Translation of the five Chinese Bhikkhuni Patimokkhas

I have finished translating the nissaggiya pacittiyas now. :tada:

Bhikkhunis and bhikkhus both have 30 nissaggiya pacittiya rules (except for the Mulasarvastivada bhikkhunis, who have 33), of which about 18 are shared rules, and about 12 are just for bhikkhunis or bhikkhus.

There is a good agreement between the schools about which rules are the shared rules. The Mahasanghika shares one more rule, thus 19 in total, and the Mulasarvastivada omits one rule shared in other traditions, and shares two others instead.

But the bhikkhuni-specific rules are quite messy. A good number of them have parallels in most or all other traditions, but every school has a few rules that are not found in other schools. Many rules also have parallels among the (suddha) pacittiyas in other schools. One gets the impression that the schools tried to fill up the bhikkhuni nissaggiya pacittiyas to get to a number of 30 - like the monks have -, but each school took a few rules from elsewhere seemingly more or less at random, or split existing rules into several pieces. So we end up with patimokkhas that all have 30 nps, but that doesn’t mean that they all have the same 30 rules…

9 Likes

Dear Ayye, Thank you so much for sharing your translation work. I’ve just discovered the thread and will be following it.

I wonder if you could keep an eye out for any patimokkha precepts or nissaggiya pacittiyas that you feel are quite relevant to laypeople, and consistent among the versions you are translating?

Recently a few of us lay practitioners in the UK have taken on a few extra precepts (like receiving food appreciatively). It’s a way to deepen our practice, bridging the wide chasm between 5 or 8 lay precepts and the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha. [It’s a model roughly based on ‘Shukke’ in Heian Japan, who were serious laywomen who took extra precepts.]

With thanks and metta!

8 Likes

Hi @Claralynn,

I’ve just looked through the Nissaggiya Pacittiyas, and maybe these rules could be adapted for lay practise:

If a bhikkhuni stores a spare bowl, it is a np. (All schools)
If a bhikkhuni stores a spare robe, it is a np. (Mg and Lk 15)
If a bhikkhuni stores and accumulates utensils, it is a np. (Mi 29 / Dg 25)

They are about practising contentment, relinquishing too many possessions, and not buying into a materialist worldview that more stuff makes you happier.

If I come across something of interest in the pacittiyas or sekhiyas, I’ll let you know. Good luck with your practise!

7 Likes

It’s an interesting expression- do the texts or dictionaries give any hint of where this expression comes from? The assonance suggests poetic euphemism or some kind of slang to me. ‘Bleached’ referring to silver makes a certain sense since silver is a ‘white metal’; ‘born form’ is much more obscure, unless it’s a reference to infantile jaundice!

2 Likes

I didn’t find anything useful in the dictionaries. Maybe Bhante @Sujato or Ajahn @Brahmali can help here.
raj* and rañj* seem to have another meaning “to shine, to be bright” as well, which makes sense in this context.

2 Likes

On determining parallels

It is quite difficult to establish the parallels between the bhikkhuni patimokkhas of the different schools. There are a lot of ambivalent cases and uncertainties involved.

These kinds of difficulties are to be expected between the vinayas of different schools. But it is sometimes even tricky to determine the parallels within the same school, for the shared rules between the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.

Just to show you an example picked more or less at random: the rule about not accepting money. Bhikkhunis and bhikkhus of all schools share this rule with small variances in the wording, such as gold, silver, money, or any combination of the three. The only exception are the Sarvastivada bhikkhunis, whose rule only mentions “gems”:

Sarv bu np 18: 若比丘。自手取金銀。若使人取。若教他取。尼 薩耆波夜提。
If a bhikkhu receives gold and silver with his own hands, or has someone else receive it, or instructs someone to receive it, it is a np.

Sarv bi np 9: 若比丘尼。自手取寶。若使人取。尼薩耆波夜提。
If a bhikkhuni receives gems with her own hands, or has someone else receive them, it is a np."

So this is again a case where the shared rules differ from each other within the same school. However, it gets more complicated: The bhikkhunis have another rule that is not found in any other patimokkha:

Sarv bi np 24: 若比丘尼。自為乞金銀。尼薩耆波夜提。
If a bhikkhuni asks for gold and silver for herself, it is a np.

So, is that a rule without parallel? Or the rule of the bhikkhus broken in two pieces, and therefore a partial parallel? Or should it be considered a full parallel, because “asking for” and “receiving” money are really not that different?

