English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 230 passages, 55,002 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.2788 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 230 parts

Text

1.1

This means that after violating the four grave precepts, one has abandoned brahmacarya. From the noble fruits and nirvāṇa one falls away and retrogresses, forever having no share in them. Because it cannot be removed through repentance, it is also called a pārājika. Therefore it is said: if one who has received the precepts does not return the precepts, and while experiencing weakness of precepts does not declare it, but engages in sexual intercourse, he commits a grave offense and one should not live in communion with him. In renunciation of the precepts there are nineteen items: these constitute renunciation of the precepts, while others do not constitute renunciation of the precepts. Declaring it to anyone among the internal fivefold assembly or to any lay or monastic person is called renunciation of the precepts. It means declaring renunciation of the Buddha, Dharma, Saṃgha, or pratyekabuddhas; renouncing the training (śikṣā) and the recitation [of the prātimokṣa]; renouncing common dwelling and common benefit; renouncing the sūtras and treatises; renouncing the upādhyāya; renouncing [being a] monk, śramaṇa, or Śākyan son; [saying,] 'I am not a monk, śramaṇa, or Śākyan son; I am a novice (śrāmaṇera), a non-Buddhist, or a layperson.' Higher morality, concentration, and wisdom are called the 'training'; all poṣadha observances are called the 'recitation'; dwelling together with the pure assembly or a seemingly pure assembly is collectively called 'common dwelling'; the benefits of Dharma and material wealth are called 'common benefit'; the nine classes of scriptures are called 'sūtras and treatises'. If one says that he renounces past or future Buddhas, he commits a sthūlāccaya and it is not called renunciation of the precepts. If he directly says that he renounces the Buddha, this is called renunciation of the precepts. If, out of lustful desire, he renounces the Buddha, but falsely says that he renounces a non-Buddhist Buddha, he commits a sthūlāccaya. If [said] in jest, it is a vinayātikrama. Renouncing the training, renouncing the Saṃgha, renouncing the recitation, renouncing common dwelling, renouncing common benefit, renouncing the sūtras and treatises, renouncing pratyekabuddhas, and renouncing the upādhyāya are explained as under renouncing the Buddha. The Dharma is nirvāṇa, and therefore does not have the three periods of time; hence whether one directly says that he renounces the Dharma, or says that he renounces the Dharma of the three periods of time, this is called renunciation of the precepts. If he falsely says that he renounces non-Buddhist dharmas, he commits a sthūlāccaya. If he says, 'I renounce the ācārya,' he does not renounce the precepts and commits a sthūlāccaya. If he says, 'My past or future ācāryas,' it is a vinayātikrama. If he says that he renounces common material benefits, or renounces many monks or nuns, it is also like this. If he falsely says that he renounces non-Buddhist common material benefits, he commits a sthūlāccaya. If he says that he renounces individual monks or nuns, or renounces past and future individual monks or nuns, it is a vinayātikrama. Any declaration in jest of renouncing the precepts is a vinayātikrama. If spoken by mistake or while insane of mind, there is no offense. If he mentally contemplates and orally speaks about the precepts, in matters concerning weakness of precepts, with every statement he commits a sthūlāccaya. If after [experiencing] weakness he does not renounce [the precepts] and engages in lustful acts, the offense is as stated above.

