Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1' This section is repeated below, chap. 14, § 27, with the necessary alterations for a general rule instead of a particular case. ? The particular decision given in this chapter for the particular case is elaborated in chap. 14, § 28 below into a general rule for every similar case. 3 Buddhaghosa explains this word as follows: ‘Bh4sitaparikantan ti vasd4ya bhdsitam kayena parikkantam parikkametva katan ti attho.’ The similar word Parikantam, which occurs in the Sutta-vibhanga, Paragika IV, 1, 2, in the sense of lacerated, is from the root krnt. IV, 5, 1 THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 19 mind that he has committed such and such an offence ?’ He replied, ‘I, my friends, was insane and out of my mind, (No doubt) many things unworthy of a samazma, as well in speech as in act, may have been committed by me when so insane and out of my mind. But I do not recollect it. It was done by me by reason of my insanity.’ But though they received that answer from him’, they warned him still, saying, ‘Does the venerable one call to mind that he has committed such and such an offence ?’ ‘Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, “ How can those Bhikkhus warn the Bhikkhu Gagga ... saying. .. such and such an offence?” And when he replies, “I, my friends, was insane... by reason of my insanity’”—how can those Bhikkhus still warn him, saying ... of such and such an offence ?’ And those Bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One. ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, that those Bhikkhus (&c., as before, down to) such and such an offence ?’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked them, and when he had delivered a religious discourse he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: ‘Let then the Samgha grant to Gagga the ' Nam in the text is correct. It is identical with the nam so frequently found in Jain Prakrit; on which see Weber in his Bhagavatf ‘Abhandlungen der Berliner Akadamie,’ 1865, pp. 422 and foll, C2 20 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 5, 2. Bhikkhu who is now sane the dispensation for those who are no longer insane. — 2. ‘And thus, O Bhikkhus, should it be granted. ‘Let that Bhikkhu Gagga [here follow the words of the formal request, of the resolution, and of the grant by decision of the Samgha, exactly in the same way as in the last case, chapter 4, § 10} 6. 1. ‘There are three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid: and three cases in which such grants are valid. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid ?
21. ‘There are three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid: and three cases in which such grants are valid. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid ? ‘In the first place, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu have committed an offence: and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warn him, saying, “Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence?” And he, notwithstanding that he does remember it, says, “I do not remember, Sirs, that I have been guilty of such and such an offence.” Then if the Samgha grant him the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu (&c., as before, down to) And he, notwithstanding that he does remember it, says, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if inadream.” Then if the Samgha grant him IV, 6, 2. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 2! the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu have committed an offence, and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warn him, saying, “Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence?” And he, though he is not insane, acts in the (deceptive) way of an insane person’, saying, “I act so, and you act so likewise. It beseems me, and it likewise beseems you.” Then if the Samgha grant him the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘ These are the three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which a grant of the dispensation for those who are no longer insane is not valid. 2. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are valid ? ‘In the first place, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind; and by him, when so insane and out of his mind, many things unworthy of a samama have been committed, as well in speech asin act. And either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warns him in respect thereof, saying, “ Does the venerable one call to mind that he has committed such and such an offence?” And he really not remembering it, answers, “I do not remember, Sirs, that I have been guilty of such and such an offence.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘ Ummattak4layam karoti, on which Buddhaghosa says nothing. The word recurs in the following section. 22 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 7,1. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) And he, not really remembering it, answers, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if ina dream.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no> longer insane, that grant is valid.
3IV, 7,1. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) And he, not really remembering it, answers, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if ina dream.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no> longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘ Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) “ Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence ?” And he, being still insane, acts in the way of an insane person, saying, “I act so, and you act so likewise. It beseems me, and it likewise beseems you.” Then if the Samgha (afterwards) grant him the dispensation for those who are no longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘These are the three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which the grant of the dispensation for those who are no longer insane is valid.’ 7, 1. Now at that time the K/abbaggiya Bhikkhus carried out official acts against Bhikkhus who had not confessed themselves guilty—the Tagganiyakamma, or the Nissaya-kamma, or the Pabbaganiya-kamma, or the Pa¢isAraziya-kamma, or the Ukkhepaniya-kamma. Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, ‘How can the Kkabbaggiya Bhikkhus (&c., as before). And those Bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One. IV, 8, 1. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 23 ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, that the AAabbaggiya Bhikkhus do so ?’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked them, and when he had delivered a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said : ‘No official act, O Bhikkhus,—whether the Tagganiya-kamma, or the Nissaya-kamma, or the Pabbaganiya-kamma, or the Pat¢isdramiyakamma, or the Ukkhepaniya-kamma,—is to be carried out against Bhikkhus who have not confessed themselves guilty’. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkaZa offence.’ 8. 1. ‘Now, O Bhikkhus, an official act carried out against a Bhikkhu who has confessed himself guilty is invalid as follows, and is valid as follows. And how does such an official act become invalid? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a P4rAgika offence, and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, “ The venerable one has been guilty of a P&éragika.” And he replies thus, “I have not, Sirs, been guilty of a Péragika. I have been guilty of a Samghadisesa.” And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Samghddisesa. Then that official act is invalid.’ * The mode in which such a confession ought to be made is set out in full in IV, 14, 30-34. 24 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 8, 2. [And so also if on being warned of any one of the seven offences! he confesses himself to be guilty of any one of the offences different from the one charged, then the official act is invalid.]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1' This section is repeated below, chap. 14, § 27, with the necessary alterations for a general rule instead of a particular case. ? The particular decision given in this chapter for the particular case is elaborated in chap. 14, § 28 below into a general rule for every similar case. 3 Buddhaghosa explains this word as follows: ‘Bh4sitaparikantan ti vasd4ya bhdsitam kayena parikkantam parikkametva katan ti attho.’ The similar word Parikantam, which occurs in the Sutta-vibhanga, Paragika IV, 1, 2, in the sense of lacerated, is from the root krnt. IV, 5, 1 THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 19 mind that he has committed such and such an offence ?’ He replied, ‘I, my friends, was insane and out of my mind, (No doubt) many things unworthy of a samazma, as well in speech as in act, may have been committed by me when so insane and out of my mind. But I do not recollect it. It was done by me by reason of my insanity.’ But though they received that answer from him’, they warned him still, saying, ‘Does the venerable one call to mind that he has committed such and such an offence ?’ ‘Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, “ How can those Bhikkhus warn the Bhikkhu Gagga ... saying. .. such and such an offence?” And when he replies, “I, my friends, was insane... by reason of my insanity’”—how can those Bhikkhus still warn him, saying ... of such and such an offence ?’ And those Bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One. ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, that those Bhikkhus (&c., as before, down to) such and such an offence ?’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked them, and when he had delivered a religious discourse he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: ‘Let then the Samgha grant to Gagga the ' Nam in the text is correct. It is identical with the nam so frequently found in Jain Prakrit; on which see Weber in his Bhagavatf ‘Abhandlungen der Berliner Akadamie,’ 1865, pp. 422 and foll, C2 20 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 5, 2. Bhikkhu who is now sane the dispensation for those who are no longer insane. — 2. ‘And thus, O Bhikkhus, should it be granted. ‘Let that Bhikkhu Gagga [here follow the words of the formal request, of the resolution, and of the grant by decision of the Samgha, exactly in the same way as in the last case, chapter 4, § 10} 6. 1. ‘There are three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid: and three cases in which such grants are valid. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid ?
21. ‘There are three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid: and three cases in which such grants are valid. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are not valid ? ‘In the first place, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu have committed an offence: and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warn him, saying, “Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence?” And he, notwithstanding that he does remember it, says, “I do not remember, Sirs, that I have been guilty of such and such an offence.” Then if the Samgha grant him the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu (&c., as before, down to) And he, notwithstanding that he does remember it, says, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if inadream.” Then if the Samgha grant him IV, 6, 2. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 2! the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu have committed an offence, and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warn him, saying, “Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence?” And he, though he is not insane, acts in the (deceptive) way of an insane person’, saying, “I act so, and you act so likewise. It beseems me, and it likewise beseems you.” Then if the Samgha grant him the dispensation of those who are no longer insane, that grant is not valid. ‘ These are the three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which a grant of the dispensation for those who are no longer insane is not valid. 2. ‘What are the three cases in which grants of dispensation for those who are no longer insane are valid ? ‘In the first place, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind; and by him, when so insane and out of his mind, many things unworthy of a samama have been committed, as well in speech asin act. And either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu, warns him in respect thereof, saying, “ Does the venerable one call to mind that he has committed such and such an offence?” And he really not remembering it, answers, “I do not remember, Sirs, that I have been guilty of such and such an offence.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘ Ummattak4layam karoti, on which Buddhaghosa says nothing. The word recurs in the following section. 22 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 7,1. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) And he, not really remembering it, answers, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if ina dream.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no> longer insane, that grant is valid.
3IV, 7,1. ‘Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) And he, not really remembering it, answers, “I remember it, Sirs, but as if ina dream.” Then if the Samgha grants him the dispensation for those who are no> longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘ Again, O Bhikkhus, in case a Bhikkhu be insane and out of his mind (&c., as before, down to) “ Does the venerable one call to mind that he has been guilty of such and such an offence ?” And he, being still insane, acts in the way of an insane person, saying, “I act so, and you act so likewise. It beseems me, and it likewise beseems you.” Then if the Samgha (afterwards) grant him the dispensation for those who are no longer insane, that grant is valid. ‘These are the three cases, O Bhikkhus, in which the grant of the dispensation for those who are no longer insane is valid.’ 7, 1. Now at that time the K/abbaggiya Bhikkhus carried out official acts against Bhikkhus who had not confessed themselves guilty—the Tagganiyakamma, or the Nissaya-kamma, or the Pabbaganiya-kamma, or the Pa¢isAraziya-kamma, or the Ukkhepaniya-kamma. Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, ‘How can the Kkabbaggiya Bhikkhus (&c., as before). And those Bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One. IV, 8, 1. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 23 ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, that the AAabbaggiya Bhikkhus do so ?’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked them, and when he had delivered a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said : ‘No official act, O Bhikkhus,—whether the Tagganiya-kamma, or the Nissaya-kamma, or the Pabbaganiya-kamma, or the Pat¢isdramiyakamma, or the Ukkhepaniya-kamma,—is to be carried out against Bhikkhus who have not confessed themselves guilty’. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkaZa offence.’ 8. 1. ‘Now, O Bhikkhus, an official act carried out against a Bhikkhu who has confessed himself guilty is invalid as follows, and is valid as follows. And how does such an official act become invalid? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a P4rAgika offence, and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, “ The venerable one has been guilty of a P&éragika.” And he replies thus, “I have not, Sirs, been guilty of a Péragika. I have been guilty of a Samghadisesa.” And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Samghddisesa. Then that official act is invalid.’ * The mode in which such a confession ought to be made is set out in full in IV, 14, 30-34. 24 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 8, 2. [And so also if on being warned of any one of the seven offences! he confesses himself to be guilty of any one of the offences different from the one charged, then the official act is invalid.]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.