Horner I B Tr Book of the Discipline Vinaya Pitaka Vol I Suttavibhanga 432p

Saci-et> JBoofts o f tbe JBubbbistg, IDol. £\

THE

B O O K OF

THE

VOLUME I.

D IS C IP L IN E

OF

T H E BOOK T H E DISCIPLINE (VINAYA-PITAKA) VOL. I. (S U T T A V 1 B H A N G A ) TRANSLATED

BY

I. B. H O R N E R , M . A . A S S O C IA T E

OF

NEW NHAM

COLLEGE,

C A M B R ID G E

PUBLISHED FO R T H E PALI T E X T SO C IE T Y

by L U ZA G & C O M P A N Y L T D . 46 G R E A T R U S S E L L S T R E E T , L O N D O N , W .C .i

1949

F irst published • 193(1 By The. O xford U n iversity Press

I’ h i k t e u

in

G heat

B r it a in

TRANSLATORS

IN TRO DU CTIO N

T h e present translation o f the Vinaya-Pitaka is based upon Hermann Oldenberg’ s extrem ely careful edition o f the Pali text o f the Vinaya-Pitaka, published in five volumes in the years 1879-1883. In the Introduction to Vol. I. o f his edition, Oldenberg wrote (p. x ) that he had been compelled to relinquish his original in­ tention o f adding a com plete translation to the text. But in the years 1881, 1882, 1885 T. W . R hys Davids and Oldenberg collaborated in the production o f a partial translation, called Vinaya Texts, published in the Sacred Books o f the East Series (Vols. X I I I ., X V I I., X X .) in three volumes. The detailed handling, exposition and analysis o f many important, interesting, difficult and obscure points make o f Vinaya Texts a work o f remarkable scholarship. In addition, the erudition o f one who had had opportunities o f investigating contem porary monasticism in Ceylon has been bestowed upon it. Indeed, R hys Davids’ and Oldenberg’ s translation can admit o f supplement in only two respects, while in all others I am aware that m y attempt at a critical translation compares but unfavourably with theirs. In the first place, .what is now needed, both for its own sake and in order to bring the Vinaya into line with, at least, the Sutta-Pitaka, is a com plete, as against a partial translation into English. This is one o f the two respects in which Vinaya Texts can be supple­ mented. Secondly, our knowledge o f various aspects o f Buddhism has doubtless increased during the fiftytwo years which separate the appearance o f Vol. III. o f Vinaya Texts and the appearance o f Vol. I. o f The Book o f the Discipline. During this time the Pali Text Society has been founded, and has published all the Pali Canonical “ books,” practically all the Com­

vi

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

mentaries and other post-Canonical “ b o o k s /’ together with a considerable number o f translations, not to mention a Dictionary. Tliis mass o f material, not available to the original translators o f the Vinaya, has made possible a com ­ parison o f passages, phrases- and words occurring in scattered parts o f the Canon, so that now a more definite and perhaps less tentative interpretation o f the signifi­ cance o f some o f them, as they appear in the Vinaya, can be presented. This is the second way in which Vinaya Texts can be supplemented. It is only b y dis­ covering what words and phrases signify in passages other than those with which one is at the moment concerned, that the general, and even the exceptional, meaning o f those same words and phrases can be more or less accurately gauged. I have considered it de­ sirable, in the light o f the knowledge made accessible during the last fifty years b y the issues o f the Pali Text Society and certain books on Early Buddhism, to revise and remould some o f the renderings in Vinaya Texts. Even so, one cannot fail to be impressed b y the vision o f the original translators, whose interpreta­ tions, sometimes no more than leaps in the dark, have often proved successful and unimpeachable. There is reason to suspect that some words and phrases are peculiar to the Vinaya, or have a special connotation in it, but there can be no certainty upon this point, until the Concordance, which is being compiled under the auspices o f Mrs. Hhys Davids, is brought to completion. Since the study o f Early Buddhism is adm ittedly still in its infancy, many o f the rich and variegated treasures o f its storehouse as yet await investigation. Hence, I am fully aware that The Book o f the Discipline is nothing more than an interim translation, needed for the reasons given above, but in no way claiming to be final and definitive. The word vinaya has com e to be paired, as it were (although since precisely when we do not know), with

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

vii

the word dhamma. This is a word whose long history needs a detailed study, such as wc have in W . Geiger’ s Dhamma, 1920, while vinaya is considerably easier o f definition. W hatever the .exact meaning or meanings o f dhamma m ay have been at one stage in the history o f Early Buddhism or at another, or at one part o f the Sayings or at another, it is a fair enough description to say that dhamma concerned the inner life o f Gotam a’ s followers, their conscience, their mental training and outlook and, later, stood for the b od y o f teaching that they were to believe and follow ; and that vinaya was the discipline governing and regulating the outward life o f the monks and nuns who had entered the m on­ astic Orders, the foundation o f which is attributed to Gotama. Dhamma m ay indeed be said to be all that vinaya is not.1 Tw o Pitakas are devoted to dham­ ma : the Sutta-Pitaka and the (later) AbhidhammaPitaka; one, the Vinaya-Pitaka, as its name implies, to vinaya.2 I have called the present translation The Book o f the D iscipline, rather than The Basket (Pitaka) o f the Discipline, on the analogy o f The Book (Nikdya) o f the Kindred Sayings and The Book o f the Gradual Sayings. W hat was originally an oral tradition o f Sayings became, at some time, com m itted to palm -leaf manu­ scripts. Later still, these were “ edited 99 to form the material o f printed books. Today the early Sayings survive nowhere but in books. Oldenberg began his edition o f the text o f the VinayaPitaka with the section known as the Mahavagga. This, together with the Culavagga to which he pro­ ceeded, constitutes the lvhandhakas. He placed the Suttavibhanga after these, and ended with the ad­ m ittedly later Parivara. But properly speaking, the Pali Vinaya begins with the Suttavibhanga. The 1 Oldenberg, Vin. i: xiii. 2 For chronology o f the Pali Canon, see B. C. L iw , History o f P ali Literature, Chapter I.

viii

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

Vinaya o f the Sarvastivadin school “ follows the same general arrangement,” 1 as do apparently the Chinese Vinaya o f the MahTsasaka school and the Diilva, or Tibetan Vinaya o f the Mah&sarvastivadins.2 Be this as it may, the Pali Vinaya is the only one with which we can concern ourselves here. Comparisons with the Vinaya o f other schools must be left to one side, as must comparisons with the rules and discipline o f preSakyan sects and contemporary sects, including the Jain Orders o f monks and nuns.3 According to Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, the oldest portion o f the Vinaya is the Patimokkha, or list o f 227 rules,4 or courses o f training to be observed. As this seems to be indisputably the case, it is only fitting that the Suttavibhanga should precede the Khandhakas. For the Suttavibhanga is that portion o f the Vinaya which contains the Patimokkha. In their Vinaya Texts, R hys Davids and Oldenberg open with the Patimokkha. Buddhaghosa in his Commentary, the Samantapasadika (denoted as V A ­ in the footnotes to m y translation),5 begins with the Suttavibhanga in extenso. I therefore follow the same plan, and mention it chiefly to indicate that m y Vol. I. does not correspond to Oldenberg’s Vol. I., but ap­ proximately to the first two-thirds o f his Vol. ' III. Considerations o f length alone prevented me from including all his Vol. III. in m y Vol. I. o f The Book o f the Discipline. On the other hand, this present volume corresponds to the opening portion o f Vol. I. o f Vinaya Texts. The chief difference between the presentation o f the Suttavibhanga in Vinaya Texts and The Boqk 1 E. J. Thomas, Hist, o f Buddhist Thought, p. 267; but see N. Dutt, Early History o f the Spread o f Buddhism, p. 283 f. 2 Oldenberg, Vin. i. xliv ff. A See Jacobi, Jaina Sutras, i. xix ff. (S .B .E . xxii.). 4 See S. Dutt, Early Buddhist Monachism, p* 92, and B. C. Law, Hist, o f Pali Lit., i. 20 f., for notes on variant numbers o f the rules. Also W intem itz, Hist, o f Ind, L it.t ii. 23, n. 5, for numbers o f rules recognised by various schools. a I.e., Vinaya-atthakathat Commentary on the Vinaya.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

ix

o f the Discipline is that, in the former the Suttavibhanga is cut down to comprise nothing more than the Pati­ mokkha rules themselves, all auxiliary material being omitted, while the latter, when finished, will contain, with very few exceptions,1 an unabridged translation o f the entire Suttavibhanga. The Vinaya, the Discipline, especially that portion o f it called Suttavibhanga, appoints and decrees a definite standard o f outward morality, comprised in courses of training laid down for the proper behaviour o f monks and nuns. On the. surface the Suttavibhanga is not much more than an attempt to restrain unsuitable behaviour; but in reality it also arrives, though in many cases by a long process o f exclusion, at the kind o f positive conduct to be pursued b y the monk who wishes his life to be externally blameless, so far as his relations with his fellow monks, with the Order as a whole, and with the laity are concerned. This limitation o f the Suttavibhanga to an outward and objective field is amply indicate'd by the striking absence from it, o f any passage stating that the ob ­ servance o f the courses o f training “ made kndwn for monks by the lord ” will conduce to the realisation o f desirable subjective states. The gulf between this and the pre-eminently subjective attitude o f the Sutta-Pitaka is immense. Never once is it said, in the Suttavi­ bhanga, that the courses o f training should be followed so as to lead, for example, to the rejection o f passion, of hatred, o f confusion, to the destruction o f the dsavas (cankers), to making the W ay (one, fourfold, eightfold) become, to the mastery o f dhamma, to the attainment o f perfection. Always the recurrent formula o f the Suttavibhanga declares that breaches o f a course o f training are “ not fitting, not suitable, not worthy of a recluse, not to be done,” and so on, and that such lapses are not “ for the benefit o f non-believers nor for increase in the number o f believers.” Thus a standard o f conduct is imposed from outside, and for 1 See below, p. xxxvii.

