, it does not explain it through having discernment and not having ended life. The true words are as above. "Body" means from the hair down to the feet. The Samantapāsādikā says that if hair touches hair or nail touches nail, it is a sthūlātyaya, because there is no sensation. "Mutual contact" refers to the nine kinds of rubbing actions from grasping the hand to bodily parts. Below the initial clause, each is explained one by one. "Lifting": whether grasping and rubbing, or heavy rubbing, pulling or pushing, reverse rubbing or順 rubbing, rubbing, lifting, grasping, lowering, or pressing—or other expedients of touching. "Grasping and rubbing" means rubbing the front and back of the body. "Pulling" means pulling forward. "Pushing" means pushing back. "Reverse rubbing" means from bottom to top. "順 rubbing" means from top to bottom. "Lifting" means grasping and lifting up. "Lowering" means, if standing, grasping to make her sit. "Grasping" means grasping the front, grasping the back, grasping the breasts, or grasping the thighs. "Pressing" means pressing the front, pressing the back, pressing the breasts, or pressing the thighs. All are rubbing actions. "Saṃghāvaśeṣa" is the fifth clause concluding the offense. In this there are three types of offense characteristics: First, if in mutual contact both are unclothed, the passion is intense and attachment ensues, whereupon it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If the woman touches the bhikṣu and he moves his body, he shares the same offense; if he does not move his body, it is merely a duṣkṛta. Second, if in mutual contact one is clothed and one is not, the passion is moderate and attachment ensues, whereupon it is a sthūlātyaya. Third, if in mutual contact both are clothed, the passion is most subtle, and attachment ensues, whereupon an offense is committed [...]. In the case of both being unclothed, if mind and object correspond, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if the mind does not match the object due to doubt, it is lighter. Just as these gradations exist with a conscious object, the three categories of sleeping, dead, and partially decomposed may also be known by analogy. Therefore the Vinaya states: If a bhikṣu goes and touches an unclothed conscious woman, one who is sleeping, newly dead, or partially decomposed, provided he goes, touches, and makes contact, regardless of whether he experiences pleasure or does not experience pleasure, he commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa offense. If a woman comes to touch the bhikṣu, lustful intention is not necessarily required [on her part], but the bhikṣu must move his body and experience pleasure to commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If he does not move his body yet experiences pleasure, it is a duṣkṛta. If he previously had a defiled mind and, although not moving his body, experiences pleasure, because there was intent to touch, he commits a sthūlātyaya; if he moves, he commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If he has physical contact with a hermaphrodite, it is a sthūlātyaya. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and Mātṛkā state that if his intention was on a woman, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if on a man, a sthūlātyaya. The Samantapāsādikā states: If hair touches hair, or nail touches nail, all are sthūlātyayas, because there is no sensation capable of touching; hence when mutually insentient faculties touch, all are sthūlātyayas. If one touches a female animal, all are duṣkṛtas. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, if one thinks it is a man or a paṇḍaka, but it is in fact a woman, touching her is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, meaning that earlier there was an expedient mind and later it matched the original object. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, touching multiple women at one time is one saṃghāvaśeṣa; touching them one by one is multiple saṃghāvaśeṣas. If a bhikṣu who knows the Dharma is very deceitful, grasping a woman and lying together all night without moving, it is one saṃghāvaśeṣa. If with lustful intent he touches a man's body, or his robes, bowl, or sitting mat, all are duṣkṛtas. Question: In the precept on sexual intercourse, all are treated equally as offenses; why are there different gradations here? Answer: Because the fault arises from within, yet through contact with an object, the proper path is revealed; indulged in fully with deep attachment, no distinction is made between this and that. In rubbing and touching, although there is internal defilement, the pleasure resides in the object; since objects differ—human or animal, sex differing as male or female—the passion is either intense or moderate, hence there are gradations. Regarding non-offenses, the Vinaya states: If touching occurs while taking or giving something, or during playful banter, or when mutually untangling, none of these constitute an offense—though it does not mean there is no other offense. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, holding an object together with a woman, holding to lift after reciting a benediction, holding the beginning or end of a rope when distributing food, or holding a staff, bamboo, or wood, are all breaches of deportment; if one has lustful intent, one commits a duṣkṛta. If with lustful intent one moves an object, vessel, or rope, or splashes water onto a woman, all are sthūlātyayas. If a mother or other close relative embraces and holds a bhikṣu upon meeting after a long separation, if the bhikṣu abides in right mindfulness, there is no offense. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, if mother, daughter, or sister is in illness, or in danger from water, fire, weapons, a deep pit, or vicious beasts, and is difficult to rescue, there is no offense, provided there is no defiled mind. If she is drowning, it is permitted: if the bhikṣu grasps her by the hand, even if lustful thoughts arise, he should only hold one place without letting go until reaching the bank; he should not touch intentionally, and the contact should be slight. If a woman pours water into a bhikṣu's hand and the flow of water is continuous, if he gives rise to lustful thoughts toward the woman, it is a sthūlātyaya. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, if a city gate or road is narrow and crowded, one should wait for it to clear before passing. If a woman requires something, have a kappiya person give it; if there is none, place it on a stool and tell her to take it. If an object is too heavy to lift and she asks the bhikṣu, while no kappiya person is nearby, the bhikṣu may lift it to a high place for her so that she can carry the weight herself. When begging for food, if a beautiful woman brings food, if the bhikṣu gives rise to lustful thoughts, he should place his umbrella on the ground and have someone else make the offering and reception. According to this, if obtaining a needle, thread, bottle, or similar object from a woman, fearing that skirts might touch, one should tell her to place it on the ground, and then the bhikṣu takes it himself. The rest may all be understood by analogy. The Sarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka have rather many permissions; yet according to the Mahāsāṃghika, even in the peril of drowning, permission is not granted until death. One must understand the sense of urgency versus leniency. The accumulation of faults requiring an assembly of monks is never without origin in these.

