Tam tạng Pāli · Tam tạng Pāli — bản tiếng Anh · Luật tạng › Cūḷavagga
The chapter on the settling of legal issues (PLI-TV-KD14)
- Dịch giả
- brahmali
- Thông tin
- Mã SuttaCentral: PLI-TV-KD14
Theravāda Collection on Monastic Law
The Small Division
The chapter on the settling of legal issues
1. Resolution face-to-face
At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Monastery.
At that time the monks from the group of six did legal procedures—
censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, and ejection—against monks who were absent.1
The monks of few desires complained and criticized them,
“How can the monks from the group of six do this?”
They told the Buddha. Soon afterwards he had the Sangha of monks gathered and questioned them:
“Is it true, monks, that the monks from the group of six are doing this?”
“It’s true, sir.”
The Buddha rebuked them,
“It’s not suitable for those foolish men, it’s not proper, it’s not worthy of a monastic, it’s not allowable, it’s not to be done.
How can they do this?
This will affect people’s confidence …”
After rebuking them …
the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“You shouldn’t do legal procedures—
censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or ejection—against monks who are absent.
If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.
An individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching; several people who speak contrary to the Teaching; a sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching.
An individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching; several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching; a sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching.”
The group of nine on the dark side
“An individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades an individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convinces him, makes him see, makes him consider, shows him, teaches him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
An individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching—convinces them, makes them see, makes them consider, shows them, teaches them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
An individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades a sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convinces it, makes it see, makes it consider, shows it, teaches it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
Several people who speak contrary to the Teaching persuade an individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convince him, make him see, make him consider, show him, teach him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
Several people who speak contrary to the Teaching persuade several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching—convince them, make them see, make them consider, show them, teach them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
Several people who speak contrary to the Teaching persuade a sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convince it, make it see, make it consider, show it, teach it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
A sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades an individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convinces him, makes him see, makes him consider, shows him, teaches him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
A sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching—convinces them, makes them see, makes them consider, shows them, teaches them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.
A sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching persuades a sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching—convinces it, makes it see, makes it consider, shows it, teaches it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved illegitimately by a face-to-face-like resolution.”
The group of nine on the dark side is finished.
The group of nine on the bright side
“An individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades an individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching—convinces him, makes him see, makes him consider, shows him, teaches him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
An individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades several people who speak contrary to the Teaching—convinces them, makes them see, makes them consider, shows them, teaches them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
An individual who speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades a sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching—convinces it, makes it see, makes it consider, shows it, teaches it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
Several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching persuade an individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching—convince him, make him see, make him consider, show him, teach him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
Several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching persuade several people who speak contrary to the Teaching—convince them, make them see, make them consider, show them, teach them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
Several people who speak in accordance with the Teaching persuade a sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching—convince it, make it see, make it consider, show it, teach it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
A sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades an individual who speaks contrary to the Teaching—convinces him, makes him see, makes him consider, shows him, teaches him:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
A sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades several people who speak contrary to the Teaching—convinces them, makes them see, makes them consider, shows them, teaches them:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.
A sangha that speaks in accordance with the Teaching persuades a sangha that speaks contrary to the Teaching—convinces it, makes it see, makes it consider, shows it, teaches it:
‘This is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacher’s instruction; learn this, accept this.’
If a legal issue is resolved like this, it’s resolved legitimately by face-to-face resolution.”
The group of nine on the bright side is finished.
2. Resolution through recollection
At one time when the Buddha was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove,
Venerable Dabba the Mallian realized perfection at the age of seven.
He had achieved all there is to achieve by a disciple
and had nothing further to do.
Then, while reflecting in private,
he thought, “How can I be of service to the Sangha?
Why don’t I assign the dwellings and designate the meals?”
In the evening Dabba came out of seclusion and went to the Buddha. He bowed, sat down,
and said,
“Sir, while I was reflecting in private, it occurred to me that
I’ve achieved all there is to achieve by a disciple,
and I was wondering how I could be of service to the Sangha.
I thought,
‘Why don’t I assign the dwellings and designate the meals?’”
