Vinaya Pitaka (4): Parivara

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...

20. The Sweat Inducing Stanzas

Prv.20.1.1 BD.6.350 Vin.5.216 One not in communion with monks or nuns,[1]
a certain eating is not obtained there,[2]
There is no offence for one who is not away, separated from[3]:
these questions were thought out by those of skill.

Five things not to be disposed of,[4]
(five) not to be divided up[5]
were spoken of by the Great Seer,
There is no offence in disposing of,[6] of making use of:
these questions were thought out by those of skill.

I do not say ten individuals,[7]
eleven are to be shunned,[8]
There is an offence for one who is greeting a senior[9]:
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Not one who is suspended,
nor yet one who is undergoing probation,
Nor a schismatic of the Order,
nor yet one who has gone over to a faction,
Firm in the basis of belonging to the same communion,[10]
How could there be no sharing in the training?[11]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Being questioned, he comes to the Dhamma,
what is skilled, what is connected with the goal,
He is neither living nor dead nor attained to nibbāna.
BD.6.351 Which is this individual the Buddhas speak of[12]?
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

I do not say above the collar-bones,
below the navel should be shunned,
How could there be an offence involving Defeat
because of sexual Intercourse?[13]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

A monk begging for himself builds a hut, the site not marked out,
Exceeding the right measure, involving destruction,
without an open space (round it): there is no offence.[14]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

A monk begging for himself builds a hut, the site marked out,
To the right measure, not involving destruction,
with an open space (round it): there is an offence.[15]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Should one perform no bodily action,
nor even speak to others with the voice,
One would fall into a serious (offence),
a matter for being destroyed.[16]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

A good man should not do any bodily,
verbal or even mental evil,
How then if he is expelled is he well expelled?[17]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Not conversing with any man by speech,
should he utter no word to others
BD.6.352 Vin.5.217 He might fall verbally, not bodily.[18]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

The rules of training praised by the noble Buddha
could be four Formal Meetings,
All of which one might fall into at one stroke.[19]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

If two (nuns) ordained together
should accept a robe from the hand of both,
Could the offences be different?[20]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Four people having arranged together removed valuable goods:
Three offences involving Defeat,
one not an offence involving Defeat.[21]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

And should a woman be within, and a monk outside,
(As) there was no hole in that house[22]
because of unchastity. How could there be Defeat?
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

If, having accepted oil, honey, molasses,
as well as ghee for oneself, one should lay them aside,
Seven days not having elapsed, unless there is a reason,
there is an offence in partaking (of them).[23]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

The offence is one of Expiation for a slighter offence
with one involving Forfeiture
Together for one who falls.[24]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

BD.6.353 Twenty monks might be assembled thinking that,
complete,[25] they could carry out a formal act,
A monk might be standing twelve yojanas (away),
and that formal act could be reversed
because (the Order) was incomplete.[26]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

And a speaker through voice even for the length of a stride
Would fall into all sixty-four serious offences
together for which amends (should be made).[27]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Dressed in an inner robe,[28]
a double outer cloak[29] put on,
All these are to be forfeited.
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

And there was not even a motion, nor yet a resolution,
nor did the Conqueror say “Come, monk”,
Nor even was there going for refuge for this one,
but his ordination was irreversible.[30]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Should one kill the woman who is not (his) mother,
and should he kill the man who is not (his) father,[31]
Should the dullard kill an unariyan,
because of this he would attain the immediately next.[32]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Should one kill the woman who is (his) mother,
and should he kill the man who is (his) father,
BD.6.354 Having killed mother and father,
not because of this would he attain the immediately next.[33]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Vin.5.218 Not being reproved, not being made to remember,
a formal act might be carried out for one not face to face
And when carried out the formal act would be well carried out,
and an Order, the carrier out, would incur no offence.[34]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Being reproved, having made to remember,
a formal act might be carried out for one face to face,
And when carried out the formal act might not be well carried out,
and an Order, the carrier out, would incur an offence.[35]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

There is an offence in cutting down,[36]
no offence in cutting off,[37]
There is an offence in concealing,[38]
no offence in covering.[39]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Speaking the truth is a serious offence,[40]
and lying a slight one for the speaker,[41]
Speaking a lie is a serious offence,[42]
and the truth a slight one for the speaker.[43]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

One that is allotted, dyed with dye
even if made allowable,
There is an offence for making use of it.[44]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

A monk eats meat after sunset,
BD.6.355 If he be not mad nor yet unhinged nor even in bodily pain,
Not for him is there an offence,
and this rule was taught by the Well-farer.[45]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Not inflamed in mind,[46]
nor yet with a mind set on theft,[47]
nor even if he intended “for after dying”,[48]
For him who gives a voting ticket there is “to be destroyed”,
for him who accepts a grave offence.[49]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Not even what is agreed on as a dangerous forest-(lodging),
not even an agreement given by the Order,
And not for him is kaṭhina formally made, should he,
having laid aside a robe just there, go for half a yojana,
There is no offence for him till sunrise.[50]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

All the various bodily, not verbal, matters
That together he might fall into simultaneously.[51]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

All the various verbal, not bodily, matters
That together he might fall into simultaneously.[52]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Three women—in sex: that she would not indulge in,
three men and three non-ariyans (and three) eunuchs.[53]
And she would not practise sex in accordance with the BD.6.356 letter[54]
it might be she is to be destroyed because of sexual intercourse.[55]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

One could ask to give robe-material to his mother[56]
if it is not altered[57] for an Order,
Of what is there an offence for him,
and no offence for his relations?[58]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Vin.5.219 An angry man is pleasing,
an angry man is contemptible.
Then what is that rule called by which
an angry man is laudable?[59]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

A satisfied man is pleasing,
a satisfied man is contemptible,
Then what is that rule called by which
a satisfied man is contemptible?
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Could one fall together into a Formal Meeting,
a grave offence, an Expiation,
one to be Confessed, one of wrong-doing?[60]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Both are full twenty years of age, for both there is
one preceptor, one teacher, one resolution:
One is ordained, one not ordained.[61]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Not made allowable, not even dyed with dye—
wearing that he might go where he liked,
BD.6.357 And there is no offence for him;
and this rule was taught by the Well-farer.[62]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

One does not give, one does not accept,
for him a recipient does not exist,
She falls into a serious offence,
not a slight one because of her enjoyment.[63]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

One does not give, one does not accept,
for him a recipient does not exist,
She falls into a slight offence,
not a serious one because of (her) enjoyment.[64]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

One falls into a serious offence that can be done away with,
out of disrespect he conceals[65];
Not a nun, and she would not attain a fault.[66]
These questions were thought out by those of skill.

Concluded are the Sweat-Inducing Stanzas

Its Summary

Not in communion, not to be disposed of, and ten, not one who is suspended,
He comes-to Dhamma, above the collar-bone, and two on begging for himself, /
And no bodily action—serious, no bodily nor verbal (evil),
Not conversing, and training, and two, four people, /
A woman, and oil, Forfeiture, and monks, the length of a stride,
And dressed in, and not a motion, should one kill not the mother or father, /
Not being reproved, being reproved, cutting down, and so truth-speaking,
And allotted, after sunset, not inflamed, and not a forest (lodging), /
BD.6.358 Bodily-verbal, and three women too, to the mother,
An angry man is pleasing, satisfied, and Formal Meeting both, /
Not made allowable, one does not give, one does not give, one falls into a serious (offence):
The Sweat-Inducing Stanzas are Questions made clear by the Learned. /

Footnotes and references:

1.

Referring to the Observance and Invitation. Cf. Bu-Pc.69.2.1.

2.

Two kinds of eating, sambhoga, are given at Bu-Pc.69.2.1. Here Vin-a.1391 takes it to mean that he does not obtain unallowable food.

3.

Vin-a.1391 appears to take this to mean: if the sleeping-place is in a house, sahagāraseyyā. Cf. Vin.1.109.

6.

Vin-a.1391 says this should be understood in reference to a nun who is the mother of a young child.

7.

Vin-a.1391 refers this to the Senāsanakkhandhaka, Kd.16.

8.

Vin-a.1391 refers this to the Mahākkhandhaka, Kd.8, and the naked monk—probably referring to Kd.8.28.

9.

Does this refer to Kd.16.6.5? Commentary is silent. But see above Prv.17.14.6.

11.

Vin-a.1391 says this question concerns the monk who formerly was a barber, Kd.6.37.

12.

Vin-a.1391: this question concerns a fashioned (created) Buddha, nimmita-buddha. Is this a Buddha-image?

13.

This question is about the headless trunk or body whose eyes and mouth were on its chest; see Vin.3.107.

14.

Vin-a.1391 says this refers to a hut roofed with grass. See Bu-Ss.6.3.16. No offence if a monk builds one. Verse quoted at Vin-a.574.

15.

This refers to Dhaniya’s hut, which was sabbamattikāmaya (the clue-word at Vin-a.1391); see Bu-Pj.2.1.2. The offence in building a hut of this kind was one of wrong-doing. The other part of the dilemma (concerning a hut not specified as made entirely of mud or clay) is at Bu-Ss.6.

