Upāli-Pentads (Division 4: Explanations of Views)

^Prv.17.4.1 “How many explanations of views, revered sir, are not legally valid?”

“These five explanations of views, Upāli, are not legally valid. What five? He explains a view by means of what is not an offence,^[1] he explains a view by means of an offence not leading on to confession,^[2] he explains a view by means of an offence that has been confessed,^[3] he explains a view by means of four, of five^[4] (people), he explains a view by means of a mental action of the mind.^[5] These five explanations of views, Upāli, are not legally valid.

^BD.6.302 These five explanations of views, Upāli, are legally valid. What five? He explains a view by means of what is an offence … by means of an offence leading on to confession … by means of an offence that has not been confessed … not by means of four or five (people), he explains a view not by means of a mental action of the mind. These five … are legally valid.

^Prv.17.4.2 And five further explanations of views, Upāli, are not legally valid. What five? He explains a view in the presence of one belonging to a different communion … in the presence of one standing on a different boundary … in the presence of one who is not a regular monk^[6] … by means of four or five (people), he explains a view by means of a mental activity of the mind. These five …

These five explanations of views, Upāli, are legally valid. What five? He explains a view in the presence of one belonging to the same communion … in the presence of one standing on the same boundary … in the presence of one who is a regular monk … not by means of four or five, he explains a view not by means of a mental activity of the mind. These five explanations of views, Upāli, are legally valid.”

^Prv.17.4.3 “How many ways of accepting,^[7] revered sir, are not legally valid?”

“These five ways of accepting,^[8] Upāli, are not legally valid. What five? When something that is being given by means of body is not accepted by means of body, when something that is being given by means of body is not accepted by means of something attached to the body, when something that is being given by means of something attached to the body is not accepted by means of body, when something that is being given by means of something attached to the body is not accepted by means of something attached to the body, when something that is being given by means of what may be cast is not accepted by means of body or of something attached to the body. These are the five ways of accepting, Upāli, that are not legally valid.

^BD.6.303 These five ways of accepting, Upāli, are legally valid. What five? When something that is being given by means of body is accepted by means of body … when something that is being given by means of what may be cast is accepted by means of body or of something attached to the body. These five ways of accepting, Upāli, are legally valid.”

^{Prv.17.4.4 Vin.5.188} “How many ‘not left overs’^[9] are there, revered sir?”

“There are these five ‘not left overs’, Upāli. What five? It is not made allowable, it is not made formally accepted, it is not made delivered, it is not made within a reach of the hand, it is not said ‘All this is enough’. These, Upāli, are the five ‘not left overs’.

These are the five ‘left overs’, Upāli. What five? It is made allowable, it is made formally accepted, it is made delivered, it is made within a reach of the hand, it is said ‘All this is enough’. These, Upāli, are the five ‘left overs’.”

^Prv.17.4.5 “In how many ways, revered sir, is satisfaction^[10] to be seen?”^[11]

“Satisfaction is to be seen in five ways, Upāli. In what five? Eating is to be seen, a meal is to be seen, standing within a reach of the hand, he asks him, a refusal is to be seen. In these five ways, Upāli, is satisfaction to be seen.”

^Prv.17.4.6 “How many carryings out (of a formal act) on the acknowledgement (of a monk), revered sir, are not legally valid?”

“These five carryings out (of a formal act) on the acknowledgement (of a monk), Upāli, are not legally valid. What five? A monk^[12] comes to have fallen into an offence involving Defeat; while he is being reproved for an offence involving Defeat he claims that he has fallen into an offence requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is not legally valid.

A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving Defeat; while he is being reproved for an offence involving ^BD.6.304 Defeat lie claims that he has fallen into an offence of Expiation, into an offence to be Confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong-doing, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is not legally valid.

A monk comes to have fallen into an offence requiring Formal Meeting of the Order, of Expiation, of one to be Confessed, of wrong-doing; while he is being reproved for an offence of wrong-doing he claims that he has fallen into an offence involving Defeat; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving Defeat, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is not legally valid.

A monk comes to have fallen into an offence of wrong-doing; while he is being reproved for an offence of wrong-doing he claims that he has fallen into an offence requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order, into one of Expiation, into one to be Confessed; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence to be Confessed, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is not legally valid. These, Upāli, are the five carryings out on the acknowledgement (of a monk) that are not legally valid.^[13]

These five carryings out (of a formal act) on the acknowledgement (of a monk), Upāli, are legally valid. What five? A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving Defeat; while he is being reproved for an offence involving Defeat he claims that he has fallen into an offence involving Defeat; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving Defeat, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is legally valid. A monk comes to have fallen into an offence requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order, into one of Expiation, into one to be Confessed, into one of wrong-doing; while he is being reproved for an offence of wrong-doing he claims that he has fallen into an offence of wrong-doing; if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong-doing, the carrying out on (his) acknowledgement is legally valid. These … valid.”