X

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

external, impersonal reasons, instead o f insistence being laid, as in the Nikaya teaching, on the great subjective states attainable through a man’s own efforts o f will. The word Suttavibhanga means analysis or classifica­ tion (vibhanga) o f a sutta, a term here applied to each rule or course o f training included in the Patimokkha. The literal meaning o f sutta (sutra) is of' course string or thread, and as such also appears in the jVinaya. But its meaning o f rule or clause or article is apparently peculiar to this com position, and is, according to Dr. E. J. Thomas,1 earlier than its meaning o f separate discourse. That the word sutta, in the Vinaya, probably does bear the meaning o f rule, as was suggested in Vinaya T exts? is indicated b y Various passages. For example, at Vin. i. 65 — 68, a monk is not to receive the upasampada ordination if he does not know the tw o Patimokkhas3 rule b y rule (suttato); at Vin. ii. 68, it is said: “ ^This thing is in a rule (suttagata) and comes up for recitation every half-m onth.” 4 The thiiig (dhamma) here referred to is not in a Sutta, or SuttaPitaka discourse, but does occur, as part o f a course o f training, in the Vinaya. Further, the Vinaya Com­ mentary mentions, calling it a sutta,5 the statement allowing an drama (park) to monks. The one reference that I have come across to the com pound suttavibhanga in the Vinaya text® (apart from its use as the title o f the* section bearing its name) is in association with sutta.. B oth these terms appear here to refer as clearly to Vinaya and not to Sutta-Pitaka material, as do the others cited above. As the Suttavibhanga has com e down to us,7 it is divided into two sections: Parajika and Pacittiya. Between them, these two sections comprise 227 rules divided into the eight groups o f the four Parajikas, 1 History o f Buddhist Thought, p." 268, n. 2. 2 Vol. i. xxviii f. 8 The one for the monka and the one for the nuns. 4 See below, p. xi. 5 V A . 81. 9 Vin. ii. 97. 7 For date o f compilation o f the Suttavibhanga see Vin. Texts, i. xxi.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

xi

the thirteen Sanghadisesas, the two Aniyatas, the thirty Nissaggiya Pacittiyas, the ninety-two Pacittiyas, the four Patidesaniyas, the seventy-five Sekhiyas, and the Adhikaranasamatha rules.1 Only the first three groups are contained in Vol. I. o f The Booh o f the Discipline. There is a corresponding Bhikkhuni-vibhanga, sometimes referred to 'as the Bhikkhuni-vinaya, or Discipline for nuns, with its set o f Patimokkha rules. This will appear in a later volum e o f this translation. . The Suttavibhanga material is usually arranged in a series o f four groups: (1) a story leading up to a rule; (2) a Patimokkha rule, which always states the penalty incurred for breaking it; (3) the Old Commentary, the Padabhajaniya, on each rule, defining it word by word; (4) more stories telling o f deviations from the rule, and showing either that they were not so grave as to entail the maximum penalty, or that they were reason­ able enough to warrant, in certain circumstances, a modification or a relaxation o f the existing rule, or that they were not such as to be rendered permissible by any extenuating circumstances. Items (3) and (4) are sometimes reversed in position, and (4) is now and again absent altogether. The Patimokkha rules are the core o f the Suttavi­ bhanga. This list o f rules, or list o f courses o f training, was recited twice a month on the uposatha (observance, sabbath, or avowal) days, held on the nights o f the new and the full m oon.2 In Yedic times, the upavasaiha was a fast day kept for the preparation o f and the performance o f the Soma sacrifice. According to the Pali tradition, paribbdjakas, or wanderers belonging to other sects, also held sacred two, if not three, days in each month for the recitation o f their dhamma.3 It was in imitation o f this popular- custom that the Sakyan bhikkhus assembled on these same three days. Later, apparently, these were reduced to two,4 and were devoted to the recitation o f the Patimokkha rules. 1 Of. B. C. Law, Hist, o f Pali Lit., i. 46 f. 3 Vin. i. 101.

a Vin. i. 104. 4 Vin. i. 104.

xii

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

This recitation served the double purpose o f keeping the rules fresh in the minds o f the monks and nuns, and o f giving each member o f the monastic community the opportunity, while the rules were being repeated or recited,1 to avow any offences that he or she had committed. After the avowal came the due punish­ ment. In the Suttavibhanga, the monk is usually shown as avowing his offence to Gotama. or to one of the monks, or to a group o f monks, directly he had committed it, and not as waiting to avow it before the full congregation (sangha) o f monks. He was thus “ pure ” for the uposatha ceremony, and could take his place at the meeting. Oldenberg sees in the term patimokkha, freedom “ from sins there named,” 2 that is, in the list o f rules called Patimokkha. This is part o f what amounted in Oldenberg to an obsession with “ the doctrine regarding release from suffering, which forms so central an idea in the ancient Buddhist faith.” 3 But the monks were not asked, as Oldenberg states, whether they were “ free from the sins there named.” The word for “ free ” or “ freed ” would have been vimutta. W hat they were asked was whether they were parisuddha, quite pure, pure in the matter o f having kept the rules, therefore outwardly pure. I think that if Oldenberg had looked upon the Patimokkha as a list o f rules or courses o f training, as I have called them above, and not as a “ list o f those offences which deserved punish­ ment or some kind o f expiation,” 4 he would not have been so much dominated by the idea o f freedom from “ sins.” Moreover, “ sin ” is not even a Sakyan conception. This is leading us up to the derivation o f the word pdti- (pdti-) mokkha. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, following Childers, refer it to pdti (Skrt., prati) + muc, and see in it “ disburdening, getting free.” 5 Buddhaghosa, too, at Vism. 16, derives it from muc, in the 1 Not “ read ou t,” as Oldenberg says, V in. i. xv. * Vin. i. xv, 3 Ibid., xiv. * Vin. Texts, i. xxvii f.

4 Ibid., xv.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x iii'

sense o f being free from the punishments o f niraya (hell) and other painful rebirths. But it was not the getting free that was o f such importance as the being bound. This came first. Preceding the notion, if indeed it ever existed at the time when the Vinaya was compiled, that the monk should be free o f sin or o f the punishment for sin, came the assumption that the rules, as binding, should be followed and obeyed, and that a monk should be “ bound by the restraint o f the Patimokkha ” (pdtimokkhasagvarasarjvuta). S. D utt is o f the opinion that patimokkha means “ bond.” He regards it as an external bond o f union devised to convert the Sect o f the Sakyaputtiya samanas into an Order.1 Rhys Davids and Stede in the P .E .D . say that it has the “ sense o f binding, obligatory, obligation,” and that the Sanskrit adaptation of the Pali should be pratimoksya, “ that which should be made binding,” and not pratimoksa. Pratimoksya, according to these lexicographers, is the same as the Pali patimokkha, “ binding, obligatory,” from patimuncati, to fasten, to bind.2 Dr. E. J. Thomas, on the other hand, says that patimokkha is “ in Sanskrit pratimoksha. In form it is an adjective formed from patimokkha, binding, from pati-muc- ‘ to fasten or bind on (as armour),’ and thus should mean * that which binds, obligatory,’ ” 3 thus agreeing with the definition given in the P .E .D ., but not with the derivation. The word is defined in the Mahavagga o f the Vinaya as the “ face, head o f all good states,” 4 but as W internitz pointed out this derivation “ is quite impossible.” 5 W internitz himself was inclined to explain patimokkha as “ that which is to be redeemed,” 6 but unfortunately he did not support this statement, except by saying he thought that the correct translation o f samgaram pdtimokkham o f Jd. v. 25 should be “ a promise to be redeemed.” 1 Early Buddhist Monachism, p. 89 f. 2 C f Vin, iii. 249, patimuncati, to bind on or tie on a head-pad. 3 History o f Buddhist Thought, 15, n. 1. 4 Vin. i. 103. & History o f Indian Lit., ii. 22, n. 2. 8 Ibid.

x iv

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

Nearly all these authorities agree that the term is borrowed from other sects, and dates from pre-Buddhist days. * The question o f the com position o f the Patimokkha rules is one which, while being o f the greatest interest, is not vevy likely to grow out of. the speculative stage. This question has two sides to it: that o f when and that o f hotv the rules came* to be formulated. -I_can only point out the existence o f these problems, not attempting' to solve them. The 'solution o f the one would to a large extent elucidate the other. The rules were either drawn up in their entirety in Gotama's lifetime; or they were drawn up in their entirety after his parinibbana (utter waning); or some were drawn up during his lifetime and others afterwards* The last assumption is that most generally favoured by scholars, who adduce “ additions and m odifications/' repetitions and inconsistencies, existing among the collection o f rules.1 Again, if it were held that the rules were codified into their present shape after Gotam a’s parinibbana, this would not at all necessarily mean that they were not known and enforced during his ministry. The question o f how they were composed likewise suggests three alternatives: either that some actual event led up to the framing o f each rule; or that they were all formulated in readiness to meet events, but before these had occurred; or that some had an historical source, while others owe their existence to precautionary imagination. It is conceivable that not one o f the Patimokkha rules was framed until someone, lay-followers or the more dependable monks and nuns, had seen, heard or suspected a mode o f behaviour which seemed to them unfitting in a member o f one o f Gotama’s Orders. Each rule is therefore very possibly the direct result o f some actual event, and was not made with merely hypo­ thetical cases o f wrong-doing in mind. On detecting, even on suspccting that conduct unfitting in a recluse, 1 E.g.y E. J. Thomas, Hist. o f Buddhist Thought, p. 14.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

XV

unworthy o f a monk had been perpetrated, the action was reported, as it is almost invariably stated, to Gotama, either by the errant monk himself or by those vigilant in the interests o f the Order. The Suttavibhariga shows that if the action were found to be blameworthy, a course o f training was set forth, a penalty was attached, and it henceforth became mani­ fest that a breach o f each rule o f right conduct would incur a like penalty. Prevention o f unsuitable behaviour in monks and nuns seems to have rested on two bases. In the first place the presumption that a certain line o f conduct had been forbidden by Gotama, apparently appealed to the purer-minded and more zealous monks. Secondly, the penalty, fixed commensurably with the breach of the rule, will doubtless have exercised a deterrent influence over the behaviour o f some o f those monks who were not susceptible to the dictates o f loftier motives. Although the framing o f each m ajor rule is without exception attributed to Gotama, it has never been suggested that at the inception o f the Orders he thought over all the possible cases o f wrong-doing and depravity o f which the monks might be capable, and propounded a ready-made body o f rules to meet every conceivable contingency. It is, however, more likely that the m ajority o f the rules grew up gradually, as need arose, and are the outcom e o f historical developments that went on within the Order. A t the same time it would not have been impossible for the Salcyans to have borrowed at all events the outline o f a compendium o f rules from other sects. W e cannot tell with any degree of accuracy the historical Order in which the rules were formulated. All that can be said is, that there is no need to imagine that offences were perpetrated and rules promulgated in the order in which they now appear in the Suttavibhanga. Again, it is to m y mind questionable whether all the offences, grave and petty, all the adroit evasions and twistings, all the cases o f illness which prevented a

xvi

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

rule from being carried out to the letter, all the multi­ farious detail o f communal life, were reported to Gotama, who then pronounced his verdict, and either framed a new rule or altered an existing one. The rules are doubtless ascribed to him so as to give them weight, but o f what proportion he was i n ‘fact the author we can never know. W e can merely judge that, as some o f his disciples were competent to preach dhamma, so some would also have been competent to meet a case o f wrong-doing b y admonishment and rebuke, and b y decreeing an appropriate penalty as a safeguard for the future. Indeed, in the Suttavibhanga, although b y far the greater number o f rules is said to have been enunciated b y Gotama, many a sub-rule at least (as in Sangh. ix., x ., xi.) is laid down without reference to the Founder. Although he remains the central figure in the Vinaya, any absence o f reference to him is an indication either that some transgressions occurred and were legislated for after his. 'parinibbana (utter waning), or that, even while he was still alive, it was not thought necessary to trouble him with the entire mass o f items, some o f them very trivial, that was bound to arise in the organisation o f “ unenclosed ” Orders o f monks and nuns. This was the more com pli­ cated both because the members o f the Orders were, and were recognised to be, at varying stages o f spiritual development, and because their _behaviour was not viewed solely as it affected internal policy, but also as it affected the laity. For the believing laity, though naturally not to the forefront in the Vinaya, are in a remarkable way never absent, never far distant. They perpetually enter into the life o f the Order as supporters, critics, donors, intensely interested; and themselves affected b y Sakya, it seems that they were deeply anxious for its success. Thus the Vinaya does not merely lay down sets of rules whose province was confined to an internal con­ ventual life. F or this was led in such a way as to allow and even to encourage a certain degree o f inter­ com munication with the lay supporters and followers,

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

"

x v ii

no less than with those lay-people who were not ad­ herents o f the faith. W hat was important, was that the monks should neither abuse their dependence on the former, nor alienate the latter, but should so regulate their lives as to give no cause for complaint. W ith these aims in view, conduct that was not thought seemly for them to indulge in had to be carefully defined; and it became drafted in rule and precept. Indian monasticism differs from Western in the important respect that the former stood in no need o f fighting battles against temporal powers. The world in which Gotama’ s Orders grew up was fully in favour o f experiments in religious devotion. Such struggles as there were, were not between monks and the 'armies o f hostile kings, not between monks and the active scorn o f the world, but struggles, no less heroic in in­ tention perhaps, to strengthen the monks against them ­ selves and their human weaknesses, to endow them with goodness and virtue as the living witnesses to man’s desire for perfection, to fortify them for victory in the contest between the spirit and the flesh, between right and wrong— undying ideals to which many an ordinary layman ardently clung, but to which he could not himself aspire. ‘ v In the Vinaya literature that has come down to us, Gotama is nowhere shown as legislating for his layfollowers, as Mahavira did for his. Y et, even in the absence o f a Vinaya for laymen, it is apparent that an attitude o f toleration and common-sense admitted much that was permissible to the worldly section o f the com ­ m unity that was not considered to be fitting in monks. H ad no difference been insisted upon, one o f the most potent reasons for the existence and for the popularity o f monks would have been rendered invalid. For one o f the points o f entering Gotama’ s Order was to learn control o f body, mind and speech. This, it was thought, was essential to spiritual progress, and was extremely hard to attain, unless the shackles o f the household life had been laid aside. Then man, as monk, could more readily attain perfection and its fruit (arahattajphala),

x v iii

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

the goal o f brahmacariya, the good, divine, holy or Brahma-life. Arahatta, as the goal, was at some time in the early history o f the Order substituted for that other goal: an approach to Brahma, that Highest, an approach which India, in the sixth century B . C . , held tfi^t each and every man was potentially capable o f making. Because religion., was understood in those days, men who, according to popular estimate, showed that they were on the W ay ,to the Highest, were this regarded as Brahma or arahatta, were revered and not despised. Y et, as in any others, the Vinaya shows that there were in Gotama’s Orders indolent, lax, greedy monks and nuns, those who' were lovers o f luxury, seekers -after pleasure, makers o f discord. W e should, how­ ever, be greatly mistaken if we insisted upon regarding the Order as riddled b y scandal, b y abuses and by minor forms o f wrong-doing. • There is no doubt that these existed; but there is no justification, simply because they happen to be recorded, for exaggerating their frequency, or for minimising the probity and spiritual devotion o f m an y’ men who, in Gotam a’s days, were monks. Records o f these are to be found in the Nikayas, in the Thera-therl-gatha; and, too m uch overlooked, there are in the Vinaya, the virtuous, moderate monks who, vexed and ashamed, complain o f the misdemeanours o f their fellows. As historians, we must be grateful to these inevitable backsliders, for theirs is this legacy o f the Patimokkha rules. Had the Order contained merely upright, scrupulous monks and nuns— those who were stead­ fastly set on the goal o f the Brahma-life, and those who had, in the circumstances, to voice their annoyance with the wrong-doers— in all likelihood the Vinaya, the Discipline, the Patimokkha rules would not have com e into being, and much o f the early history o f the Order would now be known to us solely through the indirect and fragmentary way o f the Sutta-Pitaka. I f monks behaved in a way that was censurable in monks, this does not necessarily mean that their con­

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x ix

duct was wrong in itself. Various activities were not only permissible for lay-people, but were fully accepted to be such as could be unquestionably pursued by them. Marriage, negotiating for parties to a marriage, trading, the owning o f possessions, are cases in point. Nor could we maintain that, before a particular course o f training had been made known, the conduct o f a monk was necessarily reprehensible if it resembled that which was legitimate for the laity. For all monks came into the Order from the laity. Therefore if it did not at once strike them that in certain respects their behaviour should change when their vocation changed, it is only natural that in the meantime they should have indulged in pursuits for which, as laity, they had attracted no adverse criticism. I think it very likely that some o f the courses o f train­ ing for monks that are included in this volum e were formulated as a result o f this bringing over o f lay-life into the religious life; for a difference between the two had to be made, and then maintained. Others most certainly were formulated as the result o f behaviour which, whether evinced b y a layman or a monk, would have been regarded as equally blam eworthy; others, again, to prevent the monks from being an intolerable burden on the laity; while still others were formulated so as to preserve the harmony and well-being o f the Order. N ow and again, monks, contem plating a certain action which they knew to be forbidden or which they knew to be wrong, are recorded to think: “ There will be no blame for me.” W as this because they had done similar things while still “ in the world ” without incurring censure, and so thought that they would be immune from blame after they had gone forth ? Or did they think that there was some reason why they personally would incur no offence for their deed ? I f so, spiritual pride had still to be humbled in them. The Patimokkha rules o f the Pali Vinaya fall into eight sections, classified according to the gravity of

XX

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

the offence committed. O f these eight sections, only three are covered b y the present volume. These are, first, the four Parajika rules, framed to govern those offences, the most serious o f all, which involve “ defeat,” and whose penalty is expulsion from the Order; and secondly, the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules, framed for the type o f offence which is so grave as to necessitate a formal meeting o f the Sangha, or whole com munity o f monks present in the district or in the vihara where the offence was com m itted. The penalties incurred for a Sanghadisesa offence are chiefly that o f being sent back b y the monks to the beginning o f the probationary period, together with that o f undergoing the manatta discipline. The terms parajika, sanghadisesa and manatta are shortly discussed on pp. x x v i f., x x ix ff., 38, 195 f. below. i Thirdly, included in this volume, are the tw o Aniyata rules, designed to meet offences whose nature is so “ undetermined ” that only individual circumstances can decide whether it is such as to involve defeat, or a form al meeting o f the Order, thereby being linked with the tw o preceding sections o f rules; or whether it is such as to require expiation {pacittiya). Because o f this further possibility, the Aniyata rules are linked with the next group but one, the Pacittiya rules. The first three Parajika rules are levelled against the breach o f a code o f m orality generally recognised and active among all civilised com m unities: against un­ chastity, against the taking o f what was not given, and against the depriving o f life. E vidently the aim o f the strictures on unchastity, with which Parajika I. is concerned, was partly to bring the monks into line with members o f other pre­ ceding and contem porary sects whose members, having renounced the household state, had to be celibate. This notion already had history behind it b y the time the Sakyan Order o f monks came into being. It was a notion based as much on common-sense, as on the conviction that restraint and self-taming were indis-

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

XXI

pensable factors in the winning o f the fruit o f a m onk’s life. It is perhaps not necessary to believe that each or any o f the many and curious forms o f unchastity, mentioned in Parajika I., ever \vas actually perpetrated b y a monk. Such comprehensive treatment as is found is not needed either to support or to elucidate the mean­ ing o f the general rule. This was clear enough. It is possible, o f course, that some o f the delinquencies did occur, while others did not, but we do not know. In any case, it is also possible that at the time o f the final recension, each rule was m inutely scrutinised and analysed, and all the deviations from it, o f which the recensionists had heard or which they could imagine, were formulated and added in some kind o f order.' For then there would be in the future no doubt o f the class o f offence (e.g., Parajika, thullaccaya or dukkata) to which any wrong behaviour that had been or should be com mitted, belonged, or o f what was the statutory penalty for that offence. The sm ooth and detailed handling o f some parts o f the other Parajika rules and o f some o f the Sanghadisesa rules, likewise suggests that these are the outcom e, not o f events, so much as o f lengthy and anxious deliberations. The recension­ ists had a responsible task. They were legislating for the future, and they would, I think, have been deter­ mined to define in as minute a way as possible the offence already stated in a general way in each m ajor rule. Stealing is ranked as a Parajika (Par. II.), or the gravest kind o f offence, not merely because civilisation agrees that, for various reasons, it is wrong to take something not given. It was particularly reprehensible for a Sakyan monk to steal, since at the time o f his entry into the Order he morally renounced his claim to all personal and private possessions, and should henceforth have regarded anything he used as com ­ munal property, lent to him for his needs. In addition, it m ay be urged that if monks were restrained from stealing, any tendencies they m ay have had towards

x x ii

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

greed and gluttony, towards finery and luxury, towards carelessness in the use o f their requisites, would have been reduced and perhaps eradicated, thus allowing a greater margin for the exercise o f unfettered spiritual endeavour. There is a point in Parajika II. to which I should like to draw attention. The rules concerned with taking what was not given show that stealing something o f or above a definite, though small, value, namely, five masakas,1 is a more blam eworthy offence than stealing something worth less than five masakas. Five masakas apparently constitute the lowest commercial value that an object can have, and anything less is presumably commercially valueless and therefore negligible. But all tendency towards acquisition had to be suppressed in the monks, all inclination to regard objects in the light o f possible possessions to be checked. And further, it had to be remembered that monks might not know the exact value o f some particular o b je ct.2 In Parajika II., the value in masakas o f the object stolen becomes the standard o f moral transgression, and hence the criterion o f the gravity o f the offence com ­ m itted: to steal something o f more than five masakas entails defeat; to steal something o f the value o f from one to four masakas is said to be a grave offence ;3 while to steal something worth less than one masaka is called an offence o f wrong-doing.4 .Thus the gravity o f the offence o f stealing is shown to be to some extent de­ pendent upon the value o f the object stolen. A t Vin. i. 96, on the other hand, it is said to be an offence entailing defeat to steal even a blade o f grass. These inconsistencies doubtless suggest that these rules were drawn up at different times.5 No doubt the depriving o f life ranked as a Parajika 1 Below, p. 85. 2 Below, p. 114, 3 Thullaccayd, a technical term* 4 Dukkata, another technical term. 6 See Vin. Texts, i. xxv, for plausible argument for the intro­ duction o f the new terms thullaccaya and dukkata into the final recension o f the Vinaya,

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x x iii

offence (Par. III.) partly because ib is the very opposite o f ahiysd, non-violence, non-injury, which was an idea prevalent in India before the advent o f Sakya. Again, the teaching on rebirth and the allied teaching oil karma, both pre-Salcyan notions, would hold that the murderer, in consequence o f his deed, obstructs liis progress through the worlds, until he lias worked off the fruit o f his action. The problems o f Freewill and Predetermination find no place in Indian philosophy. Man’s will is assumed to be free. Hence the murderer might have chosen otherwise: the deed o f murdering was not pre-ordained. To incite a person to death was considered as bad as murdering him. For if praise o f “ the beauty o f death ” inspired him to die at will, if he cut himself off before he had done his time here, the fruits o f past deeds, both good and ill, would still remain to be worked off by him. It may seem strange to a European living in the twentieth century that the offences o f unchastity, steal­ ing and murder receive the same legal punishment. But different ages have different values. In England, hanging was the penalty for sheep-stealing up to modern times. A nd the Patimokkha rules relate to more than two thousand years ago, some o f them being rooted in an even more remote antiquity. Besides, we must remember that they were for monks, and not only for Sakyan monks. The Jains had precepts corresponding to these first three Parajika rules, as did the com m on precursors o f Jain and Sakyan, the sanydsins or brahmin ascetics and recluses.1 Those who had gone forth into homelessness were to withstand all temptation and ambition offered by life “ in the world,” they were to be beyond the reach of its quarrels, loves and hatreds. For, if they continued to behave as those who had not gone forth, their sup­ - porters would fall away, the non-believers would think bat little o f them, and tlie believers would not increase in number. 1 See Jacobi, Jaina Sutras, i. xxiii (S.B.E. xxii.).

