                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                              INTRODUCTION
   
                              Dhamma-Vinaya
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   
   Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha's own name for the religion he founded. 
   Dhamma -- the truth -- is what he discovered and pointed out as 
   advice for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya -- 
   discipline -- is what he formulated as rules, ideals and standards 
   of behavior for those of his followers who went forth from home life 
   to take up the quest for release in greater earnestness. Although 
   this book deals primarily with discipline, we should note at the 
   outset that Dhamma and Vinaya in practice function only together. 
   Neither without the other can attain the desired goal. In theory 
   they may be separate, but in the person who practices them they 
   merge as qualities developed in the mind and character.
   
      "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities 
      lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not 
      to being fettered; to self-effacement and not to 
      self-aggrandizement; to modesty and not to ambition; to 
      contentment and not to discontent; to seclusion, and not to 
      entanglement; to energy and not to idleness; to being 
      unburdensome and not to being burdensome': You may definitely 
      hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the 
      Teacher's instruction.'" (Cv.X.5)
   
     Ultimately, the Buddha said, just as the sea has a single taste, 
   that of salt, so too the Dhamma and Vinaya have a single taste: that 
   of release. The connection between discipline and release is spelled 
   out in a passage that recurs at several points in the Canon: 
   
      "Discipline is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the 
      sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake 
      of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of 
      tranquility, tranquility for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for 
      the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of 
      knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and 
      vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, 
      disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the 
      sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision 
      of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of 
      total unbinding without clinging." (Pv.XII.2) 
   
     In establishing his religion of release, though, the Buddha did 
   not simply set out a body of recommendations and rules. He also 
   founded a company (//parisa//) of followers. This company falls into 
   four main groups: bhikkhus (monks), bhikkhunis (nuns), lay men, and 
   lay women. Although the Buddha saw no need to organize the laity in 
   any manner, he arranged for the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis -- who had 
   given up the entanglements of the household life to devote 
   themselves more fully to the goal of release -- to develop into 
   communities; and saw that they needed, as all communities do, ideals 
   and standards, rules and customs to ensure their stability. This 
   need is what gave rise to the Vinaya.
   
     In the early years of the Buddha's career, the texts tell us, 
   there was no need to formulate disciplinary rules. All of the 
   bhikkhus in his following -- the Community of bhikkhunis had not yet 
   been started -- were men of high personal attainments who had 
   succeeded in subduing many or all of the defilements of their minds. 
   They knew his teachings well and behaved accordingly. The Canon 
   tells of how Ven. Sariputta, one of the Buddha's foremost disciples, 
   asked the Buddha at an early date to formulate a Patimokkha, or code 
   of rules, to ensure that the holy life the Buddha had founded would 
   last long, just as a thread holding together a floral arrangement 
   ensures that the flowers are not scattered by the wind. The Buddha 
   replied that the time for such a code had not yet come, for even the 
   most backward of the men in the Community at that time had already 
   had their first glimpse of the goal. Only when mental effluents 
   (//asava//) made themselves felt in the Community would there be a 
   need for a Patimokkha.
   
     As time passed, the conditions that provided an opening for the 
   effluents within the Community eventually began to appear. The 
   Bhaddali Sutta (M.65) presents the Buddha at a later point in his 
   career listing these conditions as five:
   
       Ven. Bhaddali: "Why is it, venerable sir, that there used to 
      be fewer training rules and more bhikkhus established in the 
      knowledge of Awakening? And why is it that there are now more 
      training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge 
      of Awakening?" [Bhaddali, who has been unwilling to abide by 
      the training rules, seems to be suggesting that the rise in the 
      number of training rules is itself the cause for fewer 
      bhikkhus' attaining Awakening. The Buddha, however, offers a 
      different explanation.]
      
      The Buddha: "So it is, Bhaddali. When beings have begun to 
      degenerate, and the true Dhamma has begun to disappear, there 
      are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the 
      knowledge of Awakening. The Teacher does not lay down a 
      training rule for his disciples as long as there are no cases 
      where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents 
      have arisen in the Community. But when there //are// cases 
      where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents 
      have arisen in the Community, then the Teacher lays down a 
      training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very 
      conditions.
      
      "There are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold 
      for the effluents have arisen in the Community as long as the 
      Community has not become large. But when the Community has 
      become large, then there are cases where the conditions that 
      offer a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and 
      the Teacher then lays down a training rule for his disciples so 
      as to counteract those very conditions....When the Community 
      possesses great material gains...great status...a large body of 
      learning... when the Community is long-standing, then there are 
      cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the 
      effluents in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down a 
      training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very 
      conditions."
   
