Hi Community, I found the following comments In each of the the Bhikkhu Parajikas
‘There is no offense if : he is the first offender (ādikammikassāti)’
Could someone please interpret the meaning of this phrase ‘no offense if he is the first offender’, as my understanding according to this exception would be that a Bhikkhu gets second chance even if they commit a Parajika (sexual intercourse, stealing, killing, falsely claiming spiritual attainment).
1 Like
As I understand, it means the first person for which the rule was set, everyone else doesn’t get second chance.
5 Likes
Oh i see, so the exception is only for the first offending monk before the rule was set by the Buddha. It makes sense now. Thank you for the prompt reply.
2 Likes
I am a layperson, but that’s how I understand it. And it makes sense in light of the 4 things not to be done (pli-tv-kd1:78.1.1) that are to be told to every newly ordained Bhikkhu.
3 Likes
Yes, it says first offender not first offense.
1 Like
So does that mean they could have broken it as many times as they like? Cause they are still the first offender 
*ducks
2 Likes
Well, then they would be the second offender. 
But yes, they don’t get a lifetime pass. Interestingly, I don’t think we have a case in the Vinaya of someone re-offending when they were the first offender.
2 Likes
Your understanding seems correct. I found a site with a more detailed explanation of these cases. The author is Bhante Varado.
About the translation of Ādikammika, Bhante Varado proposes the following translation:
Ādikammika: rule-initiator
The term ādikammikassā is usually translated as “if he is the first offender” – for whom, in most rules, there is said to be “no offence” (anāpatti). The term ādikammika occurs nowhere in the scriptures but the no-offence clauses. Nowhere in the scriptures is the Buddha himself quoted as saying there is no offence for first offender. This is hardly surprising: the phrase is a misnomer.
If a rule does not exist, to say that a certain act is no offence against that rule is a statement of the obvious. Therefore it is foolish to call the rule-initiator’s act ‘no-offence’ against the rule. Even the term ‘first offender’ is misleading, because it implies that someone is the first offender against an existing rule. The term ‘rule-initiator’ seems better, because it means someone whose act initiates the rule.
(…)
The term ādikammikassā implies that once a rule has been established, it is not back-dated. Therefore, the rule-initiator is not obliged to confess previous conduct under subsequent rules.
Here are some concrete cases from the Vinaya Commentaries:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/vinaya-pitaka-1-bhikkhu-vibhanga/d/doc227268.html
Buddhaghosa says (Vin-a.373) that Dhaniya was the beginner [of the rule] and there was no offence for him.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/vinaya-pitaka-1-bhikkhu-vibhanga/d/doc227280.html
Vin-a.502 says that the monks from the banks of the Vaggumuda were beginners, therefore there was no offence for them.
2 Likes
This was also the opinion, though a minority one, among some Chinese Vinaya scholars. According to their view any monk could have sex once, steal once, kill a human being once, etc., and would be defeated only if he repeated the action.
This isn’t, however, the mainstream view in any of the three extant Vinaya traditions and is almost certainly an erroneous understanding. If it were correct then we should expect to meet with supporting narratives (e.g., the group of six monks steal a goat and later steal a donkey, and are declared defeated only after the second theft), but in fact we meet with none.
4 Likes
Thank you for clarifying this Venerable Bhante🙏
1 Like