Vinaya Pitaka (3): Khandhaka

by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 386,194 words | ISBN-13: 9781921842160

The English translation of the Khandhaka: the second book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of various narratives. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (third part, khandhaka) contains many Pali original words, but transliterated using a system similar to the I...

On the questions of Upāli

Kd.9.6.1 Then the venerable Upāli approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Upāli spoke thus to the Lord: “Does an Order, Lord, that is complete carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of[1] (an accused monk) if he is absent? Lord, is that a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”[2]

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

Kd.9.6.2 “Does an Order, Lord, that is complete carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out by the interrogation[3] (of an accused monk) if there is no interrogation? Does it carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the acknowledgement[4] (of an accused monk) if there is no acknowledgement? BD.4.467 Does it give a verdict of past insanity[5] to one who merits a verdict of innocence?[6] Does it carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity[7] against one who merits a verdict of past insanity? Does it carry out a (formal) act of censure[8] against one who merits a (formal) act for specific depravity? Does it carry out a (formal) act of placing under guidance for one who merits a (formal) act of censure? Vin.1.326 Does it carry out a (formal) act of banishment against one who merits a (formal) act of placing under guidance? Does it carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for one who merits a (formal) act of banishment? Does it carry out a (formal) act of suspension against one who merits a (formal) act of reconciliation? Does it grant probation[9] to one who merits a (formal) act of suspension? Does it send back to the beginning one who merits probation? Does it inflict mānatta on one who merits being sent back to the beginning? Does it rehabilitate one who merits mānatta? Does it ordain one who merits rehabilitation? Is this a legally valid (formal) act, Lord, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

Kd.9.6.3 “This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) if he is absent—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.[10] Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act which should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) if there is no interrogation … carries out a (formed) act which should be carried out with the acknowledgement (of an accused monk) if there is no acknowledgement … ordains one meriting rehabilitation BD.4.468—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act”, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

Kd.9.6.4 “If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) when he is present, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) when there is interrogation, if it carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the acknowledgement of (an accused monk) when there is his acknowledgement, if it gives a verdict of innocence to one who merits a verdict of innocence … if it rehabilitates one who merits rehabilitation, if it ordains one who merits ordination, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) when he is present—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) when there is interrogation … ordains one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far.”

Kd.9.6.5 “If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

BD.4.469 “If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity, if it gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity; if it carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity, Vin.1.327 if it carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a (formal) act of censure; if it carries out a (formal) act of placing under guidance against one meriting a (formal) act of censure, if it carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act of placing under guidance; if it carries out a (formal) act of banishment against one meriting a (formal) act of placing under guidance, if it carries out a (formal) act of placing under guidance against one meriting a (formal) act of banishment; if it carries out a (formal) act of reconciliation against one meriting a (formal) act of banishment, if it carries out a (formal) act of banishment against one meriting a (formal) act of reconciliation; if it carries out a (formal) act of suspension against one meriting a (formal) act of reconciliation, if it carries out a (formal) act of reconciliation against one meriting a (formal) act of suspension; if it grants probation to one meriting a (formal) act of suspension, if it carries out a (formal) act of suspension against one meriting probation; if it sends back to the beginning one meriting probation, if it grants probation to one meriting being sent back to the beginning; if it inflicts mānatta on one meriting being sent back to the beginning, if it sends back to the beginning one meriting mānatta; if it rehabilitates one meriting mānatta, if it inflicts mānatta on one meriting rehabilitation; if it ordains one meriting rehabilitation, if it rehabilitates one meriting ordination, is that, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?

Kd.9.6.6 “This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) BD.4.470 act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity … that rehabilitates one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

Kd.9.6.7 “If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of innocence, if it gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act;”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, if it carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity … if it rehabilitates one meriting rehabilitation, if it ordains one meriting ordination—is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

Kd.9.6.8 “This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, Vin.1.328 … ordains one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far.”

Kd.9.6.9 Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Whatever Order, monks, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete, carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of innocence, carries out a (formal) act of censure BD.4.471 against one meriting a verdict of innocence[11] … ordains one meriting a verdict of innocence—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity … carries out a (formal) act of censure … ordains one meriting a verdict of past insanity, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete, carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity … rehabilitates one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

The Second Portion for Repeating: that on Upāli’s Questions.

Footnotes and references:

1.

sammukhākaraṇīyaṃ. Cf. Vin.2.93.

2.

dhammakamma vinayakamma and their opposites (adhamma-, avinaya-) occur at AN.i.74, AN.i.75. AN-a.ii.149 explains adhamma- and avinaya- as uddhamma and ubbinaya, where ud- means “off” and therefore “wrong” as in ummagga.

3.

paṭipucchākaraṇīyaṃ.

4.

paṭiññāya. Cf. BD.3.153, n.5; AN.i.99; MN.ii.248.

5.

amūḷhavinaya. See BD.3.153, n.5; AN.i.99; MN.ii.248.

6.

sativinayārahassa. On sativinaya see BD.3.153, n.3.; MN.ii.247. Word occurs at AN.i.99; GS.i.85 translates “proceedings about mindfulness”.

7.

tassapāpiyyasikā. Cf. BD.3.154, n.1; AN.i.99; MN.ii.249, Vin.1.85f.

8.

For this and the four following formal acts, cf. Vin.1.49 (above, BD.4.66) and AN.i.99.

9.

This and the next three (not ordination) occur at AN.i.99. They are each part of the penalty incurred for a Saṅghādisesa offence.

10.

sātisāra, as at Vin.1.55 (above, BD.4.71).

11.

As explained at Vinaya Texts ii.279, n.2, in this paragraph all possible combinations of two different formal acts are arranged in this way: first, verdict of innocence is combined with verdict of past insanity and all the rest, down to ordination; then verdict of past insanity with all terms from specific depravity down to innocence, and so on; the whole series ends thus with the combination of meriting ordination with all terms from verdict of innocence down to rehabilitation.