Dear friends,
So, the draft of yet another introduction to the Vinaya Piṭaka is ready, this time to volume 5. This essay, found below, introduces the Cullavagga, which is the collective name for the last 12 chapters of the Khandhakas. The previously published introductions can found as follows: to the monks’ rules here, to the nuns’ rules here, and to the Mahāvagga here.
As I have mentioned on previous occasions, this introduction too needs to be read in conjunction with the general introduction to the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is available here. It gives the basic background that is necessary to properly understand the current essay.
As always, anyone interested is most welcome to comment. All constructive criticism is received with gratitude. Once again, I’d like to thank you in advance for your support and kind suggestions. Thank you!
Updated with edits on 6 November 2024
Updated with edits on 7 November 2024
Updated with edits on 12 November 2024
Introduction to the Khandhakas, “The Chapters”, part II, Kd 11–22
The present volume is the fifth of six, the total of which constitutes a complete translation of the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Monastic Law. This volume consists of the second part of the Khandhakas, also known as the Cullavagga, “the Small Division”, comprising the last 12 of altogether 22 chapters. The first 10 chapters, which make up volume 4, are collectively called the Mahāvagga, “the Great Division”. In the present introduction, I will survey the contents of volume 5 and make observations of points of particular interest. For a general introduction to the Monastic Law, see volume 1. For a general introduction to the Khandhakas, see volume 4.
The Cullavagga as a collection is similar to the Mahāvagga, but there is at least one noteworthy difference between the two. Where the Mahāvagga focuses mostly on the main regulations and ceremonies of the Sangha, the Cullavagga is more concerned with lesser regulations and the working out of details. We see this tendency especially in Kd 12–14 and Kd 18–19. This gives the impression that, apart from the Parivāra, the Cullavagga is, overall, slightly later than the rest of the Vinaya Piṭaka. This impression is strengthened by the fact that the last two chapters, Kd 21–22, are concerned with the time after the Buddha’s demise. That the Cullavagga is late fits with my suggestion in the introduction to volume 4 that new material was normally added at the end of the evolving Khandhakas.[1]
I have argued in the introduction to volume 4 that the Buddha’s biography forms the framework for the Khandhakas as a whole. This biography, although incomplete in the Khandhakas as we have them, comes to an end in Kd 17. This means that the material after Kd 17, that is, the last five chapters of the Khandhakas, have an appendix-like quality to them. I will comment further on this as I look at the individual chapters.
The fact that Kd 17 rounds off the Buddha biography in the Khandhakas makes it worthy of special consideration. The stories of Ajātasattu becoming the king of Magadha and of Devadatta’s schism are connected with the events in DN 2, where King Ajātasattu is consumed with remorse for having killed his father. It is here that he approaches the Buddha, seemingly for the first time, having understood that Devadatta was not worthy of special respect. DN 16, which appears to dovetail with DN 2, completes the Buddha’s biography until the time of his death. The narrative of DN 16 fits nicely between the events of Kd 17 and the story of the two Councils, saṅgītis, told in Kd 21 and Kd 22. It is almost as if DN 16 belongs to this part of the Vinaya Piṭaka. When we discuss Kd 21 below, we shall see that this suggestion is more than mere speculation.
We shall now move onto discussing the individual khandhakas of this collection. As an initial overview, here are the twelve chapters of the Cullavagga:
- The Chapter on Legal Procedures, Kamma-kkhandhaka, (Kd 11)
- The Chapter on Those on Probation, Pārivāsika-kkhandhaka, (Kd 12)
- The Gathering up Chapter, Samuccaya-kkhandhaka, (Kd 13)
- The Chapter on the Settling of Legal Issues, Samatha-kkhandhaka, (Kd 14)
- The Chapter on Minor Topics, Khuddakavatthu-kkhandhaka, (Kd 15)
- The Chapter on Resting Places, Senāsana-kkhandhaka, (Kd 16)
- The Chapter on Schism in the Sangha, Saṅghabhedaka-kkhandhaka, (Kd 17)
- The Chapter on Proper Conduct, Vatta-kkhandhaka, (Kd 18)
- The Chapter on the Cancellation of the Monastic Code, Pātimokkhaṭṭhapana-kkhandhaka, (Kd 19)
- The Chapter on Nuns, Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka, (Kd 20)
- The Chapter on the Group of Five Hundred, Pañcasatika-kkhandhaka, (Kd 21)
- The Chapter on the Group of Seven Hundred, Sattasatika-kkhandhaka, (Kd 22).
The Chapter on Legal Procedures, Kamma-kkhandhaka, Kd 11
Kd 11 lays down regulations for a set of seven legal procedures that function as a mild punishment and whose purpose it is to make a misbehaving monastic change their course. They are responses that are available to the Sangha to be used at its discretion.
The seven are as follows:
- Tajjanīyakamma, “the legal procedure of condemnation”, is used to censure a monastic who is quarrelsome and a creator of conflict in the Sangha (Kd 11:1.1.2).
- Niyassakamma, “the legal procedure of demotion”, is imposed on a monastic who is ignorant, often commits offenses, and socializes improperly with householders. The legal procedure instructs such a monastic to live with formal support (Kd 11:9.1.1).
- Pabbājanīyakamma, “the legal procedure of banishment”, is used to ban a monastic from a specified location because of their corrupting effect, causing people to lose faith in the real Dhamma. This legal procedure is the preliminary step to Bu Ss 13:1.7.1 (Kd 11:13.1.1).
- Paṭisāraṇīyakamma, “the legal procedure of reconciliation”, is imposed on a monastic who abuses or insults lay people. The procedure instructs them to ask forgiveness of the lay people concerned (Kd 11:18.1.1).
- Āpattiyā adassane ukkhepanīyakamma, “the legal procedure of ejection for not recognizing an offense”, is imposed on a monastic who is unwilling to accept that their wrong behavior is an offense. This and the two following procedures have the effect of ejecting the misbehaving monastic from the Sangha (Kd 11:25.1.1).
- Āpattiyā appaṭikamme ukkhepanīyakamma, “the legal procedure of ejection for not making amends for an offense”, is imposed on a monastic who is unwilling to follow the required procedure for the clearing of an offense (Kd 11:31.1.1).
- Pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhepanīyakamma, “the legal procedure of ejection for not giving up a bad view”, is imposed on a monastic who is unwilling to let go of a bad view (Kd 11:32.1.1).