1.2

Second: if a monk, whether in a village or in an empty place, takes what is not given—there was the monk Dhaniya, who was a potter's son. He had previously made a grass hut, which was destroyed by others. Later, he made [a hut of] tiles, beautifully red and adorned. The Buddha, seeing it, reproached him and had Ānanda demolish it. Later, [Dhaniya] took timber guarding the royal treasury of King Ajātaśatru, wishing to build a large house. He stole up to five māsakas. According to the law, he should have died, but the king was about to pardon him. Why would stealing up to five māsakas result in death? It is because the owner of the property treasures it, and he who intentionally takes it commits a grave offense; hence the royal law applies its ultimate penalty. The Tathāgata, in accordance with what was suitable, established the grave [prohibition] accordingly. Relying on worldly [judgments of] prized property, property is not resisted or resented [as a standard]. Although the offense is one, its punishment varies: kings possess autonomy to judge and decide as appropriate. At times it is held to be the ultimate penalty; or one is executed to end life; or one is merely bound; or banished beyond the borders; or fined gold to redeem the offense; or merely bitterly reproved. These are all ultimate penalties for stealing five māsakas. The Buddha followed them all to determine the grave prohibition. As for the property taken: it is either in a village or in an empty place. In a village, much is private; in an empty place, much belongs to the state. According to what the property belongs to, it has an owner. If it is between two countries, belonging neither to humans nor to amānuṣas, then it is ownerless. If there is a cakravartin in the world, under that king's domain there is no property that does not belong [to him]; then it has an owner. If property has an owner but is not guarded, it is [treated as] ownerless. If, with the intention to steal, one takes [property] worth up to five māsakas or of the value of five māsakas: at the moment of taking hold and selecting, one incurs a sthūlāccaya; when it leaves its original locus, one incurs a grave offense. The property may be on the ground, in the air, in a receptacle, or on the body: these are called the boundary of the original locus. If one drags it and takes it without it leaving the boundary, one incurs a grave sthūlāccaya; if it leaves these boundaries, one incurs a grave offense. If it crosses the threshold of a door, or crosses a horizontal object or ground of a different colour, or is moved from high to low, or from low to high: that is leaving the boundary. Furthermore, if the property is on a bed, the bed is the boundary; if on a robe, the robe is the boundary. If one takes property inside another's receptacle, moving what is above to below or what is below to above, one in all cases incurs a grave offense. Or the intention to steal is directed at the property and not the receptacle, or at the receptacle and not the property, or at both: depending on where the intention is directed, one incurs a grave offense with regard to that property; regarding that where the intention was not directed, if one later conceives the thought, one again incurs a grave offense. In all cases, regarding property belonging to a king: if the king guards and cherishes it, an offense is incurred; if he does not guard and cherish it, taking it incurs no offense. There are three kinds of taking: taking property oneself, instructing another to take it, or sending an emissary to take it. At the time of taking, the offense is incurred. Taking ownerless property with the intention to steal incurs a grave sthūlāccaya. Taking five māsakas belonging to an amānuṣa with an owner incurs a grave offense; if ownerless, a grave sthūlāccaya. Again, if one intends to take five māsakas from a human but mistakenly gets four, three, two, or one: grave sthūlāccaya. If one originally intended to take four, three, two, or one and got four, three, two, or one: light sthūlāccaya. Taking precious property worth five māsakas belonging to an animal: grave sthūlāccaya; non-precious property: duṣkṛta. Taking leftover meat from a lion incurs no offense. Whether it is the five precious things or resembles precious things, sentient or non-sentient, taking it with the intention to steal if worth five māsakas: all incur a grave offense. If a domestic bird holds the five precious things or resembles precious things in its beak and one seizes it, one incurs a grave offense; because the property should belong to the bird's master, it is grave. If the bird, following the monk's command, arrives at the place, in that place a grave offense is incurred; if it arrives at another place, a grave sthūlāccaya; while waiting for the bird, also a grave sthūlāccaya—by mantra power he caused it to reach the place. If a wild bird holds property belonging to an owner and one seizes the value of five māsakas: grave sthūlāccaya; because the bird seems to value the property, it is grave, unlike a tiger, since a tiger's mind does not value it. If the bird arrives at the place the monk desires, it also incurs a grave sthūlāccaya; if it arrives at another place, a duṣkṛta; while waiting for the bird, also a duṣkṛta. If a wild bird seizes property from a domestic bird, it becomes the wild bird's property; if a domestic bird seizes property from a wild bird, it becomes the domestic bird's property. If a monk seizes property from either of the two birds, it is also as explained above. If property belonging to an owner in the water is seized and held back, when the water later reaches the place, a grave offense is incurred. If one shifts or lifts it so that it leaves its original locus, in all cases a grave offense is incurred. If through litigation or by making tree markers one takes another's land worth five māsakas, one incurs a grave offense; if one fails to get it, a grave sthūlāccaya. If one carries robes and items for a teacher and, with the intention to steal, moves them from the left hand to the right hand, one incurs a grave offense; all parts of the body are likewise. If one uses wood or stone to lift and take another's property, and it has already left its original locus, even if it falls back to its original locus, one incurs a grave offense. At a customs barrier, failing to pay tax of five māsakas incurs a grave offense. If the customs official waives the tax, one must not take it [without asking]: first ask whether the tax items are entirely submitted [to the king]; if entirely submitted to the authorities, one commits an offense; if he is only required to submit up to a fixed quota, one commits no offense. If one avoids tax by taking a side road: grave sthūlāccaya. Passing property worth five māsakas on behalf of a merchant incurs a grave offense. Furthermore, if a merchant asks a monk to pass goods, and having passed them, either gives all or gives half, and the tax value taken is five māsakas, all incur a grave offense. If one points out the path so that [the merchant] passes through, causing the authorities to lose five māsakas in tax: grave sthūlāccaya. If at the customs barrier there are robbers, ferocious beasts, or starvation, whether one avoids it oneself or points it out to another so that they pass, there is no offense. Dakṣiṇā enters the saṃgha; if it does not enter, it is a duṣkṛta. There are ten kinds of property that are exempt from paying tax without offense: first, property of the Buddha; second, property of the Dharma; third, property of the Saṃgha; fourth, property of the upādhyāya; fifth, property of the teachers; sixth, property of the father; seventh, property of the mother; eighth, items intended to be given to others and to rescue from punishment; ninth, items intended to be returned to the owner; tenth, items intended for ritual use, meaning intended for a monk's hundred and one requisites. Other than these ten items, tax should be paid; failing to pay tax carries the offenses as explained above. If a monk conspires with thieves to plunder villages and receives a share of five māsakas, he incurs a grave offense; this means the monk indicates and instructs them about that village, enabling the thieves to seize it with convenience, and shares it with them. Stealing humans is of two kinds: first, carrying away; second, joint conspiracy. When carrying away, when both feet leave the ground, a grave offense is incurred. If in joint conspiracy they lift [the person], a grave offense is incurred. Four-footed sentient beings: whether lying down or tethered in one place, if one unties and takes them, or drives them up to move past four feet, in all cases a grave offense is incurred. If in an orchard surrounded by walls, driving them out of the four boundaries incurs a grave offense. Seeing [animals] in a forest, if one conceives the thought, 'I shall steal and take them': grave sthūlāccaya. If one kills