16.

garukaṃ chejjavatthuṃ. Commentary says this question is about the nun who concealed another nun’s fault. Nuns’ Bi-Pj.6. The word chejja is connected with Defeat though it does not occur in Nuns’ Bi-Pj.6.

17.

Vin-a.1391 says this question is about the incapable, abhabba, persons, beginning with the eunuch. See Kd.1.61–68. For the eleven persons Commentary speaks of see e.g. Kd.8.30.1.

18.

This question is about lying speech though the offence cannot be made clear. For as the monk was sitting silent after he had given an acknowledgement that was not legally valid, the offence was not one of the mind-door. Therefore what should have been made clear has not been made clear. This offence of his arises through non-action in the voice-door, Vin-a.1391f.

19.

Nuns’ Bi-Ss.3.

20.

Possibly referring to Bu-Pc.25. The two offences are those of Pācittiya and wrong-doing, according to whether acceptance was from the hand of a monk or a nun.

21.

Vin-a.1392 refers this to Pārājika 2. See Pj.2.4.29. But there is no mention here of the teacher and the three pupils as there is at Vin-a.1392 and Vin-a.366 where this verse is quoted. The one offence not involving Defeat is said to be a grave one.

22.

This question appears to refer to Kd.15.35.2 where the word chidda, hole, occurs, as does also the Commentary’s santhata, something spread (in a privy). Nuns not allowed to use a privy, Kd.20.27.3.

24.

“Slighter offence,” suddhaka, occurs only, I think, at Vin.2.67, thus not in a Defeat or Formal Meeting It is used there in connection with concealing an offence or not concealing it which would entail an offence of wrong-doing for the offender or his being dealt with according to the rule. Vin-a.1392 says that this stanza is about obtaining, for whoever obtains two robes, one for himself and one for another from acquisitions belonging to an Order, falls at one blow into an offence of Nissaggiya Pācittiya, and into an offence of Pācittiya involving a “slighter” offence. Commentary reads suddhika-. This question might conceivably refer to Bu-NP.7.

25.

A twenty-fold Order is entitled to take part in all formal acts, Vin.1.319.

26.

Vin-a.1392 says this question concerns the gāmasīmā (a boundary that is a village, Cf. Vin-a.1055) in such towns as Benares for distances of twelve yojanas—perhaps referring to Kd.2.11–13 or Kd.2.24. No formal act may be carried out by an incomplete Order, Kd.2.23.2.

27.

Vin-a.1392 says this question is about a go-between (Bu-Ss.5); it seems to refer specially to Bu-Ss.5.4.12: “if he does not accept but examines and brings back”. Vin-a.558 cites this verse and thinks that the number of offences equals the number of women to whom the monk gives a message. Vin-a.559 speaks of sixty-four offences mentioned in the verse above.

28.

Permission to wear these is given at Vin.1.289. All robes, however, are to be forfeited by a monk who gets a nun who is not a relation of his to wash them (Bu-NP.4).

29.

Permission to wear these is given at Vin.1.289. All robes, however, are to be forfeited by a monk who gets a nun who is not a relation of his to wash them (Bu-NP.4).

30.

Referring to Mahāpajāpatī’s ordination.

31.

Vin-a.1393 says this question is about change of sex (see Vin.3.35, Bu-Pj.1.10.6), the mother having become a man and the father a woman, so the person who kills them probably would not be guilty of matricide or parricide.

32.

anataraṃ phuse. Does this mean the next world? Or an offence whose fruition comes straightaway?

33.

Vin-a.1393 says this question is about having animals for parents, like sons of a lion, and like the ascetic who was the young of a doe. This latter case refers to Isisingatāpasa, see Mil.124, Ja.no.523, Ja.no.536, Mahāvastu translation iii.140. See also Mahāvastu translation iii.148f. for another child born of a doe.

34.

Vin-a.1393 says this stanza is about ordination by means of a messenger—referring to ordination of nuns, see Kd.20.22.

35.

Vin-a.1393 refers this to the ordination of eunuchs, etc. See Kd.1.61ff. But the Kurundiya is of another opinion.

36.

Vin-a.1393 says in felling a forest-tree there is Defeat (see Bu-Pj.2.4.18); in cutting down grass and creepers an offence of Pācittiya (does this refer to Bu-Pc.2?); in cutting off the male organ a grave offence (Bu-Pj.1 ).

37.

No offence in cutting one’s hair or nails—see Kd.15.27.1–3.

38.

Both words are chādentassa; the offence is to conceal one’s own or another’s offence, but it is no offence to cover (or thatch) a house, etc.

39.