Other factors, such as similar rules (the rules on trade and sales activities), and the order of these particular rules within the nissaggiya pacittiyas, would support the conclusion that bi np 24 is not a parallel. (The trade rule also only talks about gems, and the order of the rules in the Chinese bhikkhuni patimokkhas is shared rules first, unshared rules afterwards - opposite to the Pali.)
Then again, the preceding rule, bi np 23, is a shared rule with the bhikkhus that fell out of the usual order as well. So maybe these two rules broke off together and got stuck in the middle of the unshared rules… :exploding_head:

2 Likes

One of the many terms for “gold” (hirañña, suvaṇṇa, etc.). It literally means something like “natural form”. I suspect it may have to do with the fact that gold appears in nature as shining and perfect in nuggets, as opposed to other metals that must be smelted.

6 Likes

Thank you Ayya for the clarification. Without it I would have wondered if this had something about “beyond sandalwood” or some nonsense like that!

Personally for me, when reading the Agamas in the original, I find it quite hard to figure out exactly when the Chinese translators transliterated, unless you have the understanding of the pali equivalent of the same term. Another example I can think of is “Samana”, which is transliterated, and has to be explained to modern Chinese Buddhist audiences who have no idea what that means.

I’m still looking for a good modern Chinese commentary of the Agamas.

5 Likes

Yes, it can be very tricky to guess the meaning. If you don’t know an Indic language, you are lost. Here’s another example for a Buddhist hybrid Chinese expression from the bhikkhuni pacittiya about not destroying plants:

Pali: bīja-gāma-bhūta-gāma (seed-village-being-village) i. e. seeds and plants
Sarv: 鬼-村-種子-村 (ghost-village-seed-village)
Dg: 鬼神村 (ghost-god-village)
Mi: 鬼村 (ghost-village)
Mu: 種子-有-情-村 (seed-have-feeling-village) “have-feeling” = a being
Mg: 種子-鬼村 (seed - ghost village)

There’s no rule when the Chinese texts go for these overly literal translations, and when they just translate the meaning. For example, the corresponding Sarvastivada bhikkhu rule is straightforward: 草木 (grass-trees) and doesn’t talk about villages at all. (I haven’t checked the other bhikkhu patimokkhas.)

4 Likes

Well, a little compassion for the poor Chinese translators, this is a pretty obscure idiom!

From Ven Nyanatusita’s magisterial analysis of the patimokkha:

bhūtagāma: vegetation, being-kind; Gen. tapp. cpd. It is does not mean “habitation of a being.” Bhūtagāma is mistakenly rendered in the Chinese translations as “village of the ghost” or “village of living beings”; see CSP 127. = bhūta: what has become, a being; see above Pc 9, usually a lower class of devatā i.e., tree-spirits etc., see origin-story, but the use together with bījagāma, see below, shows that probably bhūta in the more general sense of “what has become” is intended. Sp 761: “… jātā vaḍḍhitā cā ti attho.”: “…: born and grown is the meaning.” + -gāma: -kind; postposition, in same sense as in mātugāma, Sd 2, rather than in the sense of village of Pār 2. Sp 761: “Gāmo ti rāsi, bhūtānaṁ gāmo ti bhūtagāmo, bhūtā eva vā gāmo. Patiṭṭhitaharitatiṇarukkhānaṁ etaṁ adhivacanaṁ.”: “A gāma is a heap/quantity/collection, ‘a collection of beings’ is a being-collection, or just a beings-collection. This is a designation of established greenery, grass, and trees.”

Thus bhūta here has the sense of “what has grown or become” (which is in fact the more basic sense of the word), but is misinterpreted to mean bhūta in the sense of “being”, “ghost” (which is a later and derivative meaning). And gāma, which normally means “village”, has a special meaning as a postposition, similar to the English “-kind”. So we might render literally as “grownkind”, in other words, “plants” or “vegetation”. The Pali commentary gets it right, but most of the Chinese translators did not. However:

So it seems that one of the Chinese translators got it. It’s interesting that this is virtually identical with the Pali commentary’s gloss, haritatiṇarukkha, “greenery, grass, and trees”.

But this is definitely a warning, not just for reading Chinese texts, but against overly-literal translations in general. There is precisely no reason to think that by rendering the elements of language that one captures the meaning.

7 Likes

I’m not sure if we can conclude from these passages that the Chinese translators didn’t understand the meaning. It’s very likely that they did. They must have had access to the vibhangas and commentaries that explain the words in much detail.