“Good, good, Dabba,
please do so.”
“Yes, sir.”
Soon afterwards the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“Monks, the Sangha should appoint Dabba the Mallian as the assigner of dwellings and the designator of meals.
And he should be appointed like this.
First Dabba should be asked.
A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
If the Sangha is ready, it should appoint Venerable Dabba the Mallian as the assigner of dwellings and the designator of meals.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The Sangha appoints Venerable Dabba the Mallian as the assigner of dwellings and the designator of meals.
Any monk who approves of appointing Venerable Dabba as the assigner of dwellings and the designator of meals should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
The Sangha has appointed Venerable Dabba the Mallian as the assigner of dwellings and the designator of meals.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’”
Dabba assigned dwellings to the monks according to their character.
He assigned dwellings in the same place to those monks who were experts on the discourses, thinking,
“They’ll recite the discourses to one another.”
And he did likewise for the experts on the Monastic Law, thinking,
“They’ll discuss the Monastic Law;”
for the expounders of the Teaching, thinking,
“They’ll discuss the Teaching;”
for the meditators, thinking,
“They won’t disturb one another;”
and for the gossips and the bodybuilders, thinking,
“In this way even these venerables will be happy.”
When monks arrived at night, he entered the fire element and assigned dwellings with the help of that light.
Monks even arrived late on purpose,
hoping to see the marvel of Dabba’s supernormal powers.
They would approach Dabba and say,
“Venerable Dabba, please assign us a dwelling.”
“Where would you like to stay?”
They would intentionally suggest somewhere far away:
“On the Vulture Peak,”
“At Robbers’ Cliff,”
“On Black Rock on the slope of Mount Isigili,”
“In the Sattapaṇṇi Cave on the slope of Mount Vebhāra,”
“In Cool Grove on the hill at the Snake’s Pool,”
“At Gotamaka Gorge,”
“At Tinduka Gorge,”
“At Tapoda Gorge,”
“In Tapoda Park,”
“In Jīvaka’s Mango Grove,”
“In the deer park at Maddakucchi.”
Dabba then entered the fire element, and with his finger glowing, he walked in front of those monks.
They followed behind him with the help of that light.
And he would assign them dwellings:
“This is the bed, this the bench, this the mattress, this the pillow, this the place for defecating, this the place for urinating, this the water for drinking, this the water for washing, this the walking stick; these are the Sangha’s agreements concerning the right time to enter and the right time to leave.”2
Dabba then returned to the Bamboo Grove.
At that time the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka were only newly ordained. They had little merit,3
getting inferior dwellings and meals.
The people of Rājagaha were keen to give specially prepared almsfood to the senior monks—
ghee, oil, and special curries—
but to the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka they gave ordinary food of
porridge and broken rice.
When they had eaten their meal and returned from almsround, they asked the senior monks,
“What did you get at the dining hall?”
Some said,
“We got ghee, oil, and special curries.”
But the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka said,
“We didn’t get anything
except ordinary food of porridge and broken rice.”
At that time there was a householder who gave a regular meal of fine food to four monks.
He made his offering in the dining hall together with his wives and children.
Some of them offered rice, some bean curry, some oil, and some special curries.
On one occasion the meal to be given by this householder on the following day had been designated to the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka.
Just then that householder went to the monastery on some business.
He approached Dabba, bowed, and sat down.
Dabba instructed, inspired, and gladdened him with a teaching.
After the talk, he asked Dabba,
“Sir, who has been designated to receive tomorrow’s meal in our house?”
“Mettiya and Bhūmajaka.”
He was disappointed,
and thought, “Why should bad monks eat in our house?” After returning to his house, he told a female slave,
“For those who are coming for tomorrow’s meal, prepare seats in the gatehouse and serve them broken rice and porridge.”
“Yes, sir.”
The monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka said to each other,
“Yesterday we were designated a meal from that householder who offers fine food.
Tomorrow he’ll serve us together with his wives and children.
Some of them will offer us rice, some bean curry, some oil, and some special curries.”
And because they were excited, they did not sleep properly that night.
The following morning they robed up, took their bowls and robes, and went to the house of that householder.
When the female slave saw them coming,
she prepared seats in the gatehouse and said to them,
“Please sit, venerables.”
They thought,
“The meal can’t be ready, since we’re given seats in the gatehouse.”
She then brought them broken rice and porridge, and said,
“Eat, sirs.”
“But, sister, we’ve come for the regular meal.”
“I know.
But yesterday I was told by the head of the household
to serve you like this.
Please eat.”
They said to each other,
“Yesterday this householder came to the monastery and spoke with Dabba.
Dabba must be responsible for this split between the householder and us.”
And because they were dejected, they did not eat as much as they had intended.
When they had eaten their meal and returned from almsround, they put their bowls and robes away and squatted on their heels outside the monastery gatehouse, using their upper robes as a back-and-knee strap. They were silent and humiliated, with shoulders drooping and heads down, glum and speechless.
Just then the nun Mettiyā came to them and said,
“My respectful greetings to you, venerables.”
But they did not respond.
A second time and
a third time she said the same thing,
but they still did not respond.
“Have I done something wrong?
Why don’t you respond?”
“It’s because we’ve been badly treated by Dabba the Mallian, and you’re not taking an interest.”
“But what can I do?”
“If you like, you could make the Buddha expel Dabba.”
“And how can I do that?”
“Go to the Buddha and say,
‘Sir, this isn’t proper or appropriate. There’s fear, distress, and oppression in this district, where none of these should exist.
It’s windy where it should be calm.
It’s as if water is burning.
Venerable Dabba the Mallian has raped me.’”4
Saying, “Alright, venerables,” she went to the Buddha, bowed,
and repeated
what she had been told to say.
Soon afterwards the Buddha had the Sangha gathered and questioned Dabba:
“Dabba, do you remember doing as the nun Mettiyā says?”
“Sir, you know what I’m like.”
A second
and a third time the Buddha asked
the same question
and got the same response.
He then said, “Dabba, the Dabbas don’t give such evasive answers.
If it was done by you, say so;
if it wasn’t, then say that.”
“Since I was born, sir, I don’t recall having sexual intercourse even in a dream, let alone when awake.”
The Buddha addressed the monks:
“Well then, monks, expel the nun Mettiyā,5
and call these monks to account.”
The Buddha then got up from his seat and entered his dwelling.
When the monks had expelled the nun Mettiyā,
the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka said to them,
“Don’t expel the nun Mettiyā; she hasn’t done anything wrong.
She was urged on by us. We were angry and displeased, and trying to make Dabba give up the monastic life.”
“But did you groundlessly charge Venerable Dabba with failure in morality?”
“Yes.”
The monks of few desires … complained and criticized them,
“How could the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka groundlessly charge Venerable Dabba with failure in morality?”
They then told the Buddha. …
“Is it true, monks, that you did this?”
“It’s true, sir.” …
After rebuking them …
he gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“Well then, because of his great clarity of memory, grant resolution through recollection to Dabba the Mallian.
And it should be granted like this.
Dabba should approach the Sangha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect at the feet of the senior monks, squat on his heels, raise his joined palms, and say:
‘Venerables, these monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging me with failure in morality.
Because of my great clarity of memory, I ask the Sangha for resolution through recollection.
Venerables, these monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging me with failure in morality. Because of my great clarity of memory, for the second time, I ask the Sangha for resolution through recollection.
Venerables, these monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging me with failure in morality.
Because of my great clarity of memory, for the third time, I ask the Sangha for resolution through recollection.’
A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
These monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging Venerable Dabba the Mallian with failure in morality.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, he is asking the Sangha for resolution through recollection.
If the Sangha is ready, then, because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, the Sangha should grant him resolution through recollection.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
These monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging Venerable Dabba the Mallian with failure in morality.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, he is asking the Sangha for resolution through recollection.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, the Sangha grants him resolution through recollection.
Any monk who approves, because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, of granting him resolution through recollection should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
For the second time, I speak on this matter. …
For the third time, I speak on this matter.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
These monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka are groundlessly charging Venerable Dabba the Mallian with failure in morality.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, he is asking the Sangha for resolution through recollection.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, the Sangha grants him resolution through recollection.
Any monk who approves, because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, of granting him resolution through recollection should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
Because of Venerable Dabba the Mallian’s great clarity of memory, the Sangha has granted him resolution through recollection.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
There are five factors for the legitimate granting of resolution through recollection:
the monk is pure and free of offenses; he has been accused; he asks for resolution through recollection; the Sangha grants him resolution through recollection; the legal procedure is legitimate and done by a unanimous assembly.”6
3. Resolution because of past insanity
At one time the monk Gagga was insane and suffering from psychosis.7
Because of this, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The monks accused him of an offense, saying,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
“I was insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
I don’t remember it.
I did it because I was insane.”
But they kept on accusing him
in the same way.
The monks of few desires … complained and criticized them,
“How can these monks keep on accusing Gagga
when he says
he was insane?”
They told the Buddha. …
He said, “Is it true, monks, that these monks are doing this?”
“It’s true, sir.” …
After rebuking them …
he gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“Well then, since he’s now sane, grant the monk Gagga resolution because of past insanity.
And it should be granted like this.
The monk Gagga should approach the Sangha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect at the feet of the senior monks, squat on his heels, raise his joined palms, and say:
‘Venerables, I’ve been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The monks accused me of an offense, saying,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
I replied,
“I was insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
I don’t remember it.
I did it because I was insane.”
But they kept on accusing me
in the same way.
Because I’m now sane, I ask the Sangha for resolution because of past insanity.’
And he should ask a second
and a third time:
‘Venerables, I’ve been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The monks accused me of an offense, saying,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
I replied,
“I was insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
I don’t remember it. I did it because I was insane.”
But they kept on accusing me
in the same way.
Because I’m now sane, for the third time, I ask the Sangha for resolution because of past insanity.’
A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The monk Gagga has been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, the monks accused the monk Gagga of an offense, saying,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
He replied,
“I was insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
I don’t remember it. I did it because I was insane.”
But even though he said this, they kept on accusing him,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
Because he is now sane, he is asking the Sangha for resolution because of past insanity.
If the Sangha is ready, then, because the monk Gagga is now sane, the Sangha should grant him resolution because of past insanity.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The monk Gagga has been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, the monks accused the monk Gagga of an offense, saying,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
He replied,
“I was insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that insanity and psychosis, I did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
I don’t remember it. I did it because I was insane.”
But even though he said this, they kept on accusing him,
“Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?”
Because he is now sane, he is asking the Sangha for resolution because of past insanity.
Because the monk Gagga is now sane, the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity.
Any monk who approves of granting to the monk Gagga, who is now sane, resolution because of past insanity should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
For the second time, I speak on this matter. …
For the third time, I speak on this matter. …
Because the monk Gagga is now sane, the Sangha has granted him resolution because of past insanity.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
There are three illegitimate and three legitimate grantings of resolution because of past insanity.
What are the three illegitimate grantings of resolution because of past insanity?
It may be that a monk has committed an offense.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,8
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Although he remembers, he says
he doesn’t.
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is illegitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Although he remembers, he says,
‘I remember as if in a dream.’
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is illegitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Although he’s sane, he acts insane, saying,
‘I do this,
and so do you.
This is allowable for me,
and also for you.’
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is illegitimate.
And what are the three legitimate grantings of resolution because of past insanity?
It may be that a monk has been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Not remembering, he says
he doesn’t.
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is legitimate.
It may be that a monk has been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Not remembering, he says,
‘I remember as if in a dream.’
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is legitimate.
It may be that a monk has been insane and suffering from psychosis.
Because of that, he did and said many things unworthy of a monastic.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, do you remember committing such-and-such an offense?’
Being insane, he acts insane, saying,
‘I do this,
and so do you.
This is allowable for me,
and also for you.’
If the Sangha grants him resolution because of past insanity,
then that granting is legitimate.”
4. Acting according to what has been admitted
At one time the monks from the group of six did legal procedures—
censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, and ejection—against other monks without their admission.
The monks of few desires complained and criticized them,
“How can the monks from the group of six do this?”
They told the Buddha. …
“Is it true, monks, that the monks from the group of six are doing this?”
