English
"I have heard and I suspect you, you have committed a pārājika offence, you are not a monk"... ...etc... offence by speech, by speech of a Saṅghādisesa. For one heard to have committed a pārājika offence. If he accuses him: "I suspect you, you have committed a pārājika offence"... ...etc... "I have seen you, you have committed a pārājika offence"... ...etc... "I suspect and I have seen you, you have committed a pārājika offence, you are not a monk"... ...etc... offence by speech, by speech of a Saṅghādisesa. For one suspected to have committed a pārājika offence. If he accuses him: "I have seen you, you have committed a pārājika offence"... ...etc... "I have heard you, you have committed a pārājika offence"... ...etc... "I have seen and I have heard you, you have committed a pārājika offence, you are not a monk, you are not a son of the Sakyan"... ...etc... offence by speech, by speech of a Saṅghādisesa. For one seen committing a pārājika offence. If he is doubtful about what was seen, does not accept what was seen, does not remember what was seen, has forgotten what was seen... ...etc... If he is doubtful about what was heard, does not accept what was heard, does not remember what was heard, has forgotten what was heard... ...etc... If he is doubtful about what was suspected, does not accept what was suspected, does not remember what was suspected, has forgotten what was suspected. If he accuses him: "I suspect you... seen by me… suspected by me. heard by me… suspected by me. seen and heard by me, you have fallen into a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse, you are not a Sakyan son, there is no Uposatha or Pavāraṇā or Sangha-kamma with you.” There is an offense by speech, by speech, a Sanghādisesa. 388. If one who is not seen is falling into a Pārājika offense. And one is accused thus: “You are seen, you have fallen into a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse, you are not a Sakyan son, there is no Uposatha or Pavāraṇā or Sangha-kamma with you.” There is an offense by speech, by speech, a Sanghādisesa. If one who is not heard is “fallen into a Pārājika offense”… If one who is not suspected is “fallen into a Pārājika offense.” And one is accused thus: “You are suspected, you have fallen into a Pārājika offense”… There is an offense by speech, by speech, a Sanghādisesa. If one who is not seen is falling into a Pārājika offense. And one is accused thus: “You are seen, you are heard… You are seen, you are suspected… You are seen, you are heard, you are suspected, you have fallen into a Pārājika offense”… If one who is not heard is “fallen into a Pārājika offense”… If one who is not suspected is “fallen into a Pārājika offense.” And one is accused thus: “You are suspected, you are seen… You are suspected, you are heard… You are suspected, you are seen, you are heard, you have fallen into a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse”… There is an offense by speech, by speech, a Sanghādisesa. Of the Saṅghādisesa. One who has seen another committing a Pārājika offense. If he then accuses him: "You have heard" ... If he then accuses him: "You are suspected" ... If he then accuses him: "You have heard, you are suspected, you have committed a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse" ... There is an offense by speech, a Saṅghādisesa by speech. For one who has heard: "He has committed a Pārājika offense" ... For one who is suspected: "He has committed a Pārājika offense." If he then [accuses him]: "You have seen" ... If he then accuses him: "You have heard" ... If he then accuses him: "You have seen, you have heard, you have committed a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse" ... There is an offense by speech, a Saṅghādisesa by speech. One who has seen another committing a Pārājika offense. One who is doubtful about what was seen, does not accept what was seen, does not remember what was seen, has forgotten what was seen ... One who is doubtful about what was heard, does not accept what was heard, does not remember what was heard, has forgotten what was heard ... One who is doubtful about what was suspected, does not accept what was suspected, does not remember what was suspected, has forgotten what was suspected. If he then accuses him: "You are suspected, you have seen" ... He has forgotten what was suspected. If he then accuses him: "You are suspected, you have heard" ... He has forgotten what was suspected. If he then accuses him: "You are suspected, you have seen, you have heard, you have committed a Pārājika offense, you are not a recluse, you are not a son of the Sakyan, there is no Uposatha or Pavāraṇā or Saṅgha-act with you" – there is an offense by speech, by speech. Of a Saṅghādisesa. 