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’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 76

Bu-Pc.76.1.1 BD.3.51 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time the group of six monks defamed a monk with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can the group of six monks defame … formal meeting of the Order?” …

“Is it true, as is said, that you, monks, defamed a monk with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order?” “It is true, lord.” Vin.4.148

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying: “How can you, foolish men, defame … formal meeting of the Order? It is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

Whatever monk should defame a monk with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, there is an offence of expiation.”[1]


Bu-Pc.76.2.1 Whatever means: … monk is to be understood in this case.

Monk[2] means: another monk.

Unfounded means: unseen, unheard, unsuspected.[3]

Offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order means: any one of the thirteen (offences entailing this penalty).

BD.3.52 Should defame means: if he reprimands him or causes (another) to reprimand him, there is an offence of expiation.


Bu-Pc.76.2.2 If he thinks that one is ordained when he is ordained, and defames (him) with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether one is ordained… If he thinks that one is not ordained when he is ordained … offence of expiation. If he defames (him) in respect of a falling away from right habits or a falling away from right views,[4] there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he defames one who is not ordained, 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.[5]


Bu-Pc.76.2.3 There is no offence if, thinking what is true, he reprimands him or causes (another) to reprimand him; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.[6]

The Sixth

Footnotes and references:

1.

Cf. Vin.3.163, Vin.3.167–168 = BD.1.281, where there is a saṅghādisesa offence in unfoundedly charging a monk with an offence involving defeat; and cf. BD.1.289. This Pācittiya and Bu-Ss.8 are referred to at Vin.1.173.

2.

Accusative.

4.

ācāravipattiyā vā diṭṭhivipattiyā vā. At Vin.1.171–172 these two, preceded by sīlavipatti, are translated at Vinaya Texts i.343: “moral transgression, transgression against the rules of conduct, heresy.” This passage states the kind of offence covered by each of these three groups. These three vipattiyo referred to at Ne.126.

5.

Doubtless should read anāpatti.