English
Godatta Thera, however, said, "No one may not admonish," and cited this Sutta: "Having heard from a bhikkhu, one admonishes; having heard from a bhikkhunī, one admonishes... ...having heard from disciples of other sects, one admonishes." In the views of all three Theras, it should be carried out only with the acknowledgment of the one being admonished. This admonition, when one sends a messenger, or a letter, or a message, does not take effect. But when one stands in the presence of the person and admonishes with a hand gesture or with a verbal expression, it takes effect. Indeed, the renunciation of training does not take effect with a hand gesture, but this disparagement and false accusation do take effect. If one admonishes by singling out one from two people present, if that one knows, it takes effect. If the other one knows, it does not take effect. If one admonishes by singling out both, whether one knows or both know, it takes effect. The same method applies to many people. And knowing at that very moment is difficult; but when one reflects at the proper time and knows, it is considered known. If one knows later, it does not take effect. The renunciation of training, false accusation, foul speech, self-seeking, and the training rules on false accusation due to malicious intent— all these are of one category. Thus, this admonition, by way of body and speech, is of two kinds. Again, it is of three kinds: admonition based on what is seen, admonition based on what is heard, admonition based on what is suspected. Again, it is of four kinds: admonition concerning transgression of virtue, admonition concerning transgression of conduct, admonition concerning transgression of view, admonition concerning transgression of livelihood. Therein, admonition concerning transgression of virtue should be understood by way of the two grave groups of offenses. Admonition concerning transgression of conduct by way of the remaining ones. Admonition concerning transgression of view by way of wrong view and extreme views. Admonition concerning transgression of livelihood should be understood by way of the six training rules enacted for livelihood. Again, it is of four kinds: by way of the basis displaying the object, displaying the offense, refusal of communion, refusal of proper courtesies. Therein, displaying the object means "You engaged in sexual intercourse, you took what was not given, you killed a human being, you falsely accused," thus it proceeds. Displaying the offense means "You have incurred the pārājika offense of sexual intercourse," thus it proceeds. Refusal of communion means "There is no Uposatha or Pavāraṇā or Sangha-kamma with you," thus it proceeds; but by this alone, it does not become a head offense. It becomes a head offense only when combined with words like "You are not a recluse, you are not a son of the Sakyas." Refusal of proper courtesies means not performing acts like salutation, rising to greet, anjali-kamma, or fanning. This should be understood as not doing it for one person when doing it for others in sequence. By this alone, it is a charge, but the offense does not become a head offense. When asked, "Why do you not perform salutations, etc., for me?" it becomes a head offense only when combined with words like "You are not a recluse, you are not a son of the Sakyas." However, asking for what one wants, such as gruel or food, is not a charge by itself. Further, in the chapter on the suspension of the Pātimokkha, it is said, "Monks, one unrighteous suspension of the Pātimokkha, one righteous one," and so on, "up to ten unrighteous suspensions of the Pātimokkha, ten righteous ones." Thus, fifty-five unrighteous and fifty-five righteous charges, totaling one hundred and ten, are mentioned. For one who charges based on what is seen, there are one hundred and ten. For one who charges based on what is heard, there are one hundred and ten. For one who charges based on suspicion, there are one hundred and ten. Thus, there are three hundred and thirty. These, multiplied by three for charging by body, charging by speech, charging by body and speech, become nine hundred and ninety. These are the same whether one charges oneself or has another charge. Thus, there are two thousand minus twenty. Again, in the distinctions of seen, etc., based on with root or without root, many thousands That accusation should be understood as such. But staying in this place, the commentary, having cited many suttas spoken in the Upāli-Pañcaka and so on— such as, "By Upāli the bhikkhu, who desires to take up the self-taking, a self-taking endowed with five factors should be taken up" (Cūḷava. 398), and, "By Upāli the bhikkhu, who desires to accuse another, having reflected on five qualities within himself, another should be accused" (Cūḷava. 