     Thus the rules themselves were not the cause for degeneracy in the 
   Community, and the conditions that provided a foothold for the 
   effluents were not themselves effluents. Rather, the growing 
   complexity of the Community provided the opportunity for bhikkhus to 
   act on the basis of their defilements in a growing variety of ways, 
   and the rules -- although they could not prevent any of the five 
   conditions -- had to become correspondingly complex to counteract 
   the opportunities those conditions provided for unenlightened 
   behavior.
   
     Even when these conditions did arise, though, the Buddha did not 
   set out a full code at once. Instead, he formulated rules one at a 
   time, in response to events. The considerations that went into 
   formulating each rule are best illustrated by the events surrounding 
   the formulation of the first.
   
     Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and 
   had ordained after receiving his parents' grudging consent. He was 
   their only child and, though married, was childless. His parents, 
   fearing that the government would confiscate their property at their 
   death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven. 
   Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother 
   realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so 
   asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife so that 
   their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented, took his 
   wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times.
     
     Immediately he felt remorseful and eventually confessed his deed 
   to his fellow bhikkhus. Word reached the Buddha, who called a 
   meeting of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a 
   rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the 
   Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a //samana// -- a 
   contemplative -- and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. 
   Also, the Buddha pointed out to him of the aims of the teaching and 
   noted that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here 
   was that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the 
   content of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for 
   the Buddha's compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known.
      
      "'Misguided man, it is unseemly, unbecoming, unsuitable, and 
      unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be 
      done....Have I not taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake 
      of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for 
      fettering; for letting go and not for clinging? Yet here, while 
      I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on 
      passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you 
      set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the 
      Dhamma for letting go, you set your heart on clinging. 
      
      "'Misguided man, haven't I taught the Dhamma in various ways 
      for the fading of passion, the sobering of pride, the subduing 
      of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the 
      round, the depletion of craving, dispassion, stopping, 
      unbinding? Haven't I advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, 
      understanding sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, 
      destroying sensual preoccupations, calming sensual 
      fevers?...Misguided man, this neither inspires faith in the 
      faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack 
      of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the 
      faithful.'"
   
     The second part of the rebuke dealt in terms of personal 
   qualities: those that a bhikkhu practicing discipline is to abandon, 
   and those he is to develop.
     
      "Then the Blessed One, having in various ways rebuked Ven. 
      Sudinna, having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, 
      demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled, and indolent; in 
      various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome, 
      undemanding, modest, content, austere, scrupulous, gracious, 
      self-effacing, and energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on 
      what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed the 
      bhikkhus."
   
     This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after 
   first stating his reasons for doing so.
   
      "'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for 
      the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the 
      Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the 
      shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint 
      of effluents related to the present life, the prevention of 
      effluents related to the next life, the arousing of faith in 
      the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment 
      of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline.'"
   
     These reasons fall into three main types. The first two are 
   external: 1) to ensure peace and well-being within the Community 
   itself, and 2) to foster and protect faith among the laity, on whom 
   the bhikkhus depend for their support. (The origin stories of the 
   various rules depict the laity as being very quick to generalize. 
   One bhikkhu misbehaves, and they complain, "How can these bhikkhus 
   do that?") The third type of reason, though, is internal: The rule 
   is to help restrain and prevent mental effluents within the 
   individual bhikkhus. Thus the rules aim not only at the external 
   well-being of the Community, but also at the internal well-being of 
   the individual. This latter point soon becomes apparent to anyone 
   who seriously tries to keep to the rules, for they foster 
   mindfulness and circumspection in one's actions, qualities that 
   carry over into the training of the mind.
   
     Over the course of time the Buddha formulated more than 200 major 
   and minor rules, forming the Patimokkha that was recited fortnightly 
   in each Community of bhikkhus. In addition, he formulated many other 
   minor rules that were memorized by those of his followers who 
   specialized in the subject of discipline, but nothing is known for 
   sure of what format they used to organize this body of knowledge 
   during his lifetime. 
     