x x iv

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

Tiic injunctions against unchastity, the taking of wliat was not given, and against the depriving o f life, besides corresponding to the brahmin and Jain pre­ cepts, also correspond to the first three Buddhist silas, moral “ habits,” or precepts o f ethical behaviour. These, however, run in reverse order from the Parajikas, and begin with the precept o f refraining from onslaught on creatures. N ext comes refraining from taking what was not given, and thirdly the precept o f refraining from unchastity (here called abraJimacariya, as it is in the Jain sutras). The fourth Parajika, alone o f the Parajikas, does not find any corresponding matter among the silas. I f the relation o f the Parajikas to the silas were worked out, some cogent reason for these discrepancies might emerge. A t present I can only suggest that the fourth Para­ jika, o f which I have shortly spoken elsewhere,1 is con­ cerned more with a m onk’s spiritual state than with his outward behaviour.2 In this it differs from the silas, and more interesting still, from the other Pati­ mokkha rules. These are, with the striking exception o f the fourth Parajika, concerned with the here and now, with the regulation o f certain aspects o f com m unity life, with matters affecting the Order, with the arrange­ ment o f various mundane affairs, with questions o f conduct concerning the opposite sex and the lay followers, with questions o f property. The curious fourth Parajika, concerned with the offence o f “ claiming a state or quality o f furthermen ” (uttarimanussadhamma), seems to have been fashioned in some different mould, and to belong to some contrasting realm o f values. It is b y no means a mere condemnation o f boasting or lying in general, for it is the particular nature o f the boast or the lie which makes the offence one o f the gravest that a monk can com m it: the boast o f having reached some stage in 1 Early Buddhist Theory o f M an Perfected, p. I l l ff. 2 The fifth Jain precept, to renounce all interest in worldly things, calling nothing one’ s own (aparigraha), seems to be on a rather different basis from the other Jain precepts.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

XXV

spiritual development, only attainable after a long training in the fixed and stable resolve to becom e' more perfect, and to make the potential in him assume actuality. The seriousness o f the offence o f unfoundedly claiming a state o f further-men is further emphasised by the statement at Parajika iv. 4 that, if a deliberate lie is uttered in connection with such a claim, then that lie constitutes an offence entailing defeat. Y et, in the Suttavibhanga, it is far more com m on to find that deliberate lying ranks as an offence requiring expiation (pacittiya), which is not nearly so grave as one “ in­ volving defeat.” I have suggested elsewhere that the claiming o f a state, or states, o f further-men, to which the claimant was not entitled, could have only appeared as a most heinous offence to people by whom a teaching on be­ coming, on becom ing more 'perfect, o f going further, was held in much esteem. Perhaps the greatest o f Mrs. R hys D avids’ many contributions to the inter­ pretation o f Early Buddhism, is that this idea o f be­ com ing was o f living power and force to Gotama’s early followers. I f so, one may conclude, tentatively, that the fourth Parajika belongs to an ancient Sakyan stratum, and that in this, other-worldly (loknttara) matters were held to be as important as, if not more so than, worldly (loka) matters. For I think it possible that the Parajikas are arranged in an ascending scale o f gravity, in which the offence held to be the worst morally, though not legally, is placed last. Be this as it may, if spiritual progress and development had not been valued b y the Sakyans, to whom this precept appears to be peculiar, the offence o f untruly claiming the attainment o f this or that advanced spiritual state could not have ranked as a Parajika offence. It should be remarked that talk on conditions o f further-men, though not absent from the Sutta-Pitaka, is at no place accentuated in it. There is, for example, a Saqyutta passage, which is the exact parallel o f a long Vinaya passage, with the noteworthy exception that in the former there is no reference to Moggallana

xxvi

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

as one held b y other monks to be claiming a state of further-men, an imputed claim which seems to be the pivot o f the Vinaya passage.1 I have chosen to translate parajika by “ defeat ” chiefly, I admit, because Rhys Davids and Oldenberg rendered it in this way. They follow Buddhaghosa, who, to quote E. J. Thomas,2 “ interprets parajika as ‘ suffering defeat,’ and the Mulasarvastivadins appear .to do the same (Mvyut. 278, 9).” The editors o f Vinaya Texts refer “ the word to the passive o f j i (to defeat) with para prefixed.” 3 B. C. Law also considers these four rules are concerned with “ acts which bring about defeat.” 4 Although it may be grammatically incorrect to refer parajika to pard-ji,5 to m y mind no more convincing derivation has so far been put forward. Burnouf’s idea6 (adopted b y Childers7 and others) is that parajika is derived from pard + aj, meaning a crime which involves the expulsion or exclusion o f the guilty party. Pard-\-aj m ay be a better source, gram­ matically speaking, for parajika than is para-\-ji. Yet, that the sense intended is “ defeat,” seems to me rather less doubtful than that it is expulsion, and aj, though a Vedic ropt, meaning “ to drive aw ay,” is unknown as a root in Pali. It might be argued that because in each promulga­ tion o f the Parajika rules the words pardjiko hoti is followed b y the word asamvdso, “ not in com munion,” this is because the two are complementary, asamvdsa filling out the sense intended b y parajika. Such an argument would naturally increase the tendency to regard parajika as a word standing for expulsion or exclusion, probably o f a permanent nature.8 But may it not be that parajika and asamvdsa represent not 1 S. ii. 254-262 — Vin. iii. 104 ff. See below, p. 180 ff. 2 Hist, o f Bud. Thought, 16, n. 2. 3 Vin. Texts, i. 3 n. 4 Hist, o f Pali Lit., i. 47, 50. 5 E.g., Kern, Manual o f Indian Buddhism, 85. . 6 Intr. a VHist. du Buddhisme indien, 2nd edn., 268. 7 Diet. 8 E. J. Thomas, Hist, ^f Buddhist Thought, 16; Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, 85. ,

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x x vii

complementary, but disparate ideas, the not being in communion introducing a new notion, and one con­ nected with and dependent upon not expulsion, but defeat 1 I f a monk were found to be unworthy to be in com ­ munion, unfitted to take his part in the communal acts and jurisdiction, then he would have to be expelled. But equally, he would have to cease to be in communion (which would entail expulsion, either temporary or permanent), if he found that he was defeated in his endeavour “ to achieve the end for which he entered the Order.” 1 It is beyond all doubt that the punishment for breach o f the Parajika rules indeed involves expulsion. But it seems unnecessary to take the etym ologically obscure 'parajika itself to mean expulsion, when this notion is covered b y the word asamvdsa, with which, as I have said, parajika is always coupled in the formulation of the Parajika rules. In addition, it may be remarked that the Suttavibhanga has the verb ndseti (causative o f nassati), meaning “ to be expelled.” 2 In such a very controversial case, I have preferred to follow the commentator. It appears very probable that many o f these words: Patimokkha, Parajika itself, Sanghadisesa, were adopted from pre-Buddhist sects, and thus had some tradition behind them. Now, it m ay well be that the commentator explained the word parajika according to a meaning that for it and for him had become traditional. In which case, such an ex­ planation will as truly enshrine something o f the history o f that word as later and inconclusive attempts at grammatical analysis. Moreover, the reference, in the third formulation o f Parajika I., to not disavowing the training and not declaring weakness, together with the subsequent detailed analysis o f these phrases (below, p. 42 ff.), to m y mind lends weight to the sug­ gestion that a monk becomes one who is defeated 1 B. G. Law, Hist, o f Pali Lit., i. 47, n. 1; alao cf. p. 50. 8 E .g., Vin. iii. 33, 4 0 = p p . 50, 62 below.

x x v iii

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

(pdrdjiko Jioti)1 through his own inability or “ weak­ ness ” to lead the Brahma-life. Like the Parajika rules, the Sarighadisesas begin (in Sanghadisesa II.— Sanghadisesa I. is in a category apart) with four rules connected with a m onk’s conduct towards women. Then come two rules (Sanghadisesa V I., V II.) in which injunctions for building a hut and a vihara on sites approved b y other monks, are set forth. The point o f these rules appears to be to prevent monks from begging building materials too greedily from the laity, and to prevent them from building anywhere where animal life would be endangered or destroyed. The force o f the injunction that the hut or the vihara must have an open space round it, is difficult to interpret, and the Old Commentary gives no practical help. It probably means that no monk should live in a secret place. The laity, who had contributed to the building o f the hut or vihara, would very likely wish to have seen that the monk was behaving in a way w orthy o f their gift, and hence his conduct and habits must be open to unhindered inspection. Sanghadisesa V III. and I X . comprise rules against the defamation o f one m onk by another. Then come tw o against the making o f a schism in the Order, while Sanghadisesa X I I . is concerned with the offence that a monk incurs if he is difficult to speak to. All such transgressions, leading to disharmony in the Order, would have made it hard for the Order to maintain itself and to progress. And if there had been repeated quarrels, discord and stubbornness, the Order would have become discredited among its lay supporters. The twelfth Sahghadisesa should be compared with the Anumana Sutta.2 The Old Commentary’s defini­ tion o f dubbacajdtika, “ difficult to speak t o ” (Vin. 1 On hoti=bhavati3 to become, see Mrs. Rhys Davids, To Become or Not to Become, p. 18 ff. 2 M . Sta. 15. Bu, at V A . 742, says that this Sutta is one o f the five spoken for the disciples o f the four groups (i.e., monks and nuns, male and female lay-followers).

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

x x ix

iii. 1 7 8 = p . 311 below), is word for word the same as the Anumana’ s description o f the monk whom his fellows consider unfit to be taught o r , instructed.1 Buddha ghosa states2 that the Ancients (pordnd) called this Sutta the Bhikkhu-patimokkha. This leads us to wonder if the twelfth Sanghadisesa indeed represents some specially ancient fragment o f the Patimokkha, and whether, while the rules were being shaped, refusal to take the training with deference and respect appeared amongst the earliest offences that a monk could commit. The last and thirteenth Sanghadisesa rule is against bringing families into disrepute. This, again, would make the Order unpopular among the lay followers. It must be remembered that it was considered highly important to propitiate these, to court their admiration, to keep their allegiance, to do nothing to annoy them. F or without their active interest and support the Order could not have endured. It is true that, had it been disbanded, the Sakyaputtiyas, as individuals, would not have com e to starvation. For the “ holy m an,” be he samana, sddhu, sanydsin or fakir, in India always has had his physical needs fulfilled. And some Sakya­ puttiyas doubtless.could have reverted to a household life ; while others might have gone to dwell in the forests, there to subsist on fruits and roots (phalamula), and to dress in bark and antelopes’ hides, as did some o f their brahmin precursors and contemporaries. But, in fact, the Order became a powerful magnet, attracting men and women from many and various families, classes, trades and occupations, from the ranks o f the Jains and Wanderers (paribbdjaka). Historically, the success of the Early Buddhist experiment in monasticism must be in great part attributed to the wisdom o f constantly considering the susceptibilities and criticisms o f the laity. Like the meaning o f parajika, the meaning o f sanghddisesa is controversial. Again B. C. Law3 and I follow i M . i. 9 5 ,I. 12 ff. , 3 Hist, o f Pali Lit., i. 47, 50.

2 M A . ii. 67.

xxx

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

Vinaya Texts in rendering sanghadisesa as offences (or rules or matters) which require a formal meeting of the Order. Now, one part o f the penalty imposed for a breach o f any one o f the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules, namely, a return to the beginning o f the probationary period, has apparently led Kern, for example, to describe the Sanghadisesas as offences “ involving suspension and a temporary exclusion >n— from the Order or from taking part in its legal procedure is not made clear, though the latter must be meant. The other part o f the penalty, namely, the necessity o f undergoing the m&natta discipline, has apparently led E. J. Thomas,2 for example, to describe these offences as those which involve “ a period o f penance and reinstatement b y the Assembly.” Burnouf suggests3 that sanghadisesa means “ that which should be declared to the Sangha from the beginning to the end.” H e further states that the Chinese syllables, pho chi cha, the equivalents o f ddisesa, are “ probably altered.” This may be because the Pali had already been altered from some more definite phrase containing less am biguity and obscurity. Childers suggests4 that this class o f offence is so called because as much in the beginning (ddi) as in the end (sesa) a Sangha is required to administer the stages o f penalty and ultimately rehabilitation. Neither o f the descriptions— suspension or penance— is contained etym ologically in the word sanghadisesa. That both were penalties incurred by this typ e o f offence is indubitable. But by derivation, the com pound sanghadisesa could not possibly mean either suspension, manatta discipline or reinstatement. Comparison with the Sanskrit brings us no nearer to an elucidation. For as Kern remarks,6 “ Neither a Sanskrit Sangha vasesa nor Sanghatisesa, i.e. remnant o f the Sangha, renders a satisfactory meaning.” 1 Manual o f Indian Buddhism., p. 85. 2 History o f Buddhist Thought, p. 17. . 3 Intr. a VHist. du Buddhisme indien, 2nd edn., p. 269. 1 D iet. 5 Manual o f Indian Buddhism, p. 85, n. 9.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

xxxi

In the circumstances it is best to allow that we are in the realm o f ancient technicalities, whose exact significance the passage o f time has dimmed. In a translation, we can, however, pay due regard to the only member o f the com pound sanghadisesa which is neither grammatically obscure nor controversial. This is sangha, meaning for Sakya the Order, or any part of the whole Order resident within a certain boundary, district or vihara. That the offence could not be settled without the intervention o f the Order is a point for which there is the support o f the Old Commentary. This states clearly that “ it is the Order which places (the wrong-doer) on probation,- it sends (him) back to the beginning, it inflicts the manatta, it rehabilitates.” 1 Moreoyer, as noted b y Childers, Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, this type o f punishment had to be enforced, could only be enforced, b y formal resolutions (sanghakamma) carried at meetings o f the Order. It is just possible that kamma, most usually work, which the Old Commentary states is a synonym for this class o f offence, has also a specialised sense o f “ proceedings, ceremony performed b y a lawfully con­ stituted Sangha o f m onks.” Such proceedings were formal in character, with motions and resolutions, and rules for their validity. Thus, if kamma were indeed a synonym for this class o f offence, and if it means acts o f a formal nature, then what sanghadisesa means is a type o f offence whose punishment must be meted out b y some formal administration on the part o f the Order. It m ay well be that the penalty for every class o f offence could be imposed, or came at some time to be regarded as effective, only as the result o f the juris­ diction o f the Order met together in solemn conclave. This, however, would not prove that the word sanghadisesa does not contain some special reference to the Order as that instrument which, in this type o f offence, administers the penalty. It is more than possible that 1 Sec below, p. 196.

x x x ii

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

some o f the other rules were known and named before the codification o f the Patimokkha, but that the penalty for breaking them could be imposed by one or more individuals. Otherwise it could hardly have been necessary for the Old Commentary expressly to state that it is the OrdeT, and not one man or many persons, which imposes the Sanghadisesa penalties.1 As S. D utt shrewdly observes,2 “ It is significant that only one o f the group o f offences (Sanghadisesa) is mentioned as coming within the disciplinary jurisdiction o f the Sangha, and it is in the case o f this group only that certain penalties to be imposed upon the Bhikkhu, even against his will . . . viz. Parivdsa and Manatta, are laid down. In the case o f the other offences it is no­ where stated or suggested in the Patimokkha itself that the Sangha should have jurisdiction over them, and no mode o f exercising such jurisdiction is defined, as in the case o f the Sanghadisesas.” It is not impossible that originally the various Sanghas, which were really sub-divisions o f the whole Sangha, exercised their jurisdiction over each individual member only in the case o f the Sanghadisesa offences, only com ing later to exercise such jurisdiction in the case o f all classes o f offence. I f this is so, we do well, I think, to underline the formalities which the Sangha­ disesa offences entailed, and were very likely alone in so doing at first. For b y this means some early feature o f the Order’s history m ay be kept in mind. ■ The tw o Aniyatas, or undetermined matters, evince a remarkable amount o f trust put in a woman layfollower. Doubtless Visakha was one o f the most generous patrons o f the Order, a great supporter o f the faith, to whom the Order had full reason to be grateful. Here she is shown expostulating with Udayin for what seemed to her unsuitable behaviour in a monk. The interesting thing is that both the Aniyata rules, general­ ised as are all the Patimokkha courses o f training from 1 See below, p. 196.

2 Early Buddhist Monachismt p. 105.

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

x x x iii

a particular case, allow a monk cc to be dealt with 99 according to what a trustworthy woman lay-fol lower should say. Thus Visakha, herself eminently trust­ worthy and single-minded in her efforts to im prove conditions in the Order, is instrumental in bringing to all reliable women lay-followers the responsibility o f procuring investigation into a m onk’ s conduct, if she has seen him sitting secluded with a woman. These two Aniyata rules indicate the respect and deference that was, at that time, paid to women. They were not scornfully brushed aside as idle gossips and frivolous chatter-boxes, but their words were taken seriously. It may be pointed out here that the Vinaya shows, that if monks went astray, this was not always due to the baneful influence o f women. For now and again monks took the initiative, and begged and cajoled laywomen and even nuns. Sometimes they got what they wanted, at others the women stood firm. When they asked lewd questions, women are shown as being innocent o f their meaning.1 It is also apparent from the two Aniyatas that women o f the world might do certain things with impunity, but that those same things, if done b y Sakyan recluses, were blameworthy. Their life was to be organised on a different basis, as Parajika I, shows, from that o f the laity, and a recognition o f this, and attempts to preserve the difference, are visible in m any parts o f Vinaya III. The Old Commentary, or Padabhajanlya, is now incorporated in the Suttavibhanga, and forms an integral part o f it. Since it explains each Patimokkha rule word by word, so that we get from it the meaning which the words possessed at all events at the time when the Old Commentary was compiled, this ancient exegesis, often o f very great interest, is a most valuable critical apparatus. The purpose o f the Old Commentary was evidently to make each rule absolutely clear, so that no misconception could arise through lack o f lucid defini1 P. 219 below. C

x x x iv

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

tion. W ords not contained in the rule, but appearing in the stories, are not commented upon. Rhys D avids and Oldenberg think that when the rules had been formulated and each word interpreted, some explanation was wanted as to how the rules origin­ ated. Thus, they hold, stories were invented to intro­ duce each rule. Personally I do not think it necessary to take quite such a hard-and-fast view. For it seems to me possible that in some cases the story m ay be true, or m ay have had some historical foundation, so that the rule came to be made on account o f the self-same events which, later, were recorded. In other cases, the story m ay quite possibly be an invention, the original reason for framing the rule and the name o f the first wrong-doer involved having long been forgotten. It would now be very difficult to judge which stories may be more or less true and which m ay be purely fictitious. The point o f the series o f short stories or incidents, which usually follow the Old Commentary’s exegesis, is to show what exceptions could be made to a rule, what exem ptions were permissible, what lesser and sometimes what graver offences were incurred, and what was an offence from which there could be no exemption since it tallied in all its main respects with that which had led to the framing o f the rule. These stories are n ot invariably ascribed to any particular person, as are those introducing the rule. They not seldom attach th^s behaviour which needs consideration to “ a certain m onk.” . These stories reveal the existence o f different grades o f penalty for different types o f offence against the main rules. N ot merely are there five great classes o f offences— Parajika, Sanghadisesa, Nissaggiya Pacittiya, Pacittiya and Patidesaniya— there are also thullaccaya (grave) offences, and dukkata offences (those o f wrong­ doing). These are o f constant recurrence in the stories, or “ Notes giving the exceptions to, and extensions of, the Rule in the Patim okkha.” 1 O f rarer appearance 1 Vin. Texts, i. xix.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

XXXV

are offences o f wrong speech. One or other o f these offences is said to be incurred if behaviour has approxi­ m ated to that which a particular Patimokkha rule has been designed to restrain, but which is, so far as can be judged, not so grave in nature as a breach o f the rule itself, because o f certain differences in its execu­ tion, or because o f certain extenuating circumstances. Sometimes the stories are grouped together to form a set. Although, where this occurs, each story m ay show no more than a minute variation from the others, they are all set out at length. Putting the gist o f the stories into general terms, each one would then read something as follow s: I f this is done, but not that, though the other thing is done, such and such an offence is incurred. I f this is done and that, but not the other thing, such and such an offence is incurred. I f this is not done, but that is done, and the other thing is (is not) done, such and such an offence is incurred. And so on through permutation and com bination o f deeds done or not done, until the final case is achieved where no offence is incurred. These groups o f stories are apt to be tedious to Western readers. I have therefore put them, when they occur, into a smaller type, as also other passages concerned with small shades o f differences. Doubtless such meticulous detail was useful in defining exactly what was lawful and what was not lawful for monks to do, and in preventing the evasions which from time to tim e they seemed ready to attempt. As history, these stories are as interesting in evincing an Oriental love and management o f detail as in revealing items o f topical value in regard to manners and customs. The manner and time o f their formulation are as problematical as those o f the m ajor rules. A t the end o f each Parajika, Sanghadisesa and Aniyata Rule, general circumstances are stated where the breach o f the rule is not to be counted as an offence. The m ost comprehensive o f these is when a m onk is mad, in pain or a beginner. Others have a more specialised import. Thus, for example, there is said to be no

xxxvi

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

offence if a monk had some course o f behaviour forced upon him, but did not consent to it (as in Parajika I.); if he did something accidentally, not intending to do it (as in Parajika I I I .); if he did something unsuitable, being under a misapprehension (as in Parajika II.). The occasions when it is stated that no offence is incurTcd are all remarkable for their humane and lenient tone, for their reasonableness and common-sense. Thus there is no offence if something not given is taken for the sake o f food (Parajika II. 7. 38), or is only taken for the time being (Parajika II. 7. 40), it being assumed, apparently, that there was the intention o f returning it. Again, tw o occasions are recorded1 where a monk died, in the one case through being tickled,2 and in the other through being trod upon.3 Y et no murderous act was done, or the verdict would have been different, and not that “ there is no offence involving defeat.” It seems probable that the monks who died were nervy, delicate or infirm, and received a shock or heart-attack resulting in their death, but had they been in normal health they would have com e to no harm. It must be admitted that several early literatures have a coarse side. That the translations o f Pali canonical works have so far been not in the least offen­ sive, is mainly, or it m ay be said only, because the Sutta-Pitaka and the Abhidhamma-Pitaka deal chiefly witli spiritual matters. The Vinaya, on the other hand, being concerned with behaviour, is forced occasionally to go into some aspects o f life irrelevant to the subject-m atter o f the other tw o Pitakas. Such exposi­ tions are, however, almost entirely confined to Parajika I. and Sanghadisesa I. 1 Vin. iii. 84 ( —pp. 145, 146 below). ^ 2 angidi'patodaka. P .E .D . has ec nudging with the fingers,55 C .P .D . “ tickling with the fingers.” Dial. i. 113 has in the text “ nudging one another with the fingers,” but loc. cit.9n. 3, in referring to the above Vin. passage ( = V in . iv. 110) says: “ It must there mean ‘ tickling.’ ” G.tS\ iv. 225 (A . iv. 343) has “ poking one another with the fingers.” 3 Or oUharatl may mean to spread out, to stretch out.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x x x v ii