When any of these procedures has been imposed on a monastic, they are obliged to follow a set of eighteen observances, which in sum amount to a loss of status. In addition, they should not commit any offense similar to or worse than the offense that led to the legal procedure. The full list of eighteen is at Kd 11:5.1.3. If the monastic in question complies with the required conduct to the Sangha’s satisfaction, the Sangha may lift the procedure, returning the monastic to their normal status. The Canonical text does not say how long this period of compliance must last, but according to the commentary it is five or ten days.[2]
The last three procedures, collectively known as ukkhepanīyakamma, “legal procedures of ejection”, are more serious than the others.[3] They bar a monastic from normal association with the Sangha, such as taking part in the observance-day ceremony or legal procedures, effectively creating a temporary schism.[4] If the legal procedure causes the monastic to mend their ways, all is well. If, however, they do not, then such procedures can lead to a proper schism in the Sangha. For this reason, such procedures should only be done in exceptional circumstances and only if a schism is unlikely to happen.[5]
Because of the severity of the legal procedures of ejection, the ejected monastic is required to keep 43 observances rather than 18. Among these 43, there are further observances to do with loss of status. There is also a dual prohibition from living apart from other monastics and from living under the same roof as other monastics. In other words, while they should not associate closely with other monastics, they should live near enough to show that their behavior has changed for the better. The full list is at Kd 11:27.1.3.
The Chapter on Those on Probation, Pārivāsika-kkhandhaka, Kd 12
Kd 12 sets out the conduct to be observed by a monastic who is undertaking the process of rehabilitation for a saṅghādisesa offense. There are five stages in this process:
- Parivāsa, “probation”, (Kd 12:1.1.1)
- Mūlāya paṭikassanārahā, “deserving to be sent back to the beginning”, (Kd 12:4.1.1)
- Mānattārahā, “deserving the trial period”, (Kd 12:5.1.1)
- Mānattacārikā, “undertaking the trial period”, (Kd 12:6.1.1)
- Abbhānārahā, “deserving rehabilitation”, (Kd 12:9.1.1).
The first and third of these are only undertaken by monks, whereas the remaining three are observed both by monks and nuns. The period of “probation” is the same as the period a monk has concealed an offense. If a monk or nun commits another saṅghādisesa offense during the process of rehabilitation, they must restart the process from the beginning, that is, they “deserve to be sent back to the beginning”. When a monk has finished his period of probation, he “deserves the trial period”. All monastics who have committed a saṅghādisesa offense, whether it is concealed or not, must “undertake the trial period”. For monks it lasts for six days, whereas for nuns it is half a month. When the trial period is complete, they “deserve rehabilitation”.
During each phase of the rehabilitation process, the offending monastic must undertake the 94 observances set out at Kd 12:1.2.3. As in Kd 11, the effect of these observances is to lower the status of the offender. The eighteen observances mentioned at Kd 11:5.1.3 are found here too. Moreover, many are similar to the 43 observances to be followed by one who has been ejected (Kd 11:27.1.3). All the remaining rules, bar one, are elaborations on or slight expansions of the 43. According to the final rule, which only applies to someone undertaking the probation or the trial period, the offender must announce their status to all monastics in the monastery where they are staying (Kd 12:1.2.27). Finally, a monk or nun undertaking the trial period can only travel if accompanied by a Sangha of four or more monastics (Kd 12:6.1.62).
The Gathering up Chapter, Samuccaya-kkhandhaka, Kd 13
Kd 13 gives a detailed description of the saṅghādisesa rehabilitation process. The basic process is straightforward, but it can get quite complex if the offender commits further saṅghādisesa offences during the process. Kd 13 also deals with the case of a monk not remembering the number of offenses he has committed or the number of days he has concealed an offense (Kd 13:26.1.1–26.4.12).
The summary verses include the following rather striking four lines:
The teachers of analytical statements,
Who are the inspiration of Sri Lanka,
The residents of the Mahāvihāra monastery—
These were their words for the longevity of the true Teachings.
The Mahāvihāra Monastery was the main monastery of the usually dominant Mahāvihāra sect in Sri Lanka. This verse seems to suggest that this entire khandhaka was authored on the island. Yet we know from Frauwallner’s study that all early schools had an equivalent chapter.[6] Nevertheless, we can reasonably conclude that the Sangha in Sri Lanka would have had a major hand in forming Kd 13. By extension, we can infer that it is likely it would also have been involved in shaping other parts of the Khandhakas, although perhaps to a lesser extent.
Frauwallner, pp. 109–110.
The Chapter on the Settling of Legal Issues, Samatha-kkhandhaka, Kd 14
This chapter is essentially an expansion and analysis of the seven principles for the settling of legal issues, the adhikaraṇasamathas, which are found at the end of the two Pātimokkhas. Interestingly, this is the only khandhaka without summary verses.
Kd 14 begins by providing origin stories and permutation series for the seven, reflecting the structure of the majority of Pātimokkha rules as found in the Sutta-vibhaṅga.[7] There is little new in these origin stories. Five of the seven are no more than pro forma stories, two of which feature the group of six monks.[8] Of the remaining two, which relate to As 2 and As 3, “resolution through recollection” and “resolution because of past insanity”, the first has the same origin story as Bu Ss 8. Only the origin story to As 3 is properly unique to this chapter. It involves the monk Gagga who is cleared of his offences due to past insanity (Kd 14:5.1.1).
As to the permutation series, they are mostly concerned with the legitimate and illegitimate application of the seven principles. They are closely related to the rules on saṅghakamma as we find them in Kd 9.
The middle part of Kd 14 is a dry Abhidhamma-style analysis of the four kinds of legal issues.[9] The distinct Abhidhamma flavor shows up in several ways. First, topics are introduced through a series of questions beginning with “What (there)”, tattha katama.[10] This is the same procedure and wording as we find in several Abhidhamma texts, especially the Vibhaṅga, and to a lesser extent in late Canonical texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Nettippakaraṇa.[11] There is nothing quite like it anywhere in the four main Nikāyas or the rest of the Vinaya Piṭaka, apart from the Parivāra. Second, we are introduced to the triad “wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate”, kusala, akusala, or abyākataṁ,[12] which, with the exception of the Parivāra, is only found in the Abhidhamma and Abhidhamma-style texts.[13] Lastly, the exposition here is especially dry and theoretical, even by the standards of other abstract khandhakas, such as Kd 9. I conclude that this section must have been added quite late in the evolution of the Khandhakas.
The last part of Kd 14 sets out the process by which the seven principles should be applied to resolve the four kinds of legal issues. This section too has a certain Abhidhamma feel, and is likely late. The structure is repetitive in a way the Suttas are not, replicating the same long paragraph verbatim fourteen times.[14] Then there is the list of synonyms, which again goes beyond what is normally found in the Suttas.[15] Finally we have the frequent use of the words siyā and tattha, “might it be” and “therein”, to define and differentiate terms and concepts, much as they tend to be used in the Abhidhamma.[16]
As to its content, this section includes details on how a majority decision is achieved, different ways of conducting a vote, and how to press someone who is initially unwilling to admit to their offenses.[17] These are detailed explanations that must have evolved over time in response to uncertainties about how the seven principles were to be used.
I now wish to return to the question of the lack of summary verses and the related question of the development of this chapter. In the introduction to volume 4, I make the point that the adhikaraṇasamathas, as they are now found in the Pātimokkha, are missing an analysis, a vibhaṅga. I argue there that such an analysis must have existed at some point, and that in the course of history it was moved elsewhere, most likely to the current chapter. Initially this may have looked similar to the analysis of the seven principles as we find it in MN 104, followed by a gradual expansion until it reached the current size of Kd 14, counting about 30 pages in the PTS edition.