     After his total nibbana, though, his followers made a concerted 
   effort to establish a standard canon of Dhamma and Vinaya, and the 
   Pali Canon as we know it began to take shape. The Vinaya was 
   organized into two main parts: 1) the Sutta Vibhanga, the 
   'Exposition of the Text' (which from here on we will refer to simply 
   as the Vibhanga), containing almost all the material dealing with 
   the Patimokkha rules; and 2) the Khandhakas, or Groupings, which 
   contain the remaining material organized loosely according to 
   subject matter. The Khandhakas themselves are divided into two 
   parts, the Mahavagga, or Greater Chapter, and the Cullavagga, or 
   Lesser Chapter. Historians estimate that the Vibhanga and Khandhakas 
   reached their present form no later than the 2nd century B.C.E., and 
   that the Parivara, or Addenda -- a summary and study guide -- was 
   added a few centuries later, closing the Vinaya Pitaka, the part of 
   the Canon dealing with discipline.
   
     Since the purpose of this book is to translate and explain the 
   Patimokkha, we are most directly concerned with the Vibhanga. It is 
   organized as follows: The rules in the Patimokkha are presented one 
   by one, each rule preceded by an origin story telling the events 
   that led up to its formulation. In some instances a rule went 
   through one or more reformulations, in which case an additional 
   story is provided for each amendment to show what prompted it. 
     
     After the final statement of the rule is a word-commentary, which 
   explains in detail most of the important terms in the rule. For many 
   of the rules this commentary includes one or more "wheels," or 
   tables, giving the contingencies connected with the rule, working 
   out all their possible permutations and passing judgment as to what 
   penalty, if any, each permutation entails. For example, the 
   discussion of the first rule contains a wheel that gives all the 
   objects with which a person might have sexual intercourse, lists 
   them against the variables of the sort of intercourse and whether or 
   not the bhikkhu involved gives his consent, and announces the 
   penalty for each possible combination of factors.
     
     Following the word-commentary for each rule is a section of 
   no-offense clauses, listing extenuating circumstances under which a 
   bhikkhu would be exempted from the penalty imposed by the rule. 
     
     Finally, for the major rules, there is the Vinita Vatthu, or List 
   of Precedents, which documents various cases related to the rule and 
   gives verdicts as to what penalty, if any, they entail.
     
     The Vibhanga forms the basis for most of the explanations of the 
   training rules given in this book. However, there are occasional 
   questions on which the Vibhanga is unclear or silent. To answer 
   these questions, I have turned either to the Khandhakas or to the 
   commentarial literature that has grown up around the Vinaya over the 
   course of the centuries. The primary works I have consulted are 
   these:
   
     1) The //Samanta-pasadika// -- "The Thoroughly Inspiring" -- (from 
   here on referred to as the Commentary), a commentary on the Vinaya 
   Pitaka compiled in the 5th century C.E. by Bhadantacariya 
   Buddhaghosa, who based his work on ancient commentaries brought to 
   Sri Lanka from India at an unknown date and translated into 
   Sinhalese. From internal evidence in Buddhaghosa's writings -- he 
   compiled commentaries on a major portion of the Canon -- historians 
   have estimated that the ancient commentaries were collected over a 
   span of several centuries and closed in approximately the 2nd 
   century C.E. Buddhaghosa's work thus contains material much older 
   than his date would indicate. 
     
     By Buddhaghosa's time a belief had grown up that the ancient 
   commentaries were the work of the Buddha's immediate disciples and 
   thus indisputably conveyed the true intent of the Canon. However, as 
   we shall see below, the ancient commentaries themselves did not make 
   such exalted claims for themselves. 
     
     Still, the existence of this belief in the 5th century placed 
   certain constraints on Buddhaghosa's work. At points where the 
   ancient commentaries conflicted with the Canon, he had to write the 
   discrepancies off as copier's mistakes or else side with the 
   commentaries against the Canon. At a few points, such as his 
   explanation of Pacittiya 9, he provides arguments against the 
   ancient commentaries' interpretation but then backs off, saying that 
   the ancient commentaries must be right because their authors knew 
   the Buddha's intentions. Perhaps pressure from the elder bhikkhus at 
   the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura -- the place where the ancient 
   commentaries had been preserved and where Buddhaghosa was allowed to 
   do his work -- was what made him back off in this way. At any rate, 
   only on points where the different ancient commentaries were silent 
   or gave divergent opinions did he feel free to express his opinions. 
     
     2) The //Kankha-vitarani// -- "The Subjugator of Uncertainty" -- 
   (the K/Commentary), a commentary on the Patimokkha also compiled by 
   Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa. Although this work is largely a synopsis 
   of material in the Commentary, it contains some independent 
   material, in particular a system of classifying the offenses under 
   each training rule into their component factors. It also contradicts 
   the Commentary from time to time. 
     
