Lecture 4, Lesson 1

[Fourth lecture (uddesaya, uddeśaka): Modes of speech (bhāsajāya)]

A monk or a nun, hearing and perceiving these uses of speech, should know that the following ones are not to be employed and have not hitherto been employed (by persons of exemplary conduct); those who speak in wrath or in pride, for deception or for gain, who speak, knowingly or unknowingly, hard words. They should avoid all this, which is blamable. Employing their judgment, they should know something for certain and something for uncertain^[1]: (1) (N. N.) having received food or not having received food, having eaten it or not having eaten it, has come or has not come, comes or does not come, will come or will not come. (2)

Well considering (what one is to say), speaking with precision, one should employ language in moderation and restraint: the singular, dual, plural; feminine, masculine, neuter gender; praise, blame, praise mixed with blame, blame mixed with praise; past, present, or future (tenses), the first and second, or third (person)^[2]. If one thinks it necessary to speak in the singular, he should speak in the singular; if he thinks it necessary to speak in the plural, he should speak in the plural, &c. Considering well: this is a woman, this is a man, this is a eunuch, this is to be called thus, this is to be called otherwise, speaking with precision, he should employ language in moderation and restraint. (3)

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin, a mendicant should know that there are four kinds of speech: the first is truth; the second is untruth; the third is truth mixed with untruth; what is neither truth, nor untruth, nor truth mixed with untruth, that is the fourth kind of speech: neither truth nor untruth^[3]. Thus I say.

All past, present, and future Arhats have taught and declared, teach and declare, will teach and declare these four kinds of speech; and they have explained all those things which are devoid of intellect, which possess colour, smell, taste, touch, which are subject to decay and increase, which possess various qualities. (4)

A monk (or a nun should know that) before (the utterance) speech is speech in (antecedent) non-existence^[4]; that while uttered, it is (real) speech; that the moment after it has been uttered, the spoken speech is speech in (subsequent) non-existence. (5)

A monk or a nun, well considering, should not use speech whether truth or untruth, or truth mixed with untruth, if it be sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, coarse, hard, leading to sins, to discord and factions, to grief and outrage, to destruction of living beings. (6)

A monk or a nun, considering well, should use true and accurate speech, or speech which is neither truth nor untruth (i.e. injunctions); for such speech is not sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, &c. (7)

A monk or a nun, if addressing a man who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You loon! you lout^[5]! you Śūdra! you low-born wretch! you slave! you dog! you thief! you robber! you cheat! you liar! &c.; you are such and such! your parents^[6] are such and such!’ Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (8)

But in that case they should say: ‘N. N.! O long-lived one! O long-lived ones! O layman! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (9)

A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You hussy! you wench! &c.’ (repeat the above list of abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (10)

A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should say: ‘O long-lived one! O sister! madam! my lady! O lay-sister! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (11)

A monk or a nun should not say: ‘The god^[7] of the sky! the god of the thunderstorm! the god of lightning! the god who begins to rain! the god who ceases to rain! may rain fall or may it not fall! may the crops grow or may they not grow! may the night wane or may it not wane! may the sun rise or may it not rise! may the king conquer or may he not conquer!’ They should not use such speech. (12)

But knowing the nature of things, he should say: The air; the follower of Guhya; a cloud has gathered or come down; the cloud has rained.'

This is the whole duty, &c.

Thus I say. (13)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The commentator understands this passage and the following paragraph in a different way: a man of ripe judgment should utter no such positive assertions, e. g. it is certain (that it will rain), or it is not certain, &c. He seems to have been of opinion that the prohibition in the last sentence, savvam etaṃ sāvajjaṃ vajjejjā, extends also to the following sentence. But this is not probable, as etaṃ generally refers to what precedes, and imaṃ to what follows.

[2]:

Paccakkhavayaṇaṃ, parokkhavayaṇaṃ.

[3]:

The first, second, and third cases refer to assertions, the fourth (asatyamṛṣā) to injunctions.

[4]:

Literally, non-speech. The commentary has the terms used in the translation, which are taken from the Vaiśeṣika philosophy. But it is well known that many Jainas have adopted and written on the Vaiśeṣika philosophy, and that the Gainas themselves maintain p. 151 that one of their own creed, Chuluya-Rohagutta, is the author of the Vaiśeṣika Darśanam; see Kalpa Sūtra, p. 119.

[5]:

The original has hole, gole, which are said by the commentator to have been used, in another country, as abusive words. My conjectural translation is based on the meaning of the Sanskrit words hoḍā, golā.

[6]:

It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions.

[7]:

This prohibition to use the word god in such phrases as the god (deva) rains, is a curious instance of the rationalism of the early Jainas. As they were allowed to speak nothing but the truth, they were enjoined not to say, the god rains,' but the air (aṃtalikkhaṃ) rains.'