Horner I B Tr Book of the Discipline Vinaya Pitaka Vol II Suttavibhanga 498p

7/27/2019 Horner I B Tr Book of the Discipline Vinaya Pitaka Vol II Suttavibhanga 498p

1/497


2/497


3/497


4/497


5/497

Sacre& JSoofes of tbe 3Bu&t>bJ8t8, Wol. 3.

T H E B O OK OF T H E D I SC I P L I N E

VOLUME II .


6/497


7/497

T H E B O O K O F T H E D I S C I P L I N E

( V I N AYA - P 1 TA K A )

VOL. II.( S U T TAV I B H A N G A )

T R A N S L A T E D B Y

I . B. H O R N E R , M .A .F E L L O W A N D A S S O C I A T E O F N E W N H A M C O L L E G E , C A M B R I D G E

L o n d o nP U B L I S H E D F O R T H E PA L I T E X T S O C I E T Y

byLUZAC & COMPANY LTD.

46 G R E AT R U S S E L L S T R E E T, L O N DO N . W .C .l

1957


8/497

Firs t published1940

By The Oxford Universi ty Press Reprinted 1957

P R I N T E D I N G R E A T B R I T A I N B Y L O W E A N D B R Y D O H E (P R I N T E R S ) L I M I T E D , L O N D O N , N .W .I O


9/497

T R A N S L AT O R S I N T R O D U C T I O N

T h i s volume of the B ooh o f t h e D i sci p l i n e covers Olden-bergs edition of the Vi n a y a p i t a k a , vol. iii, p. 195, tovol. iv, p. 124, and thus comprises the thirty Nissaggiyarules and sixty of the ninety-two P acittiya rules laid

down for monks. The actual rules, s i k k h d p a d a , of the Pali Patimokkhaare accessible to E nglish readers in R hys D avids andOldenbergs tr anslation,1 and translations even earlier.2

T hey have also all been set out in ful l by B . C. L aw,3while E . J . T homas4has given some in their entirety andhas summarised others, classifying these, under theirappropriate sections, where affinities are visible. This

is the first translation into English of these s i k k h d p a d a s complete with their attendant material.I t has been trul y and helpfully observed by the

editors of Vi n a y a Te x t s 3 that inside each class (of offence) the sequence of the clauses6 follows no invariablerule. Sometimes offences of a related character areplaced together in groups, but sometimes those whichwould naturally come together are found scattered in

quite different parts of the same class. I n addition,as Oldenberg has pointed' out,7 it not infr equentlyhappens that a rule refers to the one immediatelypreceding it.

A considerable amount of work having been done onthe P atimokkha, i t will be better in this I ntroduction

1 V i n . T ext s i. 1 ff., S .B .E . X I I I .

2 Dickson, J .R .A .S . 1876; Gogerly, J .R .A .S . 1862; R . Spence Hardy, E a ster n M on a ch i sm , 1850, in various chapters.3 H i st . P a l i L i t . i. 50 ff., based on V i n . T ext s i. 1 ff.* H i s t . B u d . T h ough t , 16 ff. 5 V i n . T ext s i. xiv.6 I .e., rule, ordinance, su t t a , d h a m m a , clause or article.7 Vi n a ya ' p i t a k a , i. xvii.

v


10/497

vi t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

not to enlarge upon rules, grouping of rules or sporadicappearance of rules, but to confine myself mainly tovarious findings arising from a study of the auxiliarymaterial stories, Old Commentary and a n d p a t t i (nooffence) clauses surrounding each rule.

Some of these P atimokkha rules, when read in con junction wi th their attendant material, testify that,although the legal decree and the penalty for its infringement may be the culminating point, there was also asoftening influence at work. F or the not altogetherinfrequent a n u j a n d m i ( I allow ) allowances, alwaysput into the mouth of Gotama, tend to counteract anytoo great stringency, inexpediency or lack of clarityon the side of which the s i k k h d p a d a , as first framed,may have erred.

Doubtless the s i k k h d p a d a s , if isolated from theirsurrounding matter and viewed either as extracts fromthis or as the foundations on which it was later reared,1may be said to amount to not much more than a series

of prohibitions. B ut on those occasions when ana n u j a n d m i is present in the auxiliary material, thena n u j a n d m i and s i k k h d p a d a , allowance and rule, takenin association as they are intended to be, produce abalance, a middle way between the two extremes of uncompromising legal ordinance and unchecked laxityof behaviour . On such occasions the a n u j a n d m i pullsagainst the rule, and appears as an event potent in its

effect on the character of the rule, no less than on thehistory of its formulation. T he Nissaggiyas and P acittiyas are arranged on the

same general plan that the Suttavibhanga followsthroughout. This comprises a story leading up to theformulation of a rule, s i k k h d p a d a , which is laid downtogether with the penal ty for breaking it. I n somecases there follow one or more other stories showing

that it was advisable to remodel the rule, and at whoseconclusion the amended version of the rule is given.N ext comes the Old Commentary or P adabhajaniya,

1 B .D i. xiv f.


11/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n vii

defining the words of the rule; then cases where thepenalty for breaking the rule or some lighter (neverheavier) penalty is incurred; and finally, a list of cases

which entail no offence against the rule.

T h e N i s s a g g i y a G r o u p

E ach of the thir ty N issaggiya rules for monks has,as the penalty for breaking it, expiation of the offence,p d d t t i y a , involving forfeiture, nissagg iya . This penaltyis stated in the words n i s s a g g i y a m p d c i t t i y a m , (an

offence) involving forfeiture, to be expiated. Theforfeiture enjoined is that in respect of which the offencehad been committed, for example a robe or bowl orrug. These rules are concerned both with behaviouras such and with the wrongful acquisition or unsuitableusage of things.

The form of expiation enjoined by the Old Commentaryis confession1 of the offence of wrongful acquisition.

F rom internal evidence, p d d t t i y a is a (minor) offenceto be confessed, dpatti desetabbd , a statement commonto all the N issaggiyas. B ut etymologically the wordp d d t t i y a has nothing to do with confession. I havetherefore kept to the more literal translation,2 and haverendered i t offence of expiation throughout, andthe two words n i s s a g g i y a p d d t t i y a as offence of expiation involving forfeiture. A ccording to the Old

Commentary, 44having forfeited (the article), the offenceshould be confessed. Thus the act of forfeiture shouldprecede the expiation or confession. I will say something more below about the method in which forfeitureshould be made,3

I n history, the place a t wh i ch an event is said to havetaken place is often of some importance. I t is wellknown that Gotama spent the greater part of his teachinglife at SavatthI and his last years at Vesali . I t is worthrecall ing, for the evidence contributed, that SavatthI ,

1 C f . S. Dutt, E a r l y B u d . M on a ch i sm , p. 104 ff.2 See below, p. 3, n. 4. 3 Below, p. xii.


12/497

viii t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

with an overwhelming majority, is given as the locus of twenty-two Nissaggiyas, Rajagaha of three, Vesall andK apilavatthu each of two, A lavi of one.

A s many as sixteen N issaggiya rules for monks areconcerned with robes, and fall into two groups, N os. I -X ,X X I V -X X I X ; five with rugs ( santhata ), Nos. X I -X V ;two with sheeps wool, Nos. X V I , X V I I ; three withgold and silver and bartering, Nos. X V I I I -X X ; two withbowls, Nos. X X I , X X I I ; one with medicine, N o. X X I I I ;and the last one, N o. X X X , is against a monk appropriating for his own use benefits intended for the Order.

There are, moreover, a few cross-sections. F or example,in the matter of exchange of robes (No. V), in the matterof washing, dyeing and beating robes (No. I V ), and inthe matter of washing, dyeing and beating sheeps wool(N o. X V I I ), the correct behaviour for a monk to observetowards a nun also comes under legislation; and in twoof the rules connected with making rugs, sheeps woolis also the subject of legal attention.

Oddly, there is no Nissaggiya concerned with eitherlodgings or bedding, sendsana, or with almsfood, p i n - dapata , which with robes and medicine are regarded asa monks four indispensable requisites. There areoffences regarding these which had to be confessed, andwhich occur in the P acittiya section of the P atimokkha,but evidently there are no types of offences wherelodgings and almsfood had to be forfeited, in additionto their wrongful acquisition or usage being confessed.

A bout half the rules were formulated because themonks acquired something by means considered unbecoming, tiresome or inconvenient: they asked for toomuch, they pressed potential donors, for example asto the quality of the robe-material they particularlydesired. The remaining hal f were formulated becausemonks did various things or used various articles inways thought unsuitable: they had an unnecessaryamount of robes or bowls, they laid aside their robesfor too long, they made nuns wash their robes or theirsheeps wool for them, and they carried sheeps woolso far that the laity made fun of them.