     3) The //Sarattha-dipani// -- "The Essence-Meaning Illustrator" -- 
   (the Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary on the Commentary, written in 
   Sri Lanka in the 12th century C.E. by a Ven. Sariputta, the first 
   Mahasami, or head of the Sri Lankan Sangha, after that Sangha was 
   reformed and unified under the patronage of King Parakrama Bahu I. 
   This work not only explains the Commentary, but also deals with 
   points in the Canon itself, sometimes indicating passages where the 
   Commentary has deviated from the Canon. It also quotes as 
   authoritative the judgments of three ancient texts, the 
   Ganthipadesa, which are no longer extant, and of Ven. Buddhadatta, a 
   scholar of the 4th century C.E. who wrote two extant Vinaya guides. 
     
     4) The //Vimati-vinodani// -- "The Remover of Perplexity" -- (the 
   V/Sub-commentary), another 12th-century sub-commentary, written in 
   southern India by a Ven. Kassapa, who also wrote the 
   //Mohavicchedani//, a synopsis of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and 
   Buddhaghosa's commentaries on it.
     
     5) The //Attha-yojana// -- "The Interpretation of the Meaning" -- 
   (the A/Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary that, unlike the works of 
   Vens. Sariputta and Kassapa, does little more than analyze the 
   language of the Commentary. This was written in the 18th century 
   C.E. by a Burmese scholar named Ven. Nanakitti
     
     From here on "the ancient commentaries" will denote the original 
   commentaries that Buddhaghosa had to work with, and "the 
   commentaries" all five works listed above. 
   
     In addition to the Canon and the commentaries, I have referred to 
   the texts listed in the Bibliography. Two of these deserve special 
   mention here.
   
     1) The //Vinaya Mukha//, a guide to the Vinaya written in Thai in 
   the early 20th century by Prince Vajiranana-varorasa, a son of King 
   Rama IV who ordained as a bhikkhu and eventually held the position 
   of Supreme Patriarch of the Thai Sangha for many years. This work he 
   wrote as part of his attempt to unite the two major sects of the 
   Thai Sangha. The attempt failed, but the book is still used as the 
   official textbook on Vinaya for the examinations run by the Thai 
   Ecclesiastical Board. Prince Vajiranana in his interpretations often 
   disagrees openly not only with the commentaries, but also with the 
   Vibhanga itself. Some of his disagreements with the commentaries are 
   well-taken, some not. 
   
     I include the book here both for the valuable suggestions it makes 
   for dealing with unclear points in the older texts and because it is 
   taken as authoritative through much of Thailand. It has been 
   translated into English, as //The Entrance to the Vinaya//, but I 
   have chosen to translate anew all the passages I quote from it. 
     
     2) //The Book of Discipline//, a translation of the entire Vinaya 
   Pitaka into English by Miss I. B. Horner. Although I have learned 
   much from Miss Horner's work, there are points where my translations 
   and conclusions differ from hers. Since many readers will want to 
   check the information in this book against hers, I have marked these 
   points with a "(%)." Anyone curious as to which interpretation is 
   correct should check the passages in question against the Royal Thai 
   edition of the Pali Canon, my major source throughout this book.
     
     Disagreements among the texts. One of the difficulties in trying 
   to collate all these various texts is that there are points on which 
   the Vibhanga is at variance with the wording of the Patimokkha 
   rules, and the commentaries are at variance with the Canon. This 
   forces us to decide which strata of the texts to take as 
   authoritative. As far as discrepancies between the Vibhanga and the 
   rules are concerned, the following passage in the Cullavagga (X.4) 
   suggests that the Buddha himself gave preference to the way the 
   bhikkhus worked out the rules in the Vibhanga:
   
      "As she was standing at a respectful distance, Maha-pajapati 
      Gotami spoke thus to the Blessed One: 'Lord, those rules of 
      training for the bhikkhunis that are in common with those for 
      the bhikkhus: What line of conduct should we follow in regard 
      to them?'
      
      "'Those rules of training for the bhikkhunis, Gotami, that are 
      in common with those for the bhikkhus: //As the bhikkhus train 
      themselves, so should you train yourselves//'.... (emphasis 
      added).
      
      "'And those rules of training for bhikkhunis that are not in 
      common with those for bhikkhus: What line of conduct should we 
      follow in regard to them?'
      
      "'Those rules of training for the bhikkhunis, Gotami, that are 
      not in common with those for the bhikkhus: Train yourselves in 
      them as they are formulated.'"
   