2.7

The third precept: on coarse and evil speech with a woman. From here down, the intention behind laying down the precept is the same as before. Matters of sexual desire are feverish, base, and defiled, hence called "coarse and evil." Now, speaking of their concealment, the manifestation of the obstacle is in the mouth; hence, "coarse and evil speech." General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are seven: 1. A human woman. 2. Perceiving her to be a human woman. 3. Having a defiled mind. 4. Coarse and evil speech. 5. Perceiving it as coarse and evil speech. 6. The barrier of speech being fully distinct. 7. The woman in front understanding it. Incomplete conditions are explained according to the touching precept. Here it only explains a bhikṣu speaking coarse words toward a woman with a defiled mind; if the woman in front speaks coarse words toward the bhikṣu, and with a defiled mind he receives and understands them, he should also commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa, analogous to the preceding touching; the text briefly omits it without analysis. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya fully contains that mutually directing coarse and evil speech to one another equally incurs an offense. Below, the Prātimokṣa text itself is properly clarified. This was also caused by Udāyin, who, upon hearing that the Buddha had already laid down the preceding two precepts, thereupon spoke coarse and evil words to a woman. A bhikṣu brought up the fault, and the Buddha then laid down the precept.

2.8

If a bhikṣu, with lustful intent, speaks coarse, evil, and lustful words to a human [woman], according to coarse, evil, and lustful words, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa. This complete Prātimokṣa text has five clauses. First listed, then explained. The five clauses: 1. The offender. 2. Internally having a defiled mind. 3. A human woman, revealing the object. 4. Speaking coarse and evil words to her. 5. From "according to" down concludes the offense. Next, the explanation: "If a bhikṣu" has the meaning as above. "Woman" means having discernment and life-faculty unbroken. "Coarse and evil" means non-brahmacarya. "Lustful words" refers to praising or denigrating the two tracts. First, listing the coarse and evil words, there are eight: requesting, having another request, asking, answering, explaining, telling, instructing, or reviling. "Requesting" means: "Do such-and-such a thing with me in the two tracts," or speaking other words. "Having another request" means: "May the gods, Brahmā, the water deity, or Maheśvara assist me in doing such-and-such a thing together with you." "Asking" means: "What are your feces and urine tracts like?" or "How do you engage in matters with your husband?" or "How do you also have intercourse with outsiders?" "Answering" means: "Your feces and urine tracts are like this." "Telling" is also like this. "Instructing" means: "I will teach you how to treat the two tracts like this, so that you can cause your husband and outsiders to love and revere you." "Reviling" means if one says: "May you be ruined, rotten, burnt, scorched, or collapsed; do such things with a donkey," or using other words to revile. "Speaking other words" means, apart from the two tracts, speaking of other bodily parts and joints, as well as words that convey coarse and evil speech; therefore it is said "if speaking other words," such as the category of melting ghee. Fifth, from "according to" down concluding the offense: this is a saṃghāvaśeṣa offense. Within this, there are four degrees of gravity: 1. Concerning coarse and evil speech regarding the original object, according to the number of utterances, each one is a saṃghāvaśeṣa. 2. If the other person does not understand, one utterance of coarse speech is one sthūlātyaya; according to the number of utterances, whether spoken distinctly or indistinctly, each is a sthūlātyaya. 3. Speaking of other bodily parts and joints apart from the two tracts is also a sthūlātyaya. 4. Speaking coarse words with a non-human female, a paṇḍaka, or a hermaphrodite: if understood, it is a sthūlātyaya; if not understood, a duṣkṛta. With animals or human men, it is also a duṣkṛta. If using finger-signs, sending letters, or making gestures to make that woman understand, if understood, it is as above; if not understood, it is likewise. Regarding non-offenses, the Vinaya states: If explaining the contemplation of impurity and repulsive oozing to a woman: "Great sister, you should know that this body has nine sores and nine apertures leaking nine flows; the nine apertures are the two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, the mouth, and the feces and urine tracts." When speaking of this impurity, if that woman speaks coarse and evil words; or when speaking on the Vinaya, one says "this and this, that and that," referring to coarse and evil words; or if receiving sūtras from her, or the two reciting together, or if she asks, or reciting in unison, or words spoken in jest, or talking to oneself, or speaking hastily, or speaking in a dream, or wishing to say this but mistakenly saying that—provided there is no lustful mind, none of these constitute an offense.

2.9

The fourth precept: on praising oneself to a woman to solicit offerings. Speaking with much artfulness to praise one's own goodness, seducing her affection, and speaking of lustful matters in order to indulge oneself; hence it is called the precept on praising oneself to solicit offerings. The specific conditions are seven: 1. A human woman. 2. Perceiving her to be a human woman. 3. A defiled mind. 4. Praising oneself and speaking coarse and evil words. 5. Perceiving them as coarse and evil words. 6. The words being fully distinct. 7. The woman understanding. Incomplete conditions for this precept are explained according to the touching precept. Below, the Prātimokṣa text itself is properly clarified. This precept arose because Udāyin, hearing that the Buddha had already laid down the preceding three precepts, thereupon praised himself to a woman to solicit offerings. A bhikṣu brought up the fault, and the Buddha then laid down the precept.