13/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n ix

The formulation of the majority, namely of sixteenN issaggiya rules, resulted, so it is recorded, fromcriticisms made of a monk or monks by the laity;eight from criticisms made by modest monks, three fromthose made by nuns, two from those made by Ananda,and one from those made by a wanderer. W ith theexception of Ananda, who complained for the sake of the Order, and not because he himself had been speciallyinconvenienced, these various classes of critics putforward their complaints because they personally hadbeen in some way adversely affected by the monksbehaviour . Thus there is a parallelism between thesources of criticism and the sections of society annoyed.Once Gotama is recorded to have heard of troublesomebehaviour direct fr om M ahapajapati while he wastalking to her (N o. X V I I ), and once he came upon signsof it himself (N o. X V ). F our times a new rule is framedin place of one already existing, for occasions afterwardsarose which showed that its scrupulous observanceresulted in unfair situations.

I t will be seen that the number of N issaggiya rulesformulated according to this reckoning is thirty-six.

This means that six times the rule as originally framedhad to be altered: four times, as mentioned above, inaccordance with circumstances that had not been foreseen when it was first set forth (N os. I , I I , X I V , X X I ),and twice when close adherence to the rule as firstdrafted is shown to result in occurrences so unsuitable as to provoke complaints and criticism (Nos.V, VI).

These N issaggiyas where the rule had to be altered,although never more than once, thus contain twostories, one leading up to the first, and the other to thesecond version of the rule. The second version must betaken to annul the validity of the first. This howeverhad to remain in the text for the sake of historical interest, and as to some extent explanatory of the forceand wisdom of the second version. H ad it been omitted,the incidents showing its shortcomings and its need forrevision could not' have been used as testimony that


14/497

X t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

such shortcomings were remediable and such revisionnecessary and reasonable.

I n these six Nissaggiyas where a rule is formulated

twice, the first version is always followed by the phrase, And thus this rule of training for monks came to belaid down by the lord. There is no instance of thisphrase occurring either after the second formulation of the rule, or in any of the remaining twenty-four Nissaggiyas where the rule is framed once only.

Y et in the text of the Vi n a y a is every rule, whetherit had to be revised or not, and every amended rule,

ascribed to Gotama. T he formula so ver y. defini telyattributing to the lord only those rules that had tobe altered is to my mind somewhat inexplicable. I tis not peculiar to the Nissaggiyas, but occurs throughoutthe Vibhanga. I t is possible that the occur rence of this phrase points to some comparatively old stratumin the Sutt a vibhanga, where only those rules, so pointedlysaid to have been laid down 44by the lord, weregenuinely prescribed by him; but that then there camea case, perhaps before, perhaps after his death, whichmade it clear that a revision and a more exact delimitation of the rule already formulated was wanted in theinterests of reason, decency or justice.

Such revision may then in fact have been made, notby the founder, but by one of his followers or by thesamgha . Or a decision may have been taken at thefinal recension of the 4 texts to attr ibute all rules tothe lord, so as to invest them with his authority. E venso, the mystery remains why this phrase, A nd thusthis rule of training for monks came to be laid down bythe lord, was appended only to those rules which, asthe history of the Order shows, had to be altered, andnot to those whose original version has been able tostand and operate down the centuries.

I t is something more than coincidence, and looks likeadherence to some thought-out pattern, that in the sixNissaggiyas where a rule is twice formulated there shouldoccur, after its first formulation, this phrase ascribingits setting forth to the lord, and before its second


15/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xi

formulation an a n u j a n d m i , an allowance. I n eachcase the a n u j a n d m i occurs in the talk which, before therule was revised, is reputed to have been given byGotama to monks. I ts effect is not to tighten but tomitigate the force and application of the rule as firstdrawn up. A n a n u j a n d m i however also occurs infive of the remaining twenty-four N issaggiyas (N os. I l l ,X V , X X I I , X X V I I I , X X I X ), not immediately before,but some way before the rule, here of course formulatedonly once.

I n the N issaggiya group of rules, there occurs theformulation of four d u k k a t a offences, those of wrongdoing. E ach of these is ascribed to Gotama. M any othersappear in the material placed after the Old Commentary,but it is not said of these that he was the author.

M ost rare it is to find, as in N issag. I and X X I ,which have several other points in common, a shortstory leading up to the drafting of an offence of wrongdoing placed after the a n a p d t t i (no offence) clauses.1As would be expected, the story and the offence arepertinent to the matter in hand.

I n Nissag. V I the a n u j a n d m i , which is unusuallylong, ends, exceptional ly for the N issaggiya section,in the formulation of a d u k k a t a offence. I t immediatelyprecedes the second drafting of the rule.

I n Nissag. X X I I , which because of some peculiaritiesthat it contains I shall discuss more fully below, thefirst story introduces, not a n i ssa ggi y a p d d t t i y a offence,but one of wrong-doing.

The occurrence of d u k k a t a offences in Nis. V I andX X I I before the final formulation of the rule, no lessthan their ascription to the lord, should correct theimpression given at V i n a y a T ex t s i. xxv that the termd u k k a t a occur s only in . . . the latest portion of theP itaka, that is in the N otes giving the exceptionsto, and the extensions- of the Rule in the Patimokkha { ib id . , p. xix), which are always placed after the OldCommentary.

1 Similarly at Bhikkhuni Nissaggiya I .


16/497

xii t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

As a general rule, the P adabhajaniya states that forfeiture and confession were to be made to an Order, thatis to any part of the whole Order, five monks or more,1living within one boundary, s l m d , or within one residence,dvdsa ; or to a group, g a n a ,2 of monks, that is to a groupof from two to four monks; or to an individual monk.When the article had been forfeited and the offenceconfessed, the offence was to be acknowledged, in thefirst two instances, by an experienced, competentmonk ; in the thi rd by the monk to whom the forfeitureand confession had been made. The forfeited articlewas then to be given back to the monk who, havingacquired it wrongfully, had forfeited it.

The value of the n i ssaggi ya pac i t t i ya type of penaltywas, I think, in the eyes of the framer or framers of theP atimokkha rules, its deterrent effect on the commissionof further similar offences, and its redemptive powerfor each particular offender. I t was apparently heldthat an offence whose penalty was of this nature wasannulled by confessing it and having it acknowledged,combined with this hardly more than symbolic act of forfeiting the article wrongfully acquired. This involved some formality, but evidently the offence wasnot considered bad enough to warrant the offenderspermanent loss of the goods he had obtained improperly.

Thus it is only true that rules were required to prevent his (i.e., a monks) acquiring a store of property,3on the assumption that these rules were deterrent andpreventive and not retr ibutive and revengeful. M oreimportant is it perhaps to realise that, behind thisstatutory limiting of possessions, there was the conviction that greed, craving, thirst, t a n h a , themselves undesirable, produced further undesirable states of mind.

I t is true that any great emphasis on the monasticideal, any clear expression of it, is lacking in the Vi n a y a ,and is to be found almost exclusively in the S u t t a p i t a k a .

1 Sizes of a s amgha , order, are given at V i n . i. 319.2 In the Old Commentary, the phrase s a m b a h u l d b h i k k h u also

occurs, and appears often to be a synonym for g a n a . See below, pp. 7, 8. 3 E . J . Thomas, H i s t . B u d . T h ough t , p. 19.


17/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xiii

T he rules were probably, like the R ule of St. Benedict,to help the beginners, the backsliders, in their struggletowards the lofty heights of vir tue and wisdom.

Y et there is one notable occasion, in N issaggiya X V I I ,when we are reminded of the end, the ideal, the thingsought, to which the Vi n a y a rules must be held toconstitute a means of realisation. This is when thelord is shown as asking M ahapajapatl whether thenuns are zealous, ardent, with a self that is striving,a tr iad of words belonging to Sutta material. T o whichshe answers that while monks make them wash thieir

sheeps wool for them, it is impossible for nuns to attendto the higher morality, the higher thought, the higherwisdom/* also a Sutta triad.

Conquest in this age-old struggle on the part of certain women to escape the ties of domesticity so as toseek the further shore is happily expressed in versesascribed to Sumangalas mother:1

O woman well set free ! how free am I ,H ow thoroughly free from kitchen drudgery !Me stained and squalid mong my cooking-pots,M y brutal husband ranked as even less

Than the sunshades he sits and weaves alway.

Y et although references to the need for ideals andtheir value, and for mans inner spiritual and mentaltraining and the means of attaining these, may be,

practically absent from the Vi n a y a , there is no doubtthat its legal and somewhat austere character is basedon a high and mature standard of morality, justice andcommonsense.

There are three exceptions to the N issaggiyas customary insistence on the return of the forfeited article tothe monk who had come by it unlawfully, and hadforfeited it, only to be given it back again. A nd there

are three exceptions to their usual instruction thatforfeiture and confession are to be made to an Order orto a group or to an individual monk. The same three

1 Thig. 23.


18/497

xiv t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

Nissaggiyas, N os. X V I I I , X I X , X X I I , share boththese irregularities.