“It’s true, sir.” …
After rebuking them …
the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“You shouldn’t do legal procedures—
censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or ejection—against monks without their admission.
If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.
And how’s acting according to what’s been admitted illegitimate?
It may be that a monk has committed an offense entailing expulsion.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense entailing expulsion.’
He says,
‘I haven’t committed an offense entailing expulsion, but one entailing suspension.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense entailing suspension,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is illegitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense entailing expulsion.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense entailing expulsion.’
He says,
‘I haven’t committed an offense entailing expulsion, but a serious offense …
but an offense entailing confession …
but an offense entailing acknowledgment …
but an offense of wrong conduct …
but an offense of wrong speech.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense of wrong speech,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is illegitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense entailing suspension …
a serious offense …
an offense entailing confession …
an offense entailing acknowledgment …
an offense of wrong conduct …
an offense of wrong speech.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense of wrong speech.’
He says,
‘I haven’t committed an offense of wrong speech, but an offense entailing expulsion.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense entailing expulsion,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is illegitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense of wrong speech.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense of wrong speech.’
He says,
‘I haven’t committed an offense of wrong speech, but an offense entailing suspension …
but a serious offense …
but an offense entailing confession …
but an offense entailing acknowledgment …
but an offense of wrong conduct.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense of wrong conduct,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is illegitimate.
And how’s acting according to what’s been admitted legitimate?
It may be that a monk has committed an offense entailing expulsion.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense entailing expulsion.’
He says,
‘Yes, I’ve committed an offense entailing expulsion.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense entailing expulsion,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is legitimate.
It may be that a monk has committed an offense entailing suspension …
a serious offense …
an offense entailing confession …
an offense entailing acknowledgment …
an offense of wrong conduct …
an offense of wrong speech.
The Sangha, several monks, or a single monk accuses him, saying,
‘Venerable, you’ve committed an offense of wrong speech.’
He says,
‘Yes, I’ve committed an offense of wrong speech.’
If the Sangha makes him act according to an offense wrong speech,
then that acting according to what’s been admitted is legitimate.”
5. Majority decision
At one time the monks were arguing and disputing in the midst of the Sangha, attacking one another verbally, and they were unable to resolve that legal issue.9
They told the Buddha.
“I allow you to resolve such legal issues by majority decision.
You should appoint a monk who has five qualities as the manager of the vote:
he’s not biased by favoritism, ill will, confusion, or fear, and he knows who has and who hasn’t voted.
And he should be appointed like this.
First a monk should be asked, and then a competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
If the Sangha is ready, it should appoint monk so-and-so as the manager of the vote.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The Sangha appoints monk so-and-so as the manager of the vote.
Any monk who approves of appointing monk so-and-so as the manager of the vote should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
The Sangha has appointed monk so-and-so as the manager of the vote.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
There are ten reasons why a vote is illegitimate:
it’s only a minor legal issue; the full process for settling it hasn’t run its course; they haven’t tried to remember offenses and remind about offenses; the manager knows that those who speak contrary to the Teaching are in the majority; the manager expects that those who speak contrary to the Teaching will be in the majority; the manager knows that the Sangha will split; the manager expects that the Sangha will split; they vote illegitimately; they vote with an incomplete assembly; they don’t vote according to their own views.10
And there are ten reasons why a vote is legitimate:
it’s not a minor legal issue; the full process for settling it has run its course; they’ve tried to remember offenses and remind about offenses; the manager knows that those who speak in accordance with the Teaching are in the majority; the manager expects that those who speak in accordance with the Teaching will be in the majority; the manager knows that the Sangha won’t split; the manager expects that the Sangha won’t split; they vote legitimately; they vote with a complete assembly; they vote according to their own views.”
6. Further penalty
On one occasion, when the monk Upavāḷa was being examined in the midst of the Sangha about an offense, he asserted things after denying them, denied things after asserting them, evaded the issue, and lied.
The monks of few desires complained and criticized him,
“How can the monk Upavāḷa act like this?”
They told the Buddha. …
“Is it true, monks, that the monk Upavāḷa is acting like this?”
“It’s true, sir.” …
After rebuking him …
the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
“Well then, the Sangha should do a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa.
And it should be done like this.
First you should accuse the monk Upavāḷa. He should then be reminded of what he has done, before he’s charged with an offense. A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The monk Upavāḷa, while being examined in the midst of the Sangha about an offense, asserted things after denying them, denied things after asserting them, evaded the issue, and lied.
If the Sangha is ready, it should do a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
The monk Upavāḷa, while being examined in the midst of the Sangha about an offense, asserted things after denying them, denied things after asserting them, evaded the issue, and lied.
The Sangha does a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa.
Any monk who approves of doing a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
For the second time, I speak on this matter. …
For the third time, I speak on this matter. …
The Sangha has done a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
There are five factors of a legitimate legal procedure of further penalty:
the subject of the procedure is impure; he’s shameless; he has been accused; the procedure is legitimate; the procedure is done by a unanimous assembly.”
The group of twelve on illegitimate legal procedures
“When a legal procedure of further penalty has three qualities, it’s illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of:
it’s done in the absence of the accused, it’s done without questioning the accused, it’s done without the admission of the accused.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done against one who hasn’t committed any offense, it’s done against one who’s committed an offense that isn’t clearable by confession, it’s done against one who’s confessed their offense.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without having accused the person of their offense, it’s done without having reminded the person of their offense, it’s done without having charged the person with their offense.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done in the absence of the accused, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without questioning the accused, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without the admission of the accused, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done against one who hasn’t committed any offense, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done against one who’s committed an offense that isn’t clearable by confession, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done against one who’s confessed their offense, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without having accused the person of their offense, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without having reminded the person of their offense, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also illegitimate, contrary to the Monastic Law, and improperly disposed of: it’s done without having charged the person with their offense, it’s done illegitimately, it’s done by an incomplete assembly.”
The group of twelve on legitimate legal procedures
“When a legal procedure of further penalty has three qualities, it’s legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of:
it’s done in the presence of the accused, it’s done with the questioning of the accused, it’s done with the admission of the accused.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done against one who’s committed an offense, it’s done against one who’s committed an offense that’s clearable by confession, it’s done against one who hasn’t confessed their offense.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done after having accused the person of their offense, it’s done after having reminded the person of their offense, it’s done after having charged the person with their offense.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done in the presence of the accused, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done with the questioning of the accused, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done with the admission of the accused, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done against one who’s committed an offense, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done against one who’s committed an offense that’s clearable by confession, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done against one who hasn’t confessed their offense, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done after having accused the person of their offense, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done after having reminded the person of their offense, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.
When a procedure of further penalty has another three qualities, it’s also legitimate, in accordance with the Monastic Law, and properly disposed of: it’s done after charging the person with their offense, it’s done legitimately, it’s done by a unanimous assembly.”
The group of six on wishing
“When a monk has three qualities, the Sangha may, if it wishes, do a legal procedure of further penalty against him:
he’s quarrelsome, argumentative, and a creator of legal issues in the Sangha;
he’s ignorant and incompetent, often committing offenses, and lacking in boundaries;
he’s constantly and improperly socializing with householders.
When a monk has another three qualities, the Sangha may, if it wishes, do a procedure of further penalty against him:
he has failed in the higher morality; he has failed in the higher conduct; he has failed in the higher view.
When a monk has another three qualities, the Sangha may, if it wishes, do a procedure of further penalty against him:
he disparages the Buddha; he disparages the Teaching; he disparages the Sangha.
The Sangha may, if it wishes, do a procedure of further penalty against three kinds of monks:
those who are quarrelsome, argumentative,
and creators of legal issues in the Sangha;
those who are ignorant and incompetent, often committing offenses, and lacking in boundaries;
those who are constantly and improperly socializing with householders.
The Sangha may, if it wishes, do a procedure of further penalty against three other kinds of monks:
those who’ve failed in the higher morality; those who’ve failed in the higher conduct; those who’ve failed in the higher view.
The Sangha may, if it wishes, do a procedure of further penalty against three other kinds of monks:
those who disparage the Buddha; those who disparage the Teaching; those who disparage the Sangha.”