Let us take a brief look at how this expansion may have happened and get some idea of the volume of text that was added. The description of the seven principles in MN 104 is comparatively concise, extending over approximately three pages in the PTS version.[18] If we divide these three pages equally over the seven, we are left with a vibhaṅga for each that is somewhere in length between a short pācittiya rule and a sekhiya. This is reasonable as a starting point from which the vibhaṅga developed further. To fit with the other Pātimokkha rules the adhikaraṇasamathas would have required origin stories, thus expanding these rules significantly. If we assume that these origin stories are the same as what we now have in Kd 14, and we add them to the short explanations at MN 104, we increase the length of the vibhaṅga roughly by a factor of five.[19] In addition to origin stories, the seven principles needed other explanatory material, such as permutation series, setting out their proper and improper use. This material adds another 40 percent to the length of the text.[20] On top of this, the last part of Kd 14, which, as we have seen, sets out the practical application of the seven, adds yet another 75% to the total length.[21]
At some point in this process, it was decided that the amount of material was too much for the Vibhaṅga and a new khandhaka was created. New material continued to accrue to Kd 14, eventually resulting in the chapter as we have it today. We are left with seven principles for settling legal issues in the Pātimokkha that are no more than bare bones, yet a large khandhaka setting out these principles in great detail.
We are now in a position to discuss the anomalous lack of summary verses in Kd 14. I mentioned in the introduction to volume 4 that this is unlikely to be because Kd 14 is particularly late compared to other khandhakas, as can be inferred from the fact that it has parallels in the other schools.[22] We may find an explanation, however, if we consider the origin of Kd 14 as part of the Sutta-vibhaṅga.
In the Sutta-vibhaṅga there are two kinds of summary verses, uddānas, one for the case studies and one at the end of each chapter. The case studies look at specific actions by monastics that may or may not be an offense, and then adjudicate whether in fact it is. Since the adhikaraṇasamathas are not rules but principles to be followed, there is no adjudication of potentially broken rules. And since case studies do not apply, there is no corresponding uddāna either. As to the end-of-chapter uddānas, the seven principles did not require this. In the early version of the seven as set out at MN 104, we find them instead listed at the beginning.
We can conclude, then, that when the seven principles were moved from the Vibhaṅga to the Khandhakas, there was probably no uddāna to follow along. And since there was no uddāna when Kd 14 was created, there was no precedent for an uddāna to this chapter.
The Chapter on Minor Topics, Khuddakavatthu-kkhandhaka, Kd 15
Kd 15 has no over-arching theme. It is mostly a collection of odds and ends that do not fit naturally anywhere else, hence its name. Still, Kd 15 does include a number of interesting rules and regulations, some of which are at the core of the monastic life, as well as a famous protection chant.
The chapter starts with a number of rules on bathing, personal beautification, and entertainment (Kd 15:1.1.1–3.2.3). The overall message of these rules, and similar rules elsewhere, is that luxuries and indulgent behavior are not appropriate for monastics. Such universal principles are sometimes better guides to proper conduct than specific rules, which often lose their relevance in the course of time.
A bit further on, we come to a curious rule that fruit is allowable if it has been “damaged by fire, a knife, or a fingernail, or it’s seedless, or the seeds have been removed”, (Kd 15:5.2.9). The purpose of this rule is to avoid damaging seeds, for which the last two of the five are obvious solutions. The meaning of the first three, however, is less clear. The typical modern interpretation is that they refer to rituals, whereby perforating the skin of a fruit with a knife or a nail is sufficient to make it allowable for monastic consumption. Yet this is at odds with teachings that deny the efficacy of ritual purity, such as the verses at MN 7 that dismiss the act of ritual bathing. It is possible, therefore, that this rule should be interpreted to mean that the seeds need to be properly damaged, for instance by cooking.
Kd 15 continues with a set of protective verses known as the Khandha-paritta (Kd 15:6.1.1). The chant speaks of the well-wishing and spreading of love toward all beings, but especially snakes. Whether such a chant has any protective effect in its own right is debatable. Just prior to the chant, the Buddha is quoted as saying that one should actually suffuse the snakes with love. The chant should therefore probably be regarded as an encouragement to develop this sublime state of mind. This matches what we find in the Mettānisaṁsa Sutta at AN 11.15. One is protected from danger only if one develops love to a high level.
We then have the memorable story of Piṇḍola Bhāradvāja who displays his psychic powers to win a wooden bowl as a prize, which the Buddha compares to a woman exposing her genitals for a small sum of money (Kd 15:8.1.1). The Buddha forbids monastics from displaying such powers. This is followed by a large number of rules on bowls and related requisites, and then rules related to the sewing of robes and more.[23] Next we have rules on the construction of a variety of buildings, including walking paths (both outdoors and indoors), saunas, and wells (Kd 15:14.1.1–17.2.16). The first two of these were allowed for health reasons. It is interesting to observe that covered or indoor walking paths were part of monastery infrastructure from such an early period. Toward to the end of the chapter, we find regulations on the building of restrooms (Kd 15:35.1.1).
More rules follow, before we come to the allowance to overturn the bowl, one of the few sanctions that monastics may impose on lay followers (Kd 15:20.3.3). This allowance may be used against a lay person who is acting to harm monastics or Buddhism more generally. Once the overturning of the bowl has been effected through saṅghakamma, the lay person in question may not interact with the Sangha. In particular, the monastics will not receive alms from them, which is the practice from which this allowance gets its name.
The remainder of the chapter consists of a variety of minor rules, of which I will mention a few that may be of particular interest. We have rules against monks growing sideburns and goatees (Kd 15:27.4.12), a remarkable testimony to the stability of certain aspects of human culture. We have a well-known rule against adding Vedic-style verses to the word of the Buddha (Kd 15:33.1.13). The Buddha says that this should not be done. The exact meaning of the overall passage is disputed, with many learned papers written in support of various views.[24] What seems clear, however, is that one should not try to artificially elevate the Dhamma by giving it a fancy form. According to yet another rule, monastics should neither study nor teach cosmological theories or worldly subjects (Kd 15:33.2.1–33.2.28), a timely reminder to modern monastics who have unlimited access to information via the internet. Monastics are not allowed to bless someone who sneezes, for, says the Buddha, what can a blessing do![25] These texts may be ancient, but sometimes they have a remarkably modern flavor.
The Chapter on Resting Places, Senāsana-kkhandhaka, Kd 16
The main focus of Kd 16 is senāsana, a word that encompasses everything from dwellings to furniture to simple sleeping places.[26] The chapter also includes the inspiring story of how Anāthapiṇḍika became a follower of the Buddha and a host of minor rules.
Kd 16 begins with the Buddha giving an allowance for dwellings, followed by details on how they are to be built and a section on allowable furniture (Kd 16:1.1.1–3.5.14). Next comes an allowance to build assembly halls (Kd 16:3.6.1). We can discern the gradual emergence of Buddhist monastic institutions.