N issaggiyas X V I I I and X I X are both concernedwith gold and silver, called j d t a r u j pa r a j a t ax in the onecase, and r u p i y a x in the other. The Old Commentaryon these N issaggiyas requires a monk who has pickedup gold and silver (N o. X V I I I ), or who has entered intovarious transactions in which they are used* (N o. X I X ),to make forfeiture in the midst of the Order, s a m g h a m a j -

j h et I t does not give the usual alternatives of forfeitingto a group or an individual.. T hat these commoditiesmay not be forfeited to either of these parties is precludedby the rule of N issaggiya X V I I I itself, for tms lays i tdown as an offence for a monk to have gold and silverin his possession. The samgha is more impersonal, andis, when need arises, a body of monks in their officialcharacter, with the functions of discharging legal and juridical business and of carrying out formal acts.

But although the samgha may receive the forfeitedgold and silver, it may neither retain them nor returnthem to the monk who forfeited them. I t must eitherhand them over to some lay person, asking him to bringmedicines in exchange, or, failing this, the Order mustappoint from among its number a silver-remover,r u ' p i y a c h a d d a k a , whose office it is to dispose of whatevermediums of exchange r u ' p i y a and j d t a r u j par a j a t a denote.

Of the various objects with which the rules of theN issaggiyas are concerned, gold and silver are the onlyones which a monk might in no circumstances have inhis possession. Clearly he had access to them, for hisassociation with the laity was but little restricted.

Similarly N issaggiya X X I I , besides precluding forfeiture and confession to either a group or an individual,also debars the return of the forfeited article, here abowl, to the monk who forfeited it. B ut he is to begiven another bowl in its place. This is unique in theN issaggiyas. I t is also unique to find given in .the ruleitself the method of forfeiture. This is otherwise in

1 On these terms see below, p. 100, n. 2.


19/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n XV

variably, and solely, found in the Old Commentary.H ere the method of forfeiture enjoined in the ruleappears again, though in more detailed form, in theOld Commentary. The s i k k h d p a d a of N issaggiya X X I I , after statingthat a monk who, getting another new bowl in exchangefor a bowl mended in less than five places, incurs anoffence, proceeds to say: That bowl must be forfeitedby that (offending) monk to a b h i k k h u p a r i s d (company,assembly, congregation of monks). A nd whatever isthe last bowl ( p a t t a p a r i y a n t a ) belonging to that company

of monks, it should be given to that monk, with thewords, 4M onk, this is a bowl for you; i t should be keptuntil it breaks.

I t is interesting to find that the new bowl got inexchange for the mended bowl is subject to forfeitureonly to the Order. This suggests that bowls wereregarded at some time as more especially communalproperty than were robes,1 or the other objects inregard to which a monk might commit an offence in-v&lving forfeiture. Y et in N issaggiya X X I , an extrabowl, if it had been used for more than ten days, mightbe forfeited either to an Order or to a group or to anindividual. N evertheless the injunction which occursat the end of the s i k k h d p a d a of N issaggiya X X I Ireveals a closer concern for communal ownership andproperty than do the other N issaggiya s i k k h d p a d a s . I n

these others, although the Order, or a section of it, mayreceive the forfeited article, it also, with the exceptionof N os. X V I I I and X I X , returns it, the community asa whole assuming no further responsibility.

A t the end of N issaggiya X X I , it is said that failureto give back a bowl that had been forfeited entails ad u k k a t a offence.2 Y et in N issaggiya X X I I it appears

1 On a monks death, his robes did not necessarily return to the Order. H e-could bequeath them to the monk who had nursed him or to a pupil. Moreover, robe-material might be presented to individual monks, if the laity so wished. See Nissag. V I I I , I X , X .

2 C f . end of Nis. I , where same offence incurred by failure to give back a robe.


20/497

xvi t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

that a bowl on being forfeited becomes an extra bowlfor a company of monks and is absorbed into theirstock of bowls. T he result of an Orders obtaining an

additional bowl in this way is that all its members areliable to profit. F or their bowls, on the accretion of this extra one, may all be shuffled round. B ut thisis not to be done haphazard. The rule has given concisedirections for the right procedure, and these are followedand expanded at some length by the Old Commentary.

There is a still further way in which N issaggiya X X I Iis unique among the N issaggiyas. I t contains three

stories instead of, as is normal, one, or, as in six cases,two. This means that a chain of three connectedcircumstances have arisen, each of which demands

jurisdiction. The curious thing is, that the first, storydoes not end with the formulation of a nissagg iya p d d t t i y a offence, but with that of an offence of wrongdoing. This is to the effect that a monk must not askfor a bowl. B ut monks observed this precept too

scrupulously. L ay people complained that, by receiving almsfood into their hands, they resembledmembers of other sects. So Gotama, it is said, madean allowance moderating the d u k k a t a rule, andpermitting monks to ask for a bowl when theirs werebroken or destroyed. B ut because the six monksabused this privilege, the n i ssa ggi y a p d d t t i y a rule wasformulated.

I have dwelt on Nissaggiya X X I I at some length,for I think that, even as there are some grounds forholding that Sanghadisesa X I I may represent somespecially ancient fragment of the P atimokkha,1 so likewise may this Nissaggiya.

I n the first place, the term b h i k k h u p a r i s d , because itmerely indicates an assembly, a company of monks,may belong to those earlier days before Gotamasfollowers were fully organised into a samgha , bound bythe same observances and obligations, the same rulesand (formal) acts, and living in the same communion.

1 See B .D . i. xxviii f.


21/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xvii

I t is possible that, in such a context, bhihlchu did notmean all that at some time it came to mean. Secondly,the mention of this ct company of monks as the re

cipient body of a forfeited bowl may point to a timewhen communal ownership was more actual thannominal. T hirdly, the need for stating, in the n i s sagg iya ' pdc i t t iya rule itself, that the article wrongfully acquiredmust be forfeited, suggests that this-rule antedates theother Nissaggiyas, and belongs to a time when forfeiturewas new as a penalty, and when therefore the methodof carrying it out had to be plainly stated. F our thly,

one might suppose that the first story in this N issaggiyapurports to be recounting unsuitable behaviour in anearly follower of Gotama. F or the early followers, i tmay be presumed, entering from a more urgent senseof religion, committed less serious offences than thelater, and hence incurred lighter penalties.

The appointment of two officials is mentioned in theN issaggiyas, that of silver-remover (N o. X V I I I ) and

that of assigner of bowls (N o. X X I I ). T he duty of both is to deal with the results of offences, and not withthe distribution of articles, such as robes and lodgings,lawfully acquired. A ppointments of officials were notof one officer for the whole samgha , but. of an officerfor any of those lesser sections of it which, dwellingwithin one boundary or residence, were, to the notnegligible confusion of later historians, also calledsamgha. E ven so, we do not know whether each of these samghas always appointed every possible official,ready to function and a not inconsiderable number arenamed throughout the V i n a y a or if only those wereappointed when occasion demanded their service. N ordo we know whether an official, once appointed, heldhis post permanently or temporarily.

I think it fair ly safe to presume the latter. M onkstravelled a great deal on the one hand, and on the otherhad to spend the three or four months of the rains inone residence with other monks. H ad two permanentoffice-bearers met, and a case within their orbit arisen,a ruling would have been necessary as to which one,


22/497

xviii t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

such as the senior or the one first arrived, was to dealwith the situation. B ut there is no record of any suchevent.

I t seems more likely, and the internal evidence, suchas it is, points this way, that the authorised procedurefor appointing the officials was prescribed as the needfor this or that official was felt. Thus a similar appointment could be correctly made if and when future needarose. B ut i f there was, for example, no occasion for asilver-remover or an assigner of bowls, which could onlybe because no monk had acquired gold and silver or a new

bowl in exchange for one mended in less than five places,then there was no obligation to appoint a monk to filleither of these offices.

The procedure for the appointment of the officials isin each case much the same; and they have to be agreedupon by the entire Order affected. This well il lustratesthe democratic nature of the monastic institution. T woother agreements of the monks, b h i k k h u s a m m u t i , aredescribed in the N issaggiyas (N os. I I , X I V ), andagain the responsibility for making the required agreement is shown to be vested in the whole organism, andnot in any one of its members.

Some E nglish translations of P ali words and phrasesappear to have become almost traditional by now, andhence attract little critical attention. Such a phrase isp a t t a cl v a r a m d d d y a , e


23/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xix

upper robe. This implies that the monk will alreadyhave put on his inner robe to wear in the residence, if indeed he had not slept in it, but later put on his upper

robe wi th a view to going on his almsround. Again,the phrase 'pat taclvaram, ddaya , which as a rule immediately follows this other one, would in effect mean, taking the outer cloak and the bowl. I think itpossible however that if the c l v a r a of this phrase didat some time come to refer exclusively to the sanghdt i , the outer cloak, it may not always have done so. F orit is hard to see the sense that such an interpretation

could make in N issaggiya V , as I hope to show. Onthe other hand, the occurrence of the phrase here maybe due to some later editorial addition to the story.

T he nun U ppalavanna is elsewhere in the V i n a y a } thefocus of an alteration in the rules on jungle-dwellingfor nuns. H ere too another episode in her life, as thisis recorded in N issaggiya V, is the centre round whichturn some intricate questions with regard to robes.

