Vinaya Pitaka (1): Bhikkhu-vibhanga (the analysis of Monks’ rules)
by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 345,334 words | ISBN-13: 9781921842160
The English translation of the Bhikkhu-vibhanga: the first part of the Suttavibhanga, which itself is the first book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of rules for Buddhist monks. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (first part, bhikkhu-vibhanga) contains many...
Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 69
Vin.4.137 Bu-Pc.69.1.1 BD.3.27 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time the group of six monks knowingly used to eat together with and be in communion with[1] and lie down in a sleeping place with Ariṭṭha, the monk who talked thus,[2] who had not acted according to the rule,[3] who had got given up that view. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:
“How can the group of six monks knowingly eat together with and be in communion with and lie down in a sleeping place with Ariṭṭha … who has not given up that view?” …
“Is it true, as is said, that you, monks, knowingly eat together with and are in communion with and lie down in a sleeping place with Ariṭṭha … who has not given up that view?”
“It is true, lord.”
The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:
“How can you, foolish men, knowingly eat together with and be in communion with and lie down in a sleeping place with Ariṭṭha … who has not given up that view? It is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
“Whatever monk should knowingly eat together with or be in communion with or lie down in a sleeping place BD.3.28 with a monk who talks thus, who has not acted according to the rule, who has not given up that view, there is an offence of expiation.”
Bu-Pc.69.2.1 Whatever means: … monk is to be understood in this case.
He knows means: either he knows by himself or others tell him or (someone) tells him.[4]
Talks thus means: talks so,[5] saying: ‘In so far as I understand dhamma taught by the lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the lord there is no stumbling-block at all.’[6]
Has not acted according to the rule means: he is suspended, not restored.[7]
BD.3.29 Together with (to monk) who has not given up that[8] view means: together with (a monk) who has not given up this[9] view.
Or should eat with means: there are two (kinds of) eating, eating food and eating dhamma. Eating food[10] means, if he gives or accepts food, there is an offence of expiation. Eating dhamma means, he recites or causes to recite. If he recites or causes a line to be recited, for every line there is an offence of expiation; if he recites or causes a syllable to be recited, for every syllable there is an offence of expiation.[11] Vin.4.138
Or should be in communion with means: if he performs the Observance day (ceremony) or the Invitation ceremony or a (formal) act of the Order[12] together with one who is suspended, there is an offence of expiation.
Or should lie down in a sleeping place with means: if one who is suspended is lying down and a monk lies down in a sleeping place under the same roof,[13] there is an offence of expiation. If a monk is lying down and one who is suspended lies down, there is an offence of expiation. Or, if both are lying down, there is an offence of expiation. If, getting up, they lie down again and again, there is an offence of expiation.[14]
Bu-Pc.69.2.2 If he thinks that one is suspended when he is suspended, (and) eats together with or is in communion BD.3.30 with or lies down in a sleeping place with (him), there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether one is suspended … offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that one is not suspended when he is suspended … no offence. If he thinks that one is suspended when he is not suspended, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether one is not suspended, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that one is not suspended when he is not suspended, there is no offence.
Bu-Pc.69.2.3 There is no offence if he knows, “He is not suspended”; if he knows, “He was suspended, he is restored”; if he knows, “He has given up that view”; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.
The Ninth
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
saṃvāsati. See Old Commentary’s explanation below. Saṃvāsa at end of each Pārājika rule translated in BD.1 by “communion.”
[3]:
akaṭānudhamma-i.e., he had not given up his wrong views after the admonition suggested in the sikkhāpada of Bu-Pc.68. Critical Pali Dictionary misses the point in translating as “who had not been dealt with according to the rule.”
[5]:
evaṃvādin.
[7]:
akaṭānudhammo nāma ukkhitto anosārito. These two words, ukkhitto and anosārito, are also used to define apaṭikāra, “one who does not make amends towards,” at Vin.4.218. Suspension is the penalty imposed for not seeing an offence, for not making amends for an offence, for not giving up wrong views; see definition of ukkhitta, suspended, at Vin.4.218 and also see Vin.1.323ff. Vinaya Texts i.236, n.2 draws attention to the difference between “temporary expulsion” (which I render “suspension”) and permanent expulsion, nāsana. For nāseti, see BD.1.xxvii, BD.1.50f., BD.1.279f., where it is used in connection with Pārājika offences, and below, BD.3.31, where Kaṇḍaka is expelled for holding the same false views as Ariṭṭha. There is also the verb nissāreti, to cause to go away, to send away (temporarily); see nissāraṇīyaṃ, at end of each sikkhāpada in the Nuns’ Saṅghādisesas, and above, BD.3, Introduction, p.xxxvif. At Vin.1.321 right and wrong kinds of causing to go away, nissāraṇā, are given; here nissāraṇā appears to be in opposition to osāraṇā (Vin.1.322), “restoration”: o = ava + sāreti, to cause to go back.
Kinds of persons who may be and who may not be duly restored by the Order given at Vin.1.322. See also Vin.1.340. Vin.1.97 allows the restoration of a monk even if he has left the Order because he was suspended for not seeing or making amends for an offence or for not giving up a wrong view, provided he sees his offence, etc. But if he does not, he may be suspended again if the Order is unanimous on this point. If it is not, there is no offence (for him) in eating together with and being in communion with.
There is also the verb abbheti, meaning to rehabilitate, occurring in each definition of saṅghādisesa, and meaning to rehabilitate a monk who has gone back to the beginning of his probationary period and undergone the mānatta discipline. See, e.g., Vin.3.112 = BD.1.196, Vin.4.225; also Vin.1.49, Vin.1.320, Vin.1.326, Vin.1.327; Vin.2.33, Vin.2.39 = Vin.2.42 = Vin.2.47, Vin.2.226. Method of applying for rehabilitation is put forward at Vin.2.39 = Vin.2.42 = Vin.2.47. There is thus a technical difference between osāreti, to restore a monk when he has seen or made amends for his offence or has given up his wrong views; and abbheti, to rehabilitate a monk after he has undergone the due penalty for having committed a saṅghādisesa offence. The Order both restores and rehabilitates.
[8]:
taṃ.
[9]:
etaṃ.
[10]:
āmisasaṃbhoga.
[13]: