by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 150,781 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 analyses the rules from various points of view. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (fourth part, parivara) contains many Pali original words, but transliterated using a system similar...
Prv.6.1 Vin.5.114 BD.6.168 I asked about ordination with its provenance, with its demonstration: how many are the offences according to the eminent sentences? I was answered about ordination with its provenance, with its demonstration: according to the eminent sentences there are two offences.
Ordination, Observance, the beginning of the rains, Invitation,
Hides, medicines, kaṭhina, robe-material,
and about (the monks) of Campā, /
The Kosambī-kkhandhaka, a (formal) act, probation, accumulation,
Decidings, minor matters, lodgings, schism in the Order, conduct,
Suspension, and of the nuns,
and about the Five-, the Seven-Hundred. /
Footnotes and references:
pucchissaṃ, an unusual form of the aorist.
samukkaṭṭhapada. At Vin-a.1318 it is said, “There these sentences (pada, words) are called eminent (samukkaṭṭha), highest (uttama). In brief (sankhepato), how many offences are there according to these eminent sentences, highest sentences?” This is interesting since ukkaṭṭha means both eminent and condensed. See too AN.iv.140 where samukkaṭṭha is explained by uttama.
The first 10 questions here refer to the 10 Khandhakas in the Mahāvagga, and the remaining 12 to the 12 Khandhakas in the Cullavagga. Ordination belongs to Mahāvagga 1. But as it is overshadowed there by the account of the Awakening and the subsequent events and as ordination there gives no occasions producing offences, these are perhaps reasons why Recourse is had to Bu-Pc.65: there is an offence of expiation for ordaining a man under twenty years of age; and, as Vin-a.1318 says, “according to all the remaining sentences there is an offence of wrong-doing”. For these sentences see Vin.4.130. This is the only time there is flight from the Khandhakas to the Suttavibhaṅga in this Section.
See Kd.2, the Uposathakkhandhaka. Vin-a.1318 says that if incoming monks, being doubtful, say to the resident monks, “You are perishing, you are being destroyed,” and carry out the Observance aiming at a schism, there is a grave offence—referring to Vin.1.133; if the Observance is carried out with one who is suspended there is an offence of Pācittiya (possibly referring to Kd.2.36.2 which in its turn possibly refers to Bu-Pc.69); for the rest there is an offence of wrong-doing.
Vin-a.1318 says “there is just the one offence, of wrong-doing, in the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka” (Kd.3). Here a certain amount of offences of wrong-doing are laid down but no other type of offence is mentioned.
Samathakkhandhaka, Kd.14. An offence of Pācittiya which is mentioned in this Khandhaka at Vin.2.94 is taken by Vin-a.1318 to refer to Bu-Pc.79. Another offence of Pācittiya is mentioned at Vin.2.94 but is ignored at Vin-a.1318. It is difficult to say why one should be chosen in preference to the other. This Khandhaka also gives two offences of wrong-doing at Vin.2.73, Vin.2.83.
Khuddakavatthukkhandhaka, Kd.15, Vin-a.1318 says that if one cuts off his own male organ there is a grave offence (Vin.2.110); in ruminating there an offence of Pācittiya. That is to say at Vin.2.132, “whoever should so eat would be dealt with according to the rule,” i.e. presumably according to Bu-Pc.37 or Bu-Pc.38. In the remaining (sentences) there is an offence of wrong-doing.
Senāsanakkhandhaka, Kd.16. There is a grave offence for disposing of important belongings, Vin.2.170. (There is another grave offence in Kd.16, Vin.2.172: again, why does Commentary choose the one rather than the other? ); 2) in throwing out from a vihāra belonging to an Order one should be dealt with according to the rule—this is at Vin.2.166, referring to Bu-Pc.17; 3) in the remaining sentences there is an offence of wrong-doing.
Saṅghabhedakkhandhaka, Kd.17. 1) monks who are partisans (or imitators) of schismatics are to be made to confess a grave offence (Vin.2.20); 2) in a group-meal there is an offence of Pācittiya (Bu-Pc.32). I can only think that this is included under schism by the Commentary because the narrative introducing the formulation of Bu-Pc.32 is concerned with Devadatta, the schismatic though schism is not mentioned there in so many words.
Bhikkhunīkkhandhaka, Kd.20. Following Vin-a.1319 the offences may be identified with, first, Vin.2.275 where, if nuns do not “invite”, they should be dealt with according to the rule, i.e. Nuns’ Bi-Pc.57; and, secondly, the rest are offences of wrong-doing. Another offence of Pācittiya (Nuns’ Bi-Pc.85) is referred to in this Khandhaka, Vin.2.276, by the term yathādhammo. Again, therefore, there is the puzzle of why the Commentary chooses one offence ratne than the other.
There seems no reason to call this Chapter “the First”. The Commentary ends here, so it is futile to think that some material is now lost.
senā, abbreviated from senāsana.