A ccording to this N issaggiya, U ppalavanna, in thestereotyped phrase, having dressed in the morningand taking her bowl and robe, p u b b a n h a s a m a y a m n i v a set v d p a t t a cl v a r a m d d a y a , had gone to SavatthI foralmsfood. She had then used her upp6r robe, u t t a r d - sanga, to ti e up some meat. She next gave her innerrobe, a n t a r a v d s a k a , to the monk U dayin, although protesting that it was her last, her fifth robe, i d a n ca m e

a n t i m a m p a n ci m a m cl v ar a m . And finally it is said thaton her return to the nunnery, the nuns receiving fromher her bowl and robe, p a t t a c l v a r a m p a t i g a n h a n t i y o , asked her where her inner robe was.

T he question is, which of the five robes allowable toa nun did she set out taking, and which did the nuns receive from her when she came back to the nunnery ?

T he five robes of a nun, mentioned also at V i n . iv.218, 282, are named at V i n . ii. 272 as the three usualrobes worn also by monks, with the addition of thevest or bodice, samkaccTiika, ' and the bathing-cloth, and

1 V i n . iii. 35 ff.=J 3.>. i. 53 ff.


24/497

XX t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

it is said that these should be pointed out to womenwishing to receive the u p a s a m p a d d . A t Vi n . iv. 345 itis laid down as an offence of expiation for a nun to entera village without her bodice, that is without having thison under her inner robe. Bu. at V A . 663 assumes thatU ppalavanna had on her bodice, for he says, dressedin ( n i v a t t h a ) her bodice, and showing only the palmsof her hands . . . she went away, that is from U dayin.We know that she had had her upper robe, and suspectthat i t was accounted for by the phrase, having dressedin the morning. L ikewise, on account of the phrase, taking her bowl and robe, she should have had herouter cloak with her. But had she in fact had this,surely she would have put it on. Y et in the narrativeof her meeting with U dayin, there is no suggestion thatshe was either carrying it or wearing it.

E ither therefore having dressed in the morning refers to putting on the i n n e r robe, and'


25/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxi

cloak, U ppalavanna may have 44taken merely herupper robe. She would then have returned to thenunnery dressed only in her bodice, as Bu. seems to

imply.W ith the growing disparagement of nakedness in.monks and nuns,1 the robe the nuns 44received fromher would' hardly have been her bodice. Besides, this44receiving of a bowl and robe from an incoming monkor nun came to be but a recognised, standardised act.I t would thus appear possible that the discrepancywhich exists may be attributable to a later interpolation of the phrase which denotes this act of respectdone to a monk or nun on coming back to the residence.

I f we allow that the phrase ' pa t t ac lvaram ddaya , of the beginning of the story, betrays neither the marksof interpolation nor of accredited meaning, but signifiestaking the u p p e r robe, then we are almost forced tosee the phrase p a t t acl v a r a m p a t i g a n h a n t i y o , towards theconclusion of the story, as some additional matter. F orif the course of the story is carefully followed, it isimpossible to identify these two c l v a r a the one with theother.

Thus an explanation of the discrepancy between whatever robes it was that these phrases are intended tosignify is that this N issaggiya has suffered some careless 44editorial gloss or glosses. The point itself maybe small and of no particular importance. B ut everyinstance of perceptible 44curling and combing 2 of thetexts must make us the more alive to the possibility of their patchwork nature, their composite 44authorship,to their gradual alterations and additions, and probablyto their losses too.

H aving taken an instance of the translation of afrequent phrase, whose latent reference has been perhapstoo little questioned, and hence too easily regarded asuniformly specific, I turn now to a word, santhata , and

1 C f . V i n . i. 292, 293, 305; iv. 278; and below, pp. 45, 134.2 A phrase I borrow from Mrs. Rhys Davids, Poems by Monk

ind Nun, R ev. o f R el i g i on , J anuary, 1940, p. 129.


26/497

xxii t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

the verb, san th ar at i ( = sam~\ ~ st ?;), of which it is the pastparticiple. I n this case it is owing to the comparativeinfrequency of these two words that their latent reference has been too little questioned on the one hand, buton the other not fully perceived to be specific.

I n N issaggiyas X I -X V , santhata occurs as a neuternoun,1 meaning a rug or mat.2 Because there are otherwords for rug, mat, carpet, ground-covering, sheet andso on, the problem before us is to find the differentiatingfeature peculiar to the kind of rug called san tha ta , theparticular characteristic in virtue of which it was sonamed. F or neither the Old Commentary nor Buddha-ghosa describes the finished article; they concentrateinstead on the process of making it. The result of theprocess is what in the text of the introductory storiesand the s i k k h d p a d a s is called a san tha ta .

The Old Commentary is very terse, but, by exclusion,informative: santhata means, what comes to be madehaving spread, not woven, san tha r i t vd ka t am ho t i a v d y i m a m . Thus san thar i tvd in this definition needssome word to be supplied as its object, such as onerepresenting the material used in making the articleby this process known as san tha ra t i . Bu., at V A . 684,describes the technique of what the Old Commentary,in defining san tha ta , calls san tha r i t vd , by saying, it ismade having spread ( san tha r i t vd ) silk3 filaments (arhsu) one upon the other on a level piece of ground, havingpoured boiled rice (or corn) and so on over the silk

filaments. This then is the kind of process meant by santhata ,

1 As p.p., see e.g. D . ii. 160, S n . 401, 668; also the stock-phxase, d h a m a n i - s a n t h a t a - g a t t a y having the limbs strewn with veins. As a noun, s an tha t a occurs only once elsewhere, V v . 63, 5.

2 P .E .D . , B. C. Law, H i st . P a l i L i t . i. 53, rug or m at ; E . J . Thomas, H i st . B u d . T h ough t , p. 19, rug. V i n . T ext s i. 24 translates rug or mat and rug ; Huber, J .A s. , 1913, p. 497, couverture ; Vidyabhusana, So -sor -t h a r -p a , p. 20, mat.

3 Silk is not essential to the argument. This part of the Commentary is referring to Nissag. X I , where monks thought of making s an tha t a mixed with silk. In Nissag. X I I -X I V they were made of wool.


27/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxiii

and it is the only one described. I t seems that thebasic material of which the article was being madewas spread out in layers, in strata all running the sameway, and not cross-wise so as to be woven, and that itwas then somehow welded together by pouring boilingrice over it. The. result of this operation was a san tha ta , a thing made by this process.

Childers defines the cognate noun, san thdra , as layer,stratum ; and there are passages in the V i n a y a andthe Suttas1 where s a n t h a r a t i , used largely in connectionwith preparing a council-hall, must mean to spread orto strew most probably in layers, by a spreading method1,of layering. This, at all events, is the view held bythe commentator2 who describes the arrangement of*covering the ground with cow-dung, scents, coloured.mats, fleecy rugs, and skins of various animals, all one;above ( u p a r i ) the other. I t is unfortunate that thecommentator, in thus defining s a n t h a r i t v d , more thanonce uses the word itself. I n spite of this, the description is of inestimable help in arriving at a fuller understanding of what san tha ra t i implies.I f my hypothesis is correct, the cognate verb a t i h a r a t i ' = a + st i ) would denote the simpler act of spreading,covering, laying out, but not in layers, and as it were)nce only or one thing only, such as cloth ( V i n . i. 254 ff.))r a bridge ( J d . i. 199). I t would then follow thatsantharati , when used with reference to spreading a;ouch or chair or mattress or stool,3 must mean not>imply the act of putting out the couch or chair un-urnished, but converting it into something fit to sit on>r lie on. This could be done by spreading on i t orinder it different coverings, in layers: the sheet, p a c -


28/497

xxiv TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION

I have chosen 44rug in preference to 44mat, becauseit seems desirable to convey the impression that asan tha ta was something that could both be sat on andalso worn wrapped round the body. The Old Commentary on N issaggiya X V defines p u r ana-san tha ta , an old,used or soiled san tha ta , in exactly the same terms asit uses to define p u r a n a - c l v a r a , an old, used or soiledrobe. Of both it says that they mean, 44dressed init once, put on once, using for this the words nivdset i and p a r u p a t i , which usually refer to the complete dressingin the monk s three robes. Bu. defines these words,44dressed i n and put on, as sat on and lainon ( V A . 6S7). Y et on the very same page he speaksof a san tha ta 44counting as a four th robe.

!But for Bu. apparently these two definitions are notimpossible of reconciliation. F or in his exegesis onN issaggiya I V he says ( VA . 660) that a robe is called44old (i.e., dressed in it once, put on once) if a monklies on it, using it as a pillow. Thus a robe, meant tobe worn, could also on occasion be used to lie on.

As the Vi n a y a itself provides no evidence as to whatexactly santhata means, whether it is a rug or a mat,although it describes the process by which it is made, Ihave followed the commentator in regarding the articleas something that could either be sat on or worn. R ug rather more accurately than 44mat seems tocover these two usages which, by the time of Buddha-ghosa at any rate, appear to have grown into the meaning of santhata .