them, an offense of pāyattika; if one takes hide and meat worth five māsakas, a grave offense. If relatives, teachers, pupils, or acquaintances become bandits and thieves, and lose property, without their instruction to take it, taking it incurs a grave offense. If one's own property has been stolen by others, and having already formed the thought of relinquishing it, one later sees it and seizes it back, one incurs a grave offense; seeking [their] relinquishment before taking incurs no offense. If relatives are ruined and [the property] is in another's hands, one must not use force to seize it; seizing it incurs a grave offense. If one uses leech-worms because of using […] to treat swollen and weak feet […]. If one promises property to the Three Jewels with determined intention and declares it to people, and later does not give it: duṣkṛta; the future retribution is grave. If with saṃgha food one does not inform the Buddha, but informs the rest of the saṃgha and the host who brings it to give clearly to people: if one eats it oneself, duṣkṛta, and the future retribution is also grave. The heavy property of a deceased monk belongs to the cāturdiśa-saṃgha; if used for food or divided, a duṣkṛta; the future retribution is grave. If one previously promised five māsakas with a determined intention and later regrets and does not give it, lifting it [from its place], even if [still in] its original locus, incurs a grave offense. Again, if previously determined to give to someone, and that person has not yet demanded it and one does not give it, one incurs a grave offense. Knowing that another has determined to give property to someone, if one destroys it causing the loss of five māsakas: grave sthūlāccaya. Failing to pay a market duty of five māsakas incurs a grave offense. Offerings to a hanged person: if the authorities forcibly demand them and one does not give them, a duṣkṛta. Taking up to two māsakas incurs a light sthūlāccaya; from two māsakas to a minor fraction short of five māsakas, a grave sthūlāccaya. There was a nun who also knew that a householder had promised to give property to another nun, and then deceitfully in the name of that other nun demanded and took it. The Buddha said: she incurs the offense of intentional lying. He also said: deceitfully using another's name to take incurs an offense. As for incurring an offense: she may incur a grave sthūlāccaya; according to whom the property belongs and according to the quantity of the property, she incurs an offense. If that other person had not received the property, the property still belongs to the householder, so the offense is incurred against the householder. If the other person had received it without mutual consent, the offense is incurred against the other person. Now that other person had previously agreed to accept the householder's gift, and this nun took it with the consent of that other person; therefore she did not incur a grave offense, but only incurred the offense of intentional lying. In all cases, seven kinds of taking property of humans, amānuṣas, and animals incur no offense: first, perceiving it as one's own property; second, taking with mutual consent; third, temporary borrowing; fourth, believing it to be ownerless; fifth, insanity; sixth, a disordered mind; seventh, a mind deranged by illness. Otherwise, it is seized [wrongfully]. Taking human property incurs a grave offense; of amānuṣas, sthūlāccaya; of animals, duṣkṛta. If property lost by another definitely has an owner, one must not take it; having taken it, one must not conceal it, but should return it to the owner. Taking pāṃśukūla robes incurs no offense. In all cases, property of the Three Jewels must not be traded. If one trades property of the Buddha or cāturdiśa-saṃgha property, if damaged or transferred elsewhere, one incurs a duṣkṛta accordingly and must make restitution; if it is edible items or property of the saṃgha present, it is not permissible. Taking wealth when settling affairs: duṣkṛta. Ordaining a fugitive slave from another country: duṣkṛta; if with an intention to steal, a grave offense. If many people send one person to take five māsakas, the many people incur a grave sthūlāccaya, and the taker incurs a grave offense. If two people send one person, both incur a grave offense. Taking heavy property of amānuṣas or animals incurs a grave sthūlāccaya; light property, a duṣkṛta. Damaging another's property with an angry mind incurs a grave sthūlāccaya; light property, a duṣkṛta. Third: if a monk or human being personally deprives [another] of life, or brings a knife and gives it, or incites another to bring a knife and give it, or encourages death, praises death, up to and including death resulting from this cause: 'If a monk or human personally deprives of life, or brings a knife and gives it, or incites to death, praises death, up to and including death resulting from this cause: pārājika.' The Buddha was by the Vaggumudā River. The monks were cultivating the contemplation of impurity and became disgusted with their karmic retribution, and some wished to commit suicide. The wanderer Migalaṇḍika slew sixty monks with his own hand. On account of this, the precept was formulated. Depriving of life is of three kinds: doing it oneself, instructing another to do it, or sending an emissary to do it. When that life is terminated, the monk incurs a grave offense. Again, there are three kinds of killing: using the body, using what is not the body, or using both. Terminating that life incurs a grave offense. Dying immediately or not dying immediately, if dying as a result of this, a grave offense is incurred; if not dying as a result, a grave sthūlāccaya. If one makes a fire pit wishing to kill a human: if a human dies, a grave offense is incurred; if an amānuṣa or animal dies, a grave sthūlāccaya. All other expeditious means of killing should be understood in this way. If one makes a deceptive pit for an amānuṣa: if an amānuṣa dies, a grave sthūlāccaya; if a human or animal dies, all are duṣkṛta. If one makes a pit for an animal: if an animal dies, an offense of pāyattika; if a human or amānuṣa dies, duṣkṛta. If one makes a pit non-specifically to harm all living beings: if a human dies, a grave offense; if an amānuṣa dies, sthūlāccaya; if an animal, pāyattika; if none dies at all, duṣkṛta. 'Resembling a human' refers to the early embryo that has just acquired the body faculty and life faculty, but the various faculties are not yet complete; this is called resembling a human. In order to kill the mother, if one causes the fetus to abort: if the mother dies, a grave offense is incurred; if the fetus dies, a grave sthūlāccaya; if both die, a grave offense is incurred; if neither dies, a grave sthūlāccaya. In order to kill the fetus: if the fetus dies, a grave offense is incurred; if the mother dies, a grave sthūlāccaya is incurred; if both die, a grave offense; if neither dies, a grave sthūlāccaya. Seeking a knife is of two kinds: either seeking it oneself or sending someone to seek it. Praising death is of three kinds: directed toward persons of evil precepts, persons of good precepts, or persons possessed by spirits or diseased. Persons of the twelve kinds of evil discipline are called persons of evil precepts. Saying to a person of evil precepts: 'Why should you stay in the world for long? Doing evil, you had better die early.' Saying to a person of good precepts among the sevenfold assembly: 'You uphold good precepts; when you die you will be born in heaven; why not kill yourself?' Saying to a person afflicted by spirits: 'How can you endure such suffering and distress? Why not kill yourself?' If they die on account of praising death, the monk incurs a grave offense; if they do not die on account of it, a grave sthūlāccaya. Perceiving a human as an amānuṣa and ending their life: duṣkṛta. Perceiving an amānuṣa as a human and terminating their life: grave sthūlāccaya. If intended to distress and not to kill, and that life is terminated: grave sthūlāccaya. In preparing means and plotting: before departing, or departing without yet arriving, light sthūlāccaya; upon arriving, striking without death, grave sthūlāccaya. Instructing to die or sending an emissary, uttering words causing them to go: grave sthūlāccaya, because the intention is already determined. For the two precepts of killing and stealing, both doing it oneself and instructing another to do it incur a grave offense. For the remaining two precepts, doing it oneself incurs a grave offense, but instructing another to do it incurs no grave offense. In all cases, what is not done intentionally incurs no offense. As when Kālodayin entered a householder's home and did not look closely at the couch, sitting down upon their child so that the child immediately died: in all such cases there is no offense. However, when sitting one should look closely at the couch; one who does not look closely incurs a duṣkṛta.

