English
is heavy property. An elephant's tusk, or any horn, if uncarved, just as it is, is divisible. Regarding bed-legs and so on made from these, the decision is the same as before. Even a finished, carved asafoetida-box, a knot, a fan, an eye-ointment box, an eye-ointment stick, a water-wiper – all of these are divisible. Regarding clay vessels, all pots, stools, and other pottery made by potters for human use and enjoyment, such as a plate, a bowl, a charcoal-bowl, an incense-burner, a lamp-stand, a lamp-cup, bricks for a stupa, roof-tiles, and stupas, from the time they are given to the Saṅgha, are heavy property. But a small pot, a plate, a dish, a small golden vessel, a water-pot, if not exceeding the size of a foot-rest, are divisible property here. And just as with clay vessels, so too with metal vessels, a water-pot falls into the category of divisible property. This is the sequential explanation here. Thus, in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha, The chapter on the decision regarding heavy property is concluded. 31. The chapter on the decision regarding accusation and so on. 230. Regarding the decision on accusation and so on, who is allowed to accuse, and who is not allowed? No one is allowed to accuse based on the words of a weak accuser. A weak accuser is one who, when many people are sitting together in conversation, takes one person as the subject and speaks of a pārājika matter indirectly. Another person hears this and goes and reports it to the other. That person approaches him and says, "You, they say, said such and such about me." He says, "I know nothing of such a thing. In the course of the story, I spoke without specifying, "If I had known this arising of your suffering, I would not have spoken so much." This is a weak accuser. No one can accuse that monk by taking his conversation. But without taking that, a monk endowed with virtue can accuse a monk or a nun, and a nun endowed with virtue can accuse a nun. So said the Elder Mahāpaduma. The Elder Mahāsuma, however, said, "Five co-dhamma followers can." The Elder Godatta, saying, "No one cannot," cited this Sutta: "Having heard from a monk, one accuses; having heard from a nun... ...having heard from the disciples of heretics, one accuses." In the views of all three Elders, the accused must be made to confess. This accusation, is of three kinds: seen accusation, heard accusation, and suspected accusation. There is also another, of four kinds: accusation of moral transgression, accusation of conduct transgression, accusation of view transgression, and accusation of livelihood transgression. Among these, accusation of moral transgression should be understood in terms of the two grave groups of offenses. Accusation of conduct transgression in terms of the remaining ones. Accusation of view transgression in terms of wrong views and extreme grasping views. Accusation of livelihood transgression should be understood in terms of the six training rules enacted for livelihood. There is also another, of four kinds: pointing out the basis, pointing out the offense, refusal of communion, and refusal of proper conduct. Among these, pointing out the basis is that which proceeds thus: "You engaged in sexual intercourse, you took what was not given, you killed a human being, you falsely reported." Pointing out the offense is that which proceeds in this manner: "You have incurred the pārājika offense of sexual intercourse." Refusal of communion is that which proceeds thus: "There is no Uposatha with you, nor Pavāraṇā, nor Saṅgha-kamma." Refusal of proper conduct is the non-performance of acts like salutation, rising to greet, joining hands in reverence, and offering a seat. That, in order, is to be revered. Doing things without beginning, Not having done for one, At the time of doing for others, It should be understood. Even by this much, It is called an accusation. But what one wishes, Regarding gruel, food, and so on, One asks for it, By that much, it is not an accusation. Elsewhere, in the chapter on the suspension of the Pātimokkha, (Cūḷavagga 387) It is said, "Monks, there is 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, Fifty-five righteous. One hundred and ten accusations are stated. For one accusing by sight, One hundred and ten. For one accusing by hearing, One hundred and ten. For one accusing by suspicion, One hundred and ten. These are three hundred and thirty. For one accusing by body, For one accusing by speech, For one accusing by body and speech, Multiplied by three, They become nine hundred and ninety. These are the same, For one accusing oneself, And for one causing another to accuse. Thus becoming one thousand nine hundred and eighty. Again, in the divisions of sight, and so on, By way of with root and without root, Many thousands of accusations arise, It should be understood. 