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...

Kd.14.11.1 Now at that time the monk Uvāḷa, on being examined for offences in the midst of the Order, having denied,[1] acknowledged, having acknowledged, denied, he shelved the question by (asking) another, he told a conscious lie. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can this monk Uvāḷa, on being examined … tell a conscious lie?” 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 carry out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity[2] against the monk Uvāḷa.

Kd.14.11.2 And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Uvāḷa should be reproved, having reproved him, he should be made to remember, having made him remember, he should be made to confess[3] the offence, having made him confess the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, BD.5.113 competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Uvāḷa, on being examined for offences in the midst of the Order, having denied, acknowledged … he told a conscious lie. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Uvāḷa … told a conscious lie. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa. If the carrying out of a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa 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 (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity is carried out by the Order against the monk Uvāḷa. It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.Vin.2.86

Kd.14.12.1 “Monks, these five grounds for a (formal) act for specific depravity are legally valid: if he becomes impure, and if he is unconscientious, and if he is fault-finding,[4] if an Order carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him, if it is by rule and in a complete assembly. These five grounds, monks, for a (formal) act for specific depravity are legally valid.

Kd.14.12.2 “Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of three qualities it comes to be a (formal) act not by rule, a (formal) act not by discipline, and one that is hard to settle: if it is carried out not in the presence of, if it is carried out without interrogation, if it is carried out not with the acknowledgement …[5] if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out in an incomplete assembly. Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of these three qualities, it comes to be a (formal) act not by rule, a (formal) act not by discipline, and one that is hard to settle.

“Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of three qualities it come to be a (formal) act by rule and a BD.5.114 (formal) act by discipline, and one that is easily settled if it is carried out in the presence of, if it is carried out on the interrogation, if it is carried out with the acknowledgement …[6] if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out in a complete assembly. Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of these three qualities, it comes to be a (formal) act by rule, a (formal) act by discipline, and one that is easily settled.

Kd.14.12.3 “Monks, if a monk is possessed of three qualities,[7] the Order, if it desires, may carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him: if he is a maker of strife, if he is a maker of quarrels, if he is a maker of disputes, if he is a maker of contention, if he is a maker of legal questions in the Order; if he is ignorant, inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; if he lives in association with householders in unbecoming association with householders. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities, the Order, if it desires, may carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him.

Kd.14.12.4 “A monk against whom a (formal) act for specific depravity[8] has been carried out should conduct himself properly. This is proper conduct in this case: he should not ordain, he should not give guidance, a novice should not attend him, he should not consent to the agreement to exhort nuns, even if he is agreed upon he should not exhort nuns … he should not quarrel with monks.”

Kd.14.12.5 Then the Order carried out a (formal) act for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa.

Footnotes and references:

1.

As at Vin.4.1; see BD.2.164.

2.

tassapāpiyyasikā. See BD.3.154, n.1; MN.ii.249.

3.

ropeti.

4.

sānuvāda, cf. anuvāda at Vin.2.5. Buddhaghosa glosses by sa-upavāda.

5.

As at Kd.11.2.1.

6.

As at Kd.11.3.1.

7.

As at Kd.11.4.

8.

As for an act of banishment carried out against a monk, at Kd.11.5.