1.3

Fourth: If a monk, not knowing and not seeing, with empty [claims], [falsely boasts of] superhuman qualities, saying of himself, 'I have attained such [vision],' and so forth, up to 'except in the case of overweening pride.'
'If a monk, not knowing and not seeing, with empty [claims], [falsely boasts of] superhuman qualities, saying of himself, "I have attained such vision," up to "except in the case of overweening pride"': The Buddha was in Vaiśālī. The monks were observing the summer retreat along the Vaggumudā River. At that time there was a famine, and almsfood was difficult to obtain. For the sake of gain and support, they praised one another, claiming to have attained what they had not attained among superhuman qualities. On this account [the Buddha] formulated the precept. The four fruits, the four paths, the four dhyānas, the four formless [attainments], ānāpānasmṛti, the contemplation of impurity, and so forth are called superhuman qualities. Lacking them wrongly, not seeing, not having contacted, and not having realized [them] is called 'not knowing.' Not seeing the four truths is called '[not] seeing.' Transcending the ordinary and worldly is called 'superhuman.' If one points to superhuman qualities, saying one has attained them when one has not: if the other person understands, it is a grave offense; if they do not understand, it is a sthūlāccaya. At the stage of preliminary application, wishing to say it and wishing to speak, it is a light sthūlāccaya; when the speaking is finished, it is a grave offense. If one says, 'The eight classes of devas and nāgas have come to my dwelling and conversed back and forth with me,' if it is untrue, it is a grave offense. If one says, 'As to the precepts, sexual desire does not arise in me,' if it is untrue, it is a sthūlāccaya; if [the listener] does not understand, it is a duṣkṛta. Even if one says, 'A whirlwind or an earthly ghost has come to my dwelling,' if it is untrue: if [the listener] understands, it is also a sthūlāccaya; if they do not understand, it is a duṣkṛta. Toward an amānuṣa or an animal: if it does not understand, it is a duṣkṛta; if it understands, it is a sthūlāccaya. Teaching another to tell a lie is a duṣkṛta. If one tells another, causing them to say that oneself has attained the Path: when the other person receives the words, it is a grave offense; if they do not receive the words, it is a sthūlāccaya; when the other person first receives the words, it is a duṣkṛta; when one speaks to another, it is an offense of pāyattika. As for 'whether questioned or not questioned': it means that either someone examines [him] or no one examines [him], yet wishing to seek purity, he then speaks truly on his own: 'I did not know, but said I knew, which was an empty, deceptive lie.' The noble fruits are higher dharmas. If one attains the four foundations of mindfulness up to the dharma of the peak of existence, although one seeks to attain the fruit, the signs of the fruit have already appeared, and one's knowledge and vision are distinct, so one then says of oneself that one has attained the higher noble fruit. Because of this haughtiness, it is called 'overweening pride.' Although what was spoken is not true, the intention of the words was not empty; because the intention was not empty, one does not commit a grave offense. For example, when Maudgalyāyana grasped the characteristics of entering samādhi and did not grasp the characteristics of emerging from samādhi, he said of himself, 'In the midst of the samādhi of nothingness, the music of the asuras was spoken in accordance with mental conceptualization.' In cases such as this, none commit an offense. 'Commits any one dharma' means that among the four graves, one incurs any one dharma. 'As before, he is also completely so' means that, just as when he originally had not yet received the full precepts, he is not to live in common; once the offense is committed, his not living in common is also like that. The four matters are finished.

1.4

The Thirteen Saṃghāvaśeṣa Dharmas.
'Saṃghāvaśeṣa': 'Saṃgha' has two meanings. The first is defilement and turbidity. The second is sorrow and vexation from committing a grave offense. The four dharmas are like falling into silt or plunging into a cesspool; therefore it is said to be defilement and turbidity. Reflecting on one's own offense being deep, one's mind is constantly sorrowful and fearful; therefore it is said to be sorrow and vexation. With these bad designations, the four grave offenses are named. 'Avaśeṣa' means remainder. The four graves are the bad roots; the thirteen are the branches and leaves. Tracing their origin, because the branches derive from the root, it is called saṃghāvaśeṣa. 'Remainder' is 'vaśeṣa'; it means having a remnant. If one commits the four grave dharmas, the essence of the precepts is completely defiled, and no remaining purity is left; therefore, they themselves are spoken of as corrupt and severed from the pure saṃgha, which is called 'without remainder.' In the thirteen matters, the precepts are not entirely stained; by reforming errors and washing oneself, one regains purity; therefore it is called 'having a remainder.' The remainders arise from the grave offenses; now they should be distinguished. The first five remainders arise from lust. The two remainders regarding building a hut arise from theft. The two [groundless] slanders arise from lying. The last four remainders arise from killing. They arise by kinds generating their own kinds. Whenever one commits the four graves and it is not yet accomplished, there are two kinds of sthūlāccayas: wishing to act is light; having already acted is grave. Once accomplished, it is universally called pārājika; there are no longer the names of sthūlāccaya or saṃghāvaśeṣa. Being originally for the sake of the four graves, there is also no name of duṣkṛta. For saṃghāvaśeṣa, sthūlāccaya is also like this. From saṃghāvaśeṣa down to the śaikṣa rules, they were mostly formulated on account of the ṣaḍvargika monks. Channa and Udāyin had much lust; later they attained arhatship. The elephant-driver and the two Nakṣatras had much delusion; later they were born among nāgas. Nanda and Upananda had much madness; later they were born in heaven. If rules were formulated without cause, people would perhaps harbor resentment and anger; when they arise from a cause, there is none who does not believe and rejoice. Therefore, [the Buddha] waited for them to commit an offense first, and only then formulated the precept.

