毘尼心 1.20.2

1.20.2

[…] will conciliate, admonish, and apologize.) Fifth is the karman of suspension for not seeing an offense (this person does not believe that there is the substance of bad karma; this is called the view of non-causality. One performs this karman to suspend and cast them outside the Saṃgha, not engaging in Saṃgha affairs together with them). Sixth is the karman of suspension for not repenting [an offense] (this person does not believe that karma can result in retribution; this is called the view of different causality. One performs this karman, keeping them outside the Saṃgha, not engaging in affairs together with them). Seventh is the karman of suspension for not abandoning an evil view (this person does not believe that defilements of sensual desire can obstruct the noble path; this is called wrong view. One performs this karman to cast them outside the Saṃgha, not engaging in affairs together with them). The first four karmans deal with a lack of proper conduct; the latter three suspensions deal with a lack of faith. 'Lack of conduct' means lacking the conduct of internal protection and lacking the conduct of external protection. Within internal protection: the karman of reprimand deals with not protecting the Saṃgha; the karman of niśraya deals with not protecting conduct. Within external protection: the karman of banishment protects the dānapatis who have not yet developed faith so that they give rise to faith; the karman of turning over the bowl (prohibiting visits) protects the dānapatis who already have faith so that it increases. Thus there are four karmans. Next, as for the three suspensions: not believing that the substance of karma belonging to the truth of the origination [of suffering] obstructs the path and possesses the efficacy of bringing retribution—therefore there are the two suspensions of not seeing and not repenting. Defilements serve as supporting conditions—therefore there is the one suspension of not abandoning. Since they do not sever origination, they bring on painful retribution in return; since suffering is not extinguished, [their] cessation is [lost in] impermanence; since they do not seek cessation, they deviate from the path and are useless in training—thus the ritual procedure of suspension is carried out. These seven karmans are methods for punishing people. If they do not accept punishment, one should deal with them by the karman of harsh scolding, driving them out straightaway. There are four ways of corrupting other families: 1. Corrupting other families based on material gain (taking food from that family and giving it to one family while not giving it to another); 2. Corrupting families based on families (taking clothing and items from that family and giving them to one family while not giving them to another); 3. Corrupting families based on relatives and friends (relying on noble and influential dānapatis for the sake of one person and not for another); 4. Corrupting families based on the saṅghārāma (taking Saṃgha goods, fruits, vegetables, etc., and according to one's own desires giving them to one family and not to another). If a bhikṣu commits these four matters, corrupting the pure faith of other dānapatis, one must perform the karman of banishment against him, driving him away from the village. The five practices employed as expedients to cause a schism in the Saṃgha: 1. Wearing rag-robes for one's whole life; 2. Begging for food for one's whole life; 3. Sitting in the open for one's whole life; 4. Not eating ghee or salt for one's whole life; 5. Not eating fish or meat for one's whole life. These five are practices of superior persons, which middling and inferior [practitioners] cannot endure; hearing them initially, they accept them with faith, but later they will inevitably backslide. The first three statements are plausible speech; the latter two statements are false speech. Schism in the Saṃgha employs eighteen points, consisting of nine pairs: 1. Dharma and non-Dharma (conforming to the sūtras and being in accord with principle is called Dharma; contradicting the sūtras and defying principle is called non-Dharma); 2. Vinaya and non-Vinaya (what accords in meaning with the Vinaya is called Vinaya; what departs in meaning from the Vinaya is called non-Vinaya); 3. Offense and non-offense (among the seven categories, when the conditions are fully present, it is called an offense; when conditions are lacking, it is called non-offense); 4. Light and heavy (transgressing an offense of deportment is light; transgressing śīla is a heavy offense); 5. Having remainder and without remainder (saṃghāvaśeṣa and below are having remainder; pārājika is called without remainder); 6. Coarse and non-coarse (sthūlātyaya by expedient means is coarse; the remaining light proscriptive and naturally [unwholesome offenses] are not coarse); 7. Customary practice and non-customary practice (what is permitted is customary practice; what is prohibited is non-practice); 8. Promulgated and non-promulgated (what restricts within bounds by a legal karman is promulgated; illegal separate assemblies that lose measure are non-promulgated); 9. Recited and non-recited (accomplishing the