W ith regard to this preservation o f crude passages in the Vinaya, three' points must be insisted upon. In the first place they were neither spoken nor written down for a general public, but were intended only for the devotees o f celibacy.' Secondly, the m otive which led to their being uttered or written down was not a desire to shock, but the need to prevent unchastity. Thirdly, the pattern on which the compilers o f the Suttavibhanga worked was one o f almost unbelievable detail, for in their efforts to be lucid, case after case o f possible or actual deviation from the general rule was investigated, penalised and perpetuated. Hence it cannot justly be said that the tendency to be detailed is greater or more insistent in one Parajika, or in one Sanghadisesa, than in others. Such lack o f restraint as is found m ay be embarrassing to us, but it must be remembered that early peoples are not so much afraid o f plain speech as we are. N o stigma o f indecency or obscenity should therefore be attached to such Vinaya passages as seem unnecessarily outspoken to us. For they were neither deliberately indecent nor deliberately obscene. The matters to which they refer had to be legislated for as much as had matters o f theft and murder, o f choosing sites for huts and viharas. Nevertheless the differences in the outlook o f an early society and a modern one m ay easily be forgotten or disregarded. I have therefore omitted some o f the cruder Suttavibhanga passages, and have given abbrevi­ ated versions o f others, while incorporating them in their unabridged state in Pali in an Appendix, and marking them b y an asterisk in the text. Even in omitting or expurgating such passages, I yet think that they are interesting historically, scientifically and psychologically, even psycho-analytically, and that they might be o f value to anyone making a detailed comparison o f Eastern and Western Monachism. O f the various forms o f address recorded in Vin. iii., pp. 1-194 (to which this volume o f translation corresponds), the most frequent are bhagavd, bhante,

x x x v iii

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

bho, ayasmd, avuso, ayya, bhagini. I will d o no more now than briefly indicate them, leaving a fuller in­ vestigation to the Introduction to the final volume, when all the Vinaya data for modes o f address will be before us. Only Gotama is recorded to be addressed as bhagavd. This, therefore, is- a very honourable term, which I have rendered b y “ lord.” Bhante, one o f several vocative forms o f bhavant, is o f very frequent occurrence. When Gotama is addressed as bhante, I have used the rendering “ lord.” In order to preserve this appellation for him alone, when the named and unnamed monks who are his disciples are addressed as bhante, I have used the rendering “ honoured sir.” Bho (plural bhonto), another vocative form o f bhavant, appears to be a more familiar form o f address than is bhante, and is used as between equals, or from a superior to an inferior. It is o f fairly frequent occurrence, some­ times being follow ed b y another vocative, such as a proper name. I have translated bho as “ good sir.” Ayasmd is not a form o f address. It is an honorific designation, and is the most usual way in which monks and theras are referred to in the narrative, followed b y their proper name. I have translated it as “ the venerable.” Nuns are never designated b y this term, nor_are lay-people. t Avuso m ay be said to be the habitual m ode o f address used between monks. The only other word that they appear to use in speaking to one another is bhante.1 They are also recorded to address laymen as avuso, and this practice is sometimes reversed, although the laity seem more usually to have said bhante in speaking 1 Franke in J .P .T .S ., 1908, holds that the Cullavagga Council reports were invented exercises to show ways o f address. His argument is based on the decree o f D . ii. 154, ascribed to the dying Gotama, after .which seniors were to address juniors as avuso, while juniors were to address seniors as bhante. The terms auso and bkamte were also in use among the Jains, cf. Ayaramgasutta (P .T .S . edn.), e.g. p. 106.

t r a n s l a t o r ’ s in t r o d u c t io n

x x x ix

to the monks, sometimes com bined with ayya. I have translated avuso as “ your reverence ” and “ reverend sir.” Since avuso is masculine in form, it was never used in addressing nuns. A yya and ayyo (nom. plural used as a voc.) are frequently used in speaking o f a person and in address­ ing him, both directly and obliquely. It appears to be more flexible than the other terms noted above, both with regard to those who use it and with regard to those to w hom it is applied. I have translated it as “ master ” if follow ed b y a proper name, and as “ the master ” if this is not the case. It is not in­ frequently com bined with bhante. A yya was an epithet in use among the laity, as well as between the laity and the monks. But in the part o f the Vinaya translated in this volum e it does not happen that a lay-person is addressed as ayya b y a monk, or that any monk is so addressed b y a fellow-monk. Although monks did not address their fellows in the Brahma-life as ayya, nuns use ay ye (fem., “ lady, noble lady ” ) in speaking to one another. Laywomen also use this form o f address in speaking to nuns and to other laywomen. Monks, however, never appear to address either nuns or laywomen afe ayye. Bhagini, “ sister,” is the most usual way in which monks are recorded to address both laywomen and nuns. Y e t nuns do not, as far as is recorded, address one another as bhagini. Unluckily, in this portion o f the Vinaya there are no records o f intercommunication between nuns and laywomen, so we get here no indica­ tion o f how they addressed one another. From these short notes it will have emerged that the words bhikkhu and bhikkhuni do not occur as forms o f address used between the tw o sections o f the religious com munity, any more than that lay-people address monks and nuns with these terms. On the other hand, Gotama is sometimes recorded to address a m onk as bhikkhu, and also to refer to individual monks in this fashion. And there is a certain story (Vin. iii. 131 = p. 220 below) in which a female wanderer addresses a

xl

t r a n s l a t o r ' s in t r o d u c t io n

monk as bhikkhu. In the narrative, monks are ordinarily spoken o f as bhikkhu, unless the personal name o f the monk concerned has been recorded. I f it has, it is usually preceded by dyasmd, and never, I think, by bhikkhu. On the other hand, the narrative, if referring to a nun, consistently calls her bhikkhum, and this description precedes her proper name, if this has been recorded. In this part o f the Suttavibhanga there are no records showing Gotama speaking with nuns, so we have no means o f knowing how he usually addressed them. When speaking o f them, he is, however, recorded to have used the word bhikkhum. The translation o f the term bhikkhu presents many difficulties. I have selected the term “ m onk,” and have rejected “ mendicant, almsman, brother, friar,” not necessarily because “ monk 55 is the most literal, but, for reasons which I will state shortly, it appears to me the best and most suitable rendering. Although neither “ m onk,” nor the terms rejected, are precise equivalents for bhikkhu, I could not find sufficient grounds for leaving bhikkhu untranslated, as though it were untranslatable. Further, I became more and more convinced that where an English word is possible, where it coincides to some extent with the significance o f the Pali, although the known facts of history preclude full identity o f meaning, it is more desirable to use it than to leave the word untranslated. Untranslated words are balking to the English reader, and it is for the English reader that this series is primarily designed. B ut before giving the reasons which deter­ mined m y choice o f “ monk ” as the nearest equivalent for bhikkhu, a few words must be said about each o f the terms that has not been selected. “ M endicant/’ literally a stalk or cane. Lekham chindaii could not therefore here mean “ destroys the letter ” as P .T .S . Diet. says. Cf. rupam chindaii at V A . 690 in connection with cutting a figure on the wooden masaka. Lekhd therefore does not neces­ sarily mean writing as we have it to-day. A t Vin. iv. 7 lekhd is one o f the three “ high c r a ft s ” (or occupations, sippa). At Vin. i. 77— iv. 128 Upali’s parents decide against letting him learn lekhd on the grounds that his fingers will become painful. A t Vin. iv. 305 it is said to be mr offence for a nun to learn writing {lekham pariydpuiidti). Lekha is the writing, the letter'; lekhd the line, the tracing {cf. Jd. vi. 56). V A . 867 explains by akkhardni Ukhantassa. Cf. V A . 739 lekhd ti akkharalekhd, letters: syllables or letters; see next n. for akkhara. A t Vin. ii. 110 the context seems to demand another meaning for lekhd’. it is to be something that can be separated from the bowl; this can be given away, whereas lekhan ca me paribhogam bhavissati, ** so that the chips shall remain m y property ” {Vin. Texts iii. 78), or “ the chips will com e to be for m y personal use,” or “ the chips will be of use to m e.” {Paribhoga is that which one uses, o f usfe, rather than property.) A t this passage lekham (which has faulty variant reading likham; c f likhdpanna for lekha° at P vA . 20) is almost certainly to be taken in its meaning o f “ chips, shavings.” A t A . i. 283— Ptig. 32 three kinds o f individuals are described: pdsdnalekhupama, pathavilekhdpama, udakalekhupama. Here lekhd is trans. at G.S. i. 262 by Nun(s) vii, ix, xi / . , x iv fl, x v iii, xxxiii, x x xviii f f., xliii / . , xlix, U tr 5 2 ff., 62, 96, 1 1 0 /., 1 4 9 /., 187, 2 7 9 /., 288 Observance-day (uposatha) x i, 283, 292 Offence x v , x ix f f., x x x iv f f . ; pretext o f an (dpcUtilesa) 292. See also Confessed, D efeat, E x ­ piation, Form al Meeting, Grave, Speech, W rong-doing Oil 78, 133, 144, 275 ff. Once-returner 152; -returning 162, 1 6 4 /., 167 Open space, with, not with an (sa-, a-parikkamana) 253 ff., 257, 258 f f., 267 ff. Opinion (difflii) 163 ff., 167 ff. Order o f Monks and Nuns ix, x i i i # ., x v iii f f., x x iv , x x v ii f f ; Xlii xivi Ordination xlvii, 26, 41, 54 P a cittiya rules, offences x / . , xx, x x v , x x x iv . See also E xpiation Pada 71, 7 4 /. Palm -fruit 101 / . , 1 0 8 /. Panther 98 Parajika rules, offences x, x x ff., x x v i ff., x x x iv f f., Iii. See also Defeat Parents 23 ff., 153, 229; consent o f 23 f f . ; protected b y 236, 237, 239 f f. Park (drama) x, 12, 76, 82, 156, 200, 214, 276, 278; -keeper 43 ff., 82, 160; being in a 82 Partridge 79 Passion 35, 39, 119, 165, 167, 169, 192 ff., 201, 215, 224; (with hatred, confusion) ix, 4 / . , 158, 162, 1 6 5 # , 170, 323 Patidesaniya rules, offences xi, xx x iv . See also Confessed

INDEXES Patimokkha viii # . , xii / . , xviii / . , x x iii / . , x x v ii, x x ix , x x x ii # ., x lii, x lv ii, 15, 17 43, 45 /., 191 n .y 203 n.9 301 n.9 310 311 Pattha 12 Peacock 79 Peg 80 Perfected man, men (arahan) 1 / . , 42, 51, 152, 1 7 2 /., 175, 1 7 8 # . P erfection (arahatta) ix, x v ii, xliv, 162, 165, 167, 169, 270 Perverted heart (viparinata citta) 201, 202, 215, 215, 224' Physical con tact 201, 202, 334, 338 P ig 105, 108 Pillow 109, 199, 275 Pitfall (opdta) 128, 132 Plaster decoration 51, 55 Platform (atfaka) 141 / , Pleasure (ruci) 163 # . , 167 # Pleasures o f the senses 7, 35 / , , 39, 179, 201, 215 / . , 224; for self 224, 225, 226 Poison 133, 140; -ed alm sfood 140 Powers (balani) 162, 1 6 4 /., 167 # . Preceptor, p retext o f a 293 P retext (lesa) 289, 291 # . (ten), 263 P robation (parivdsa) 196, 327 Probationer 160; fem ale 52, 62, 172, 187 P roperty (vatthu) 8 4 ; being on a 76,

353

Relations, protected b y 236, 237* 239 # . Rendezvous, making a 76, 88. 12«, 135 Requisite(s) xxii, xlvii, 91, 99, 156, 175, 222, 226 Resolution (kammavdcd) 302, 307, 3 1 2 /. Restrained (venayika) 5 R iver 106, 113 R obber 71 # . , 147 R obe(s) x lvi, xlviii, 17, 72, 95 # . , 110, 117, 123, 149, 156, 170, 175, 187, 222, 226, 247, 254 / „ 297 / . , 317 / . , 321; distribution o f 97; householder’s 293, 397 / . ; making 100; pretext o f a 293; threefold 21; yellow xlviii, 22 / . , 117 n.9 157 Rose-apple 101 / . Rule (uddesa) 48,75, 3 0 0 /., 3 0 5 /.; o f life (sdjiva) 4 1,4 3

Sakya, Sakyan x i, x v , x x / . , xxiii* x x v , x x x i, xii, xlvii, xlix, 1 # . Samana, Sramana x x ix , 1 # . Sec also Recluse Sanghadisesa rules, offences xi, x x / . , x x v ii # . , x x x iv # . See also Form al Meeting Sanyasins xxiii, x x ix Schism xx viii, 2 9 6 /., 299, 300, 301, Prostitute 52, 62 304#. Seat (asana) 29, 138, 277, 315; Protected (rakkhita) 236, 237, 2 3 9 # . secluded 3 3 0 /., 332, 334, 336,337 P rotection, with 236, 237, 2 3 9 # . Secret, in 128, 1 3 0 ; place, xn a P sychic poten cy (iddhi) 112 / . 3 3 0 /., 332,334, 336, 339 162, 1 6 4 /., 1 6 7 # ., 174, 274, 296, Sects, other xi, x iv /- , x x , x x v ii, Purposefully (citiasamkappa) 126, xii, xlix, lv, 4 3 /., 46, 51 127 ' Seen, heard, suspected 283 # . , 298 Self xlvii, 8 # . , 224, 225, 226* Quail 79 Sexual intercourse 3 3 / . , 36, 4 0 # ., 47, 52 / . , 55 # . , 113, 216, 221, R aft 106 222 / „ 225 # . , 280, 290, 333 / . , Rags xlviii, 26, 92, 97, 101, 106, 108 337 R ains x lvi, 11 / . , 20, 151 # «, 180, Shop-keeper 107 292,320 Shrine (cetiya) 243, 247 (A lavi), Recluse(B) (samana) ix, xiv, xxiii, 2 6 6 /. 1 # ., 1 # . , 43, 67, 6 9 / . , 73, 9 6 /. , Sight, offering a (r&p&pahara) 128,* 101 / . , 1 0 4 # ., 112 # . , 123, 125, 155, 157, 161, 194. 200 / . , 215, 133 Sign, making o f a 76, 89, 95, 99, 2 2 3 /., 231 / . , 234, 266, 283, 292, 296 # . , 299; -dhamma lv, 282; 128,136 Sila x x iv female 96, 111; sham 117 # . R efectory 138, 276 j Similes: chiek from egg-shell 9, 10; conch-shcll 2 2 / . ; flat stone Rehabilitate (abbheti) x x x / . , 196, j 127; great wind 309; hen with 3 2 7 /. | z.

23

354

IN D E X E S

chicks 6 ; honey-com b 14; la d y ­ bird 6 5 ; man setting upright, etc. 10; man with head cu t o ff 48; m ountain river 309; palm-tree 3, 6 / . ; palm yra 160; storm ou t o f season 121; tied flowers 16, 17; withered leaf 75; young person 117, 120 Sin (vajja) 297 / . Sister x x x ix , xlii 31, 44 / . , 55, 56, 211, 219 # . , 222, 224, 227 278 / . , 318, 321; protected by 236,237, 239 # . Site {vatthu) 140, 156, 2 5 3 # ., 2 5 7 # , 2 6 8 # ; inspection o f a 2 5 4 /.; mark ou t a 253, 254, 256, 257, 258 # .,, 267,268, 2 6 8 # . Skeleton 182 Slanderer 172, 185 Slave 153; fem ale 27, 2 0 0 /., 231 / . , 277 / . , 315 Smell, offering a (gandhupahara) 128, 134 Snake(s) 87, 117, 120, 249, 251, 256 Solitude 1 7 0 /.; delight in 159, 161, 162 Son 4 4 / . , 1 3 8 /,, 226 / v 230 Sound, offering a (saddupahdra) 128, 134 Speak to, one w ho is difficult to (dubbacajatika) x x v iii, 310, 311, 312 . . Speech, offence o f evil (dubbasita) x x x v , 294 / . Spoken to , one n ot to be (avacamya) 310, 3 1 1 ,31 2 Spy 76, 88 Stage (rangamajjha) 318, 321 Stealing xx i # . Stick 213; protected by 236, 237, 239 # . Stone 12, 127, 133, 140, 142, 250 Store-room (ko^thaka) 2 7 7 /. Stories x x x iv / . ’ Stream (sota) 19; -attainer 152; -attainm ent 162, 1 6 4 /., 167,333 to. Sugar 104; -cane 98, 101, 1 0 8 /. Support (apassena) 128, 133 Suita x ; -vibhanga x Sutta(nta)s 15, 17, 273 Take 74, 75. See also G iven, not Taste 3 ; offering a (rasiijyahdra) 128,134 Tathagata(s) lv i, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12 / . , 18, 20, 23, 41, 154, 156

Teacher (upajjhdya) 171, 173 / , ; pretext o f a 293; (satiha) 18 / . Tem porarily x x x v i, 110 Theft, an arranged 7 6 ,8 8 ; by means o f 7 2 /., 74, 157 Thief, Thieves 72, 73, 75, 89 / . , 101 / . , 107 / . , 112 / . , 1 5 5 # (five) Tiger(s) 98, 256 Tooth-cleaner 76, 85 T ou ch , offering a (phot^abbupahara) 128, 135 Training xlvii, 1, 4 2 ; disavowal o f x x v ii, 4Q#>, 43, 4 4 # ., 52 Trap (upanikkhipana) 128, 133 Tree lix, 80, 122, 148, 213, 266 / . , 297 /.,-3 1 4 , 320, 326, 333, 337; forest- 76, 86 Trust (ft^a^a) 100 * Turban 7 8 /., 97, 114 Turtle 80, 188 Unchastity x x / . , x x i i i /. , x x x v ii, lv U ndeterm ined x x , 330 335, 339, 340. See also A n iyata rules Ujidue estim ate {adhimana) 158 / . , .1 6 0 , 171, 173 U nfounded (amulaka) 280 / . , 282 (charge); 281 (legal question) Uposaiha. See Observance-day Vehicle xlv ii, 76, 8 1 ,’ 105; being in a 81 Vihara xx viii, x x x i, xlii, xlviii, 38, 84, 95 / . , 100, 109 / . , 119, 140 # , 146, 156, 170 / . , 175, 2 6 6 /., 267, 268, 2 6 8 # , 280, 289; being in a 83 Village 7 2 /., 74, 100, 102, 113, 155, 230, 266 / . , 297 / . , 3 2 4 /.; being in a 8 4 ; -fraud 172, 185 Vinaya v i / . , ix, 273, 3 0 4 # . Virtuous (sllavant) 125, 200, 2 2 3 /., 225 Vision (cakkhu) 182, 188 V oice, praising by means of, 128, 1 3 1

.

V olitional force (adhitthdya) 128, 129 Vows xlvi / . Vultures 182#* W all ( hu44a) 109, 1 4 0 /., 322, 337 W anderer (paribbajaka) xi, xx ix , 188 to., 189 to.; female x x x ix , 220' W aste, the 9, 36, 155

IN D E X E S

355

W ater 85, 106, 109, 118, 188, 199, I three kinds o f 48; ten kinds o f 275, 279; being in 76, 80 236; {matugama) lvii, 201, 202, W ay, the ix, 159, 161, 162, 164 / . , 215, 215, 224, 225, 331, 332, 333 / . , 3 3 6 /., 337 167 ff. Weakness, declaration o f xxvii, W ooden doll 51, 55, 211 / . W riting lix ; praising b y means o f 4 0 # ., 43, 4 4 # ., 52 W eights, measures lviii 128,131 W rong course (agati) 323 /. W ell-farcr (sugata) 1, 18 W rong-doing, offence o f (duhlcata) W hatever 42 W id ow 222 xx i, x x ii x x x iv , 55, 57, 77 # . , 94, 97, 103 / . , 109 / . , 129 # . , W ife 30, 44 / . , 153, 200, 234, 236, 138, 142 / . , 145, 149, 170 / . , 236, 238 # . , 276 / . , 315; former 173 # . , 204 # . , 211 # . , 217 # . , 2 9 # ., 55, 60, 62, 211; man with 226, 242, 244, 258 # . , 286 / . , tw o wives 1 4 4 /.; ten kinds o f 237 294 / . , 301 / . , 306 / . , 312 / . , W ill x, x x iii W ish 173 / . 3 2 6 /. W rong states 4 / . , 121 W o lf 98 W om an (itthl) x x v iii, 39, 48 # . , Yakkha lvii, 146; female 51, 57, 56 # . , 60, 123, 186, 202, 204 # . , 132, 146, 183, 187, 202, 211, 215, 212 # . , 217 # . , 222 / . , 226 / . , 332, 337; predatory* lvii, 146 2 3 4 # ., 2 4 2 /., 254, 268, 332, 337;

I I .— N A M E S A bh idh am m a-pitaka v ii, x x x v i A ciravati 106 Ajatasattu 68 n. A jju k a 111 A la vi, 247 / . ; monks o f 140 # ., *148, 246, 248, 265 to.; shrine at 2 4 7 /. A nanda 12 / . , 19 ft., 20, 40 / . , 97, 112, 1 1 9 # ., 158, 188 to., 282 n . A nathapindika’s park 192, 199, 214, 222, 2 29 /31 4 , 319, 330, 336 Anesaki, M. lvi Anga 314 n. Anum ana Sutta x x v iii A ssaji 275 n., 314, 3 1 8 # . B am boo Grove 180, 246, 271, 275, 288, 296, 304 _ Barua, B. M. xii, liii / . Benares 21, 112 B haddiya 51, 58 Bharukaccha m onk 51, 60 Bhikkhu-patim okkha x x ix Bhikkhum -vibhanga xi Bhum m ajaka 275 # . , 2 8 8 /., 314 n. BIjaka 33 BIjaka’s father 34 B ijaka’s mother 33 Bimbisara 6 8 /. , 71, 112 n .f 189^

Black R ock 274 Book of the'Discipline v # ., xi Brahma xviii, lv Brahma(s) 2, 33; -world 33, 157 Buddhaghosa viii, xii, x x v i, xx ix Buddharakkhita 292 Burlingame, E . W . 11 m., 71 n. Burma lviii, 277 n. Burnouf, E. x x v i, xx x, xl n . Campa, 110 Ceylon v, lviii Chalmers, Lord xlii, lvi Channa 266, 309 / . Childers, K . C. xii, x x v i, x x x / . , 38 w., 195 n . Cooke, A. M. Ix Coomaraswamy, A. lvii n, D abba 53 n .9 193 n., 271 #v 2 8 8 /. Dalliika 113 Dark W ood 53 n ., 58, 108 D evadatta 2 9 6 # ., 304 D ham m apada liv Dhammarakkliita 292 Dhaniya 6 4 # . D utt, S. viii xiii, xx xii

35&

IN D E XE S

Enlightened one (introduction to each rule) also 1, 40, 43 jf ., 61, 65, 123, 154, 309, 319, 333

Law , B. C. viii n ,, xi n .t x x v i, x x v ii n., x x ix , 11 n., 14 247 n, L icchavis 3 2 /., 61 / . , 189

Fausbdll, V . 12 ti., 21 n . Franke, R . O. x x x v iii n . Gabled Hall 21, 26, 60, 116, 151, 153 Ganges 21, 31, 2 4 8 # . Geiger, W . vii G hosita’s park 266, 309 G odhika 274 n. Gom ata Glen. 274 Gotam a vii, x ii, x i v # . , x x x v i ii # ., l i # . , l v / . , 1 # ., 19 n., 20, 275 282 ti., 2 9 6 # .; a G° 292 Great W ood 21, 26, 32 / . , 59 / . , 116, 151, 153

M addakucchi 275 Madhura 1 n. Magadha 68 / . , 112 ti., 189, 314 n. M ahapajapatl 54 n, Mahavira xvii, liii, liv n. Mallian, the. See D abba Manikantha 248 # . Mara(s) lvii, 2, 38 118, 157 Mehta, R . N. liv » . M ettiya 275 # . , 288 / . , 314 n . M ettiya 279, 288 Migalandika lvii, 117 # . Moggallana x x v / . , 13 / . , 1 8 0 # ., 187 # . , 321 / , ; a M° 292 Morris, R . 317 n.

H arika 187 Him&layas 251 / .

N aked Ascetics 2 3 0 # . N ajera's N im ba Tree 1

In dia x v iii, x x iii, xlvii, l v ii i/., Ixii Isigili 64, 274

Old Commentary xi, x x v iii, x x x i# ., xii, Iii, lvii Oldenberg, H . v, vii / . , xii, x x v i, x x x i, x x x iv , l i x # .

Jacobi, H . viii n., xx iii ft., liii Jatakas xlii Jatiya G rove 58 Jeta G rove 192, 199, 214, 222, 229, 314, 319, 330, 336 Jivaka’s Mango G rove 274 K accana, a 292 K akusandha 15, 17 K alandaka 21 # . K alinga 186 . K annakujja 21 Kanthaka 309 n . K apila 113 KasT 314 318, 320 K assapa ( buddha) 15, 17,172, 1 86 /. Kassapa, Maha- (thera) 247 / . K ata morakati asaka 296, 304 K ern, H . x x v i n., x x x K handa devl, son o f 296, 304 K hem a 54 ti., 104 ti. K isagotam i 53 n. K itagiri 314, 3 1 8 # . K okalika 296, 304 K okanuda 188 n. K onagam ana 15, 17 Kosala 314 n, K osam bi 113, 266, 309 Lakkhana 180 / . Laludayin 193 n.

Pandaka 113 Pataca ra 54 n. Patatigaina 68 n. Payagapatitthana 21 Pilindavaccha 112 / . Przyluski, J . lix, 15 ti. Punabbasu 175 n.9 314, 3 1 8 # . Rahula 162 ti. * R ajagaha 56, 61, 64, 68, 71, 111, 1 8 0 # ., 246 # . , 271, 274 275, 288, 296, 298, 304 R apson, E . J . lix Ratthapala 252 / . R hys D avids, Mrs, v i, x x v , x x v iii n., li, lv i/ . , l i x / . , 13 ti., 92 157 162 n. R h ys D a vid s: T . W . v, v iii, xii, x x v i, x x x i, x x x iv , lix, lxi, 28 n.,

71 n

"

R ob b er’s C liff 274 Saddha 52, 61 Sagal& 113 . . . Sakyans, son(s) o f the x x ix , Iii / . , 1, 43 # . , 48, 67, 70, 75, 125, 128, 161, 200 / . , 223, 234, 266, 283, 292,299

IN D E X E S Samantapasadika viii Sam iddhi 274 n. Sam uddadatta 296, 304 Sa&gharakkhita 292 Sankassa 21 Sarjyutta x x v Sappinika 189 Sariputta 13 n., 14 # . , 321 / . Sattapanni Cave 274 Savatthi *51, 53 58, 61, 107 / . , 192, 199, 214, 222, 229, 231 / . , 314, 3 1 8 # ., 330, 336 Schrader, O. lix Seyyasaka 192 ff. Slha 4 n. Sikhin 15, 17 S lta’s W ood 274 Sm ith, H elmer lix Snake Pool 274 Sobhita 172, 190 Soreyya 21 Squirrels’ Feeding Place 180, 246, 271, 288, 296, 304 St, Francis xliii / . Sudinna lvii, 21 f f . Sundara 51, 56 Sunidha 68 n. Supabba 52, 61 Sutta-pitaka v , vii, ix / . , x v iii, x x v , xxxvi SuttavibhaAga v ii #♦, x v / . , x x v , x x v ii, x x x iii, x x x v ii, xl, li, liv / . , lix

357

Thomas, F. W . lix Thullananda 1 1 0 /. Tinduka Glen 274 Trenckner, V . 12 n. U dayin x x x ii, 192, 199 f f., 211 214 / . , 222 ff., 226 » . , 229 f f 3 3 0 /., 336 U pali 60, 112 Upani$ads lv U ppalavanna 51, 5 3 /., 104 « . tJttarakuru 14 U ttarapatha 11 Vaggum uda 118, 151, 154, 157, 171 n. V a jjl 151 . Vajji(an)a 26, 40 / . , 51 / . , 68 n . Vakkali 274 n. V asittha, a 292 Vassakara 68 Vebhara 274 V eranja 1 / . , 11 21; brahm in o f li, 1 # . , 2 0 /. Vesali 11 21 # . , 26 / . , 38 51, 59 I l l , 116, 120 / . , 151, 153 Vessabhu 1 5 # . V inaya-pitaka v # . , x , x iii, x v i, x v iii, x x v , x x x iii, x x x v i / . , l v i i i /., l i x # . _ Vinaya Texts v / . , v iii, x, x x x , lxi Vipassin 15, 17 Visakha x x x ii / . , 3 3 0 /., 336 -Vulture’ s Peak 6 4 /., 9 8,1 42 ,1 81 # ., 274

T ap oda, Glen 274; Park 274; river 172, 188, 274 » . Theragatha x v iii, xlii W intem itz, M. viii xiii Thomas, E. J. v iii x , x iii, x iv x x v i, 1 « ., 15 » . , 81 n. ■ W oodw ard, F. L . lvi, 41

66 n.

III.—SOME PALI WORDS IN THE NOTES A k k a m a ti 59, 137 / . Akkharakkhara 132 AAgulipatodaka x x x v i A jjh acara 202 A nna 120 A ttakam a 224 A tta 117 A ttha 13 A dhititthati 128 Anabhirati 114 Aparanna 83 Appanihita 161

Abboharika 159 A bhijjam ana udaka 118 Abhirata 114, 192 (an-) Abhiram ati 24, 114 Amanussa 74, 147 Appadakkhinaggahl anusasanim 311 ' Arasarupa 3 Alam vacaniya 244

Amasati 203 Alhaka 12, 103

358

IN D E XE S

A vasika 314 Indagopaka 65 Issara 109 Uppalagandha 50 Usselheti 317 Ottharati 137 Odakantika 37 K avatam panam eti 199 K ahapana 29, 71 K ayapatibaddha 207, 218 Kuddam ula 27 Cakkhubhuta 182 Cetiya 243, 247, 266

Pattena panam eti 213 Pattha 12, 103 Parivasam deti 196 Pasadabhanna 178 P atavyata 66 P ada 71 Parajika 38 P ubbanna 83 Maha 247 Masaka 29, 71, 72 Y an a 81 R ajata 29, 71 R u piya 29, 71 Lekham chindati 131 Lom a 70; lom am pateti 323

Jatarupa 28 Tavakalika 110 Tula 104 tek atu layagu 111 D itth i, khanti, ruci, bhava 163 Dukkata 77 Dubbacajatika 310 Dubbhikldia 11 D ona 103 / . Dvihitika 11 N ali(ka) 12, 103 N irabbuda 19 Paccati 183 Pacchim a janata 13, 66

V alayakkha 146 V ippatisan 171, 177 V ibbham ati 40, 60, 114 Venayika 5 Sanghadisesa 195 Sam apajjati 201 Sampanna 2 Salakavutta 11 Sarathi 185 Suvanna 28 Setatthika 11 Setughata 13 Hiranna 28

IV.— TITLES OF WORKS ABBREVIATED IN FOOTNOTES A . = Anguttara-N ikaya. A A ,~ C om m en ta ry on A. Asl. = Atthasalim . Chand, = Chandogya Upanigad. G .H .I. ~ Cambridge History o f In d ia. Corny. ~ Commentary. Grit. Pali D iet. = See Tr. Crit. Pali Diet. D . = DIgha-Nikaya. D A . = Commentary on D. D h A . = Commentary on D hp. D hp. = Dhammapada. Dhs. — Dhammasangani. Dial. —Dialogues o f the Buddha.

IN D E X E S

359

F u r. D ial. = Further Dialogues. G.S. =* Gradual Sayings. H .O.S. — Harvard Oriental Series. It. = Itivuttaka. / ^ . — Commentary on It. Ja. — Jataka. J .P ,T .S. = Journal of the Pali Text Society. K .S .= Kindred Sayings. KhA.p K h u A .= Commentary on Khuddakapatha. iiTru. = K athavatthu. ’ M . = M ajjhim a-N ikaya. M A . —Commentary on M. M iln. — Milindapanha. Nd. — Niddesa. Pdc. = Pacittiya.* Pss. Breth. = Psalms of the Brethren. Pss. Sisters = Psalms of the Sisters. Pts. = Patisambhidamagga. Pts. Contr. = Points of Controversy. P .T .S . JDtci. = Pali T ext S ociety’s Pali-English D iction ary (R h y s D avids and Stede). P u g. = Puggalapannati. P v A . = Commentary on Pctavatthu. S. —Sarjyutta-Nikaya. S A .= Commentary on S. * S .B .B .= Sacred Books o f the Buddhists. S .B .E . —Sacred Books o f the East. Sn. = Sutta-Nipata. SnA.*= Commentary on Sn. Tait. Up. = Taittiriya Upani§ad. Thag. = Theragatha. Thig. = Therigatha. T h igA . = Commentary on Thig. Tr. Crit. Pali Diet. = Critical Pali D ictionary (Dine3 Andersen aqd H elmer Sm ith). £7#. = U dana. U d A . = Commentary on U d. E7p. = Upanisad. V A . = Commentary on V in . Vbh. = Vibhanga. Vbh A . = Com m entary on V bh. Ftn.== Vinaya. Vin. Texts = Vinaya Texts. Vism. = Visuddhimagga. Vv. = Vim anavatthu. V vA . = Commentary on V v .

P R I N T E D IN G R E A T B R I T A I N B Y L O W E A N D B R V D O N H P R IN T E R S L IM IT E D , L O N D O N , N .W .I O

BL

14-10

Sacred books o f the Buddhists

S2 v . 10

PLEASE DO N O T REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET UNIVERSITY O F TO R O N TO LIBRARY

CIRCL l A n*

AS MONTV '.P APT !