1.5

First: Emission of Impurity.
From the first to the fourth, the precepts were formulated because Udāyin committed bad deeds. There are three kinds of committing a saṃghāvaśeṣa: first, generating the intention wishing to emit; second, movement of the body; third, emission of semen. There are also three kinds of committing: first, for the sake of experiencing pleasure; second, for the sake of curing an illness; third, for the sake of disciplining oneself. Whether through experiencing tactile form or not experiencing tactile form, if one generates the intention, moves the body, and emits semen, all commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Or, even in empty space, if one generates the intention, moves the body, and emits semen, it also commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Moving the body for the sake of emission without emitting is a grave sthūlāccaya. Moving to derive pleasure without the intention to emit is a light sthūlāccaya. If one scratches or massages the private parts, generates the intention, moves the body, and emits semen, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. 'Internally experiencing tactile form' refers to one's own body. 'Internally not experiencing tactile form' refers to external objects and the like. Whenever one makes preliminary application for the purpose of emitting semen: wishing to act is a light sthūlāccaya; having acted but not yet accomplished is a grave sthūlāccaya; once emitted, it commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and there is no longer the name of sthūlāccaya. The remaining precepts are also like this. If it is not accomplished and one ceases, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. Fondling without the intention to emit: if it emits, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if it does not emit and one ceases, it is a light sthūlāccaya. If through applying heat to scabies or rubbing, or when walking the two thighs rub together, or through contact with clothing, or when riding on an animal or on a cart one automatically emits [semen], there is no offense. Or seeing an attractive danger, or without seeing, it emits through mental imagination, there is no offense. Teaching another person to emit semen is a duṣkṛta. Saying that one accepts another's lust is a grave sthūlāccaya. Wishing to cause semen to emit: if it emits, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. A grave sthūlāccaya bordering on saṃghāvaśeṣa is confessed before four persons; a light one is before a partner. The Buddha was in Śrāvastī.

1.6

Second: 'If one grasps the hair, up to rubbing and touching smooth and fine [skin]': Altogether there are nine kinds of offenses: rubbing upward, rubbing downward, grasping, embracing, pulling, pushing, lifting, lowering, and pressing the hidden parts—touching with a lustful mind in these nine ways. Toward an unclothed woman, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; through clothing, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; at the preliminary approach, it is a light sthūlāccaya. If a woman's lust is intense and she touches in these nine ways an unclothed monk or a clothed monk, and the monk has a lustful mind and takes pleasure in it, it is also like this. It is said that a young girl is also like this, because the smooth and fine [texture] is the same. If, regarding a woman, one conceives the perception of a man or the perception of a paṇḍaka—with these two perceptions, if one touches smooth and fine [skin], it also commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Grasping and touching smooth and fine flesh, hair, nails, or teeth together also commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If one grasps flesh, hair, or nails without touching smooth and fine [skin], it is a grave sthūlāccaya. If, wishing to engage in sexual intercourse, one grasps the two faculties of a man or a paṇḍaka, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. If one grasps for the sake of experiencing tactile form and experiencing the pleasure of touch, it is a duṣkṛta. If one has no lustful mind at all, there is no offense. The above nine kinds of touching smooth and fine [skin]: toward a human woman, it commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; toward a female amānuṣa, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; toward a female animal, it is a duṣkṛta. If one touches smooth and fine [skin]: toward a human woman, it is a sthūlāccaya; toward an amānuṣa female, it is a duṣkṛta. If a mother, sister, or daughter touches one's body, there is no offense. If saving from the dangers of water, fire, knives, clubs, vicious insects, or evil ghosts, or if one falls from a high place, grasping without a defiled mind is without offense.

1.7

Third: Lewd words. Since one cannot obtain the pleasure of lustful touch, one gives rein to the mouth to express one's desire. As young men and women have intense sexual desire, falling into the two chapters is fully explained. Lewd words have nine kinds of offenses: praising, disparaging, begging, wishing, asking, counter-asking, explaining, instructing, and reviling. If a monk uses nine kinds of praising and disparaging regarding the three places toward a woman, for each word understood, he commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if not understood, a grave sthūlāccaya; at the preliminary approach, a light sthūlāccaya. If a woman herself praises and disparages the three places using nine matters, and the monk accords with her mind, uttering words whether few or many, in each word he commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Subtle reviling is in foreign texts called mutual vexation; coarse reviling is like the speech of white-robed laity. If a monk, toward a woman, conceives the perception of a woman, perception of a man, perception of a paṇḍaka, or perception of the two faculties, lewd words all commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If the woman understands the meaning of the words, the monk commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If she is young, foolish, or deaf and does not understand, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. Toward an amānuṣa, or a male, or a paṇḍaka with two faculties: if they understand, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; if they do not understand, it is a duṣkṛta. Toward male and female animals, whether they understand or do not understand, it is entirely a duṣkṛta. It is said that uttering one lewd word in the midst of many women incurs many offenses.