     This passage implies that already in the time of the Buddha the 
   bhikkhus had begun working out a way to interpret the rules that in 
   some cases was not exactly in line with the way the Buddha had 
   originally formulated them. Some people have read this passage as 
   suggesting that the Buddha, though resigned to this development, was 
   displeased with it, but this would contradict the many passages in 
   the Canon where the Buddha speaks in high praise of Ven. Upali, the 
   foremost of his bhikkhu disciples in terms of his knowledge of 
   Vinaya, who was responsible for teaching the rules to the other 
   bhikkhus and who was largely responsible for the shape of the Vinaya 
   as we now have it. It seems more likely that the Buddha in this 
   passage is simply saying that, to avoid unnecessary controversy, the 
   way the bhikkhus had worked out the implications of the rules was to 
   be accepted as is. 
     
     Because this development eventually led to the Vibhanga, we can be 
   confident that in adhering to the Vibhanga we are acting as the 
   Buddha would have us do. And when we check the few places where the 
   Vibhanga deviates from the wording of the rules, we find that almost 
   invariably it has tried to reconcile contradictions among the rules 
   themselves, and between the rules and the Khandhakas, so as to make 
   the Vinaya a more coherent whole. This is particularly true with 
   rules that touch on formal acts of the Community. Apparently many of 
   these rules were formulated before the general patterns for formal 
   acts were finalized in the Khandhakas. Thus, after the patterns were 
   established, the compilers of the Vibhanga were sometimes forced to 
   deviate from the wording of the rules to bring them into line with 
   the patterns.
     
     As for contradictions between the Commentary and the Vibhanga, 
   this is a more controversial area, with two extremes of thought. One 
   is to reject the Commentary entirely, as it is not the Buddha's 
   word, for modern historical scholarship has shown decisively that it 
   contains material dating many hundreds of years after the Buddha's 
   passing away. This position assumes, though, that in the areas where 
   the Canon is vague or unclear we have nothing to learn from the 
   accumulated wisdom and experience of those who have lived the 
   bhikkhu's life before us. The other extreme is to accept the 
   Commentary as superseding the Vibhanga entirely, in line with the 
   traditional belief that grew up around it: that it was composed at 
   the First Council to express the true intent of those who composed 
   the Vibhanga and yet somehow were unable to put what they really 
   meant to say into the Canon itself.
     
     Neither of these extremes is in line with the Great Standards for 
   judging Dhamma and Vinaya that -- as the Mahaparinibbana Sutta 
   (D.16) reports -- the Buddha formulated at Bhoganagara shortly 
   before his passing away:
   
      "There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: 'In the Blessed 
      One's presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One's presence 
      have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, 
      this is the Teacher's instruction.' His statement is neither to 
      be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take 
      careful note of his words and make them stand against the 
      Suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them 
      stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, 
      you find that they don't stand with the Suttas or tally with 
      the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is not the word of the 
      Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it' -- and you 
      should reject it. But if...they stand with the Suttas and tally 
      with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is the word of the 
      Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.'" 
   
     [The same criteria are to be used when the bhikkhu cites as his 
   authority a Community with well-known leading elders; a monastery 
   with many learned elders who know the tradition, who have memorized 
   the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Matika (the precursor to the 
   Abhidhamma as we know it); or a single elder who knows the 
   tradition.]
     
     In other words, the question is not one of the authority on whose 
   word a claim is based, but one of consistency: Only if a statement 
   stands up under comparison with the Canon should it be accepted as 
   true Dhamma or Vinaya. The same principle holds for statements that 
   are said to be not the word of the Buddha, but the opinion of 
   respected teachers. 
     
     This point is borne out by two important passages in the texts. 
   One is the narrative of the Second Council, during which the 
   bhikkhus of Vesali defended ten practices on the grounds that they 
   had learned them from their teachers. The elders who judged the 
   case, though, insisted on evaluating the practices in terms of 
   whether or not they adhered to the Canon. The primary point of 
   controversy -- the question of whose authority was greater, the 
   Canon's or the teachers' -- was point six:
   
      "'The practice of what is habitual, sir -- is it allowable?'
      
      "'What is the practice of what is habitual, my friend?'
      
      "'To practice (thinking), this is the way my preceptor 
      habitually practiced; this is the way my teacher habitually 
      practiced -- is this allowable?'
      
      "'The practice of what is habitual is sometimes allowable, 
      sometimes not.'" (CV.XII.2.8)
      
     What this means, as the elders showed in the way they conducted 
   the meeting, is that one's teacher's and preceptor's practices are 
   to be followed only when they are in accordance with the Canon.
     
