Vinaya Pitaka (1): The Analysis of Monks’ Rules (Bhikkhu-vibhanga)

by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 345,334 words | ISBN-13: 9781921842160

The English translation of the Bhikkhu-vibhanga: the first part of the Suttavibhanga, which itself is the first book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of rules for Buddhist monks. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (first part, bhikkhu-vibhanga) contains many...

Monks’ Forfeiture (Nissaggiya) 25

Bu-NP.25.1.1 BD.2.139 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans,[1] said to the monk who shared his brother’s cell: “Come, your reverence, we will set out on a tour of the country.”

“I will not go, honoured sir,” he said, “my robe is worn thin.”[2]

“Come, your reverence, I will give you a robe,” he said and he gave him a robe. Then that monk heard: “It is said that the lord will set out on a tour of the country.” Then it occurred to that monk: “I will not set out on a tour of the country with the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans; I will set out on a tour of the country with the lord.”

Then the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, said to that monk: “Come now, your reverence, we will set out on a tour of the country.”

“I will not set out on a tour of the country with you, honoured sir, I will set out on a tour of the country with the lord.”

“But that robe, your reverence, which I gave you, that will set out on a tour of the country with me,” he said, and angry and displeased,[3] he tore it away.[4] Then that monk told this matter to the monks. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, himself having given a robe to a monk, angry and displeased, tear it away?” Then these monks told this matter to the lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, that you, Upananda, yourself BD.2.140 having given a robe to a monk, angry and displeased, tore it away?”

“It is true, lord,” he said.

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked him, saying:

“How can you, foolish man, Vin.3.255 yourself having given a robe to a monk, angry and displeased, tear it away? It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

Whatever monk, himself having given a robe to a monk, angry and displeased, should tear it away or should cause it to be torn away, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.”[5]


Bu-NP.25.2.1 Whatever means: … is monk to be understood in this case.

To a monk means: to another monk.

Himself means: himself[6] having given.

A robe means: any one robe of the six (kinds of) robes (including) the least one fit for assignment.[7]

Angry, displeased means: dissatisfied, the mind worsened, stubborn.[8]

Should tear it away means: if he tears it away himself, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.

Should cause it to be torn away means: if he commands another, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If having commanded once, he then tears many away,[9] it is to be forfeited. It should be forfeited to … an individual. And thus, monks, should it be forfeited: ‘Honoured sirs, having myself given this robe to a monk, it was BD.2.141 torn away by me; it is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Order.’‘… the Order should give back … let the venerable ones give back … I will give back this robe to the venerable one.’

Having given a robe to one who is ordained thinking that he is ordained, if angry and displeased, he tears it away or causes it to be torn away, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. If he is in doubt as to whether one is ordained, (then if) angry and displeased he tears it away or causes it to be torn away, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. Having given a robe to one who is ordained thinking that he is not ordained, if angry and displeased, he tears it away or causes it to be torn away, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. Having given another requisite, if angry and displeased, he tears it away or causes it to be torn away, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Having given a robe or another requisite to one who is not ordained, (then if) angry and displeased, he tears it away or causes it to be torn away, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that one is ordained when he is not ordained, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether one is not ordained, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that one is not ordained when he is not ordained, there is an offence of wrong-doing.[10]

There is no offence if he gives it or takes (from him) in a friendly manner[11]; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer. Vin.3.256

Footnotes and references:

1.

See above, Bu-NP.6, Bu-NP.18, Bu-NP.20.

2.

dubbala.

3.

kupito anattamano, said of Devadatta at Vin.2.189.

4.

Vin-a.723, by force, balakkārena aggahesi.

5.

Cf. Bu-Pc.81.

6.

sāmaṃ explained by sayaṃ.

7.

Cf. above, BD.2.7, BD.2.40, BD.2.48.

8.

Cf. BD.1.281; Vin.4.236; MN.i.101.

9.

Vin-a.723, “if he commands, ‘take robe-material,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing; if, having commanded, he says, ‘take many,’ there is an offence of expiation. If he says, ‘take the outer cloak, the inner and the upper robes,’ for each speech there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he says,’ take everything given by me,’ for one speech made there are many offences.”

10.

Here text is surely corrupt, for instead of āpatti dukkaṭassa it should read anāpatti. Oldenberg gives no variant reading.

11.

vissasanto, putting his trust in him. Text reads vissāsanto; Sinhalese edition vissasanto, which is rather more correct, being from viśvasiti.