The text continues with the remarkable story of Anāthapiṇḍika (Kd 16:4.1.1–4.10.17). When, on a visit to Rājagaha, he hears the word “Buddha”, he is so excited he can hardly sleep that night. He gets up before dawn, leaves the town, but is paralyzed with fear as he is engulfed in darkness. Nevertheless, he makes his way to the Sītavana, the Cool Grove, where the Buddha is staying. The Buddha welcomes him, gives him a Dhamma talk, and Anāthapiṇḍika becomes a stream-enterer.
Anāthapiṇḍika then heads back to Sāvatthī to set up a monastery for the Sangha. The most suitable property is owned by Prince Jeta, a son of King Pasenadi, who is unwilling to sell. Yet everything has a price. When Anāthapiṇḍika covers the whole land in gold coins, Jeta relents and even decides to make small donation of his own. Anāthapiṇḍika then builds a monastery with all facilities.
When the Buddha eventually arrives in Sāvatthī, he tells Anāthapiṇḍika to dedicate the monastery to the Sangha as a whole, both present and future. This becomes the standard and ideal way of giving to the Sangha. The monastery becomes known as the Jeta grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. It is the monastery where the Buddha ends up spending most of his time, and was on all accounts the main center of Buddhism while the Buddha was still alive.
Embedded in the story of Anāthapiṇḍika is a discussion of seniority and how this affects the distribution of requisites. Although more senior members of the Sangha should be treated with respect and be given the best food and seat, anything belonging to the Sangha, which would include dwellings, should not be reserved according to seniority (Kd 16:6.4.7). Again, this highlights the non-hierarchical and democratic organization of the Sangha. The Buddha illustrates how the monastics should cooperate by telling the story of the Tittira Jātaka, number 37 of that collection (Kd 16:6.3.2.1).
Kd 16 continues the laying down of various offices of the Sangha, the precedent for which is set at Kd 8:5.1.5. These include a work manager, an allocator of dwellings, a meal designator, and more.[27] Then there is the important rule that valuable belongings of the Sangha cannot be given away, even to individual monastics (Kd 16:15.2.1). In addition to this, there are a large number of assorted rules.
The Chapter on Schism in the Sangha, Saṅghabhedaka-kkhandhaka, Kd 17
Most of Kd 17 tells the story of Devadatta and how he tried, and eventually succeeded, in creating a schism in the Sangha. Kd 17 is a complement to Kd 10. Where Kd 10 tells of the potential for schism when a monk is ejected from the Sangha, Kd 17 tells of an actual schism when a group of monks, led by Devadatta, go their own way and form a separate community.
Kd 17 begins with the account of the going forth of a number of young men from the Sakyan clan, the Buddha’s extended family. Among them is Ānanda, Anuruddha, Bhaddiya, and Devadatta. There is an entertaining section on Anuruddha, who initially refuses to go forth because he thinks monastic life is too hard. But when he hears about the endless work of the household life—which he hitherto has been shielded from!—he decides that going forth is preferrable after all (Kd 17:1.1.3–1.4.30). With such a backstory, it is all the more remarkable that he was such a successful monastic.
Then there is Bhaddiya, previously a king, who soon after his ordination reaches full awakening (Kd 17:1.5.1–1.6.11). The other monks become concerned for his well-being when they see him sitting in the forest repeatedly exclaiming, “Oh, what bliss!” Is he thinking of the pleasures of the palace? Might he be about to disrobe? It turns out he is reflecting on the superiority of monastic life, even to the life of a king. Or perhaps, especially to the life of a king!
The story continues with Devadatta’s meeting with Prince Ajātasattu and his deterioration in good qualities when Ajātasattu becomes his supporter (Kd 17:2.1.4–2.1.24). It is the archetypal story that shows the dangers in gain, honor, and praise. Devadatta soon asks the Buddha to hand over the Sangha to him, which the Buddha refuses (Kd 17:3.1.1). The Buddha then lays down a legal procedure, the so-called pakāsanīyakamma, by which the Sangha can make an official announcement to their lay followers, in this case about Devadatta’s corruption. The announcement is duly made (Kd 17:3.2.1–3.3.30).
The story turns to Prince Ajātasattu’s initially unsuccessful attempt at killing his own father, King Bimbisāra (Kd 17:3.4.1–3.5.36). When the king finds out that his son wants to rule the kingdom, he simply hands it over to him. Once again, we see King Bimbisāra as the ideal king, for a further discussion of which see the introduction to volume 4.
Soon afterwards, Devadatta tries in vain to kill the Buddha, through a series of different plots (Kd 17:3.6.1–3.13.4). First, he convinces King Ajātasattu to send assassins who, instead of killing the Buddha, end up bowing to him. Devadatta’s next scheme is to roll a rock off a hill, trying to hit the Buddha who is walking below. The rock misses, but a splinter hits the Buddha’s foot, causing the Buddha to bleed. Thus Devadatta has committed one of the five actions with immediate results, a so-called ānantarika-kamma, condemning him to be reborn in hell in the next life.[28] Finally, Devadatta tries to kill the Buddha by releasing Nāḷāgiri, a fierce elephant, down a street, with the Buddha coming in the opposite direction. In this famous story, the Buddha tames Nāḷāgiri through his power of loving kindness.
After failing to kill the Buddha, Devadatta decides instead to split the Sangha through a schism. He asks the Buddha to lay down certain ascetic practices for the monks, which the Buddha declines. Devadatta then builds up a following, both among monks and lay people, on the grounds that he is more ascetic than the Buddha. Finally, he asks his monks to vote on his proposal. When they vote in favor, the schism is formalized (Kd 17:3.14.1–4.1.13).
The chapter ends with a short technical discussion of what constitutes schism (Kd 17:5.1.1–5.3.22), followed by a section setting out its karmic consequences (Kd 17:5.4.1–5.6.10).
The Chapter on Proper Conduct, Vatta-kkhandhaka, Kd 18
Kd 18 is a compilation of monastic etiquette for a variety of circumstances. This gives the chapter an appendix-like feeling, which fits with its position near the end of the Khandhakas.
The chapter comprises fourteen sections on proper conduct:
- for newly-arrived monastics (Kd 18:1.1.1)
- for resident monastics (Kd 18:2.1.1)
- for departing monastics (Kd 18:3.1.1)
- in connection with the expression of appreciation (Kd 18:4.1.1)
- in relation to dining halls (Kd 18:4.2.1)
- for alms collectors (Kd 18:5.1.1)
- for those staying in the wilderness (Kd 18:6.1.1)
- in relation to dwellings (Kd 18:7.1.1)
- in relation to saunas (Kd 18:8.1.1)
- in relation to restrooms (Kd 18:9.1.1)
- toward a preceptor (Kd 18:11.1.1)
- toward a student (Kd 18:12.1.1)
- toward a teacher (Kd 18:12.11.13.1)
- toward a pupil (Kd 18:12.11.143.1).