T he n i s ldana - san tha t a of Nissaggiya X V is not aspecies of san tha ta , but of n i s l d a n a , and is a piece of cloth to sit upon ( n i s l d a n a ) made with the addition of part of an old santhata . A n i s l d a n a was so called if ithad a border.1 B ut the reason why a border came tobe allowed, together with its correct measurements,is given at V i n . iv. 170 f., and has nothing to do withthe need to add part of a santhata to a n i s l d a n a .

1 V i n . iii. 232, iv. 123, 171.


29/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n XXV

T h e P a c i t t i y a G r o u p (N o s . I -L X )

A curious feature of the P acittiyas is that the OldCommentary on these rules nowhere explains what ismeant by p d d t t i y a , the offence which gives its name tothis whole section. I t is from the phrase d pa t ti desetabbd, occurring in the Vibhanga on each Nissaggiya, that weinfer that p a c i t t i y a is an offence to be confessed; andeven as forfeiture and confession are to be made to anOrder or to a group or to an individual, so we mayconclude that the same holds good when the offence isone whose penalty is merely that of expiation, of confession unaccompanied by forfeiture.

B y and large each P acittiya is composed on the samegeneral lines as the other classes of rules in the Sut ta -vibhanga: introductory story, rule, sometimes anotherstory, even more than one, with the amended versionor versions of the rule, Old Commentary, other exe-getical material, and a list of no offences against therule. There are, as in the N issaggiyas, irregulari tiesand variations from this customary pattern. Thesecannot be analysed until the translation of the ninety-two P acittiyas is complete, and even then it will bedoubtful whether they will throw any light on tethecomparative age of any different parts of the P ati -mokkha.1

One thing however we can do now, and it is notaltogether unimportant. W e can correct the . misapprehension into which the editors of Vi n a y a Te x t s fell , and which I ,2 among others,3 have hi therto followedtoo uncritically. F or it is not quite the case that theOld Commentary is a 44word for word commentaryupon 4 each of these rules, although undoubtedly i t isnearly so. Setting aside the occasions where wordsare defined by themselves, but nevertheless defined,there yet remain a few distinct but notable lapses and

1 V i n . T ext s i. xiv. 2 B .D . i. xxxiii.3 S. Dutt, E a r l y B u d . M on a ch i sm , 91; M. Winternitz, H i st . I n d .

L i t . ii. 24. 4 V i n . T ext s i. xv.


30/497

xxvi t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

omissions, some words of a rule not being commentedupon at all. There is no attempt in the Old Commentaryto explain water (that) contains life (P ac. X X ), monk arrived first (P ac. X V I ), or in destructiono f (vegetable growth) (P ac. X I ), although in the lastcase the paragraph following the Old Commentarysdefini tion of vegetable growth le ds us to suppose that destruction means cutting, breaking and

SavatthI , again wi th a large majority, is said to be thelocus of thirty-nine of these sixty Pacittiyas, Rajagahaof six, K osambi of five, Vesall and A lavl each of four ,K apil avatthu of two and Sumsumaragiri of one. Thetotal of sixty-one is accounted for by the fact that, inP ac. V , the first version of the rule is reputed to havebeen formulated when Gotama was at Alavl,. and thesecond when he had moved on from there to K osambi.

The critics, as a result of whose complaints P acittiyarules for monks were made or revised, are thirty-fivetimes shown to have been the modest monks, fifteentimes people, m a n u s s a , to which must be added thecriticism of a lay-woman (Pac. V I I , both stories), of a man (P ac. X L V ), of a poor workman (P ac. X X X I I I ),of M ahanama Sakka (P ac. X L V I I ), and of hirelingsof the king (P ac. L /VTI I ). F our times the nuns complain, once the t i t t h i y a s , once a brahmin, once u pas aka , lay-folio wer s.

These last, also, upon one occasion (P ac. X L I ) arerecorded to have told Gotama how monks might avoidbringing discredit on themselves from members of othersects; he laid down a rule in accordance with theirrepresentations. Once K ing Pasenadi thought of adevice by which Gotama might know that monkshad been behaving indecorously (P ac. L I I I ). F ivetimes, it appears, Gotama discovered by direct observation or by questioning that legislation was required.B y a too fastidious adherence to a rule, i t is on severaloccasions demonstrated to be unsatisfactory, and isrevised.

Thus the total number of rules appearing in these


31/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxvii

P acittiyas is greater than sixty. I t is not uniformlythe case, as in the N issaggiya section, that when a ruleis amended, it is amended once only. A t least three

of these sixty P acitt iyas provide evidence of a longstruggle to get the rule right. I n P ac. X X X I I therule on a group-meal, g a n a b h o j a n a , revised seven times,results finally in seven legalised exceptions being allowedto the offence, as it otherwise remains, of eating ina group. T o the ruling on paramjparabhojana , (Pac.X X X I I I ), eating meals out of the turns in which theyhave been offered, four exceptions are sanctioned.

T hirdly, six exceptions are made to the rule that amonk should not bathe at intervals of less than half a month (P ac. L V I I ).

A consideration of the reasons leading to the exceptions made to these, as to several other rules, revealssomething of the care and vigilance needed for thesmooth running of the Buddhist cenobium, impingingas it did on various elements and aspects of the society

of the day. The laity were, on the one hand, not to bedrained of their resources, on the other, not to be refused when they offered food, as this might result inwounding their spirit of generosity, in dashing theirhope of merit, and in the loss to monks of the robe-material which the laity, at the right time of year, gaveto members of the Orders with meals. N or were thelai ty to be kept waiting. A t least I think that that,

as much as the discourtesy of refusing the offer, made tomonks who were travelling, to eat just here, andwhich looks as if the lay-people were willing to providethe meal, is at the root of two exceptions, made atP ac. X X X I I I . 5 and 6. F or there are various timesin N issaggiya and P acitt iya when lay-people are recorded to be annoyed with monks for keeping themwaiting.

A t P ac. X X X I I I . 4 it is obvious that the assigningto another monk of a meal that is expected later is adevice for overcoming the rudeness, otherwise involved,of refusing food that is actually being offered. N or, soit emerges, is it polite to refuse an invitation given to


32/497

a meal by a wanderer, a p a r i b b a j a k a - s a m d p a n n a . Anaked ascetic, d j l v a k a , had, as is stated, on Bimbisarasadvice, asked the monks to a meal with him, but they

had refused (P ac. X X X I I I . 8).I ncidentally this story reveals the necessity for keepingthe friendship of the kings, on whom the success of theOrder largely depended. T hey did much to set thefashion in faith. I have mentioned P asenadis devicefor letting the lord know, but without himself speakingto him, that he had seen monks, a r a h a n s at that, sportingin the water. M allika, his queen, was of the opinion

either that there was no rule against this, or that thesemonks did not know about it. A pparently her firstsurmise was right. The third mention of a king in thesesixty P acittiyas is again of Bimbisara. Because monks,by bathing until after dark, kept him waiting his turn,for it appears that he did not wish to disturb them, arule, severe compared with its cause, was formulatedforbidding monks to bathe at intervals of less than half a month (P ac. L V I I ). B ut this proved deleterious torobes and lodgings. F or in the hot weather, the feverweather, at a time of wind and rain, when making repairsor going on a journey, monks lay down to rest with theirlimbs damp from rain or sweat. A nd the restrictionon bathing was uncomfortable for those who were ill.

This is a rule whose various adjustments are the directoutcome of a tropical climate.

I think that the growing needs of the monks, asexpressed for example in the exceptions to P ac. L V I I ,and also in the acquisition of more and more accessories,recounted principally in the M a h d v a gga , does notnecessarily indicate soft-living and greed on their part,but a desire to keep what they had properly and cleanly,to use it as efficiently as possible, and to keep themselvesin a good state of health, for this was regarded as anessential basis for leading the higher life. F our great,perpetual and destructive enemies against which manhas to fight in I ndia are the heat of the sun, the dampof the rains, the strength of the winds blowing up dustand dirt, and the persistent ravages of insects. W hen

xxviii t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n


33/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxix

the Vi n a y a has been exhaustively studied, I believe itmay as often as not be found that the desire and itssanction to acquire various objects in order to preserve

others, or to lessen by making exceptions the constraintof some rules, will prove to be attributable to one orother of these forces of nature.

I llness, though not gone into in detail, is howeverkept in mind by the constant allusion to provisionsmade for the comfort of ill monks. Such provisionsare usually contained in a s i k k h d p a d a , or an a n u j a n d m i ,or both. The permission to bathe more often than once

a fortnight is a case in point. Again, a monk, if ill,is allowed to eat more than one meal in succession ata public rest-house (P ac. X X X I ), to kindle a fire forwarming himself (Pac. L V I ), and a nun who is ill mayreceive exhortation from a monk in the nunnery insteadof going to the monk s quarters (P ac. X X I I I ).

Of these sixty P acitt iya rules for monks, fifteen aredevoted to rules for eating, N os. X X I X , X X X I -

X L I I I , X L V I . N one occur in P ac. L X I -X C I I . Sincetherefore all the P acittiya ordinances fall ing under thishead are contained in this volume, it is possible toallude to various points arising from them here; Ihave already drawn attention to some. Rules concerned with the exhortation of nuns are arrangedexclusively in P ac. X X I -X X I V , but as I have discussed these elsewhere,1 I shall not do so again now.