1.8

Fourth: Wishing to have one's own body served, one sighs and says: 'Serving with the body is the highest, most supreme, and utmost of all offerings, which no offerings can equal.' If one says, 'To be able to serve us who keep the precepts and practice brahmacarya by engaging in sexual desire with the body is the foremost offering,' in each of the nine kinds of praise, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If one says, 'To be able to serve us who do not greatly keep the precepts and practice brahmacarya by engaging in sexual desire with the body is the foremost offering,' in each of the nine kinds of praise, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If one says, 'Not serving us who keep the precepts and practice brahmacarya by engaging in sexual desire with the body is the [foremost] offering,' in each of the nine kinds of praise, every word commits a grave sthūlāccaya; that person fears committing a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and therefore utters such words. The Vinaya says that if the woman before him understands, he also commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. 'Not with the body' means that his intention is actually to speak of the body. Toward a woman, conceiving the perception of a non-woman, if one desires [her], one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; toward a non-woman, conceiving the perception of a woman, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. Toward a human woman, it commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; toward an amānuṣa woman, a sthūlāccaya; toward an amānuṣa woman, a duṣkṛta. Plainly saying, 'Serve with the body,' but one's words are not yet fully articulate, is a grave sthūlāccaya. About to praise, or the words are not yet completed, is a light sthūlāccaya.

1.9

Fifth: Matchmaking.
Monk Kāla was clever and of sharp faculties. Before leaving household life, he constantly resolved doubts for others, acting as a go-between connecting men and women. After leaving household life, he still did not abandon it. On this account, the precept was formulated. Although one does not practice [lust] oneself, the faults are also manifold: first, with much desire and taking on worldly affairs, one hinders one's own proper practice; second, it causes people resentment and vexation, destroying the Buddha-Dharma; third, it nurtures others' desire and evil, increasing their cycle of birth and death; therefore, it is what a home-leaver should not do. A woman has fourteen kinds of guardians: guarded by father, mother, brothers, sisters; guarded by father-in-law, mother-in-law, relatives, or clan; protected by clan, self-protected, protected by Dharma, and protected by devas. One either carries the intention of the man's family to the woman's family, or carries the intention of the woman's family to the man's family. Whichever place one first receives words from is called the principal. One either receives the principal's words oneself, receives them from a messenger, or receives them from a sub-messenger; and one either speaks to the other party oneself, sends a messenger to speak to the other party, or sends a sub-messenger to speak to the other party; and one either reports back to the principal oneself, or sends a sub-messenger to report back. At the times of the three ways of speaking to the other party and the three ways of reporting back, each is a grave sthūlāccaya; none has yet committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa. It is also said: at the times of the three ways of receiving words, it is a light sthūlāccaya. Whenever one acts as a go-between connecting a man and a woman, it is only when that man and woman copulate that one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. When already [matched] but not yet copulated, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. At the preliminary stage of bringing about the match, it is a light sthūlāccaya. Matchmaking between two men is not a saṃghāvaśeṣa: if they have already copulated, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; if not yet copulated, a duṣkṛta. If the parents are indolent, though they reconcile as at first, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; preliminary application to reconcile them is a light sthūlāccaya. Because they are angry with each other, it is a sthūlāccaya. If without anger they mutually agree to sever permanently, and one brings them back together, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Toward sisters and other relatives, straightaway it is only a duṣkṛta; making preliminary speech on whether it is proper or not is a light sthūlāccaya; readily wishing to reconcile them is a light sthūlāccaya. There are seven kinds of wives. There are three kinds of fundamental wives: first, the two parents pour water over the husband's hands and give her by hand; second, marriage acquired through wealth and goods; third, acquired by conquering a country. If heaven separates them and no written document has been given, reconciling them is a grave sthūlāccaya. If a written document has been given and the woman's bride-price is completely terminated, causing them to reconcile commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. The remaining four kinds: first, obtained by her coming of her own accord; second, obtained by clothing and food; third, obtained by living together; fourth, obtained temporarily. These are not fundamentally obtained; therefore, going or staying is at the wife's own discretion. If she is completely severed once, no written document is required; this is why they are distinguished. Causing them to unite commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa; reconciling them when not yet severed is a grave sthūlāccaya. If one receives the words of a lowly person, speaks them to a noble person, and reports back to the lowly person, it is a grave sthūlāccaya because, first, there is error, and second, because of poverty and lowliness, the matter will ultimately never be accomplished. If one receives another's words, understands the purpose of taking a wife, and reports back, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; saṃghāvaśeṣa refers to the time of copulation. If one does not understand the purpose of taking a wife, there is no offense; 'no offense' is like the case where they say they will jointly make offerings to the Three Jewels. Receiving the purpose of taking a wife without receiving the words is a grave sthūlāccaya. Providing goods and money to bring it to completion is a light sthūlāccaya.

1.10

Sixth: building a large hut for oneself without an owner. The monk Ābila built a high, wide, and large hut for himself, begging [for materials] repeatedly, which caused householders to complain. The Buddha [determined that] much desire harms the Dharma, much ostentation impedes study, and moreover external obstacles and difficulties bring non-negligible troubles. Therefore, he established the precept requiring it to be built in accordance with the Dharma and within the proper measure, obliging [the monk] to ask and announce [it] three times to the saṃgha, and the saṃgha to perform a motion with three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman) for him, after which he may build it. If it exceeds the measure or is not announced, both incur a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Regarding the measurement, it is said that whether it is built on saṃgha land, private land, or with one's own funds, all constitute offenses. The basic treatise explains that when leveling the ground, it is a light sthūlāccaya. Even if it is built small, if the land is not requested [from the saṃgha], it incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Places with difficulties and places with obstacles are now all distinguished: within the four borders of this dwelling, if inside any one border there is official land, householder land, non-Buddhist land, the Buddha's land, bhikṣuṇīs' land, flowing water, deep ground, deep pits, large rocks, or large trees, this is called an 'obstacle place', because it obstructs others and obstructs oneself. Because difficulties will arise later, it is also called a 'difficulty place'. Building in such a place incurs a grave sthūlāccaya for both. A place of venomous snakes, vicious nāgas, centipedes, millipedes, and various poisonous insects is called a 'difficulty place', because difficulties will arise later; and obstructing oneself and others makes it also called an 'obstacle place'. Building in such a place also incurs a grave sthūlāccaya for both. Within the four borders of this dwelling, if inside one cubit there are ant hills, that is called an 'obstacle place'. Since it brings both obstacles and difficulties that arise later, it is also called a '[difficulty] place'. Building in such a place incurs a duṣkṛta for both. If one instructs another to build a dwelling and, having departed, travels, and after it is finished [the other] does not announce it, exceeds the measure, or builds in a place with difficulties or obstacles; or if, before it is completed, [the first monk] travels and returns, and completes it himself, also in discord with the Dharma, the offenses are entirely as above. If one builds a hut on saṃgha land, and in between the huts there is not a one-cubit path for walking meditation dedicated to the Buddha, this is also an obstacle place, incurring a grave sthūlāccaya. If behind a private hut one builds a shelter for white-clothed laymen or novice monks (śrāmaṇera) without announcing it, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. If one builds a hut for the Three Jewels, when the assembly is in harmony they build it directly without a karman. Building a large [dwelling] for the Three Jewels and requesting land incurs no offense. If there are difficulties and obstacles, the four monks commit a sthūlāccaya. If one buys an already completed dwelling, or receives it as a gift, one does not commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa, but incurs a duṣkṛta. Such a dwelling that exceeds the measure should be returned to the saṃgha; one should not buy it, and buying it incurs a duṣkṛta. After returning it, confession is permitted. Building an attic inside a private hut incurs no offense, because it was already announced previously. If one builds it inside a saṃgha hut, one must announce it to the saṃgha; failing to announce it incurs a duṣkṛta.