The eighteen kinds of conduct
“A monk who’s had a legal procedure of further penalty done against him should conduct himself properly.
This is the proper conduct:
He shouldn’t give the full ordination.
He shouldn’t give formal support.
He shouldn’t have a novice monk attend on him.
He shouldn’t accept being appointed as an instructor of the nuns.
Even if appointed, he shouldn’t instruct the nuns.
He shouldn’t commit the same offense as the offense for which the Sangha did the procedure of further penalty against him.
He shouldn’t commit an offense similar to the offense for which the Sangha did the procedure of further penalty against him.
He shouldn’t commit an offense worse than the offense for which the Sangha did the procedure of further penalty against him.
He shouldn’t criticize the procedure.
He shouldn’t criticize those who did the procedure.
He shouldn’t cancel the observance-day procedure of a regular monk.
He shouldn’t cancel the invitation of a regular monk.
He shouldn’t direct a regular monk.
He shouldn’t give instructions to a regular monk.
He shouldn’t ask a regular monk for permission to correct him.
He shouldn’t accuse a regular monk of an offense.
He shouldn’t remind a regular monk of an offense.
He shouldn’t associate inappropriately with other monks.”
The Sangha then did a legal procedure of further penalty against the monk Upavāḷa.
7. Covering over as if with grass
At one time, while the monks were arguing and disputing, they did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
They considered this and thought,
“If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
So what should we do now?”
They told the Buddha.
“It may be, monks, that monks who are arguing and disputing do and say many things unworthy of monastics.
If they consider this and think,
‘If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism,’ then I allow you to resolve that legal issue by covering over as if with grass.
And it should be resolved like this.
Everyone should gather in one place. A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
If the Sangha is ready, it should resolve this legal issue by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.’
The monks belonging to one side should then be informed by a competent and capable monk belonging to their own side:
‘Please, venerables, I ask you to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
If the venerables are ready, then, for your benefit and for my own, I will confess in the midst of the Sangha both your and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.’
And the monks belonging to the other side should be informed by a competent and capable monk belonging to their own side:
‘Please, venerables, I ask you to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
If the venerables are ready, then, for your benefit and for my own, I will confess in the midst of the Sangha both your and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.’
A competent and capable monk belonging to one side should then inform the Sangha:11
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
If the Sangha is ready, then, for the benefit of these venerables and myself, I will confess in the midst of the Sangha both their and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
For the benefit of these venerables and myself, I confess in the midst of the Sangha both their and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
Any monk who approves of confessing our offenses in the midst of the Sangha by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders, should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
We have confessed our offenses in the midst of the Sangha by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
And a competent and capable monk belonging to the other side should inform the Sangha:
‘Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
If the Sangha is ready, then, for the benefit of these venerables and myself, I will confess in the midst of the Sangha both their and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
This is the motion.
Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen.
While we were arguing and disputing, we did and said many things unworthy of monastics.
If we deal with one another for these offenses, this legal issue might lead to harshness, nastiness, and schism.
For the benefit of these venerables and myself, I confess in the midst of the Sangha both their and my own offenses by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
Any monk who approves of confessing our offenses in the midst of the Sangha by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders, should remain silent.
Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up.
We have confessed our offenses in the midst of the Sangha by covering over as if with grass, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders.
The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’
In this way those monks are cleared of those offenses, except for heavy offenses and offenses connected with householders, and except for those monks who voice their disapproval and those who are absent.”12
8. Legal issues
On one occasion monks were disputing with monks, monks with nuns, and nuns with monks. Standing with the nuns, the monk Channa disputed with the monks, making others side with the nuns.13
The monks of few desires … complained and criticized him,
“How can the monk Channa act like this?”
They told the Buddha. …
“Is it true, monks, that the monk Channa is acting like this?”
“It’s true, sir.” …
After rebuking him …
the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks:
Nguồn: Bản tiếng Anh từ SuttaCentral, nhiều dịch giả (tên dịch giả ghi ở từng bài). Nguyên bản Pāli và bản dịch trên Bilara: CC0 1.0. Các bản dịch khác: dùng theo sự đồng ý của SuttaCentral và các bên giữ bản quyền.