Most of the content concerns mundane good behavior that is not worth commenting on, but a few points may be noted. Section four shows that the expression of appreciation, the anumodanā, is mandatory and goes back to the time of early Buddhism (Kd 18:4.1.7). At present the anumodanā is normally no more than a perfunctory chant of a standard set of verses. At the time of the Buddha, however, it was usually an inspiring set of verses or perhaps a short talk given after the meal. We see many examples of such anumodanās throughout the Suttas.[29]
In section five, on the etiquette in relation to dining halls, we find a large number of rules that are equivalent to the sekhiya rules of the Pātimokkha, specifically Sk 1 and Sk 3–56 (Kd 18:4.3.3–4.5.25). We have already discussed this matter in the introduction to volume 2, concluding that these rules existed in the Khandhakas first and were moved to the sekhiya section of the Pātimokkha at a later time.
Section seven compels monastics to learn the constellations and the so-called lunar mansions, which delineate the path of the moon through the sky (Kd 18:6.1.12). This knowledge was required so that the monks and nuns could keep track of the months and the seasons. They were also supposed to know the geographical region, the disā, within which they were staying (Kd 18:6.1.4).
According to section ten, the restrooms should be used according to the order of arrival, not according to seniority (Kd 18:10.1.7). Prior to this regulation, monks had waited until they fainted! What a relief to get this rule.
The last four sections are duplicated in Kd 1. They were discussed in the introduction to volume 4.
The Chapter on the Cancellation of the Monastic Code, Pātimokkhaṭṭhapana-kkhandhaka, Kd 19
Kd 19 concerns the relatively obscure topic of the cancellation of the Pātimokkha, which may be done against a monastic who has not confessed their offenses. The effect of the cancellation is to bar the monastic concerned from hearing the Pātimokkha recitation.
The phrase pātimokkhaṁ ṭhapeti or the compound pātimokkhaṭṭhapana is only found in this khandhaka and the Parivāra. The presumably closely related phrase uposathaṁ ṭhapeti , “canceling the observance day”, is encountered in Kd 11 and 12 in a long list of things not to be done by anyone penalized for severe misconduct.[30] In both of these khandhakas the phrase is part of an elaborate sequence of rules, suggesting a late inclusion in the Vinaya. Remarkably, neither phrase is found in Kd 2, which specifically deals with the uposatha and the recitation of the Pātimokkha. I therefore surmise that Kd 19 is a relatively late addition to the Khandhakas, which may explain its position near the end of the collection.[31]
Kd 19 begins with a short account of the Buddha postponing the recitation of the Pātimokkha because of an impure monk sitting in the gathering. When the monk refuses to leave, Mahāmoggallāna grabs him by the arms and takes him outside the enclosure. This sets the scene for the Buddha to lay down the current regulation (Kd 19:2.1.7). Before doing so, however, he gives a teaching on how the Dhamma has eight qualities like the ocean (Kd 19:1.3.1–1.4.32). Only one of the eight qualities is directly related to the matter at hand, which may indicate that this teaching was inserted to pad out Kd 19 when it was created.
Most of the remainder of Kd 19 lays down a variety of circumstances in which the cancellation of the Pātimokkha is either legitimate or illegitimate. Towards the end of the chapter, the text sets out the qualities a monastic should establish before raising an issue in the Sangha or before accusing someone else (Kd 19:4.1.1–5.2.7). This is a reminder that the Vinaya should always be practiced with the Dhamma as a backdrop. When the Dhamma is the priority, there is a chance any Vinaya issues may be resolved in harmony.
The Chapter on Nuns, Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka, Kd 20
Kd 20 deals exclusively with rules for nuns. It finds a natural place after the first nineteen chapters, which contain regulations that are common to both Sanghas, but before the text moves on to the more historical material of Kd 21–22.
Kd 20 begins with the story of the founding of the nuns’ Sangha (Kd 20:1.1.1–1.5.23). While the Buddha is visiting his extended family in Kapilavatthu, his foster mother, Mahāpajāpati Gotamī, asks him for the going forth. The Buddha declines, but she persists. The Buddha eventually agrees to her request on the condition that she accepts eight important principles, the so-called garudhammas. Mahāpajāpati agrees, making the Bhikkhunī-sangha a reality.
Much has been written about the garudhammas and to what extent they discriminate against women. This is not the place to comment in detail on that discussion, yet a few observations seem called for. Of the eight principles, five are also found as Pātimokkha rules and one as a subrule in the Vibhaṅga.[32] And so, in spite of their name, “important principles”, they are actually classed among the minor rules. The two remaining garudhammas, numbers 1 and 8, are not even pācittiyas, and so must be regarded as even less important.[33] In my view they should be treated like the sekhiya rules, that is, they are only offences if they are disregarded out of disrespect. If one has a good reason not to follow them, there is no obligation.
This matters, because garudhammas 1 and 8 are generally considered the most discriminatory among the eight.[34] Given that they are rules of etiquette that are contrary to the norms of most modern societies, bhikkhunīs have solid grounds for not keeping them. Indeed, if we want Buddhism to remain relevant and thrive, we must, when we can, interpret the Vinaya in a way that aligns with modern values.[35]
Once Mahāpajāpati becomes a bhikkhunī, she wonders what to do with the other women in her company who also want to go forth (Kd 20:2.1.1). This is when the Buddha gives the allowance for monks to ordain bhikkhunīs, an allowance that is never rescinded. It is reasonable to think that the same allowance can be made use of in the present day.
It is here that we begin to see that there are exceptions to the independence of the Bhikkhunī-sangha. Monks were involved in the ordination of nuns from the beginning, and this continued to be the case even as the ordination procedure evolved. There are two further important exceptions to the nuns’ independence. First, the nuns are to request and receive a half-monthly instruction, an ovāda, from the monks. Second, at the annual invitation ceremony, a nun is to invite correction both from the Sangha of nuns and from the Sangha of monks. I will comment on these issues as we look at the rest of this chapter.
Mahāpajāpati next asks the Buddha how the nuns should practice the Pātimokkha rules they have in common with the monks (Kd 20:4.1.1). The Buddha replies that they should practice them in the same way as the monks do. The significance of this is that the analysis of the Bhikkhu-pātimokkha, the Mahā-vibhaṅga, is to be used when applicable also by the bhikkhunīs. Arguably, it also means that the Khandhakas apply to the bhikkhunīs.[36] This is significant because many of the rules in the Khandhakas are required for the nuns to have a functioning Sangha.
The newly-formed nuns’ Sangha needed to learn the formalities of the monastic life, such as the recitation of the Pātimokkha, the confession of offenses, the carrying out of legal procedures, and more. The Buddha tells the monks to teach the nuns (Kd 20:6.1.1–7.1.12). This gives us an idea of the proper relationship between monks and nuns: monks should act as teachers when necessary, but the nuns’ community should live independently once they have the required understanding.