1.11

Seventh: having an owner [who builds] a large hut for oneself. Because the monk Channa had many acquaintances who supplied what was needed to help build the dwelling, he thereupon felled a large tree and arbitrarily exceeded the measure. In the sense of a forest, a large tree is a sacred tree endowed with majesty and spirits, known to many people, where people can also take rest. Having lost the forest trees, people no longer recognise [the place], and they also lose the source of shade. They jointly complained and grumbled. Because of this, kings, nāgas, snakes, and the like can cause troubles and harm, breaking the brahmacarya and bringing ruin to the Three Jewels. Accommodating the four postures of deportment—calling it 'large' is merely a general way of speaking about a dwelling; it does not necessarily have to be large. If the saṃgha does not perform a karman for him and does not inspect [the site], the saṃgha commits a duṣkṛta. Because of this, [the Buddha] formulated the precept. The only difference is that there is an owner; everything else is entirely as explained above under the rule without an owner.

1.12

Eighth: [accusing a monk] groundlessly of a pārājika rule. The monk Dabba was an arhat endowed with the six supernatural knowledges and accomplished in the five virtues: he did not act out of desire, out of anger, out of delusion, or out of fear, and he knew the proper times of what should and should not be obtained. He served as the saṃgha's allocator of rooms. Because the monk Mettiya was of low birth, he received the lowest room. Mettiya harboured resentment that very night; the next day, in his foolishness, he again received coarse food. This occurred repeatedly. Because of these two matters, he developed immense anger and resentment, and forced his sister, a nun, to bring an accusation against him, saying: 'Dabba had intercourse with me; Mettiya said he already knew of it beforehand.' Because the nun herself stated that she had committed a grave offense, the Buddha had her expelled. The Buddha asked Dabba: 'Are you truly so or not?' He answered: 'The World-Honoured One knows of himself.' The Buddha said: 'You must not speak like this now. If you remember, speak; if you do not remember, speak.' He answered: 'I do not remember, World-Honoured One.' The Buddha told the monks: 'You must take note that the monk Dabba does not remember.' They performed the karman of recollection (smṛti-vinaya) for Dabba, prompting his own recollection as to whether he had offended or not; all monks were forbidden from speaking of him having committed evil. This is a karman of protection. After instructing them, [the Buddha] arose and entered the meditation chamber. The saṃgha then questioned Mettiya severely regarding the three matters: seeing, hearing, and suspecting. Mettiya confessed: 'There was nothing seen, heard, or suspected.' The matters of seeing, hearing, and suspecting are the root of an offense. Slandering without these three is called 'groundless'. Slandering groundlessly incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Slandering without a saṃghāvaśeṣa [matter] incurs an offense of pāyattika. Slandering without a pāyattika [matter] incurs a duṣkṛta. At the time of preparation it is light; when spoken without being understood, it is a grave sthūlāccaya. 'Hearing with faith' means hearing from a person who has attained the path. 'Hearing without faith' means hearing from untrustworthy people who harbour mutual anger and slander. 'Impure resembling pure' refers to committing sexual misconduct, which is called impure, whereas not killing and so forth resembles pure. 'Pure resembling impure' refers to merely engaging in preparatory acts of violating the prohibitions without actually breaking the precepts.

1.13

Ninth: taking a fragment from a different class of matter. Because Mettiya previously slandered [Dabba] groundlessly, causing his sister to be expelled and bringing trouble upon himself, he constantly sought grounds for slander in order to vent his fury. Meeting at Gṛdhrakūṭaparvata, he came across Dabba walking in the forest. At that time, there were two nuns passing by who stopped to pay respects. Having paid respects, they sat down to rest by the roadside. Dabba's foot slipped and he fell, lying upon a nun. Mettiya saw this and immediately took it as a root. Furthermore, at the foot of the mountain he saw a flock of sheep copulating, and again took the matter of the sheep as a root. 'Different class' refers to offenses of the four grave rules (pārājikas): having committed this offense, one is excluded from sharing saṃgha affairs; because one's class is separated from the saṃgha, it is called a 'different class'. The remaining three categories are fragments of these four matters. The preparatory actions of the three categories and all duṣkṛtas are collectively called 'resembling fragments'. Within resembling fragments there are two distinctions: the category of śaikṣa rules is called 'momentary fragments', because through mental repentance the offense is removed, and since it does not endure through time it is called 'momentary'. If with lustful desire one falls and lies on top of a nun in a secluded place, that is a fragment of a different class. Now, Dabba's secluded [act] was a duṣkṛta without mental intent; falling down was unintentional. Being without desire, the secluded place and falling upon the body were the lightest of duṣkṛta offenses, reaching the extreme of a fragment; since it was not an authentic fragment, it is called a 'resembling fragment'. Slanderers in general either take a fragment or take a resembling fragment. Because Dabba had no authentic fragment, Mettiya took a resembling fragment; taking either [an actual fragment] or a resembling [fragment] to establish the root of an offense and slandering, both incur a saṃghāvaśeṣa.

