Mahisasaka pc6
The Buddha arrives with 500 monastics. The householders think that it’s been a long while, and that they should go and learn to recite suttas and gathas from the monastics, and ask about what they don’t understand, so that when the Buddha leaves again, they have something to rely on. They ask the monastics, and they say that they have to ask the Buddha first. The Buddha allows to teach laypeople to recite suttas.
The bhikkhus had gone forth from various countries. When they recite suttas and gathas, their pronunciation isn’t right. The householders criticize that they were being worshipped all day, but couldn’t even speak as well as ordinary people (the text says men, women, pandakas, and intersex people).
Mulasarvastivada pc6
The group of 6 bhikkhus recite together “in phrases” with not fully ordained people. They make a loud noise in the residence, like brahmins reciting their non-Buddhist treatises, and like laypeople loudly learning to read in the classroom.
Sarvastivada pc6
The bhikkhus of Ālavi teach not fully ordained people in the monastery with the “method of phrases”: With complete phrases, incomplete phrases, complete flavor, incomplete flavor, complete words, and incomplete words. Therefore they make a loud noise in the monastery, like people learning to count, or like brahmins reciting the vedas, or like fishermen losing fish. The Buddha hears the noise and asks Ananda about it.
Yes, the pattern suggests they should all be rendered the same way “the next …”. I’ll make the change.
I am not sure it’s wrong, but perhaps it’s too narrow. “Causing to recite together” could also refer to the offending monk causing the student to recite with him. It does not have to refer to two other people, but it should include this possibility. Perhaps:
if the recitation is done together;
I would say that uddisāpeti is used to show that this is not line-by-line memorisation.
Indeed. I believe I used “memorizing” because it is a clear modern equivalent of padaso vāceti. A more literal rendering, such as “teaching by the line”, is necessarily going to be more obscure.
Not “teach” as in give a Dhamma talk, but teach someone to recite a text line by line. But whatever, I also don’t think this is very plausible.
Based on, well, the fact that Vinaya background stories are almost completely different in every recension and have in most cases just been made up. As for example, I guessed the different Vinayas in this case would not involve the 6 monks, and here we are.
Anyway, thanks so much Ayya for the help! Let me look more closely. There are three that are very similar.
For these three Vinayas, the problem is the noise generated by the recitation. These three schools are all from Mathura or further to the north-west, so this seems to be a local tradition.
Perhaps the issue here is that the Brahmanical method was mostly based on individual training of students, where a teacher would take on a student. I’m not sure whether the Brahmins at that time had larger institutions or schools. There’s no such idea in the suttas, but the Jatakas seem to assume Taxila was a place of learning and it’s often believed to be a center for schools. But sticking with the suttas, so far as I know, it’s always a single brahmin who takes on a student or students, in which case this problem would not arise.
Then we have three Vinayas where the problem is not noise, but respect. The Pali is one. Then there is:
The mention of the Parayana is interesting. This Vinaya, IIRC, was collected at Patna.
It seems odd that they couldn’t tell teacher from students. Clearly the brahmins had a big thing about the teacher sitting higher and being respected. Anyway, this suggests that the influence of brahmanical norms shaped this rule.
The Mahisasakas were probably from around Avanti, maybe they are the same community of Kaccana that Mahinda ordained in before he left for Sri Lanka. Regardless, this speaks to a time, no doubt some time after the Buddha’s death, when dialectical variations were becoming prominent in the recitation.
The problem is that this doesn’t explain the problem with “teaching line by line”. It’s just about “teaching” generally. I cannot believe there was ever a rule saying that monastics couldn’t recite suttas just because their accent was different.
The reasons appear to be localized: the three north-western texts say the problem was noise, while the three center/south texts say it was disrespect.
Overall, it seems to me the driving issue is that the change in lifestyle to communal living in the Sangha necessitated a new form of recitation, namely the Sangiti, where the group would recite together, rather than everyone having their individual students. The old Brahmanical line-by-line system was deprecated, perhaps for a variety of reasons, but ultimately because it simply didn’t suit the context of the Sangha.
The Sangiti, of course, was intended by the Buddha to include all four assemblies.
But “memorizing” is not more clear: it’s just wrong. Nothing about the rule requires it to have anything to do with memorizing. It is about “having them recite it”.