Rules regarding the army and, to all intents and purposes,robes come only within this volume. Other rules cannotbe so profitably discussed unti l the P acittiya translationis completed.

I n these rules, which cannot always be fully understoodunless read in conjunction alike with their introductorystories, the Old Commentary and the a n d p a t t i clauses,much diverse and interesting material comes to light.

I t would be a long and delicate business to investigateall the ramifications, and to connect these with thoseother parts of the Vi n a y a to which they sometimes

1 W om en u n d er P r i m i t i ve B u d d h i sm , p. 126 ft.


34/497

XXX t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

seem to refer. M erely to take two random examplesfrom P ac. X L V I I . F or understanding the definition of time of giving robes (=P ac. X X X I I ), acquaintance

with, for example, M V . vii is necessary. Again thefact that there is no offence if a monk is going tothe nuns quarters presupposes at least a knowledge of the P acittiyas concerned with the exhortation of nuns.

The rules on eating are important for monks, fortaking nothing but food given in alms involved a threefold maintenance of a correct at ti tude: towards the laity,towards members of other sects, and towards fellow

monks. The same applies to robes, where also a monksbehaviour towards a nun has to be taken into account.I t might indeed be said that a monks attitude towardseating and robes epitomises his whole attitude towardsthe society of the day.

T he P acittiyas on meals and eating would providematerial for an extensive essay. I have already referredto the group-meal and the out-of-turn meal,1 that is totwo ways in which, leaving aside the exceptions, ameal might not be eaten. H ere I shall do no more thannote down some of the more outstanding words forvarious kinds of meals, that is for classes of food named.N otes will be found appended to these words where theyappear in the text.

(1) The five kinds of meals, p a n ca bh oj a n d n i , givenin the Old Commentary on P ac. X X X V as ri ce-gruel,food made with flour, barley, fish, meat, and mentionedin the a n d p a t t i clauses of P ac. X X I X , X X X I -X X X I I I ,are used in the Old C ommentary on P ac. X X X V todefine soft food, b h o j a n i y a .

(2) Solid food is defined by exclusion. I n P ac.X X X V it is everything except the five soft foods andfood that may be eaten during a watch of the night,during seven days and during life. These last threecategories seem to refer solely to medicines. I n P ac.X U solid food is everything but the five soft foods andwater for cleansing the teeth.

1 Above, p. xxvii .


35/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxxi

(3) F ive other classes of food are given in the anajpat t i clauses of P ac. X X X I I , X X X I I I , dependent on howand when given: the regular supply of food, that allowedby ticket, that given on a day of the waxing or waningof the moon, on an observance day, and on the dayafter this.

(4) Comparing the Old Commentary on P ac. X X X Vand X L I I , it appears that yagu , conjey, ranks neitheras a solid food nor as a soft food.

(5) I n P ac. X X X I X the five standard medicines,and meat and fish (two of the soft foods) with milk andcurds are called sumptuous foods, j pan i t abh oj an d n i .

(6) Solid food or soft food that is not left over,a n a t i r i t t a , and solid or soft food that is left over, a t i r i t t a ,are mentioned in P ac. X X X V .

There is nothing very special to say about the P acittiya rules for robes. These receive a large share of legislation in the N issaggiyas, and are given comparatively scant attention in the P acittiyas. Their rulesconstitute two small groups: N os. X X V , X X V I ,L V I I I -tiX ; again, but not in this volume, Nos. L X X I Xand X C I I .

A monk incurs an offence of expiation i f he gives arobe to a nun who is not a relation, except in exchange(P ac. X X V and cf . Nis. V ). This rule was the outcomeof generosity on a monks part, not of greed. The firstdraft had to be revised because nuns were affronted thatmonks would not even exchange robes with them.Again, an offence is incurred (1) i f a monk sews a robefor a nun who is not a relation (Pac. X X V I ) the resultof U dayins obscene design on a nuns robe; (2) i f hedoes not use one of the three prescribed modes of disfiguring a new robe, apparently so as to be able to recognise it (Pac. L V I I I , and whose and 'pa t t i clauses shouldbe read in conjunction with V i n . i. 254, 255); (3) i f heuses a robe after having assigned it to a member of anyof the five classes of his co-religionists (P ac. L I X ),for clearly these must be able to rely on an assignment;and (4) if he hides a robe or a bowl or various other


36/497

xxxii t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

specified requisites belonging to another monk (Pac. L X )VP ac. L X X X I should be compared with P ac. L I X .P ac. X C I I declares i t an offence for a monk to have arobe made. up to the measure of a Sugatas robe, orlarger. I t will be noticed that P ac. X X V and L I Xprovide evidence that a monk had power to dispose of a robe in his possession, either by exchange or assignment, a point which wars against the view that theOrder was the owner of the robes, even after they hadbeen allotted or assigned to individual monks.

A set of three P acitti ya rules (N os. X L V I I I -L ) cameto be laid down for the conduct to be observed by monksin regard to an army. There is no blinking of facts,no pretence of ignoring the existence of armies as partof the structure of worldly life, either here or in variousSutta passages. M oreover, from the many militarysimiles used to describe a mans ( p u g g a l a , as at A . iii.91 ff.) or a monks (as at A . i. 184, ii. 116, 170, 202)successful mental purification and victorious spiritualbattles, it is clear that fighting by kings, chieftains andsoldiers, though never frankly condoned as in theG i t a , was yet on the whole not roundly censured. T woSutta passages should however be specially remarked, theone in the S a m y u t t a , 1 depicting the utter futility of war,for it settles nothing, does not stop the deed fromrolling on ; the other in the D h a m m a p a d a ,2 violentlycontrasting the use of force with the exercise of d l i a m m a . D h a m m a conscience, duty, the moral ought, thedisciplinary rules, the body of teaching, and it hasmeant all of these is arrayed against brute force.

There is no doubt as to which is found the more fittingand the more admirable.

E ven had not the intentional taking of life rankedas a P arajika offence, there was yet the moral s l l a , orprinciple, binding a monk to refrain from onslaught oncreatures, and binding the laity too, but only on thefortnightly uposatha days. Thus, clearly, fighting by

1 S . i. 85. 2 D h p . 256, 257.


37/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxxiii

monks was condemned, and Buddhist monks could notbecome soldiers. I n this respect they differ widelyfrom the Western monk of the M iddle Ages, who sawnothing incongruous in taking up arms.

F urther, as these P acittiyas show, a monks dealingswith an army were, though not forbidden outright,reduced to the minimum. F or, contrary to the viewsometimes put forward that Gotama and his followerswere breakers of homes, it is apparent here as elsewherein the canon that his relations were by no meansinaccessible to a man once he had turned monk.

I n P ac. X L V I I I , a monk is allowed to go and seean army fighting, if there is sufficient reason. Thisexception is a generalisation from the particular instanceof a monks wish to visit a sick relation who was inthe army. But, having gone to the army, a monk isnot to stay there for more than three nights (Pac.X L I X ), nor while there to witness manoeuvres: shamfights, troops in array, the massing of the army, reviews(Pac. L ). This is a group where the later rule refersto the one immediately preceding i t . 1

I n all of these manoeuvres the four wings of anarmy might participate: the elephants each requiringtwelve men, the horses each with three men, the chariotseach with four men, the infantry with (bows and) arrows.

In the J d t a k a there is not infrequent reference tothis four fold composition of an army. B ut that itshould be set down in considerable detail in the OldCommentary may be ascribed to the determination that,given lucid explanations, the monks should be in nodoubt as to what was an army or part of one.

I n each of these three monastic rules connected withan army, it is recorded that the laity, apparently alittle stung by jealousy, complain of the monks conduct.

T hey realise that it is because of their own poor acquirement (aldbJid dul laddham of good deeds) in the pastthat, in the present, they are brought into contact withfighting forces. The implication seems to be that for

i i .1 Vi n . i. xvii.

2


38/497

xxxiv t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

a monk this should not be necessary or inevitable:being a monk he should be beyond the desire to witnessfighting, real or sham, both because his k a r m a in thisrespect should be worn away, and for fear lest he shouldengender a new bad k a r m a for the future. I n generalterms it may be said that there is no offence if a monksees an army or a conflict through no fault of his own,and not having gone of set purpose to see either the oneor the other.