Next we have a number of minor regulations concerning the half-monthly instruction (Kd 20:9.2.6–9.5.57), followed by rules prohibiting various kinds of indulgent behavior and luxurious habits. There is a rule that prohibits a nun from taking a fetus in her bowl, highlighting the perennial issue of abortion and that nuns should avoid getting entangled in the private affairs of lay people (Kd 20:13.1.1–13.1.28). There are several rules about whether and how requisites can be shared between the Sangha of nuns and the Sangha of monks. The upshot is that individual monastics may share their own belongings, but the belongings of one Sangha may not be given to the other (Kd 20:15.1.1–16.1.5). This goes to show, once again, that the two Sanghas are strictly autonomous and that Sangha property is never to be given away. There are many further rules which I will not comment on here.
As the Bhikkhunī-sangha grew, the ordination ceremony needed to be upgraded, the final version of which is found in the third and last section of this chapter at Kd 20:17.1.1–17.8.14. It is essentially an evolved version of the monks’ ordination procedure. The dual nature of the new procedure—whereby a bhikkhunī needs to be ordained first among the nuns and then with the monks—is the most important difference. There are also a number of additional questions for female ordination candidates, most of which relate to fertility. Infertile women could easily end up as outcasts in a society where women were expected to bear children. One possible refuge for such women would be to ordain as bhikkhunīs. The purpose of these questions, then, would be to ensure that the Sangha did not end up as a sanctuary for women who had few other options.
The invitation ceremony also needed an upgrade (Kd 20:19.1.1–19.3.8). As I have mentioned, the nuns were expected to invite correction not just from the Bhikkhunī-sangha, but also from the Bhikkhu-sangha. It is not clear why the nuns were put in this inferior position, but one likely reason is that the monks’ Sangha was older. No doubt, the social expectation in ancient India also played a part. A good strategy for overcoming this gender imbalance is to make the ceremony mutual, in that the monks invite correction from the nuns in return.
As Kd 20 approaches its end, we come to a regulation that was laid down specifically to help nuns, that is, ordination by messenger (Kd 20:22.1.1–22.3.46). Ancient India was a dangerous place for women, and sometimes it was simply too hazardous for them to travel to the nearest Bhikkhu-sangha to receive the second half of their dual ordination. The Buddha lays down that the ordination can happen in the presence of a messenger who will inform the nun in question that her full ordination has been performed. This is one of the few exceptions to the principle that the subject of a legal procedure must be present at the proceedings. We see that the Buddha was occasionally willing to make concessions even to core principles of the Vinaya to make ordination possible for women.
Kd 20 ends with a number of miscellaneous rules. Among these, we find the rule that nuns may not stay in the wilderness (Kd 20:23.1.4). This was apparently laid down as a safety measure, yet the nuns are stuck with a rule that may not be required in many contemporary societies. Once again, I would argue that these lesser rules, for which there is only an offense of wrong conduct, are cultural in nature, and thus not binding on bhikkhunīs who live under different social and cultural conditions. And although bhikkhunīs are bound by the limitations set by Bi Ss 3, this gives them more scope for solitude than they would otherwise have.
Then we have the rule that a nun cannot disrobe by verbally renouncing the training (Kd 20:26.1.4). This is in contrast to the monks, who are able to disrobe in this way. Nuns disrobe by the act of removing their robes. The next rule bars a bhikkhunī from reordaining if she has earlier gone over to another religion while still wearing her robes. The commentary extends this prohibition against reordaining to include nuns who disrobe.[37] There is nothing, however, in the Canonical text to justify this, quite the contrary. The fact that the text mentions the prohibition only for a nun going over to another religion would seem to imply that it does not pertain to disrobing.
We then come to the surprising rule that nuns are allowed to have men shave their heads, cut their nails, and treat their sores (Kd 20:27.1.1). This might seem to fall afoul of Bi Pj 5, by which a bhikkhunī incurs a pārājika offense for lustful contact with a lustful man. The reason it does not conflict with Bi Pj 1 is presumably that a nun is quite capable of knowing whether or not she has lust. This is relevant to Bu Ss 2, which imposes a saṅghādisesa offense for a monk touching a woman. It follows from what we have seen here that Bu Ss 2, too, is only an offense when the monk knows he is motivated by lust, which is contrary to how this rule is sometimes practiced.[38]
The Chapter on the Group of Five Hundred, Pañcasatika-kkhandhaka, Kd 21
The narrative of Kd 21 begins soon after the Buddha’s passing away and, as I have suggested, it forms a seamless whole with the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, DN 16. Up to this point, we have been concerned with rules and regulations that were at least ostensibly laid down by the Buddha. Now that we move into the post-parinibbāna period, the time for laying down new rules has come to an end. The monastic community would have been guided by the Buddha’s injunction, found among other places at DN 16:1.6.13, not to lay down new rules after his death. As a result, Kd 21 is mostly focused on how to preserve the legacy of the Buddha for future generations. Kd 21 along with Kd 22 may thus be considered as true appendices to the Khandhakas.
Kd 21 starts with the story of a monk Subhadda who claims that the death of the Buddha is good news, in that the monks can now do what they like (Kd 21:1.1.22). Mahākassapa sees the obvious danger in such an attitude and suggests to the community that they hold a communal recitation, a Council, to confirm the teachings of the Great Master. The Sangha agrees and the recitation is duly held at Rājagaha, one of the largest towns in ancient India, which had the capacity to support a large gathering of monks. Moreover, they could rely on the patronage of King Ajātasattu.[39]
Mahākassapa presides over the recitation, first asking Upāli to recite the Vinaya and then Ānanda to recite the Suttas (Kd 21:1.7.1–1.8.19). It is noteworthy, once again, that Vinaya in this context is specified as the two Vibhaṅgas, the analyses of the Monastic Codes, while the Suttas are given as the five Nikāyas. We can be certain that if the fifth Nikāya was recited at all, it would only have been a small fraction of the material that is now included in this collection. There is no mention of an Abhidhamma.[40]
The narrative moves on to discuss what constitutes the minor training rules, and whether these can be discarded (Kd 21:1.9.1). Before his passing, according to DN 16, the Buddha is reported to have said that the minor training rules could be abolished (DN 16:6.3.1). Yet according to the same Sutta, he had said that the monastics should not abolish the rules he had laid down (DN 16:1.6.13). It might be natural to conclude from this apparent contradiction that the former account must be a mistake, because the latter account fits better with the general tenor of the Canonical material, with its emphasis on memorizing and preserving the Dhamma and Vinaya for future generations.[41] There is no obvious way, however, of explaining how the idea of abolishing the minor rules would have made its way into DN 16 if it were not regarded as a genuine statement by the Buddha. With the institution of group recitation, as seen at the first Council, it is unlikely that later generations would have been able to get away with adding a statement that so blatantly contradicted what the Buddha had laid down. It seems we have to conclude that the contradiction is real and stems from the earliest period, presumably from the Buddha himself.