231. But among these accusations, Of the aforementioned kinds, When a matter is brought before the Saṅgha, By way of any accusation, The accused and the accuser should be asked: "Will you be satisfied with our decision?" If they say, "We will be," Then the Saṅgha should accept that case. But if they say: "Venerable sirs, please decide first; If it is acceptable to us, We will accept it," Then, saying things like, "First pay homage to the cetiya," And making it a long matter, It should be dismissed. If, after a long time, They become weary, The assembly having departed, Their party broken, They request again, Having refused up to the third time, When they are free from arrogance, Then their case should be decided. And by those deciding, If the assembly is dominated by shameless ones, That case should be decided by a vote. If the assembly is dominated by fools, Then "your like-minded Vinaya-holder..." having sought out those who are skilled in discipline, that dispute should be settled in accordance with the Dhamma, in accordance with the Vinaya, in accordance with the Teacher's instruction, whereby that dispute is settled. Therein, Dhamma means the actual fact. Vinaya means both the accusation and the admonition. Teacher's instruction means both the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. Therefore, when the accuser has reported the matter, the accused should be asked: "Is this true, or not?" Having thus investigated the matter, and having accused and admonished with the actual fact, and with the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement, that dispute should be settled. If there, a shameless person accuses a conscientious person, and that shameless person is foolish and unskillful, he should not be given guidance, but should be told thus: "What are you accusing him of?" Surely he will say: "What is this, venerable sir, what am I accusing him of?" "You do not even know what you are accusing him of, it is not proper for you, such a foolish person, to accuse another." He should be dismissed, he should not be given an inquiry. But if that shameless person is wise and skillful, and is able to establish the case by what he has seen or heard, then, having given him an inquiry, action should be taken according to the conscientious person's admission. If a conscientious person accuses a shameless person, and that conscientious person is foolish and unskillful, and is unable to give an inquiry, he should be given guidance: "What are you accusing him of? Of a lapse in morality, or one of the lapses in conduct, and so on?" Why, then, should guidance be given only to this one, and not to the other? Is it not improper for those skilled in discipline to act partially? It is indeed improper. But this is not partiality; it is called support for the Dhamma. For the training rule was laid down for the suppression of the shameless and for the encouragement of the conscientious. Therein, the shameless person, having received guidance, will come forth establishing the case. But the conscientious person, having received guidance, will speak, establishing himself by what he has seen, with a continuous account of what was seen, by what he has heard, with a continuous account of what was heard. Therefore, support for the Dhamma is appropriate for him. But if that conscientious person is wise and skillful, he speaks establishing himself, the shameless And if he does not give a denial saying "this too is not, this too is not," for the shameless one, a confession must indeed be made. And to clarify that meaning, this story should be known: It is said that Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya, after teaching the Vinaya to the bhikkhus beneath the Brazen Palace, rose up in the evening time. At the time of his rising, two disputants started a discussion. One did not give a denial, saying "this too is not, this too is not." Then, in the remaining part of the first watch, concerning that person, to the Elder, a doubt about purity arose: "This one speaks with conviction, but this one does not give a denial, and many matters have been brought up, surely this must have been done." Thereupon, giving a sign with a fan-stick to the foot-rest, he said: "I, friends, am not fit to judge; let another judge." "Why, venerable sir?" The Elder explained that matter. A burning sensation arose in the body of the accused. Then he, having paid homage to the Elder, said: "Venerable sir, a Vinaya-holder fit to judge should indeed be like you. And the accuser should indeed be like this." Having said this, having put on white clothes, having asked forgiveness, saying "I have troubled you for a long time," he departed. Thus, a shameless one, being accused by a conscientious one, even when many matters arise, does not give a denial. He should neither be called "pure" nor "impure." He is called "living dead" and "raw putrid." But if another such matter arises for him, it should not be judged. Thus he will be destroyed.