recitation of the precepts in the sixteen kinds of poṣadha, whether extensive or abbreviated, is recited; contradicting this is non-recited). Among these eighteen points: the first two pairs clarify the Dharma of teaching; the next five pairs clarify the Dharma of practice; the last two pairs clarify the Dharma of the community. If it is Dharma and one says it is non-Dharma, or if it is non-Dharma and one says it is Dharma—inverting them like this is called schism. If it is Dharma and one says it is Dharma, or if it is non-Dharma and one says it is non-Dharma—following them like this is called the law of harmony in the Saṃgha; down to 'recited and non-recited', it is also like this. The Saṃgha takes harmony and forbearance as its substance; if views and forbearance differ, it departs from the meaning of harmony. There are two kinds of Saṃgha: 1. The Saṃgha of the Dharma Wheel (those who advance in practice according to the Dharma, transform sentient beings, ascend, and can destroy the defilements abandoned by seeing [the truth]); 2. The Saṃgha of Karman (those who perform ritual actions according to the teachings, thereby completing Saṃgha affairs). There are three kinds of Saṃgha: 1. The true Saṃgha (noble persons); 2. The harmonious Saṃgha (worthy persons); 3. The Saṃgha of nominal designation (ordinary persons). Four disputes: 1. Disputes over speech (disputing the truth or falsehood of principle); 2. Disputes over investigation (seeking out offenses against one another); 3. Disputes over offenses (first, evaluating an offense without certainty; second, mutually committing offenses against one another); 4. Disputes over affairs (disputing whether a karman affair is legal or illegal). Among these four disputes: the first one concerns the Dharma of teaching; the middle two concern the Dharma of practice; the last one concerns the Dharma of the community. Contending with each other is called strife; gathering factions to support one another is called dispute; presenting the case to an adjudicating officer is called pleading; each stating their own reasoning is called litigation. Disputes over speech have four points: 1. What is spoken is consistent in both text and meaning; 2. What is spoken differs in text but is identical in meaning; 3. What is spoken is identical in text but differs in meaning; 4. What is spoken differs in both text and meaning (admonishing them, saying: 'Why must you contest this?'). Among the roots of disputes over investigation, there are six from which disputes arise: 1. Resentful and obstinate, difficult to converse with; 2. Vicious by nature, prone to quarreling and strife; 3. Flattery and deceitfulness; 4. Wrong livelihood; 5. Lacking shame and conscience; 6. Much greed and envy. Based on these six things, disputes over investigation arise. In the Madhyama-āgama, the fundamental conditions of dispute are six: 1. Anger; 2. Malice; 3. Hypocrisy and deceit; 4. Stinginess and envy; 5. Clinging to views; 6. Wrong and extreme views (these roots of disputes over investigation appear in the Mātṛkā). Among the roots of disputes over offenses, there are six places from which offenses arise: 1. There are bodily offenses, not verbal or mental; 2. There are verbal offenses, not bodily or mental; 3. There are bodily and verbal offenses, not mental; 4. There are bodily and mental offenses, not verbal; 5. There are verbal and mental offenses, not bodily; 6. There are verbal and mental offenses [and bodily offenses]. Moreover, the Mātṛkā says: there are mental offenses, not bodily or verbal; as with the precept against [handling] money and treasures, where body and mouth do not receive it, but merely contemplating mentally and generating the thought that it has become one's own constitutes an offense. The seven settlements of disputes (adhikaraṇa-śamatha): 1. Settlement in the presence (pratimukhā-vinaya: applying this method directly in the presence of the person involved, deliberating and harmonizing the matter, whereby it is brought to an end; this single vinaya applies generally to settling all four disputes); 2. Settlement by recollection (smṛti-vinaya: this person is pure, but is falsely slandered by others; he requests a karman from the Saṃgha, certifying that he has not committed the offense, and the dispute is brought to an end; this settles disputes over investigation); 3. Settlement for the non-insane (amūḍha-vinaya: when this person was mad, he violated the precepts; therefore, because of his deranged mind, his offenses were irregular and he did not genuinely commit an offense; he requests a karman from the Saṃgha to bring disputes over investigation to an end); 4. Settlement by voluntary admission (pratijñā-kāraka-vinaya: when others evaluate an offense without certainty, one must take the transgressor's own statement detailing the lightness or heaviness of the offense committed, and punish the offense according to the law, thereby settling disputes over offenses); 5. Settlement by inquiry into specific depravity (yadbhūyasikīya-vinaya / tatsvabhāvaiṣīya-vinaya: also called seeking the marks of the offense; when this person is judged for an offense, his earlier and later statements do not correspond […]