I could, for example, sit down with a student and have them recite it line by line in order to check and improve their Pali pronunciation, with no intention to memorize, and it would be an offence just the same. Conversely, I could sit down with them to “memorize” the text by reading it over and over and not fall into an offence.
In this case you are not teaching the Dhamma, but pronunciation. The rule is specifically about the Dhamma. Teaching pronunciation could be based on any text. I don’t think this would be an offence.
The verb vāceti means to teach, which in the cultural context meant to have someone memorise. This is especially so with the added qualifier padaso.
I do agree, however, that whether they actually do remember anything or not is irrelevant. It is the trying that is the issue. With the phrasing “instructs to memorize” the offence is committed based on the intention of the instructor, not on the result of the instruction.
what has been spoken by the Buddha, what has been spoken by disciples, what has been spoken by sages, what has been spoken by gods, what is connected with what is beneficial, what is connected with the Teaching.
So far as I can tell, it is the standard meaning of vāceti. It’s not a very common word, and so it’s not too burdensome to look up the main contexts.
Probably the most common context is that of the brahmins teaching the mantras to their students, e.g.:
“You teach the teachers of many, and teach three hundred students to recite the hymns.” Bhavañhi soṇadaṇḍo bahūnaṃ ācariyapācariyo tīṇi māṇavakasatāni mante vāceti. (e.g. DN4)
This context is particularly revealing. We know with a high degree of certainty that the brahmin students learnt memorization of the hymns, often not even understanding the meaning. At the same time, the only word that conveys this meaning is vāceti, which means that this word either explicitly or implicitly means “to make memorise”.
Closer to home, we find the following:
“Reverend Sāriputta, take a mendicant who memorizes the teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and classifications.
Then, just as they learned and memorized it, they teach others in detail, make them recite in detail, practice reciting in detail, and think about and consider the teaching in their heart, examining it with the mind.
Furthermore, the mendicants who are very learned—inheritors of the heritage, who have memorized the teachings, the monastic law, and the outlines—don’t carefully make others recite the discourses. When they pass away, the discourses are cut off at the root, with no-one to preserve them. This is the third thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
Puna caparaṁ, bhikkhave, ye te bhikkhū bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā, te na sakkaccaṁ suttantaṁ paraṁ vācenti. Tesaṁ accayena chinnamūlako suttanto hoti appaṭisaraṇo. Ayaṁ, bhikkhave, tatiyo dhammo saddhammassa sammosāya antaradhānāya saṁvattati. (AN4.160)
And we find a similar message at AN5.155 and 156. Again, all these contexts suggest memorisation.
At SN11.23 we have the following:
‘Teach me, Vepacitti, the Sambari sorcery.’
‘Vācehi maṁ, vepacitti, sambarimāyan’ti.
The sorcery presumably refers to reciting a verse, which would have to be memorised.
At SN12.70, the Susīma Sutta, we have this:
Memorize that teaching and have us recite it with you. When we’ve memorized it we’ll recite it to the laity. Tvaṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā amhe vāceyyāsi. Taṁ mayaṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇitvā gihīnaṁ bhāsissāma.
Again, the purpose of vāceti is for the others to memorise the teaching.
It seems to me that vāceti implies “memorisation” pretty much everywhere. I think it is quite acceptable to bring such implications into the translation. In fact, not only acceptable, but necessary to convey the meaning properly.
In none of these cases does vāceti mean “memorizing”. It means “having them recite”, which is part of a process that was often used for memorizing. Just like “putting it in gear” is part of a process used for driving a car, but “put it in gear” does not mean “drive a car”.
The purpose is irrelevant, because the purpose is not stated in the rule. Per BMC:
Intention is not a mitigating factor here.
The rule just says “having them recite it”. That’s the offence. Maybe you have them recite it as a chant on a football field.
monk — “Rūpaṁ!"
the crowd roars — “Aniccaṁ!”
Awesome as that would be, the monk still falls into an offence.
Maybe you do it as part of a mystical ceremony for the invocation of spirits.
Same deal. Having them recite line by line = offence.
Your Vibhanga translates padaso as “memorizes”. I’m looking at it and thinking, “does he know something I don’t?” Because that sure ain’t what it means.
Not at all, it’s perfectly clear. My translation:
Should a monk get an unordained person to repeat the teaching line by line, this entails confession.
And, hate to say it, but every other translator agrees.