1.14

Tenth: causing schism in the saṃgha through contentious disputes. In order to destroy the saṃgha, Devadatta adopted five practices, saying to the newly ordained monks: 'There are five practices, namely wearing rag robes, begging for food, eating one meal [a day], sitting in the open, and not eating meat. If you observe and practice these five practices throughout your lives, you will swiftly attain nirvāṇa; there is no need for the Eightfold Noble Path.' Along with these five practices, he proclaimed fourteen matters, stating that non-Dharma was Dharma, and that Dharma was non-Dharma. 'Non-Dharma' refers to the five practices, which are indeed non-Dharma; the Eightfold Noble Path is Dharma, yet he claimed the five practices were Dharma and the Eightfold Noble Path was non-Dharma. 'Vinaya' in the Central Asian language means 'taming'. The meaning of 'taming' is that the Eightfold Noble Path is able to tame the three poisons, and is therefore called Vinaya; the five practices cannot, so they are not Vinaya. The Eightfold Noble Path leads to the principle of nirvāṇa; being complete, it leaves no residue (saṃghāvaśeṣa), whereas the five practices are insufficient and therefore deficient. Maintaining the Eightfold Path is not an offense, but proclaiming [this schism] is an offense; receiving the five practices is an offense, but merely reciting them is not an offense. What is constantly practiced is the Eightfold Path; what is not constantly practiced are the five practices. The Eightfold Path is the teaching of all Buddhas. The five practices were such that Devadatta took the Eightfold Path to be wrong and the five practices to be right. Diligently applying means, he adopted these evil conditions and initially sought to split the saṃgha. The saṃgha admonished him three times without his desisting; only later, when the Buddha admonished him through various means, did he desist. At that time, there was an act of immediate retribution (ānantarya) but not yet a saṃghāvaśeṣa; it was a sthūlāccaya bordering on saṃghāvaśeṣa. Because of this, the Buddha formulated the precept: from now on, one who wishes to split the saṃgha should first be admonished three times; if he does not desist after three admonitions, it is a light sthūlāccaya. The assembly must perform a motion with three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman) for him: the first announcement is an admonition; if he does not desist at the second admonition, it is a grave sthūlāccaya; if he does not desist at the third admonition, it incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. The fourteen matters entail fourteen grave sthūlāccayas, which, together with the sthūlāccayas incurred during admonition, collectively constitute one saṃghāvaśeṣa. From then on there was a karman. After the three admonitions, the assembly gathered on one occasion; Devadatta came in and spoke the aforesaid matters again. The Buddha admonished him repeatedly but could not bring him to desist. Knowing the proper time, the World-Honoured One left the assembly and departed. Later, when the saṃgha held a full assembly, Devadatta came again, stood up of his own accord, distributed voting tickets (śalākā), and proclaimed: 'Those who agree with what was formerly stated, take one.' At the first distribution, assisting in disharmony, four people took them at the time of separation, splitting the saṃgha into two divisions; this is called schism in the saṃgha. Bordering on the four matters of false speech, it incurs a sthūlāccaya and constitutes a great act of immediate retribution. At the second distribution, two hundred and fifty people took tickets. At the third distribution, including the previous ones, five hundred newly ordained ordinary monks took tickets and followed him away. With each of the three distributions, the offense of schism in the saṃgha was incurred. On this single day, gods and humans were thrown into chaos, the Eightfold Noble Path ceased to operate, and the wheel of Dharma ceased to turn. While the Buddha was in the world, obstructing the wheel of Dharma was considered schism in the saṃgha; nowadays, destroying a karman is considered schism in the saṃgha. After Devadatta split the saṃgha, an arhat nun admonished him; because he refused to accept her admonition, his rage and arrogance swelled, and he struck and killed the arhat nun with his own hand. Following that, he shed the blood of the Buddha. At that time he committed three great acts of immediate retribution. The retribution offense of schism in the saṃgha cannot be repented; schism of a saṃgha performing a karman can be repented. Whenever two groups perform karmans within a single boundary, that constitutes schism in the saṃgha's karman, incurring a grave sthūlāccaya bordering on saṃghāvaśeṣa, but no saṃghāvaśeṣa itself. When a karman is in accordance with the Dharma, if one intends to disrupt it and does not come to listen, it is a grave sthūlāccaya bordering on schism in the saṃgha; if one comes but does not agree, it incurs a duṣkṛta. If with the intention to split the saṃgha one causes conflict and disorder to divide the assembly into two divisions, this is also called a grave sthūlāccaya of schism in the saṃgha; if it is not a karman of schism in the saṃgha, but one simply disperses unknowingly, it is a duṣkṛta. 'Blending like milk and water, practicing in peace and joy': when water blends with water and milk blends with milk, there is a single flavor without destruction. If minds are aligned and the Dharma is shared, the assembly has no divergent inclinations. An assembly of a single flavor rests in harmony and delights in the path; hence it is called 'practicing in peace and joy'. Vinaya masters say: 'Nowadays, for schism of a saṃgha performing a karman, one should also admonish three times; if one does not desist after three admonitions, one does not commit a saṃghāvaśeṣa. By analogy, this cannot yet be firmly settled.' Vinaya masters say: 'Nowadays, for schism of a saṃgha performing a karman, there is no motion with three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman).'

First 14 of 231 passages. Read on

English (machine translation)

Contents

Text