Perhaps this is not as surprising as it may seem. The world is complex, and we should expect that apparently contradictory ideas may occasionally stem from the same person. On reflection, it is not even clear that the two declarations of the Buddha in DN 16 are contradictory. When the Buddha says that the monastics should practice the rules as he has laid them down, the Buddha may have included the allowance to abolish the minor rules in this injunction. In other words, they should practice the rules as laid down by the Buddha, inclusive of any exemptions that he had made. It may well be that the two statements are not, in fact, contradictory.
What are the consequences of this for the practice of the monastic rules? Regardless of what the Buddha may have meant, it remains the case that the first Council decided that the rules should be practiced as they had been laid down (Kd 21:1.9.20). It is reasonable to see this as binding also in the present day. Yet it is also clear that this discussion concerned the rules of the Pātimokkha, the sikkhāpada. If the minor rules of the Pātimokkha—which would include the pācittiyas, the largest category—could potentially be discarded, one may reasonably assume that this argument holds true to an even greater degree for the many minor non-Pātimokkha rules scattered throughout the Khandhakas. In effect, it would make sense to regard them as similar to the sekhiyas, that is, as rules that should not be discarded out of disrespect, yet, equally, as non-binding if the cultural context changes. By looking at the Vinaya in this way, it becomes a much more reasonable and adaptable document, which makes it more relevant and acceptable to the contemporary culture of any particular period and place.
That this is a reasonable interpretation is strengthened by the immediately following episode in Kd 21. The senior monks accuse Ānanda of having committed a series of dukkatas, offenses of wrong conduct, because of certain actions he performed during the final days of the Buddha’s life (Kd 21:1.10.1–1.10.23). None of these, however, are offenses as laid down elsewhere in the Vinaya Piṭaka. It seems, then, that the elder monks use the word dukkata to mean bad conduct in a general sense, not in a strict sense as a rule laid down by the Buddha. By extension, we can assume that the Canonical dukkatas can be regarded in the same way. They are not to be seen as a fixed set of offenses, but more like an evolving group that is used according to time and place as the situation may demand. As such, it makes sense to treat them with flexibility, and not as binding in the way of the Pātimokkha rules.
The narrative of Kd 21 continues with the incident of the monk Pūraṇa who, as mentioned, refuses to take the Council as authoritative (Kd 21:1.11.1). He prefers to remember the Suttas as he himself has heard them from the Buddha. That this statement, which is clearly detrimental to the authority of the Council, has nevertheless been included in the Kd 21, shows the fidelity of the Sangha to the received tradition. Little statements like this give us reasons to believe that the editors of the Canonical texts were more concerned with preserving an authentic record of what they saw as historical events than they were with the authentication of a specific set of Suttas and Vinaya.
The last part of Kd 21 concerns the imposition of the supreme penalty, the brahmadaṇḍa, on the monk Channa.[42] Before he dies, the Buddha tells Ānanda that the Sangha should penalize Channa in this way for his difficult behavior (DN 16:6.4.1). The Sangha tasks Ānanda with the job. On his way to see Channa, Ānanda meets King Udena and his harem. When the harem offers 500 robes to Ānanda, the king is upset, confronting Ānanda with his receipt of so many robes. Ānanda tells the king that he will share the robes with his fellow monks. He then says that the old robes will be made into bedspreads, the old bedspreads into mattress covers, the old mattress covers into floor covers, the old floor covers into doormats, the old doormats into dustcloths, and the old dustcloths will finally be mixed with mud and used to smear the floors. The king is mightily impressed with this frugality, deciding on the spot to offer Ānanda another 500 robes (Kd 21:1.13.1–1.14.33).
Ānanda eventually reaches Ghosita’s Monastery where he meets Channa (Kd 21:1.15.1). When Channa hears of the penalty, he faints! He then mends his ways, practices diligently, and becomes a perfected one, an arahant, at which point the supreme penalty is automatically lifted. Even the Vinaya Piṭaka has a few happy endings!
The Chapter on the Group of Seven Hundred, Sattasatika-kkhandhaka, Kd 22
The last chapter of the Khandhakas, Kd 22, takes place one hundred years after the Buddha’s passing. By this time, differences have started to appear in the Sangha as to the practice of the monastic rules. This chapter shows how such disagreements should be dealt with.
The narrative at Kd 22 starts with the story of the Vajjian monks who have come to accept ten practices that are contrary to the regulations of the Vinaya, most significantly the use of money. When the monk Yasa points out that their practices are illegitimate, they try to eject him from the Sangha through a legal procedure (Kd 22:1.7.6).
Yasa escapes and sets out to gather supporters, among them some highly learned and respected monks (Kd 22:1.7.11.1–2.6.19). This process is described in quite a bit of detail, almost as if the events are told in real time. It is likely that this story was added to the Vinaya soon afterwards while the details were still fresh in mind, possibly as part of the second Council, which took place once the Vinaya issues had been sorted out.[43]
After a prolonged process, a large Sangha meets, comprising monks from both sides of the argument (Kd 22:2.7.1). Because the issues are quite complex, the large meeting is unable to come to a conclusion, and so a committee is appointed (Kd 22:2.7.4). In doing so, the Sangha is specifically making use of an allowance laid down at Kd 14:14.19.1. The committee comes together and decides that the ten practices of the Vajjian monks are illegitimate (Kd 22:2.8.124).
The last line of Kd 22 states that this Council was a communal recitation of the Monastic Law (Kd 22:2.9.1). From this we can surmise that, once agreement had been achieved, the Sangha came together and confirmed their common understanding of the scriptures. Thus ends the Khandhakas as a collection.
To the best our knowledge, this was the last time the Sangha made a decision that was effective for all its members. As shown by Frauwallner, all schools of Buddhism record this meeting.[44] They all agree about the general outcome, although some of the details differ.
After the second Council, the spread of Buddhism continues across India and beyond, especially during the Ashokan period, which lies only a few decades into the future.[45] Soon it would be impossible to reach agreements that could be disseminated to the entire Sangha. Subgroups would start to practice in their own ways, dependent on geographic location, their own interpretations of the scriptures, and according to the leadership of their community. This reality would gradually become more pronounced as Buddhism spread further and further afield, until we reach the situation we have today, characterized by a wide diversity in practices and understandings of the Canonical scriptures.
In the present day, consensus in the Sangha is further away than ever. Even among small subgroups, consensus is often not achievable. To minimize the potential for disharmony, we should listen to informed voices and respected teachers. We should try to find common ground where we can. In the end, however, every monastic must take personal responsibility in following the word of the Buddha to the best of their ability.
Or when appropriate, it was added at the end of existing chapters. ↩︎
Sp 4.8: Kittakaṃ kālaṃ vattaṃ pūretabbanti? Dasa vā pañca vā divasāni, “How long should the conduct be fulfilled? For ten or five days.” ↩︎
See respectively Kd 11:25.1.1, Kd 11:31.1.1, and Kd 11:32.1.1. ↩︎
See Kd 10:1.6.1–1.8.16 for details on how this may happen. ↩︎
See for instance Kd 10:1.6.4, etc. ↩︎
Frauwallner, pp. 109–110. ↩︎
The other core aspects of the Vibhaṅga, that is, the word analysis and the non-offense clause, are not relevant to the adhikaraṇasamathas. ↩︎
These are the stories to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh of the seven principles. The only original content is the name of a monk, Upavāḷa, in the origin story to the sixth principle on “further penalty”. ↩︎
That is, legal issues arising from disputes, legal issues arising from accusations, legal issues arising from offenses, and legal issues arising from business. ↩︎
Starting at Kd 14:14.2.2. ↩︎
It occurs a total of 1,209 times in the Vibhaṅga, and 126 times in the Nettippakaraṇa and 27 times in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. ↩︎
At Kd 14:14.3.1–14.11.14. ↩︎
To be precise, in the Mahāniddesa, the Cūḷaniddesa, the Paṭisambhidāmagga, and the Peṭakopadesa. It is also found in the Milindapañha, which is normally not considered part of the Tipiṭaka. ↩︎
E.g. at Kd 14:14.16.11: “It’s been resolved face-to-face. Face-to-face with what? Face-to-face with the Sangha, the Teaching, the Monastic Law, and the persons concerned. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the Sangha: the monks who should be present have arrived, consent has been brought for those who are eligible to give their consent, and no one present objects to the decision. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the Teaching and the Monastic Law: the Teaching, the Monastic Law, the Teacher’s instruction—that by which that legal issue is resolved. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the persons concerned: both sides—those who are disputing and those they’re disputing with—are present. When a legal issue has been resolved like this, if any of the participants reopen it, they incur an offense entailing confession for the reopening. If anyone who gave their consent criticizes the resolution, they incur an offense entailing confession.” ↩︎
E.g. at Kd 14:14.27.44: “The doing of, the performing of, the participation in, the consent to, the agreement to, the non-objection to …”. ↩︎
Siyā is used 2,300 times in this sense in the Vibhaṅga, while tattha is found over 9,000 times in the Abhidhamma as a whole. ↩︎
Respectively at Kd 14:14.24.1–14.24.21, Kd 14:14.25.25–14.26.27, and Kd 14:14.29.1–14.29.27. ↩︎
The Pali word count at MN 104 is about 650 compared to almost 10,000 in Kd 14. ↩︎
From 650 to almost 3,250 words. ↩︎
Reaching a total of 4,650 words in the Pali. This comprises the first section of the chapter, Kd 14:1.1.1–13.4.1. ↩︎
That is, it adds another 3,560 words to the total. ↩︎
Frauwallner, pp. 113–116. ↩︎
The rules on bowls and related requisites are at Kd 15:8.2.26–10.3.7, while the rules on the sewing of robes are at Kd 15:11.1.1–11.7.11. ↩︎
For instance, Norman, 1992, and Levman, 2008–2009. See also discussion by Bhikkhu Sujato at Sakāya niruttiyā with my own interpretation. ↩︎
Here the blessing consists of saying, “May you live long!” See Kd 15:33.3.10. ↩︎
See Appendix I: Technical Terms for a discussion of senāsana. ↩︎
See Kd 16:5.2.8–5.3.11, Kd 16:11.2.1–11.2.16, and Kd 16:21.1.9.1–21.3.37. ↩︎
Or ānantariya-kammas. They are as follows: killing one’s mother or father, killing an arahant, causing a Buddha to bleed, and creating a schism in the Sangha. They are mentioned as a group at AN 6.93, but only explained in detail in the Abhidhamma at Vb 17:941. ↩︎
For instance at DN 16:1.31.1, MN 5:16.2, MN 91:17.2, and MN 92:25.6. ↩︎
See for instance Kd 11:5.1.13 and Kd 12:1.2.11. It is also found in a similar context in Kd 20 at Kd 20:20.1.1. ↩︎
It is also possible that Kd 19 was originally part of Kd 2, but was then separated out because Kd 2 became too long. ↩︎
That is, garudhammas 2–7, found respectively at Bi Pc 56, Bi Pc 59, Bi Pc 57, Bi Ss 13, Bi Pc 64, and Bi Pc 52. ↩︎
This is for the Theravada school. The Mahīśāsaka and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas both have garudhamma 1 as a pācittiya offense, but none of the other schools do. Garudhamma 8 is not found as a pācittiya in any of the schools. See BVS, pp. 54 and 73. ↩︎
Garudhamma 1: “A nun who has been fully ordained for a hundred years should bow down to a monk who was given the full ordination on that very day, and she should stand up for him, raise her joined palms to him, and do acts of respect toward him. This principle is to be honored and respected all one’s life, and is not to be breached.” Garudhamma 8: “From today onwards, nuns may not correct monks, but monks may correct nuns. This principle too is to be honored and respected all one’s life, and is not to be breached.” ↩︎
Of course, the interpretation has to be reasonable. It has to fall within the natural flexibility of the rules. ↩︎
Except where the bhikkhunīs have their own rules—either here in the Bhikkhunī-kkhandhaka or in the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga—that supersede what is in the Khandhakas. ↩︎
Sp 4.434: Yadeva sā vibbhantāti yasmā sā vibbhantā attano ruciyā khantiyā odātāni vatthāni nivatthā, tasmāyeva sā abhikkhunī, na sikkhāpaccakkhānenāti dasseti. Sā puna upasampadaṃ na labhati, “Yadeva sā vibbhantā: it is shown that she is not a bhikkhunī because she has disrobed due to her own will and preference and is dressed in white clothes, not by renouncing the training. She does not obtain the full ordination again.” ↩︎
In some monasteries it is assumed that even a single mind moment of lust is sufficient for a monk to fall into this offense. Given such an assumption, a monk must always go through the saṅghādisesa procedure if he touches a woman for whatever reason, because it is impossible for him to be sure he did not have lust for an infinitesimal period of time. ↩︎
Sp 1.0: Te dutiyadivase gantvā rājadvāre aṭṭhaṃsu. Ajātasattu rājā āgantvā vanditvā "kiṃ, bhante, āgatatthā"ti attanā kattabbakiccaṃ paṭipucchi, “On the second day they went and stood at the door of the king. King Ajātasattu came and paid his respects, saying, ‘Venerables, why have you come?’ And he asked what he could do.” ↩︎
The Abhidhamma is not just missing from the Pali account. Frauwallner, p. 151: “In the first place we can say that the Abhidharma was missing. It is not mentioned in the accounts of the Mahīśāsaka and of the Pali school. Even with the Mahāsāṃghika it is missing in the account proper and is merely mentioned in passing at the end, before the list of teachers.” ↩︎
For instance at DN 16:6.1.5. ↩︎
The supreme penalty is described as follows: “Whatever Channa says, the monks shouldn’t correct him, instruct him, or teach him.” (Kd 21:1.12.8) ↩︎
Frauwallner, p. 67: “It must have been composed shortly before or after the second council.” ↩︎
Frauwallner, p. 129. ↩︎
This is assuming the modern consensus that the Buddha died about 400 BCE. ↩︎