It’s more likely that out of respect for the sacred texts, they kept as close to the original as possible, even if it then became meaningless or obscure in Chinese. It often seems like the Chinese texts are not idiomatic Chinese, but word-for-word transpositions of the Indic original.
Apparently, that approach was fairly common. I read somewhere that Gandhari Buddhist texts also were more transposed than actually translated.

4 Likes

Thanks for the paper that summarizes nicely the times for Kathina! Very interesting.

It doesn’t answer the question of what happens with the Kathina robe though.

The paper repeats the position of many other scientific essays that the spreading of kathina means that a robe is displayed at the monastery, and that the removal of kathina means that this robe is taken down. The idea seems to originate in a paper by Bechert (1968), “Some remarks on the Kathina rite”, but I don’t have access to it, so it’s difficult to evaluate it his sources.
In any case, it is not what actually happens in Theravada monasteries for Kathina. The spreading of kathina is a sangha act, in which a cloth (“the kathina robe”) is given to a monastic who has to turn it into a robe within one day. The removal of kathina is a simple sangha act as well, in which the robe doesn’t play any part anymore. There is no display, and nothing is taken down, “spreading” and “removing” are merely symbolic.
Since Bechert’s paper seems to deal with Theravada vinaya, his description is a mistake, but keeps on being repeated. Maybe this is then read into the Chinese vinayas as well because they use similar terminology. But the question remains if they also just used it in the same symbolic sense as the Theravadins.

I’ll try to get an answer from monastics who have practised in Dharmaguptaka communities. If I find out, I’ll post it here.

4 Likes

Thanks for that, too. Unfortunately, I’m somehow unable to load the book preview, so I can’t see what you link to.

1 Like

All I can see is page 74, the beginning of the discussion of the Chinese terminology. Are you able to see page 75?

1 Like

After playing around with the webpage I finally got some other pages to display.

I just had to do some additions to the footnotes so that they weren’t only Taishō citations, I figure it might make the paper easier to follow in SuttaCentral, vs having to go to CBETA or NTI for the texts:

The Sarvāstivāda

It is the characteristic of the Sarvāstivāda to name the object “treasure” (寶) and this term is glossed as gold and silver. The Chinese and Sanskrit versions of the rule read as follows:

Chinese Sarvāstivāda:
Should any monk take with his own hands treasure, or have it taken, he commits an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. (T1435.23.51b6 /Sarv bu np 18)

Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda:
Should any monk take with his own hands treasure, or have it taken, or accept what is laid down [for him], he commits an offence of expiation involving forfeiture
(yaḥ punar bhikṣuḥ svahastaṃ rūpyam udgṛhṇīyād vā udgṛhṇayed vā nikṣiptaṃ vā sādhayen niṣargikā pātarantikā)

One reads the same term - treasure - in the Kāśyapīya Prātimokṣa. From the Sanskrit version of the Sarvāstivādin Prātimokṣasūtra, one learns that its Sanskrit equivalent is rūpya. This is reminiscent of the Pāli vinaya, where the term is used both in the introductory story and the canonical commentary is rūpiya, but in the rule itself, it is jātarūparajata.

[…]

The Mahīśāsaka

Now we come to the tradition of the Mahīśāsaka. Its training rule reads:

“Should any monk take with his own hands unworked [gold or] similar valuables, or have it taken, getting greedy and attached, he commits an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.” (T1425.22.311b15 / Lzh Mg Bu Vb NP 18)

By contrast, the Sanskrit Prātimokṣa-sūtra of both the Mahāsāṅghika and the Mahāsaṅghika-Lokottaravādin has a more elaborate formulation:

"Should any monk take with his own hands gold or silver, or have it taken, or even say “lay it down here” or accept what is being placed down [for him], he commits an offense of expiation involving forfeiture.