389. On the impure, pure view, on the pure, impure view, on the impure, impure view, on the pure, pure view. A person is impure, having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having a pure view, he speaks with the intention of expulsion, having made no opportunity, there is an offense of dukkaṭa by saṅghādisesa. A person is impure, having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having a pure view, he speaks with the intention of expulsion, having made an opportunity, there is an offense of saṅghādisesa. A person is impure, having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having a pure view, he speaks with the intention of reviling, having made no opportunity, there is an offense of dukkaṭa by abusive speech. A person is impure, having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having a pure view, he speaks with the intention of reviling, having made an opportunity, there is an offense of abusive speech. A person is pure, not having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having an impure view, he speaks with the intention of expulsion, having made no opportunity, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. A person is pure, not having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having an impure view, he speaks with the intention of expulsion, having made an opportunity, there is no offense. A person is pure, not having fallen into a certain pārājika offense. If, having an impure view, he speaks with the intention of reviling, having made no opportunity, there is an offense of dukkaṭa by abusive speech. A person is pure, A person is one who has not committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of impure view, having made opportunity, with the intention to revile, he speaks, there is an offense of abusive speech. A person is impure, having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of impure view, having not made opportunity, with the intention to expel, he speaks, there is an offense of wrong-doing. A person is impure, having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of impure view, having made opportunity, with the intention to expel, he speaks, there is no offense. A person is impure, having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of impure view, having not made opportunity, with the intention to revile, he speaks, there is an offense of wrong-doing due to abusive speech. A person is impure, having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of impure view, having made opportunity, with the intention to revile, he speaks, there is an offense of abusive speech. A person is pure, not having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of pure view, having not made opportunity, with the intention to expel, he speaks, there is an offense of wrong-doing due to a saṅghādisesa. A person is pure, not having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of pure view, having made opportunity, with the intention to expel, he speaks, there is an offense of saṅghādisesa. A person is pure, not having committed a certain pārājika offense. If, being of pure view, having not made opportunity, with the intention to revile, he speaks, there is an offense. By contemptuous speech, a wrong-doing. A person is pure, not having fallen into any pārājika offense. If, being of pure view, having caused an opportunity (to speak), he speaks with the intention of reviling, there is an offense of contemptuous speech. 390. No offense for one of impure view regarding a pure person, for one of impure view regarding an impure person, for a mad person, for the first doer. The training rule concerning malicious hatred, the eighth, is finished. 9. The second training rule concerning malicious hatred. 391. At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling in Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, at the Squirrels' Feeding Ground. Now at that time, the Mettiyabhūmajaka bhikkhus, descending from Vulture Peak mountain, saw a goat copulating with a she-goat. Having seen it, they said thus: "Come, friends, let us name this goat 'Dabba Mallaputta'. Let us name this she-goat 'Mettiyā the bhikkhunī'. Thus we shall speak. Formerly, friends, we spoke of Dabba Mallaputta by hearsay. But now he has been seen by us personally, copulating with Mettiyā the bhikkhunī." They named that goat 'Dabba Mallaputta'. They named that she-goat 'Mettiyā the bhikkhunī'. They reported to the bhikkhus: "Formerly, friends, we spoke of Dabba Mallaputta by hearsay. But now he has been seen by us personally, copulating with Mettiyā the bhikkhunī." The bhikkhus said thus: "Friends, do not speak thus. The Venerable Dabba Mallaputta would not do such a thing." Then those bhikkhus reported this matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, on this account, had the Sangha of bhikkhus assembled, and questioned the Venerable Dabba the Mallian: "Do you remember, Dabba, having done such a thing as these bhikkhus have said?" "As the Blessed One knows me, sir." A second time, the Blessed One... ...a third time, the Blessed One said to the Venerable Dabba the Mallian: "Do you remember, Dabba, having done such a thing as these bhikkhus have said?" "As the Blessed One knows me, sir." "Indeed, Dabba, the Dabbas do not evade thus. If it was done by you, say 'done'; if it was not done by you, say 'not done'."