2.10

"If a monk, with lustful intent, praises himself before a woman, saying: 'Elder sister, I cultivate the brahma-conduct, uphold the precepts, am energetic, and practice wholesome dharmas; you may sustain me with this dharma of lustful desire—such sustenance is supreme and foremost,' it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa." Now, to analyze the full Prātimokṣa text, there are five clauses: first the listing, and afterward the explanation. As for the listing: (1) the offender; (2) lustful mind; (3) the object, a human woman; (4) praising oneself to solicit sustenance; (5) determination of the offense. As for the explanation: the first three clauses are self-evident. In the fourth clause, praising oneself to solicit sustenance, there are two parts: first, five phrases of self-praise; second, from "you may sustain" onward, soliciting sustenance. As for the five phrases of praise: (1) praising one's own body; (2) saying one cultivates the brahma-conduct; (3) upholding the precepts; (4) energetic; (5) practicing wholesome dharmas. Explaining these five phrases comprises four sections: 1. Explaining the praise of the body has two aspects: (a) the physical form is handsome and fine; (b) praising one's caste or lineage. Thus the Vinaya states: "He praises his body as being upright and of fine complexion, [saying,] 'I am of the great lineage and caste of kṣatriyas, elders, householders, or brāhmaṇas.'" 2. Explaining the brahma-conduct: because brahma-conduct is explained through energetic diligence, it is called "zealously cultivating and staying free from impurity." 3. Explaining upholding the precepts: remedying the expedients of breaking the precepts is called "unbroken"; remedying the fundamental offenses of breaking the precepts is called "unbreached"; being free from subsequent accompaniments [of faults] is called "unstained." A single precept possesses all three, and all precepts are likewise. Thus the Vinaya states: "One who upholds the precepts and is energetic is unbroken, unbreached, unperforated, and unstained." 4. Explaining wholesome cultivation: this refers to the twelve dhūtas as well as wholesome deeds. Thus the Vinaya states: "One who practices wholesome dharmas delights in a quiet and pure place, begs food when the time comes, wears rag robes, does not observe the rule of remaining food, eats at one sitting, eats in one ball, sits in a charnel ground, sits in the open, sits beneath a tree, always sits upright, sits according to need, keeps the three robes, chants chants, has learned much and can preach the Dharma, upholds the Vinaya, and sits in dhyāna." Second, from "you may sustain" onward explains the soliciting of sustenance, which means the foremost. Fifth, the determination of the offense: this is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, which is the clause fixing the offense. In terms of severity, there are three grades: 1. If one makes such self-praise as above, [saying,] "come sustain me," one directly commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa offense. If one praises such matters as above but does not speak of lustful desire, one commits a sthūlāccaya. If in the presence of a human woman, for each instance of praising one's own body there is one saṃghāvaśeṣa; corresponding to each clearly understood self-praise, there is each time a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If it is not understood, it is a sthūlāccaya. If done by hand gestures, by sending a letter, or by sending a messenger, or by showing an intelligible sign to make her understand—if she understands, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if she does not understand, it is a sthūlāccaya. Except for the two paths, soliciting sustenance on other parts of the body is a sthūlāccaya. With a non-human female, it is a sthūlāccaya; if not understood, a duṣkṛta. With an animal, it is a duṣkṛta. Mistaken perceptions of the object are as above. Under non-offenses, the Vinaya states: If a monk speaks to a woman, saying, "This place is wondrous, venerable, and supreme; this monk is energetic, upholds the precepts, and practices wholesome dharmas; you should sustain him through deeds of body, speech, and mind." Or if the woman thinks, "He praises his body for my sake." Or when reciting the Vinaya, saying "such-and-such" and she thinks it is praising the body. Or if one mispronounces—in all such cases there is no offense.

2.11

The fifth precept: match-making. 1. The intent behind instituting the rule: The rites of marriage unite samsāric life; they run directly contrary to leaving behind [the world], which is what the homeless life aims for, and severely contravene the standards of the Dharma. Moreover, entangling affairs obstruct cultivation, inviting mutual ridicule and ugliness without escaping worldly censure. Therefore, the Sage instituted the rule. 2. Explaining the name: Plotting and going back and forth for the sake of that man and woman in order to bring about a marriage rite—hence it is called the precept of match-making. 3. Possessing the conditions: General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are six: (1) A human man and woman, excluding non-humans and animals; among humans, high and low, near and distant, all fall within the limit of offenses. The Mātṛkā says: Arranging a marriage for unborn fetuses is a sthūlāccaya. (2) Perceiving them as a human man and woman. (3) Acting for the affair of match-making. (4) The perception of match-making. (5) Manifesting the matter clearly. (6) Receiving their words, etc., and reporting back. 4. Deficiencies in the conditions: Can be known by comparison with what was said. Below, the Prātimokṣa text is directly clarified. This precept was instituted because the monk Kāḷa committed a fault, whereupon the Buddha instituted the rule.