Mahā: yo puna bhikṣuḥ svahastaṃ jātarūparajataṃ udgṛhṇeya vā udgṛhṇāyeya (sic!) antamasato iha nikṣipehīti vā vadeya, upanikṣiptaṃ vā sādiyeya, niḥssargika (sic!) pācattikaṃ. (Pachow 1956:18)

Mahā-L: yo puna bhikṣuḥ svahastaṃ jātarūparajataṃ udgṛhṇeya vā udgṛhṇāpeya vā antamasato iha nikṣipehīti vā vadeya, upanikṣiptaṃ vaā saādiyeya, nissargikaṃ pācattikaṃ. (Tatia 1975:16)

The forbidden object in the various Vinayas, except for the Sarvāstivāda, is expressed by the term jātarūparajataṃ. It is rendered as “gold, silver, money and others (金銀錢等 T1458.560b11 / Lzh Mu Bu Pm)” in the Chinese Mūlasarvāstivāda. We read the similar rendering: gold, silver, money in the Mahīśāsaka and Dharmaguptaka, so presumably it is the same term jātarūparajataṃ in their original texts. In contrast to suvaṇṇa, which refers to worked gold, jātarūpa refers to gold in its natural state, i.e. unworked gold. In the Pāli, jātarūpa is glossed as “the colour of the teacher” (satthuvaṇṇo) and rajata as coins made not only of silver but also of copper, wood, or lac, or whatever is used for exchange in business (Vin III 238, 2: jātarúpaṃ nāma satthuvaṇṇo […]).

The Samantapāsādikā gives a further explanation. It says that jātarūpa refers to gold and the colour of gold is similar to that of the Blessed One, that is why it is called the colour of the teacher. But the text goes on to note that any splended metals which have the colour of the teacher can be called jātarūpa. On the other hand, the denotation of rajata is further extended to include “bones, pieces of hide, fruit, seeds of trees used as currency, whether they have been stamped with a figure or not” (Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu 1994:215, Sp 689,21-690,7: jātarūparajatan ti ettha jātarūpan […]).

In the Chinese Mahāsāṅghika, we have these two peculiar terms (生色) (literally: “natural/genuine colour”) and (似色) (literally: “resembling colour”). In collating with the Sanskrit Prātimokṣa-sūtra of the Mahāsāṅghika (Pachow 1956:18), one finds that their corresponding term is jātarūparajata. The canonical commentary glosses (生色) as gold and (似色) as silver. Both gold and silver refer to “money and other articles used in the market” (T1425.22.311b21 / Lzh Mg Bu Vb NP 18). The commentary tells us what these terms refer to but not their meanings. In the following I shall attempt some interpretations.

The term (生色) is the Chinese rendering in its literal sense for jātarūpa, for jāta means born or produced and that is what the Chinese word (生) means. Apart from this, jāta also means natural, true, or good, likewise, in Chinese (生) also means bright and lively. Thus (生色) can be taken to mean natural or genuine colour, which often has the implication of excellence. This is reminiscent of the Pāli canonical and post-canonical commentaries, in which jātarūpa is glossed as “the colour of the teacher” (satthuvaṇṇo). The term (似色) (resembling colour), however, is not a literal translation of rajata. Although rajata is glossed as silver, it actually refers to coins made of all materials except gold. The “colour” in “resembling colour” would seem to refer to the first term (i.e. natural/genuine colour) and “resembling colour” refers to other coins, which, similar to gold, are also used as monetary exchange in business. That is why they are said to be resembling the natural/genuine colour, i.e. gold.

Alternatively a simpler interpretation is possible. In the case of metals, the Chinese character (生) means “unworked” as opposed to “worked”; (色) has the meaning of “class, kind …”. Thus (生色) means the unworked class [of gold], and (似色) means the similar class: the class [of valuables] similar to (生色) in terms of their value and use as currency in the market.

(Ven Juo-hsüeh Bhikkhunī, Who is Afraid of Gold and Silver? Ch 3: The Practice of the Rule: Underlying Concern and Further Development, pages 65-6 & 74-6 in Buddhist Studies: Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, see here this link works)

The citations of Pachow above are from:

Pachow, W. & R. Mishra (eds) 1956. The Prātikokṣa-sūtram of the Mahāsāṅghikas. Allahabad: Ganganatha Jha Research Institute

Tatia is:

Tatia, N. 1975. Lokottaramahāsāṃghikānāṃ Prātimokṣasūtram. Patna: Nava Nalanda Mahavihara.

One other note:

The Sanskrit Lokottaravādin parallel is San Lo Bi Vb NP 4.

The text is extremely sparse, I can cut-and-paste the entirety below:

ṇiḥsargika-pācittika-dharmāḥ 4

triṁśānām ādiḥ |
jātarūpa 4 ||

etāni sādhāraṇāni |

What is the story here? What does this Sanskrit text translate to?

4 Likes

The bhikkhuni vibhanga doesn’t cover the rules shared with the monks (same as in Pali). It’s just a summary that tells you that bi np 4 is the jātarūpa-rule of the monks. You have to look up the full rule at san lo bu pm np 18:

nissargikapācattika 18: svahastaṃ
yo puna bhikṣuḥ svahastaṃ jātarūparajatam udgṛhṇeya vā udgṛhṇāpeya vā antamasato iha nikṣipehīti vā vadeya, upanikṣiptaṃ vā sādiyeya nissargikapācattikaṃ |

Thanks for sharing the text!

2 Likes

I’m just guessing, but I think it means:

Beginning of the thirty [i.e. the NP rules]

Gold

These are the shared rules. [sā-dhāraṇa = held in common]

Note that the original text by Roth looks like this:
lo%20shared%20np

The ten shared rules are grouped together in one uddāna verse. SC just split them up to be able to make separate pages for each rule.

2 Likes

Sorry about that! :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

So I got some more information about Kathina in Chinese traditions.

Many places receive robe offerings after the vassa time, but mostly the Kathina ceremony has been replaced with other procedures for receiving robes. The monasteries that do carry out Kathina, do it differently from the Pali. The robe used in the establishing of Kathina is a purely ceremonial robe, and given to a monastic to safekeep, not to wear. During the dismantling of Kathina, that robe is indeed given back to the sangha, as the terminology in the rule suggests.
The robe is not displayed at the entrance of the monastery. It is considered special and treated very carefully. However, the monasteries do sometimes set up banners or signs to inform the supporters that the robe season has come. These banners and signs are also taken down when the Kathina period ends, but it is not part of the sanghakamma as such.

Thank you very much, Ayya @TathaalokaBhikkhuni for sharing this information with us. :anjal:

6 Likes

After having done building works at Tilorien all day, I attempted to translate the building-works-pācittiya this evening. It has given a headache to translators before, so here’s an overview:

Pali bu 19 = Bi 115
In case a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling-place put up, he may have the work rectified, in a place where straw is scarce, round the doors, and where the bolts are put in, and the openings for light are set, and till the roof has been twice or thrice covered in. Should he go beyond that, even in such a place, that is a Pācittiya. (Rhys Davids / Oldenberg; quoted in Pachow 1955)

When a bhikkhunī is building a large dwelling, she may apply two or three layers of facing to plaster the area around the window frame and reinforce the area around the door frame the width of the door opening, while standing where there are no crops to speak of. Should she apply more than that, even if standing where there are no crops to speak of, it is to be confessed. (Ajahn Thanissaro)

When a monk is building a large dwelling, then standing where there are no cultivated plants, he may apply two or three courses of covering, taking it as far as the door frame and using it for fixing the door and for treating the window shutters. If he applies more than that, even if he stands where there are no cultivated plants, he commits an offense entailing confession. (Ajahn Brahmali)

Dg bu 20 = Bi 20
If a monk is making (or causing to be made) a door for a building attached to a great residence, or a window, or the various ornamental belongings, he may direct as much brushwood (or, wood from an unenclosed spot) to be used, as is equivalent to two or three distinct loads, if more, it is pācittiya. (Samuel Beal 1871)

… should have doors, windows and other decorations, and should instruct someone to cover the roof with straw twice or thrice. If he does beyond that limit… (Pachow, 1951)

My draft version:
若比丘尼,作大房,戶扉窓牖及餘莊飾具,指授覆苫齊二、三節。若過者,波逸提。
If a bhikkhuni builds a large room, she should instruct someone to cover the door frame, the window, and other decorative items evenly with two or three straw mats. If she exceeds that, it is a pācittiya."

Mu bu 20 = bi 19
… between the wooden boards of a door should put a bolt as well as to the windows. He should make arrangements of drainage. If the wall is built with wet mud, it should be two or three layers up to the roof. If he does beyond the limit… (Pachow, 1951)

My draft version:
若復苾芻尼作大 住處。於門梐邊應安橫扂。及諸 窓 牖并安水 竇。若起牆時是濕泥者。應二三重齊橫扂處。 若過者。波逸底迦。
If any bhikkhuni builds a large dwelling, she should install a horizontal door latch next to the door frame and the windows, and set up a water drain. If she uses wet mud when she erects the walls, she should level the place where the horizontal door latch is with two or three layers. If she exceeds that, it is a pācittiya.

(Bhikkhunis in Sarv, Mi, and Mg don’t have this rule.)

Compared to these instructions, even the hieroglyphs in the IKEA manuals are easy to figure out… :head_bandage:

If anyone has suggestions for my translations, I’d be interested in more opinions.

3 Likes