^{Prv.17.4.7 Vin.5.189} “Possessed of how many qualities, revered sir, is it insufficient to give leave to a monk who is obtaining leave^[14]?”

^BD.6.305 “If he is possessed of five qualities, Upāli, it is insufficient to give leave to a monk who is obtaining leave. Of what five? If he is unconscientious, and is ignorant, and not a regular monk, if he speaks intent on quitting,^[15] not intent on rising from (an offence). If he is possessed of these five qualities …

If he is possessed of five qualities, Upāli, it is sufficient to give leave to a monk who is obtaining leave. Of what five? If he is conscientious, and wise, and a regular monk, if he speaks intent on rising from, not intent on quitting. If he is possessed of these five qualities, Upāli, it is sufficient to give leave to a monk who is obtaining leave.”

^Prv.17.4.8 “If a monk is possessed of how many qualities, revered sir, should Discipline not be discussed with him^[16]?”

“If a monk is possessed of five qualities, Upāli, Discipline should not be discussed with him. Of what five? If he does not know the matter … the source … the laying down … the order of the words (in a sentence), if he does not know the sequence of the connecting words.^[17] If a monk …

If a monk is possessed of five qualities, Upāli, Discipline may be discussed with him. Of what five? If he knows the matter … If a monk is possessed of these five qualities, Upāli, Discipline may be discussed with him.”

^Prv.17.4.9 “How many kinds of questions and inquiries are there, revered sir?”

“There are these five kinds of questions and inquiries,^[18] Upāli. What five? One asks a question from stupidity, from confusion; one who is of evil desires, filled with covetousness, asks a question^[19]; one asks a question from disrespect^[20]; one asks a question desiring to know (the proper answer); one asks a question thinking ‘If he answers aright the question asked by me, that is good, if he does not answer aright the question asked by me, I will answer it aright’. These, Upāli, are the five kinds of questions and inquiries.”

^Prv.17.4.10 “How many declarations of profound knowledge are there, revered sir?”

^BD.6.306 “There are these five declarations of profound knowledge,^[21] Upāli. What five? One declares profound knowledge from stupidity, from confusion^[22]; one who is of evil desires filled with covetousness^[23] declares profound knowledge; one declares profound knowledge from madness, from a deranged mind^[24]; one declares profound knowledge from an undue estimate of himself^[25]; one declares profound knowledge when it is a fact. These, Upāli, are the five declarations of profound knowledge.”

^Prv.17.4.11 “How many purifications are there, revered sir?”

“There are these five purifications,^[26] Upāli. Which five? Having recited the provenance … recital in full is the fifth. These, Upāli, are the five purifications.”

^{Prv.17.4.12 Vin.5.190} “How many soft foods are there, revered sir?”

“There are these five soft foods, Upāli. What five? Cooked rice, food made with flour, barley-meal, fish, meat.^[27] These Upāli, are the five soft foods.”

The Fourth Division: on Explanations of Views

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vin-a.1374: he shows (or, confesses, deseti) that an offence is not an offence.

[2]:

Vin-a.1374 He explains it as a serious offence and confesses a Formal Meeting and Defeat.

[3]:

Vin-a.1374 He explains it as a slight offence.

[4]:

Vin-a.1375: four or five people confess an offence together.

[5]:

manomānasa. Vin-a.1375 says he explains the view by means of a mental action (mānasena) reckoned as the mind (manas). He does not break into speech but confesses the offence by means of thought only.

[6]:

He confesses an offence in the presence of one who is suspended or whose Observance and Invitation have been suspended, Vin-a.1375.

[7]:

paṭiggaha is a formal acceptance.

[8]:

Perhaps referring to Bu-Pc.34.

[9]:

anatirittā, referring to Bu-Pc.35.

[10]:

pavāraṇā, not Invitation here in the monastic sense, but “having eaten and being satisfied”, bhuttavī pavārito, of Bu-Pc.35, Vin.4.82.

[11]:

Similarly here paññāyati is not to “lay down”, of a rule.

[12]:

See Vin.2.83, which differs somewhat.

[13]:

Apparently only four cases are given here, but five kinds of offence named. Vin.2.83 includes grave offences and those of wrong speech.

[14]:

See Vin.5.123.

[15]:

cāvanādhippāya. Vin-a.1375 explains by sāsanato cāvetukāmo, anxious to “fall”, move away from the Dispensation.

[16]:

See Vin.5.123.

[17]:

These five qualities are as Prv.17.3.6.

[18]:

See AN.iii.191f.

[19]:

See Vin.5.131.

[20]:

paribhava.

[21]:

aññabyākaraṇa, see Vin.3.100 in Bu-Pj.4; and for these five ways see AN.iii.119 where they are spelt aññāvyā-.

[22]:

See Vin.5.131.

[23]:

See Vin.5.131.

[24]:

See Vin.5.131.

[25]:

As at Vin.3.100; see also MN.ii.252.

[26]:

See Vin.5.132–133.

[27]:

See Vin.4.83 in Bu-Pc.35.