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...

Verdict by former madness

Kd.14.5.1 Now at that time the monk Gagga[1] was mad, out of his mind,[2] and while he was mad, out of his mind he perpetrated much and spoke in a way[3] that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved the monk Gagga because of offences done (by him) while he was mad, out of his mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” He spoke thus: “I, Vin.2.81 your reverences, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, much was BD.5.106 perpetrated and spoken by me that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane.”[4] Although being spoken to thus by him, they still reproved him, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks reprove the monk Gagga because of offences done (by him) when he was mad, out of his mind, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ and he spoke thus: ‘I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken by me that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane’. And although being spoken to by him thus, they still reproved him, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true, as is said, monks …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order give a verdict of past insanity[5] to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane.

Kd.14.5.2 “And thus, monks, should it be given: Monks, that monk Gagga, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having raised his joined palms in salutation, should speak thus to it: ‘I, honoured sirs, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, I perpetrated much and spoke in a way that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved me because of offences done (by me) while I was mad, out of my mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” So I spoke thus: ‘I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind. While I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken (by me) that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane’. And even although they were spoken to thus by me, they still reproved me, saying: “Does BD.5.107 the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” So I, honoured sirs, no longer insane, am asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity,’ And a second time it should be asked for … And a third time it should be asked for, saying: ‘I, honoured sirs, was mad … even a third time am I asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity’. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Gagga was mad, out of his mind. While he was mad, out of his mind, much was perpetrated and spoken (by him) that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved the monk Gagga for offences done (by him) while he was mad, out of his mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember …?” He spoke thus: “I, honoured sirs, Vin.2.82 do not remember … This was done by me while I was insane.” Even on being spoken to by him thus, they still reproved him, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like thus?” He, no longer insane, is asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may give the monk Gagga, who is no longer insane, a verdict of past insanity. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Gagga … is asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity. If the giving of a verdict of past insanity to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak … And a third time I speak forth this matter. A verdict of past insanity is given by the Order to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.

Kd.14.6.1 “Monks, there are these three not legally valid properties in giving a verdict of past insanity, three that are legally valid. What are the three properties that are not legally valid in giving a verdict of past insanity? This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although remembering, speaks thus: ‘I do not, your reverences, remember having fallen into an offence like BD.5.108 that,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although remembering, speaks thus: ‘I, your reverences, remember it as though from a dream,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although not mad, pretends to be mad, saying: ‘I act thus, do you also act thus, this is allowable for me, and it is also allowable for you,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid. These three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity are not legally valid.

Kd.14.6.2 “What are the three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity that are legally valid? This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad, out of his mind. While he is mad, out of his mind, he perpetrates much and speaks in a way that is not worthy of a recluse. An Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this If he, not remembering, speaks thus: ‘I do not, your reverences, remember having fallen into an offence like that,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad, Vin.2.83 … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, not remembering, speaks thus: ‘I, your reverences, remember as though from a dream,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad … ‘Does the venerable one remembers having fallen into an offence like this? If he is mad and pretends to be mad and says, ‘I act thus, do you also act thus, this is allowable for me, it is also allowable for you,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally BD.5.109 valid. These three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity are legally valid.”

Footnotes and references:

1.

Typifying a mad monk, also at Vin.1.123.

2.

cittavipariyāsakata; cf. cetaso vipariyāsa at MN.ii.248; vipariyādikata citta at Thag.184, and vipariyattha citta at Ja.v.372. For this whole passage cf. MN.ii.248.

3.

bhāsitaparikanta. See Pali-English Dictionary, under parikanta. It says this passage is evidently faulty.

4.

mūḷha, astray, erring.

5.

amūḷhavinaya. Cf. Vin.4.207 (BD.3.153, n.4).

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: