Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
124 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.] 2. ‘And when, O Bhikkhus, is such an official act valid? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a P4régika offence, and in respect thereof the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, “The venerable one has -been guilty of a Paragika.” And he replies, “ Yea, Sirs, I have been guilty of a Paragika.” And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Paragika. Then that official act is valid *.’ [And so for each of the other offences mentioned in § 1, the whole of § 2 is repeated.] 98, Now at that time the Bhikkhus in chapter (Samgha) assembled, since they became violent, quarrelsome, and disputatious, and kept on wounding one another with sharp words‘, were unable ' The same, namely, as those in the list given at Mahavagga IV, 16, 12, &c. 2 In other words, if a Bhikkhu confesses an offence different from that with which he has been charged, the confession cannot be used against him even as regards a decision with respect to the offence confessed. 5 On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 16. ‘Afiiamantiam mukhaisattfhi vitudanta viharanti. Literally, ‘with mouth-javelins.’ Vitudati, and not vitfdati as Childers gives, is the right spelling. So Fausbdll reads at Gataka II, 185, 186. TV, 9. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 25 to settle the disputed question (that was brought before them). They told this matter to the Blessed One. 1*] allow you, O Bhikkhus, to settle such a dispute by the vote of the majority. A Bhikkhu who shall be possessed of five qualifications shall be appointed as taker of the voting tickets—one who does not walk in partiality, one who does not walk in malice, one who does not walk in folly, one who does not walk in fear?, one who knows what (votes) have been taken and what have not been taken. ‘ And thus shall he be appointed. ‘First the Bhikkhu is to be requested (whether he will undertake the office). Then some able and discreet Bhikkhu is to bring the matter before the Samgha, saying, . ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. If the time seems meet to the Samgha, let the Samgha appoint a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the voting tickets. ‘“ This is the motion (#atti). ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. The Samgha appoints a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the tickets. Whosoever of the -venerable ones approves of the Bhikkhu of such and such a name being appointed as taker of the 1 From here to the end of the chapter recurs in IV, 14, 24.
2‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. The Samgha appoints a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the tickets. Whosoever of the -venerable ones approves of the Bhikkhu of such and such a name being appointed as taker of the 1 From here to the end of the chapter recurs in IV, 14, 24. * These are the qualifications always ascribed to one who rightly fills any judicial offence, and are called the four Agatis. They are the especial attributes of a good king sitting as judge, and are mentioned elsewhere (Samghadisesa XIII; Mahavagga VIII, 5, 2; VIII, 6,1; andsbelow, VI, 11, 2) of other officials of the order with duties similar to those in the text. 26 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 10, 1. tickets, let him keep silence. Whosoever approves not thereof, let him speak. The Bhikkhu of such and such a name is appointed by the Samgha as taker of the voting tickets. Therefore is it silent. Thus do I understand.’” 107. 1. ‘There are ten cases, O Bhikkhus, in which the taking of votes is invalid; and ten in which the taking of votes is valid. ‘Which are the ten in which the taking of votes is invalid? When the matter in dispute is trivial * —when the case has not run its course (that is, when the necessary preliminaries of submission to . arbitration have not been carried out *)—when regarding the matter in dispute the Bhikkhus have not formally remembered, or been formally called upon to remember, the offence —when the taker of votes 5 knows that those whose opinions are not in accordance with the law will be in the majority, ’ On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 24-26. ? Oramattakam. Compare the English law maxim, De minimis non curat lex. 5 Buddhaghosa says, Na fa gatigatan ti dve tayo 4vdse na gatam, tattha tatth’ eva va dvitikkhattum aviniékhitam. See on these proceedings above. ‘ Buddhaghosa says, Na a sarita-sdritan ti dvitikkhattum tehi bhikkh@hi sayam saritam va ajifiehi sAritam va na hoti. ® Ganati ti saldkam gahento gAnati. (S. P.) IV, 11,1. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 27 or probably’ may be in the majority—when he knows that the voting will result in a schism in the Samgha—when he is in doubt whether the voting will result in a schism in the Samgha—when the votes are irregularly given *—when all do not vote equally *—and when they do not vote in accordance with the view (which they really hold). These are the ten cases in which the voting is invalid 4. 2. ‘And which are the ten cases in which the voting is valid ?’ [The ten cases are precisely the reverse of the other ten.] 11, 1. Now at that time the Bhikkhu Uvad/a‘, being examined in the midst of the Samgha with an offence, when he had denied then confessed it, when he had confessed it then denied it, made * App eva néma. That this phrase does not merely mean ‘perhaps’ is clear from its use in § 2. *Adhammena ganhantf ti adhammavddino evam mayam bahd bhaviss4mé ti dve dve salakayo ganhanti. (S. P.)
3That this phrase does not merely mean ‘perhaps’ is clear from its use in § 2. *Adhammena ganhantf ti adhammavddino evam mayam bahd bhaviss4mé ti dve dve salakayo ganhanti. (S. P.) * On vagga, here = vi + agga, compare our note on the 21st PAfittiya, and Xullavagga I, 2, 1. Buddhaghosa here says, Vagga gazhantf ti dve dhammavadino ekam dhammavddisalikam gamhanti evam dhammavadino na bahfi bhavissanti ti mafizamana. ‘ With this chapter the 26th section of chapter 14 should be compared, where very curious means are inculcated for avoiding some of the votes here stated to be invalid. ® In the Burmese MSS. the name of this monk is written Upavala. 28 KULLAVAGGA. TV, x1, 2. counter-charges', and spoke lies which he knew to be such? Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, ‘ How can the Bhikkhu Uv4éa do so?’ And they told the matter to the Blessed One. ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, as they say that the Bhikkhu [&c., as before}.’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked him, and when he had delivered a religious discourse he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: ‘Then, O Bhikkhus, let the Samgha carry out the Tassa-pdpiyyasika-kamma (the Proceeding in the case of the obstinately wrong) *.’ 2. ‘And thus, O Bhikkhus, is it to be carried out. In the first place the Bhikkhu Uva/a must have been warned ; when he had been warned, he must have been called upon to remember (whether he has, or has not, consciously committed the offence); when he had been called upon to remember, he must have been caused (by being put on his trial with respect to the offence) to bring upon himself a new 1 Afitiena affiam pasikarati. We follow Wijesimha Mudaliyar’s interpretation of this phrase as given by Childers (s. v. tassapapiyyasik4). * Chapter 14, section 29 below, is in fact an elaboration of this paragraph, giving instances of the kind of prevarication here intended to be referred to. * The exact meaning of the phrase is somewhat doubtful, owing to the ambiguity ofthe tassa. It should probably be analysed ‘ the proceeding against one who is more sinful (papiyo) than that (tassa);’ that is, who adds sin to sin. Childers gives a long note on the Proceeding drawn by Wijesimha Mudaliyar from this chapter, but does not analyse the word. TV, 11, 2. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 29 offence (namely, of obstinacy or prevarication); when he has brought upon himself this new offence, some discreet and able Bhikkhu ought to lay th the matter before the Samgha, saying, ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. This Bhikkhu Uvd4da, being examined in the midst of the Samgha with an offence, when he has denied it then confesses it, when he has confessed it then denies it, makes counter-charges, and speaks lies which he knows to be such. If the time seems meet to the Samgha, let the Samgha carry out the Tassapapiyyasik4a-kamma against the Bhikkhu Uva/a. ‘“ This is the motion.
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.
124 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.] 2. ‘And when, O Bhikkhus, is such an official act valid? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a P4régika offence, and in respect thereof the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, “The venerable one has -been guilty of a Paragika.” And he replies, “ Yea, Sirs, I have been guilty of a Paragika.” And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Paragika. Then that official act is valid *.’ [And so for each of the other offences mentioned in § 1, the whole of § 2 is repeated.] 98, Now at that time the Bhikkhus in chapter (Samgha) assembled, since they became violent, quarrelsome, and disputatious, and kept on wounding one another with sharp words‘, were unable ' The same, namely, as those in the list given at Mahavagga IV, 16, 12, &c. 2 In other words, if a Bhikkhu confesses an offence different from that with which he has been charged, the confession cannot be used against him even as regards a decision with respect to the offence confessed. 5 On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 16. ‘Afiiamantiam mukhaisattfhi vitudanta viharanti. Literally, ‘with mouth-javelins.’ Vitudati, and not vitfdati as Childers gives, is the right spelling. So Fausbdll reads at Gataka II, 185, 186. TV, 9. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 25 to settle the disputed question (that was brought before them). They told this matter to the Blessed One. 1*] allow you, O Bhikkhus, to settle such a dispute by the vote of the majority. A Bhikkhu who shall be possessed of five qualifications shall be appointed as taker of the voting tickets—one who does not walk in partiality, one who does not walk in malice, one who does not walk in folly, one who does not walk in fear?, one who knows what (votes) have been taken and what have not been taken. ‘ And thus shall he be appointed. ‘First the Bhikkhu is to be requested (whether he will undertake the office). Then some able and discreet Bhikkhu is to bring the matter before the Samgha, saying, . ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. If the time seems meet to the Samgha, let the Samgha appoint a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the voting tickets. ‘“ This is the motion (#atti). ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. The Samgha appoints a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the tickets. Whosoever of the -venerable ones approves of the Bhikkhu of such and such a name being appointed as taker of the 1 From here to the end of the chapter recurs in IV, 14, 24.
2‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. The Samgha appoints a Bhikkhu of such and such a name as taker of the tickets. Whosoever of the -venerable ones approves of the Bhikkhu of such and such a name being appointed as taker of the 1 From here to the end of the chapter recurs in IV, 14, 24. * These are the qualifications always ascribed to one who rightly fills any judicial offence, and are called the four Agatis. They are the especial attributes of a good king sitting as judge, and are mentioned elsewhere (Samghadisesa XIII; Mahavagga VIII, 5, 2; VIII, 6,1; andsbelow, VI, 11, 2) of other officials of the order with duties similar to those in the text. 26 KULLAVAGGA. IV, 10, 1. tickets, let him keep silence. Whosoever approves not thereof, let him speak. The Bhikkhu of such and such a name is appointed by the Samgha as taker of the voting tickets. Therefore is it silent. Thus do I understand.’” 107. 1. ‘There are ten cases, O Bhikkhus, in which the taking of votes is invalid; and ten in which the taking of votes is valid. ‘Which are the ten in which the taking of votes is invalid? When the matter in dispute is trivial * —when the case has not run its course (that is, when the necessary preliminaries of submission to . arbitration have not been carried out *)—when regarding the matter in dispute the Bhikkhus have not formally remembered, or been formally called upon to remember, the offence —when the taker of votes 5 knows that those whose opinions are not in accordance with the law will be in the majority, ’ On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 24-26. ? Oramattakam. Compare the English law maxim, De minimis non curat lex. 5 Buddhaghosa says, Na fa gatigatan ti dve tayo 4vdse na gatam, tattha tatth’ eva va dvitikkhattum aviniékhitam. See on these proceedings above. ‘ Buddhaghosa says, Na a sarita-sdritan ti dvitikkhattum tehi bhikkh@hi sayam saritam va ajifiehi sAritam va na hoti. ® Ganati ti saldkam gahento gAnati. (S. P.) IV, 11,1. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 27 or probably’ may be in the majority—when he knows that the voting will result in a schism in the Samgha—when he is in doubt whether the voting will result in a schism in the Samgha—when the votes are irregularly given *—when all do not vote equally *—and when they do not vote in accordance with the view (which they really hold). These are the ten cases in which the voting is invalid 4. 2. ‘And which are the ten cases in which the voting is valid ?’ [The ten cases are precisely the reverse of the other ten.] 11, 1. Now at that time the Bhikkhu Uvad/a‘, being examined in the midst of the Samgha with an offence, when he had denied then confessed it, when he had confessed it then denied it, made * App eva néma. That this phrase does not merely mean ‘perhaps’ is clear from its use in § 2. *Adhammena ganhantf ti adhammavddino evam mayam bahd bhaviss4mé ti dve dve salakayo ganhanti. (S. P.)
3That this phrase does not merely mean ‘perhaps’ is clear from its use in § 2. *Adhammena ganhantf ti adhammavddino evam mayam bahd bhaviss4mé ti dve dve salakayo ganhanti. (S. P.) * On vagga, here = vi + agga, compare our note on the 21st PAfittiya, and Xullavagga I, 2, 1. Buddhaghosa here says, Vagga gazhantf ti dve dhammavadino ekam dhammavddisalikam gamhanti evam dhammavadino na bahfi bhavissanti ti mafizamana. ‘ With this chapter the 26th section of chapter 14 should be compared, where very curious means are inculcated for avoiding some of the votes here stated to be invalid. ® In the Burmese MSS. the name of this monk is written Upavala. 28 KULLAVAGGA. TV, x1, 2. counter-charges', and spoke lies which he knew to be such? Those Bhikkhus who were moderate were annoyed, murmured, and became indignant, saying, ‘ How can the Bhikkhu Uv4éa do so?’ And they told the matter to the Blessed One. ‘Is it true, O Bhikkhus, as they say that the Bhikkhu [&c., as before}.’ ‘It is true, Lord.’ Then he rebuked him, and when he had delivered a religious discourse he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: ‘Then, O Bhikkhus, let the Samgha carry out the Tassa-pdpiyyasika-kamma (the Proceeding in the case of the obstinately wrong) *.’ 2. ‘And thus, O Bhikkhus, is it to be carried out. In the first place the Bhikkhu Uva/a must have been warned ; when he had been warned, he must have been called upon to remember (whether he has, or has not, consciously committed the offence); when he had been called upon to remember, he must have been caused (by being put on his trial with respect to the offence) to bring upon himself a new 1 Afitiena affiam pasikarati. We follow Wijesimha Mudaliyar’s interpretation of this phrase as given by Childers (s. v. tassapapiyyasik4). * Chapter 14, section 29 below, is in fact an elaboration of this paragraph, giving instances of the kind of prevarication here intended to be referred to. * The exact meaning of the phrase is somewhat doubtful, owing to the ambiguity ofthe tassa. It should probably be analysed ‘ the proceeding against one who is more sinful (papiyo) than that (tassa);’ that is, who adds sin to sin. Childers gives a long note on the Proceeding drawn by Wijesimha Mudaliyar from this chapter, but does not analyse the word. TV, 11, 2. THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. 29 offence (namely, of obstinacy or prevarication); when he has brought upon himself this new offence, some discreet and able Bhikkhu ought to lay th the matter before the Samgha, saying, ‘“Let the venerable Samgha hear me. This Bhikkhu Uvd4da, being examined in the midst of the Samgha with an offence, when he has denied it then confesses it, when he has confessed it then denies it, makes counter-charges, and speaks lies which he knows to be such. If the time seems meet to the Samgha, let the Samgha carry out the Tassapapiyyasik4a-kamma against the Bhikkhu Uva/a. ‘“ This is the motion.
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.