399)— has extensively explained the characteristic of self-taking, the duty of the accuser, the duty of the accused, the duty to be done by the Saṅgha, and the duty of the examiner. That we shall explain in its proper place as it comes. But among these accusations of the kinds mentioned, when a matter is brought into the midst of the Saṅgha by means of any accusation, the accused and the accuser should be asked: "Will you be satisfied with our decision?" If they say, "We will be," the Saṅgha should accept that case. But if they say, "Please decide first, venerable sirs, if it is agreeable to us, we will accept it." Having said, "First worship the cetiya," and so on, it should be dismissed by making it long-drawn-out. If they, wearied for a long time, with the assembly departed, and their party cut off, again request, having refused them up to the third time, when they are free from pride, then their case should be decided. And by those deciding, if the assembly is overwhelmed by shamelessness, that case should be decided by a vote. If the assembly is overwhelmed by foolishness, having made them search for Vinaya-experts of their own kind, saying, "Search for Vinaya-experts who are like you," that case should be settled in the way it is settled by Dhamma, by Vinaya, by the Teacher's instruction. And there, "Dhamma" means the actual matter. "Vinaya" means accusation and reminding. "Teacher's instruction" means completeness of motion and completeness of announcement. Therefore, when the matter is reported by the accuser, the accused should be asked: "Is this true, or not?" Having thus investigated the matter, and having charged and admonished with the true matter, that dispute should be settled by the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. If there, a shameless one charges a modest one, and that shameless one is foolish and unskilled, he should not be given a method. But he should be told thus: "On what account do you charge him?" Surely he will say: "What is this, venerable sir, on what account?" "You do not even know on what account, it is not proper for you, such a fool, to charge another," he should be dismissed, he should not be given an inquiry. But if that shameless one is wise and skilled, and is able to bring about a charge by what is seen or heard, having given an inquiry to him, the act should be done according to the confession of the modest one. If a modest one charges a shameless one, and that modest one is foolish and unskilled, he is not able to give an inquiry. A method should be given to him: "On what account do you charge him? Regarding a transgression of morality, or one of the transgressions of conduct, and so on?" Why, then, should a method be given only to him, and not to the other? Is it not improper for Vinaya-holders to go astray? It is indeed improper. But this is not going astray; this is called supporting the Dhamma. For the training rule was laid down for the suppression of the shameless and for the encouragement of the modest. There, the shameless one, having obtained a method, will say "come here" when making a charge. But the modest one, having obtained a method, will speak, establishing himself on what is seen, by the continuity of what is seen, on what is heard, by the continuity of what is heard. Therefore, supporting the Dhamma is proper for him. But if that modest one is wise and skilled, and speaks establishing himself, and the shameless one does not give a confession, saying "this is not so, this is not so," it should be done according to the confession of the shameless one. And this story should be known for the purpose of illustrating that meaning. It is said that the Elder Cūḷābhaya, who knew the Three Baskets, having taught the Vinaya to the bhikkhus underneath the Lohapāsāda, rose up in the evening. At the time of his rising, two disputants began a discussion. One did not give a confession, saying "this is not so, this is not so." Then In the first watch, when little remained, the elder, concerning that person, had a thought of impurity: "This one speaks with conviction, but gives no confession; many things are brought up; surely this has been done." Then, with a fan-stick, giving a sign to the foot-stool, he said, "Friend, I am not fit to judge; let another judge." "Why, venerable sir?" The elder reported the matter. A burning arose in the accused's body. Then he saluted the elder: "Venerable sir, a Vinaya-holder, fit to judge, should be like you. And an accuser should be like this." Having said this, he put on white clothes, asked forgiveness: "I have troubled you for a long time." And he departed. Thus, a shameless one, accused by a conscientious one, even when many things arise, gives no confession. He should be called neither "pure" nor "impure." He is a living corpse, a raw putrid one. But if another such matter arises for him, it should not be judged. He will thus be ruined. But if a shameless one accuses a shameless one, he should be told: "Friend, by your word, what can be said?" And the other also saying the same, both should be dismissed, saying: "Live by sharing