Both words are chādentassa; the offence is to conceal one’s own or another’s offence, but it is no offence to cover (or thatch) a house, etc.

40.

That is when a monk abuses a woman saying “You are deformed, you are a hermaphrodite” (Bu-Ss.3.3.1).

43.

Vin-a.1393: speaking the truth when announcing what is a fact is a slight offence.

44.

The Commentary says this question concerns one who, not having forfeited a robe to be forfeited, makes use of it. See Bu-NP.1.4; Bu-NP.2.3.18; Bu-NP.3.2.3.

45.

This question is about the “ruminator”, see Kd.15.25. The “allowance” given there is quoted at Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī 109.

46.

One who is inflamed in mind falls into Bu-Pj.1.

47.

One whose mind is so set falls into Bu-Pj.2.

48.

If he so intends he falls into Bu-Pj.3. Vin-a.1393 says a schismatic monk has none of these three features.

49.

See Vin.5.213; translation BD.6.344, n.4. Vin-a.1393 confirms that this refers to a schismatic and an imitator of a schismatic.

51.

Vin-a.1393 says this verse is about taking hold of together the hair and fingers of several women—see Bu-Ss.2. It is quoted at Vin-a.841 where, in the exegesis of Bu-Pc.39, adding the word “nine”, it refers to the nine sumptuous foods. If, for example, one puts them all into one dish and eats a morsel of each, one falls into nine offences of Pācittiya.

52.

Vin-a.1393 says this verse is about a speaker of lewd words beginning with “All of you are deformed”—see Bu-Ss.3.3.1, and see five verses above.

53.

Vin-a.1393f. says this verse is about three women. Of these, one (followed by singular verb) does not indulge in what is called sex; having approached three men she does not indulge in sex. Three “unariyan eunuchs” means: three unariyan hermaphrodites and three eunuchs. Having approached these six people she does not indulge in sex. The verse is quoted at Vin-a.905 in exegesis of Nuns’ Bi-Pj.8.

54.

byañjanasmiṃ. This means she does not actually have sexual intercourse

55.

This question concerns a doer of eight things (Nuns’ Bi-Pj.8) and is about a nun who shows her desire for a man in eight ways.

56.

Cf. Kd.8.22; Nuns’ Bi-Pc.28.2.2.

57.

pariṇata.

58.

This verse appears to refer to Bu-NP.24. Vin-a.1394 says it is about “raising up mindfulness for using a cloth for the rains piṭṭhiyasamaye, and that its analysis is spoken of in the Commentary on the rules for cloths for the rains”. Piṭṭhiyasamaya is defined at Vin-a.720 as the seven months between the last day of the bright fortnight of the full moon of Kattikā to the beginning of the full moon of Jeṭṭha (Jeṭṭhamūlapuṇṇamā, Cf. DN-a.6).

59.

Vin-a.1394 says this stanza and the next are about the customs of other sects; and it refers to three matters, but does not specify them. Perhaps receiving food in one’s hand (Vin.1.90, Vin.3.245), in a gourd (Vin.2.114) and in a water-pot (Vin.2.115) are meant; the angry man is probably the layman who objects to monks adopting these customs.

60.

Vin-a.1394: this is about going in the sky, ākāsagata. If, by supernormal power, one of two novices is sitting down freed from the earth for even as much as a hair’s breadth he is called not ordained. When he has returned to the earth a formal act cannot be carried out by the Order. If it is, it is reversible.

61.

This is about a nun who, filled with desire, takes almsfood from the hand of a man who is filled with desire (Nuns’ Bi-Ss.5), and eats the remaining unallowable meats having crushed them up with human flesh (Vin.1.118), garlic (Nuns’ Bi-Pc.1) and the sumptuous foods (defined at Bu-Pc.39); and see Nuns’ Bi-Pd.1–8. The above offences are all covered by these rules and their elaborations in the Old Commentary

62.

The Commentary says this verse is about the monk whose robes are stolen (Bu-NP.6) and refers us to the Commentary on that rule (Vin-a.665ff. which cites this verse).

63.

Nuns’ Bi-Ss.6. Vin-a.914 quotes this verse.

64.

Nuns’ Bi-Ss.5.2.2: a nun, filled with desire, accepts water for cleansing the teeth from a man who is filled with desire: an offence of wrong-doing.

66.

This probably refers to Nuns’ Bi-Ss.13. Vin-a.1395 (silently) refers to the conclusion of the Nuns’ Formal Meetings (Vin.4.242) where both the seventeen offences of this nature and the fortnight’s mānatta for a nun who has fallen into any of them are spoken of, as at Vin-a.1395.