Thanissaro:
Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with
him), it is to be confessed.
Nyanamoli:
Should any bhikkhu rehearse the Dhamma word by word (with text and commentary) together with one who is not fully accepted (into the Sangha), this entails expiation.
Nyanatusita:
If any bhikkhu should have one who has not been fully admitted [into the community] recite the Dhamma [line] by line, [this is a case] involving expiation.
Norman:
If any bhikkhu should make someone who is not ordained recite the Dhamma word by word, there is an offence entailing expiation.
Horner:
Whatever monk should make one who is not ordained speak dhamma line by line, there is an offence of expiation.
Rhys Davids/Oldenberg
Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall cause one not received into the higher grade (of the Order) to recite the Dhamma clause by clause — that is a Pacittiya.
If you think there needs to be more explanation as to why they would have someone recite line by line, great, that’s what notes are for. But the rule is for having someone recite, not for memorizing.
It is the critical part, without which any further process is impossible. In fact, the rest is just repetition or rehearsal. You would not normally call that memorisation.
I feel the above quotes justify my point that “to make memorise” is at the very least implied in the word vāceti. When they heard this word in ancient India, they may well have heard “cause to recite”, but they would also have heard something like “make remember”.
Whether intention is a mitigating factor for the offence or not, verbs often have implied intention.
They probably agree to make their rendering fit the Vibhaṅga. You have pointed out that
which is really just an artefact of my translation. The problem is that if we follow the word analysis too closely, we are compelled to translate word for word, rather than sentence by sentence or even paragraph by paragraph, which is really the only sensible way to translate. And so we should not allow ourselves to be too bound by the word commentary. But yes, it does lead to some awkwardness. If I don’t change my rendering, which I might, I should at the very least add a comment.
It’s a legal text. Words matter. If it were a narrative or poetry, okay, but the Vinaya, especially word analysis, is not supposed to be readable, it’s supposed to be precise. It’s a reference work. The only reason you look up the Vibhanga is to see the precise meaning. So general translation principles for prose or whatever don’t really apply.
I’ve been tripped up by this more times than I can count. I found out another case today. There’s an idiom tibbo vanasando, translated by Bodhi as “dense thicket”. But how does tibba mean “dense”? Well, we can read it from context and say it must be sharp, then maybe unpleasant, then dense? I’m not sure.
But the sense “dense” doesn’t seem to be attested anywhere in Pali or Sanskrit. The basic meaning of tibba is “sharp, hot, acrid”. And while we normally assume a forest would be cool, that’s not always the case. On a hot day, a tropical jungle is “sweltering”, and that’s what tibba means here. Now, in our context in MN 12, our hero is walking in a “sweltering jungle” and comes across a cool lotus pond. Nice!
Point is, words aren’t blanks, they have meanings that are sticky, and you can’t just assume context into a word. The meaning of the word changes the context. Meaning arises at every level of language: the roots, the words, the phrases, the sentences, the paragraphs, the passages, the whole corpus. They’re all interdependent.
You’ll get a case in verse where it says something like, “a sage has desires” (can’t think of an exact example now, sorry!), but you know from the overall meaning of the Buddha’s teaching that it must have an elided initial a-, “a sage has no desires”. So the biggest scope of all can determine the reading of a single missing letter. On the other hand, the presence of a negative can make a huge difference in interpretation, such as the ending of the Mulapariyayasutta.
All I’m saying is, “translate by sentence” is fine as a rule of thumb, but it’s not an excuse to not pay attention to words.
Still, the rules themselves existed before the Vibhaṅga. The early monks were ordinary people who would have understood the rules according to natural language, not as legal specialists. Indeed, the Buddha would no doubt have expressed the rules in such a way that everyone would understand them with relative ease. True, later on the texts did become more legalistic, with the word analysis and the rest of the Vibhaṅga, and there were specialists on the Vinaya who no doubt functioned a bit like lawyers. So the question then arises whether one should translate according to the natural language of the rule or according to the specialist understanding of the Vibhaṅga.
If we follow the former course, then I still believe my rendering is justified, even the best. If, however, we are to adapt the translation to suit the Vibhaṅga, then I would probably have to render things differently.
I’ll consider it further. I may just add a note to explain how it is that “memorize” renders padaso.
Yes, but my alternative rendering does not affect the actual word explanations. And so I don’t think anything is lost.