2.12

"If a monk goes back and forth acting as a match-maker between this party and that, conveying a man's intentions to a woman, or conveying a woman's intentions to a man, whether to bring about marriage or for an illicit liaison, even for a momentary instant—it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa." This complete Prātimokṣa text has five clauses: first the listing, afterward the explanation. In the listing: (1) the offender; (2) going back and forth; (3) the object match-made, this party and that; (4) actually carrying out the act of match-making; (5) determination of the offense. In the explanation: the first clause is self-evident. "Going back and forth" means that union may be accomplished. "This party and that" refers to the objects of match-making, man and woman serving mutually as this and that. First, we enumerate the count and list the names: There are twenty kinds of women: protected by mother, protected by father, protected by both father and mother, protected by elder brother, protected by elder sister, protected by both elder brother and sister, self-protected, protected by the Dharma, protected by clan, protected by kinsmen; a maidservant who is willing, a maidservant bought with clothes, a maidservant bought with wealth, a maidservant who works together, a maidservant rescued from floating in water, a maidservant exempt from tax, a maidservant released, a hired maidservant, a maidservant protected by another, and a maidservant obtained from a border region. Next, explaining their names and meanings: "Protected by mother" means safeguarded by the mother; "protected by father" means safeguarded by the father; "protected by both father and mother," "protected by elder brother," "protected by elder sister," and "protected by both elder brother and sister" are also like this. "Self-protected" means having bodily independence. "Protected by the Dharma" means cultivating the brahma-conduct. "Protected by clan" means not being given to a low caste. "Protected by kinsmen" means safeguarded by relatives. "A maidservant who is willing" means one who delights in being a maidservant to another. "Bought with clothes" means the price was clothes. "Bought with wealth" means the price was down to a single coin. "Working together" means jointly performing service. "Rescued from floating in water" means saved from the water. "Exempt from tax" means one from whom no taxes are collected. "A maidservant released" means either purchased or born in the household. "A hired maidservant" means employed for wages. "Protected by another" means bound by receiving another's garland. "Obtained from a border region" means acquired by plundering. Concluding afterward: these are the twenty. Men are also like this. The fourth clause, "actually carrying out the act of match-making," has two parts: first, the match-making act, which is "bringing about marriage, etc.," this being the conveyed intention; second, "even for a momentary instant," which means even a temporary union also incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Twenty moments of thought make an instant (kṣaṇa); twenty instants make a finger-snap; twenty finger-snaps make an ālikṣaṇa; twenty ālikṣaṇas make a muhūrta. When the day is at its longest, it is eighteen muhūrtas, and the night twelve muhūrtas; when the night is at its longest, it is eighteen muhūrtas, and the day is short, being twelve muhūrtas. "Saṃghāvaśeṣa" is the clause fixing the offense. In severity, there are three: First, when the function of acting as a go-between fulfills all three [steps], one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Second, if one receives words and goes to the other party but does not report back, fulfilling two and lacking one, one incurs a sthūlāccaya. Third, if one receives words and does not go to the other party, fulfilling one and lacking two, one incurs a duṣkṛta. Therefore the Vinaya states: "At the initial word, a duṣkṛta; going and speaking without reporting back, a sthūlāccaya; if one reports back, a saṃghāvaśeṣa." Whether by oneself, by sending a letter, by finger-sign, or by manifesting a sign, according to the extent of the match-making spoken clearly, corresponding to each round of going and returning, there is each time a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If not clearly understood, it is a sthūlāccaya. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, receiving a man's words is a duṣkṛta; speaking to the other who does not consent, and reporting back, is a sthūlāccaya; consenting and reporting back is a saṃghāvaśeṣa. It differs from the Dharmaguptaka, which incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa only when all three steps are fulfilled: 1. receiving the words; 2. going there and stating them; 3. reporting back. Match-making for other bodily parts apart from the two paths is a sthūlāccaya. If monks, by a two-motion karmavācanā, depute someone to arrange a marriage, all incur a saṃghāvaśeṣa. In modern times, if the duty-monk informs the Saṃgha to arrange a marriage for a kappiyakāra, supplying wedding equipment, and asks the Saṃgha to agree in harmony, all incur a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If Saṃgha property is used, it incurs a grave offense according to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya. The Mātṛkā says: Arranging a marriage for an unborn fetus or match-making for oneself is a sthūlāccaya. For those incapable of sex, or women whose two paths are joined as one path, barren women, etc., all are sthūlāccayas. Match-making for a human male and an animal, etc., are all duṣkṛtas. In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, bringing about union for the sake of another seeking a good breed of horse is a sthūlāccaya; other animals are duṣkṛtas. Under non-offenses, the Vinaya states: If a man and woman had already had relations before, were subsequently separated, and are brought back together, it is permissible without offense. It also states: One must not serve as a messenger for a layperson. One must not carry another's letter without reading it. If it is to repay kindness, to produce good, to eliminate evil, or for affairs of the Buddha, Dharma, or Saṃgha, in all cases reading the letter and carrying it incurs no offense.

