English
Section on Accusation 1. Interrogation of the Investigator 360. The accuser should be asked by the investigator – "Friend, this monk whom you accuse, of what do you accuse him? Do you accuse him of a lapse in virtue, or of a lapse in conduct, or of a lapse in view?" If he should say thus – "I accuse him of a lapse in virtue, or of a lapse in conduct, or of a lapse in view," he should be told thus – "Does the venerable one know what a lapse in virtue is, does he know what a lapse in conduct is, does he know what a lapse in view is?" If he should say thus – "Indeed, friend, I know what a lapse in virtue is, I know what a lapse in conduct is, I know what a lapse in view is," he should be told thus – "But friend, what is a lapse in virtue? What is a lapse in conduct? What is a lapse in view?" If he should say thus – "The four pārājikas, and the thirteen saṅghādisesas – this is a lapse in virtue. A serious offense, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita – this is a lapse in conduct. Wrong view, an extreme view – this is a lapse in view," he should be told thus – "Friend, this monk whom you accuse, do you accuse him based on what you saw, or based on what you heard, or based on suspicion?" If he should say thus – "I accuse him based on what I saw, or based on what I heard, or based on suspicion," he should be told thus – "Friend, this monk whom you accuse based on what you saw, what did you see? How did you see it? When did you see it? Where did you see it? Did you see him committing a pārājika? Did you see him committing a saṅghādisesa? A serious offense... a pācittiya... a pāṭidesanīya... a dukkaṭa... Did you see him committing a dubbhāsita? And where were you? And where was this monk? And what were you doing? And what was this monk doing?" If he should say thus – "Indeed, friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what I saw, but rather I accuse him based on what I heard," he should be told thus... He should be asked: "Friend, since you accuse this bhikkhu based on what you heard, what did you hear? How did you hear it? When did you hear it? Where did you hear it? Did you hear he committed a pārājika offense? ...a saṅghādisesa? ...a thullaccaya? ...a pācittiya? ...a pāṭidesanīya? ...a dukkaṭa? ...a dubbhāsita offense? Did you hear it from a bhikkhu? From a bhikkhunī? From a female trainee? From a novice monk? From a novice nun? From a male lay follower? From a female lay follower? From kings? From royal ministers? From sectarians? From disciples of sectarians?" If he should say thus: "Friend, I do not accuse this bhikkhu based on what I heard, but rather based on suspicion." He should be asked thus: "Friend, since you accuse this bhikkhu based on suspicion, what do you suspect? How do you suspect? When do you suspect? Where do you suspect? Do you suspect he committed a pārājika offense? ...a saṅghādisesa offense? ...a thullaccaya? ...a pācittiya? ...a pāṭidesanīya? ...a dukkaṭa? ...a dubbhāsita offense? Do you suspect after hearing from a bhikkhu? After hearing from a bhikkhunī? After hearing from a female trainee? After hearing from a novice monk? After hearing from a novice nun? After hearing from a male lay follower? After hearing from a female lay follower? After hearing from kings? After hearing from royal ministers? After hearing from sectarians? After hearing from disciples of sectarians?" 361. What is seen matches what is seen; What is seen corresponds with what is seen. One suspected of impurity does not proceed based on what is seen. That person, by his admission, should perform the Uposatha. What is heard matches what is heard; What is heard corresponds with what is heard. One suspected of impurity does not proceed based on what is heard. That person, by his admission, should perform the Uposatha. What is perceived matches what is perceived; What is perceived corresponds with what is perceived. One suspected of impurity does not proceed based on what is perceived. doubted; That person, by declaration, should perform the Uposatha. 362. Of accusation, what is the beginning, what is the middle, what is the end? Of accusation, the permission-act is the beginning, the procedure is the middle, the settlement is the end. Of accusation, how many roots, how many grounds, how many stages, in how many ways does one accuse? Of accusation, there are two roots, three grounds, five stages, one accuses in two ways. Of accusation, which are the two roots? With a basis or without a basis – these are the two roots of accusation. Of accusation, which are the three grounds? By what is seen, by what is heard, by suspicion – these are the three grounds of accusation. Of accusation, which are the five stages? "I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I will speak what is true, not what is false; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is beneficial, not what is unbeneficial; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of ill-will" – these are the five stages of accusation. In which two ways does one accuse? One accuses by body or one accuses by speech – in these two ways one accuses. 2. The Practice of the Accuser, etc. 363. How should the accuser practice? How should the accused practice? How should the Saṅgha practice? How should the investigator practice? How should the accuser practice? The accuser, having established himself in five qualities, should accuse another. "I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I will speak what is true, not what is false; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is beneficial, not what is unbeneficial; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of ill-will" – the accuser should practice thus. How should the accused practice? The accused should practice in two qualities. In truth and in not being angry – the accused should practice thus. How should the Saṅgha practice? The Saṅgha should know what is fallen and what is not fallen. The Saṅgha should practice thus. How should the investigator practice? The investigator, by which Dhamma, by which Vinaya, by which Teacher's instruction, that... A legal question is settled; In that way, that legal question should be settled. The investigator should proceed thus. 364. For what purpose is Uposatha? For what reason is Pavāraṇā? For what purpose is Parivāsa? For what reason is Mūlāyapaṭikassanā? For what purpose is Mānatta? For what reason is Abbhāna? Uposatha is for harmony, Pavāraṇā is for purity; Parivāsa is for Mānatta, Mūlāyapaṭikassanā is for restraint; Mānatta is for Abbhāna, Abbhāna is for purity. From desire, hatred, fear, delusion, He slanders the elders; At the body's breaking, the foolish one, Wounded, with impaired faculties, Goes to hell, the dull-witted one, And has no respect for the training. Not relying on gain; Not relying on a person; Avoiding both of these; Act according to the Dhamma. 3. The Accuser's Self-Burning Angry and resentful; Fierce and a slanderer; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He whispers in the ear, looks askance; He transgresses, follows a wrong path; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He accuses at the wrong time, with what is not true; With harsh words, not conducive to welfare; He accuses with an inner hatred, not with a mind of loving-kindness; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know Dhamma from non-Dhamma; He is unskilled in Dhamma and non-Dhamma; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know Vinaya from non-Vinaya; He is unskilled in Vinaya and non-Vinaya; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know what was spoken from what was not spoken; He is unskilled in what was spoken and not spoken; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know what is customary from what is not customary; He is unskilled in what is customary and not customary; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know what is laid down from what is not laid down; He is unskilled in what is laid down and not laid down; He accuses of an offense when there is no offense; Thus it is. Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know offense and non-offense; He is unskilled in offense and non-offense; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know light and heavy; He is unskilled in light and heavy; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know with remainder and without remainder; He is unskilled in with remainder and without remainder; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know gross and not gross; He is unskilled in gross and not gross; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know earlier and later; He is unskilled in earlier and later; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. He does not know the connection of words; He is unskilled in the connection of words; He asserts "it is an offense" for a non-offense; Such an accuser burns himself. The Section on Accusation is finished. Its summary – Accusation and investigation, and the beginning with the root and Uposatha; Conduct in the section on accusation, they establish the teaching.