In their Introduction to V i n a y a T ex t s,1 Rhys Davidsand Oldenberg have drawn attention to a curiousirregularity in the method of framing some of theP acittiya rules. I n referring to the P acittiyas and theapparent effort to arrange the offences in groups(vagga) of ten, they raise the question of the threecases in which we find regulations formulated withthe utmost brevity (the offences being merely expressedby a locative case dependent upon p d c i t t i y a m ) at thecommencement of such a v a g g a And they go on tosay, I t seems to us, at least in the present state of ourknowledge, quite impossible to draw any conclusionsfrom such peculiarities as to the comparative age of anydifferent parts of the P atimokkha. N ow since all theP acittiyas referred to fall within this volume, I willattempt to discuss them, but without necessarily, since the present state of our knowledge is still defective,trying to arrive at any conclusion.2

T hey are P ac. I -I I I , X I -X I I I , L I -L I V . A nyattempt to trace a cause for the peculiar way in whichthe rule in each of these P acitt iyas is framed mustdepend to some extent upon the nature of the materialfound within these same P acittiyas. N othing as yetcan be suggested as to why they stand at the beginningof their respective vaggas. I would only point out,

1 V i n . T ext s i. xiv.2 There are also the seven concluding Pacittiyas, 86-92, where the offence of expiation involves, not n i ssaggi ya , forfeiture, but some other penalty in respect of an article made of the wrong material or to the wrong measure.


39/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n XXXV

first, that in the Bhikkhuni-vibhanga there is oneP acittiya, N o. I V , which is of this same brief type, butit does not head a vagga ; and secondly, that the Bhikkhu-

P acittiyas N os. L X X I I , L X X I I I , although not of thebrief type yet conform to it to the extent that, aftersome introductory material included in the rule andleading up to the formulation of the offence, the offenceitself is expressed by a locative case dependent on

j pdci t t i yam . These two rules do not head their division,and its first rule is framed in the normal manner.

L eaving P aci ttiyas L X X I I , L X X I I I and Bhikkhunl-

P acittiya I V to one side, I will now summarise suchoutstanding features as are evinced by the three groupsof rules which are formulated with the utmost br evi ty,together with their attendant material.

(1) I n P ac. I , I I , I I I (repeating I I ), X I , L I V ,not only is the key-word or words (sometimes there aretwo) of the rule defined, but also the words used insuch a definition are themselves defined. T he defini tion

of these words I believe not to belong to the originalOld Commentary, but to a revised version of it. Thisis not however a point peculiar to these five P acittiyas;for P arajika I V and P ac. X also define the words usedin the definition of the words of the rule. T o my mindsuch supplementary definitions portray a synthesis of thought, based on knowledge, which is far from primitiveor tentative. Again, the very material of the rule of P ac. X I , that it is an offence to destroy vegetable growth,may be compared with that of P ac. X and X X , whereit is an offence to dig the soil or to sprinkle water containing life. The sole purpose of all these three P acittiyas is to preserve from harm creatures that are one-facultied. I n this respect then P ac. X I is not uniqueor peculiar. I t may in addition be suitably comparedwith P ac. X , as much for the similari ty of guidingprinciple as for the defining of words used in definition.

T he words used to define the definitions of the key-wordof P ac. I I and I I I do not seem wholly contrived formonastic purposes. W hy should crafts, for example,be classified as high and low and then catalogued ?


40/497

xxxvi t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

I t was impossible for monks to follow any of the craftsmentioned. Such painstaking analysis of all the tenways in which insulting speech and slander

might be made seems to point to later days whenclassification and analysis had come to be in vogue.(2) I suppose that in the introductory story of P ac. I I ,

the group of six monks when they jeered at the well-behaved monks about five out of ten things birth,name, clan, work, craft must have had in mind thesocial position and the occupation held by these whilethey were still in the world. F or all such considera

tions should count as nothing once a man had becomea monk. T he offence was summarised as one of insulting speech, and not as one of probing into matterswhose importance to monks should be infinitesimal.N or can one say of G otamas Order that, as time wenton, such considerations came to be of account, or thatthe richer and better-born entrants came to hold themore influential positions. This has never been the

case. T he influence of the members has always depended on their mental and spiritual attainments alone,or on some gift of character. This backward view, i f such it is meant to be, into a monks past is unique inthe P acittiyas. B ut yet I cannot see that it affordsany data for the comparative age of this P acittiya.

(3) P ac. I I has a reference to lekhd. I f this is writing,which, partly owing to the paucity of references alike

to it and to writing-materials, is assumed to be an artof later discovery, then a clue is at once establishedfor a comparatively late date of this Pacittiya, or atany rate of a portion of it; or to writing being less a later discovery than is hitherto assumed.

(4) P ac. I contains a long and sophisticated analysisof the way in which an offence of expiation is incurredby the three and the seven ways of telling a conscious

lie. T his may be compared with the beginning of asimilar analysis in P arajika I V 1 of the incurment of anoffence involving defeat by the three and the seven


41/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xx x vii

ways of telling a conscious lie. The passage in P arajikaI V as i t goes on is paralleled by a passage in P ac. V I I I .I n both P arajik a I V on the one hand and Pac. I and

V I I I on the other, this analysis with its very differentstyle and terminology consorts strangely with the morearchaic language and the more direct modes of thoughtthat we usually associate with the V i n a y a .

(5) P ac. I I and L I contain material belonging toJ a t a k a stories but so does P ac. V .

(6) As already noted, there is the failure of the OldCommentary on P ac. X I to explain one of the two

key-words of the rule: in destruction of, p d t a b y a t d y a .(7) P ac. X I I , with its mention in the in troductorystory of Channa, who, having indulged in bad habits,a n d c a r a m d c a r i t v a , was being examined for an offencein the midst of the Order, to my mind brings the wholequestion of monastic disciplinary regulation a step laterin time. F or it points to a period when formal proceedings had been constituted, when faults were

examined, not merely expiated by confession, and whenthere was an apparatus for dealing with, among manyother transgressions, questions of failure in habit orconduct, d c a r a v i p a t t i . These are set out in detail inC V y I V . T his P acit tiya, in striking contrast toSarigh. X I I , where again the same faul t is imputed toChanna, seems to have been compiled in full cognisanceof these later legal proceedings.

(8) P ac. X I I I appears to be recording an event laterin time than that recorded in Sarigh. V I I I . I n thislatter, Dabba the M allian is appointed, so it is said,to the double office of assigning lodgings and distributing meals. B etween this and the compi lation of theP acittiya some time must have elapsed, since in theP acitt iya he is being accused of acting out of favour iti sm.

The Old Commentary mentions a number of offices

tenable by members of the Order, showing that it knewof the creation of these. I t does not mention all. Sofar we know little of the chronology of these offices,but it is unlikely that they were formed during theearliest days of the Sakyan venture.


42/497

xxxviii t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

(9) N ow, in P arajika I I I , the gist of the offencelies in intentional ly depriving a person of li fe. T he caseis cited, in the stories given after the formulation of the rule, of one monk tickling another, who laughed somuch that he died. I t is here not said openly that thisconsti tutes an offence, merely that i t is not one involvingdefeat, because his death was not caused intentionally.E ither some need to clar ify the nature of this offencemust have grown up, for in P ac. L I I the same storyis recounted and entails an offence of expiation; or thenature of the offence was decided contemporaneouslywith the Parajika story, but, being p a c i t t i y a , was reserved for the P acittiya group of rules and offences.I f this is the case here, it is otherwise with P arajika I I .F or this now and again states that an offence of deliberate lying may not be such as to constitute an offenceof defeat, although it may be one involving expiation( V i n . iii. 59, 66).

(10) P ac. L I I I seems to offer li ttle data as to itscompar ative age. I t is unusual, however, in thatno verbal reports of unsuitable behaviour are recorded. to reach the lord. T he framing of the ruleis made to depend upon P asenadis belief that his device will arouse the required suspicions inGotamas mind.

(11) T he rule framed in P ac. L I V , that in disrespect there is an offence of expiation, is not unique.

T hree times a similar p a c i t t i y a offence is laid downat V i n . i. 176, in connection with the elaboratearrangements made there for holding the Pavaranaceremony. Such P acit tiyas are therefore part andparcel of large-scale administration and regulation,such as could only be undertaken when the Orderwas comparatively advanced in age and stability.B ut who can say whether the rule at Pac. L I V is basedon these other a n d d a r i y e p a c i t t i y a s , or they on it, orwhether they are independent ? A ll one can say-is thatit is not at all necessary to suppose that the bad habitsthat again Channa is recorded to have indulged in hadanything to do with preparations for the Pavarana.


43/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xxx ix

F or a long list of bad habi ts/ quite unconnected wi ththis, is given at Sarighadisesa X I I I .

I f the evidence of the P acitti yas which are briefly

stated and stand at the head of three only out of theeight divisions of which the P acitt iya section is composed, appears to be on the side of their comparativelateness, it must be not forgotten that the remainingP acitt iyas have never been subjected to any kind of critical examination. W hen this has been undertaken,it may be found that some of them also, although theirrules are framed in the more normal manner, show similaror different signs of comparatively late construction.W hat I have done here is no more than to indicatepossible lines which historical inquiry into the comparative age of different parts of the V i n a y a mightfollow.