2.13

The sixth precept: building a hut without an owner, for oneself, exceeding the measurement, and without the Saṃgha's designation. 1. The intent behind exceptions and prohibitions: First we examine the intent of prohibition, afterward clarify the intent of exception. As for the intent of prohibition: Superior practitioners possess strong karmic retribution and vitality, and are able to endure disturbing conditions without falling away from what is right. Therefore, the Great Sage instituted that they should rely on charnel grounds and beneath trees, minimizing external conditions to cultivate the Path, and not store away dwellings. But middling practitioners have weak retribution and vitality, and cannot endure cold and hardship; if regulated the same as superior practitioners, it would mutually hinder their proper cultivation, becoming a condition for people to ruin their Path. Therefore, an exception was made allowing them to keep a small hut. Monks, seizing upon the exception, engaged in extensive construction, becoming entangled and hindering cultivation, increasing their own bonds of greed, ruining the practice of contentment, and building huts in violation of the rules. Their mental faults being not light, following upon the exception, the prohibition was restored. 2. Explaining the name: Acting entirely on one's own initiative without receiving instruction is called "without the Saṃgha's designation." Being oversized and not conforming to the standard is called "exceeding the measurement." Hence it is called the precept of building a hut without the Saṃgha's designation and exceeding the measurement. 3. Possessing the conditions: General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are six: (1) without an owner; (2) for oneself; (3) begging by oneself; (4) exceeding the measurement and without designation; (5) the perception of exceeding the measurement and lacking designation; (6) the offense is committed as soon as the hut is completed. 4. Deficiencies in the conditions: If lacking the first condition, one violates the subsequent precept, incurring either three, two, or one offense; if one makes a lawful hut, one can be completely free of offense. If lacking the second condition, building an unlawful hut for another, there are either two sthūlāccayas and two duṣkṛtas, or three, two, or one, or possibly no offense. If lacking the third condition, not begging by oneself, there is no [offense of] exceeding the measurement, though it may allow the remaining three down to no offense. If lacking the fourth condition, building without exceeding the measurement and with designation, then there is completely no offense, though it may allow four sthūlāccayas: namely, truly not exceeding the measurement but perceiving it as exceeding is a sthūlāccaya; doubt is also a sthūlāccaya; truly designated but perceiving it as designated is a sthūlāccaya; doubt is also a sthūlāccaya. In the above, if lacking the fifth, one also incurs four sthūlāccayas: truly exceeding the measurement but perceiving it as not exceeding is a sthūlāccaya; doubt is also a sthūlāccaya; not designated but perceiving it as designated is a sthūlāccaya; doubt is also a sthūlāccaya. If lacking the sixth condition, before the final two lumps of plaster are finished, all are light sthūlāccayas; when one lump of plaster remains, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. Below, the Prātimokṣa text is directly clarified. This precept was instituted because the monks of Āṭavī built large huts with excessive begging, troubling and disturbing householders; hence this precept was instituted.

2.14

"If a monk, begging [materials] himself, would build a hut that is ownerless and for himself, he must build it according to measure. Herein the measure is: twelve of the Buddha's spans in length, and inside, seven spans in breadth. He must bring other monks to designate the site; those monks should designate a site that is free of peril and free of hindrance. If the monk, at a site of peril or a site of hindrance, begging [materials] himself, would build a hut that is ownerless and for himself, not bringing other monks to designate the site, or building exceeding the measure, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa." This complete Prātimokṣa text has three clauses. First it enumerates, and then it explains. Regarding the enumeration: first, the offender; second, begging [materials] himself, below which it properly teaches the monk the standard for the dimensions of the hut and the procedure for designating the site; third, from "if a monk" downward, the conclusion of the offense if built in violation of the instructions. Regarding the explanation: the meaning of the first clause is as above. Explaining the text of the second clause, there are seven points. 1. Begging [materials] himself: if it troubles a donor, one incurs the offense of exceeding the measure; if it is one's own property, then there is no exceeding the measure. 2. Building a hut: except when making other things, there is no exceeding the measure or failure to have it assigned; the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states that a "hut" is one in which one can walk, stand, sit, and lie down, performing the four postures. 3. Ownerless: because if it has an owner, there is no exceeding the measure. 4. For himself: this distinguishes it from building it for another; if one has no share in it oneself, the concluding offense is not a saṃghāvaśeṣa. 5. Explaining the cubit measurement of the hut: regarding the "Buddha's span," various texts are not uniform; one span in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is two chǐ and four cùn; in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya it is two chǐ; relying provisionally on the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, "twelve spans in length" means twenty-four chǐ, and "seven spans in breadth" means fourteen chǐ; this refers to the inside of the room; the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya also states that length and breadth are measured within the room. 6. From "he must bring" downward: this counts the hut-owning monk's method of requesting the site, the text being as extensively explained in the Vinaya. Question: At what size of a hut being built does one request assignment? The Samantapāsādikā states: "Six spans in length and four spans in breadth; building such a hut does not require assignment." The Vinaya text also confirms this: "A small hut that barely accommodates the body does not constitute an offense." This is not an allowance without exceeding the measure, since originally the latter hut does not exceed the measure; why does the allowance exclude a small hut that barely accommodates the body? If it exceeds six spans by four, regardless of whether it exceeds the [maximum] measure or does not exceed the measure, it truly requires assignment. 7. From "those monks" downward: this instructs the Saṃgha to make the assignment; the procedure for assignment is as extensively explained in the Vinaya. In the third clause, which concludes the offenses, there are four kinds: two saṃghāvaśeṣas and two duṣkṛtas; the permutations of presence and absence can be understood. Below this, various points from the texts mentioned above are explained miscellaneous: The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: "When building this hut, after first knowing that it is free of hindrance and peril, he then comes into the Saṃgha, removes his leather shoes, bares his right shoulder, bows to the feet of the senior monk, places his right knee on the ground, and requests the assignment procedure." At that time, the Saṃgha observes this monk: if he is trustworthy, they permit him to build it; if he is not trustworthy, the Saṃgha goes to inspect it; if the Saṃgha does not go, they should dispatch trustworthy monks from the Saṃgha to inspect it; if there is hindrance or peril, they should not assign it. "Peril" refers to tigers, wolves, lions, and other ferocious beasts, down to ants. "Hindrance" means even to the extent of not having space for a grass-cart to turn around. The Samantapāsādikā states: "It is another's field or garden, a place of enemies or bandits, a charnel ground, or a place protected by royal decree; on all four sides it does not permit passage for twelve […]; between the shuttles there is a roll; one cubit." The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya states that it is one fathom on each of the four sides of the dwelling; within the land there is government land, lay land, non-Buddhist land, or bhikṣuṇī land; or large rocks, running water, large trees, deep pits, and the like are sites of hindrance. The Vinītadeva Commentary states: "Or in the shadow of empty mountain crags, where one can walk, stand, sit, and lie down, it is subsumed under building huts." The explanation says: If one wishes to dwell in such places as above, one must partition them off; if not built according to measure, it expends much labor; and if there is peril or hindrance, it harms both oneself and others. Therefore the Vinaya states: "If one arbitrarily builds a hut on perilous or hindering ground, one incurs two duṣkṛta offenses; if it exceeds the measure without requesting [assignment], one incurs two saṃghāvaśeṣa offenses." If either transgression occurs, an offense is incurred; they cannot both be saṃghāvaśeṣa. Building a hut for another incurs thullaccayas for both. In the non-offense clause of the Vinaya: building below the measure on ground without hindrance or peril; for a stupa or a lecture hall; for a dwelling housing many monks of the Saṃgha; or for a grass hut, a small shelter that accommodates the body.

First 14 of 102 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 — Classical Chinese