I n discussing these br ief P acitti yas, I have hadoccasion to mention the overlapping of Parajika andP aci tti ya material. I have cited P arajika I V andP acitti ya V I I I , and these are also seen to work in withone another in a stil l fur ther fashion. I n the formerit is an offence involving defeat for a monk, out of undue estimate for himself, to boast that he has attainedsome state of further-men, when this is not a fact,abhu ta . In the latter it is an offence of expiation for amonk to speak of attaining such a state to anyone notordained, even though it be a fact, bhuta . I n bothcases the introductory story is identical up to thispoint, although Par. I V , before the final dr aft of therule, adds material not appearing in P ac. V I I I . Thissame long story with the two endings may in fact bethe record of no more than one event, some monksaverring that they had told a lie, others maintainingthat they had told the truth. I f so, P ar. I V and P ac.V I I I would belong to precisely the same date, suggestingthat the two cases were legislated for simultaneously,although the two findings were relegated to differentbut appropriate parts of the Patimokkha.

J udging by the great length of P arajika I V , and thenumber of cases adduced and legislated for, the topic


44/497

xl t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

was one that was at some time of immense importance.1I t is not therefore surprising that i t figures also in theP acit tiya section. I t suggests, as does the substanceof no other rules at all, the spiritual value attachedto a man becoming something more and greater than hewas before.

T here are still further occasions when the contentsof this volume refer to different portions of the V i n a y a or are referred to by it. U nder the latter heading comealso certain allusions which are generally wrapped upin the phrase, yathddhammo Tcdretabbo , he should bedealt wi th according to the rule that is, according tosome N issaggiya or P acitt iya rule. T his indicates thatsuch a rule had been formulated before that portionof the V i n a y a referring to it had been compiled. I havedrawn attention, in the notes, to any references that Ihave found in the contents of this volume to or fromother parts of the Vi n a y a .

A nother P acittiya which betrays the marks of somelater accretion is N o. X X I X . I n it there is a list of eleven persons who, for a householder, were elders,ihe rd , and whom he invited to a meal. I t is an interesting li st. I t contains the names of nine out of the tento twelve men whom M rs. R hys Davids considers wereat the beginning of his ministry clustering about theL eader in the V inaya. 2 T wo therefore look like intruders into this early company: U pali , the V inayaexpert 3 but expert onl y on the assumption that byhis day the discipline had had time to grow into somecoherent form; and Rahula, the founders son. H e wasprobably not among his fathers followers from thevery beginning of his teaching, and was never a particularly satisfactory monk, although several earnestdiscourses were addressed to him.4

1 B .D . i. xxiv f.2 S a k ya , p. 127. For further information on these early followers

see Gota m a th e M a n , Chr. V I , and Sa k ya , Ch. V ll .3 Sa k ya , p. 352. 4 M . Stas. 61, 62, 147.


45/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xi i

M em ber s o f Other Sect s. T his volume contains someinteresting details about the t i t t h i y a s , especially, as isnatural, regarding ways in which their life and that of the Sakyan followers might overlap.(1) I n N issaggiya X X I I , people, jumping from theparticular to the general, complained that the recluses,sons of the Sakyans, went about for almsfood to beput into their hands, like members of other sects.

(2) I n N issaggiya V I , monks coming naked asthey were to SavatthI were mistaken by their coreligionists for d j i v a k a , N aked A sceti cs.1

(3) I n P acitti ya I , H atthaka, a monk, having beenoutwitted in an argument by members of other sects,t i t t h i y a s , resorted to unworthy methods in order to confound them. T he t i t t h i y a s complained, and not in vain,for the modest monks heard them and asked H atthakai f there was truth in what they had been saying. H eseems to have been very cross, saying that somehowthe t i t t h i y a s should be worsted. B ut the modest monkswere not impressed by this declaration, and told theincident to the lord. T he result was what is now thefirst ' p ac i t t i ya rule. T his story merely confirms what iswell known: that monks and t i t t h i y a s debated together,and that, whatever individual monks might do or think,the considered opinion of the samgha was that t i t t h i y a s should not be treated contemptuously.

(4) P acitt iya X X X I I . 8 supplies various items of interest. T o begin wi th there is the d j i v a k a who wantedto provide a meal for all heretics, sabbapasand ika - bhat ta . T his shows that he thought of those who werenot of his sect, although they were following a life of religion, as heretics at the same time he wished tohonour them by entertaining them. I n accordancewith this view, or so it seems, the d j i v a k a was advisedby K ing Bimbisara, a relation of his, first of all to inviteGotama and his monks. H e sent a messenger to themonks-, but they refused the invitation, for at that timea group-meal of this nature had not been allowed. T he

1 L it. Men of the L ivelihood, B u d . I n d ., p. 143.


46/497

xiii t r a n s l a t o r ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n

naked ascetic then appr oached G otama, whom he greetedin an amicable and friendly way, and argued that onewho is gone forth, p a b b a j i t a , is fit or worthy,- a r a h a t i ,

to accept the alms of another who is gone forth. Gotamathen, as recorded, accepted, and allowed the monks toeat a group-meal at the meal-time of recluses, s a m a n a - bha t ta - samaya . H ere, as not infrequently, the termsof the rule are wider than the terms used in the storyleading up to its formulation. S a m a n a was a wordof very general application, covering d j i v a k a , as well asmembers of all other diverse and heretical sects. I n

the Old Commentary, s a m a n a is defined as p a r i b b d j a k a - s a m d p a n n a , lit. one who has attained to being a wanderer.P a r t b b d j a k a 1 was, like s a m a n a , a word of tremendousrange, although it did not, for members of Gotamas

' Order themselves, include monk or nun.* F or,(5) I n P acittiya X L I ( = V i n . iv. 285, and cf . iv. 224),

wanderer and female wanderer are, taking their definitions in conjunction, explained as, setting aside monk

and novice, nun, female probationer and female novice,whoever (else) has attained to being a (male or female)wanderer. I t is onl y regrettable that the definitioncontains the word to be defined. I n this portion of theOld C ommentary too, N aked Ascetic, here and also inthe rule, called acelaka ,2 although he figured in the storyas an d j i v a k a , is defined as whoever, naked, has attained to being a wanderer. This defini tion should

be compared with that of s a m a n a in P aci tti ya X X X I I .P acittiya X L I further tells that a monk gave almsfood,1 The account of p a r i b b a j a k a at B u d . I n d ., p. 141, has not been

superseded.2 He who is without a cloth, cela. J acobi, J a i n a Su t r a s, ii.

xxx-xxxi, says that the Buddhists denote by Acelaka the followers of Makkhali Gosala and his two predecessors, ICisa Samkicca and Nanda Vaccha, and have preserved an account of their religious practices in the Majjhima Nikaya, 36. J acobi draws attention

to the identity of the rules for the ace l akas and the J ains. Gosalas views are set forth at D ,. i. 53_. D i a l . i. 71, n. 1, calls his followers d j i v a k a . B. M. Barua, T h e A j l va k a s , Pt. i., p. 13, summarises the position thus: Both the J aina and Buddhist records agree in speaking of Gosala as a leader of the Ajlvaka sect. . . . They also agree in calling the Ajlvakas naked ascetics (ace lakas ) .


47/497

t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n xliii

at a distribution of food, to an d j i v a k a . A ll that thed j i v a k a seems to have done by way of thanks was totell his fellow sectarians that the food was obtained

by him from a m u n d a g a h a p a t i k a belonging to Gotama,the recluse, s a m a n a . This cur ious term, possibly uniqueto this context, is clearly one of contempt. I t meansliterally tf little shaven householder and would seemto imply that the d j l v a k a s despised the monks for theirless austere way of living, and were not above havinga sly dig at their more indulgent tendencies.

P eople who heard what the d j i v a k a had said arc

recorded to advise the lord not to let monks, whom theycall a y y a , masters, give with their own hands to t i t t h i y a s , since these want to bring discredit on the buddha,the dhamma and the Order.

Three points emerge from this episode wi th the lay-people. F irst, that d j l v a k a s did not live, any more thandid monks, either in seclusion from the world or frommembers of other sects, including Gotamas. Secondly,

that the lay-people appear to have come to the conclusion that their representations to the lord mustinclude more than the one sect of the d j l v a k a s , and theytherefore say t i t t h i y a s , a term of broader application.

T hirdly, that the odd intrusion of the later tr iad of Buddhism may suggest that this passage belongs toa comparatively late date, but that then, with theincreasing popularity of Gotamas Order, relations

between Sakyan monks and followers of other sects werebecoming somewhat strained. This P acittiya, rich in its references to members of

other sects, contains yet one more. Gotama is reputedto tell Ananda to give what surplus there is of theOrders solid food to those who eat scraps, brokenmeats, or remains of food, vighdsdda . I nan da, alwaysshowing a touching regard for women, chose as the

recipients some female wanderers, p a r i b b a j i k a . Herethen is contributory evidence that wanderers wereeaters of scraps, of food not otherwise wanted, andthat they did not object to receiving this from Gotamasreligious followers.


48/497

xliv t r a n s l a t o r s i n t r o d u c t i o n

(6) I n N issaggiya X X a wanderer, p a r i b b d j a k a , isrecorded to barter his costly cloth for U panandas outercloak, but when he wanted to exchange the articles

again U pananda refused. T he wanderer complained,basing his argument on the life of

Horner I B Tr Book of the Discipline Vinaya Pitaka Vol II Suttavibhanga 498p

Documents