     The second passage is the discussion of the Great Standards in the 
   Commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which concludes that the 
   commentaries are to be accepted only where they are in agreement 
   with the Canon. Apparently the teachers who compiled the ancient 
   commentaries took a more modest view of their authority than did the 
   elders of the Mahavihara at the time of Buddhaghosa and did not 
   pretend to supersede the Canon as the final word on what is and is 
   not true Dhamma and Vinaya.
     
     Some may object that to pass judgment on the Commentary is to lack 
   respect for the tradition, but actually it is because of respect for 
   the compilers of the Vibhanga that I make the following assumptions 
   in checking the Commentary against the Vibhanga:
     
     1) The compilers of the Vibhanga were intelligent enough to be 
   consistent within the discussion of each rule. Any explanation based 
   on the premise that they were not consistent should give way to an 
   explanation showing that they were.
     
     2) The compilers were well enough acquainted with the 
   contingencies surrounding each rule that they knew which factors 
   were and were not crucial in determining what is and is not an 
   offense. Any explanation that adds or subtracts factors from those 
   mentioned in the Vibhanga should give way to one that follows the 
   Vibhanga's analysis.
     
     3) The compilers, in reporting the precedents in the Vinita Vatthu 
   -- the cases the Buddha judged against an existing rule -- were 
   careful enough to include all the important factors bearing on the 
   judgment. Any explanation that requires rewriting the precedents, 
   adding extra details extraneous to the Vibhanga to account for the 
   judgment, should give way to an explanation that can make sense out 
   of the precedents as they are reported and in terms of the analyses 
   presented elsewhere in the Vibhanga.
     
     It's not that I take any joy in arguing with the Commentary. In 
   fact, wherever possible, I have been happy to give it the benefit of 
   the doubt, and on many points I am very much in its debt. Still, now 
   that Buddhism is coming to the West, I feel it is time to stop and 
   take stock of the tradition, and to check the later traditions 
   against the earliest sources. This is especially important in a way 
   of thought and life that, from the very beginning, has appealed to 
   reason and investigation rather than to blindly accepted authority. 
   In doing this, I am simply following a pattern that has repeated 
   itself through the history of the Theravadin tradition: that of 
   returning to the original principles whenever the religion reaches 
   an historic turning point. 
     
     There is, of course, a danger in being too independent in 
   interpreting the tradition, in that strongly held opinions can lead 
   to disharmony in the Community. Thus in evaluating the Commentary 
   against the Canon, I do not want to imply that my conclusions are 
   the only ones possible. Important points may have slipped my 
   attention or escaped my grasp. For this reason, even in instances 
   where I think that the Commentary does not do justice to the 
   Vibhanga, I have tried to give a faithful account of the important 
   points from the Commentary so that those who wish to take it as 
   their authority may still use this book as a guide. If there are any 
   points on which I am mistaken, I would be pleased if knowledgeable 
   people would correct me.
     
     At the same time, I hope that this book will show that there are 
   many areas on which the Vibhanga is unclear and lends itself to a 
   variety of equally valid interpretations. For proof of this, we need 
   only look at the various traditions that have developed in the 
   different Theravadin countries, and even within each country. For 
   some reason, although people tend to be very tolerant of different 
   interpretations of the Dhamma, they can be very intolerant of 
   different interpretations of the Vinaya and can get into heated 
   arguments over minor issues having very little to do with the 
   training of the mind. 
     
     I have tried to make the point throughout this book that any 
   interpretation based on a sound reading of the Canon should be 
   respected: that each bhikkhu should follow the interpretations of 
   the Community in which he is living, as long as they do not conflict 
   with the Canon, so as to avoid conflict over minor matters in daily 
   life; and that he should also show respect for the differing 
   interpretations of other Communities where they too do not conflict 
   with the Canon, so as to avoid the pitfalls of pride and 
   narrow-mindedness. 
     
     This is especially true now that monasteries of different 
   nationalities are taking root in close proximity to one another in 
   the West. In the past, Thais, Burmese, and Sri Lankans could look 
   down on one another's traditions without danger of causing friction, 
   as they lived in separate countries and spoke different languages. 
   Now, however, we have become neighbors and have begun to speak 
   common languages, so it is best that we take to heart the writings 
   of the Chinese pilgrims who visited India centuries ago. They 
   reported that even after the early Buddhists had split into 18 
   schools, each with its own Tripitaka and Patimokkha, and the 
   Mahayanists had added //their// texts to the tradition, bhikkhus 
   belonging to different schools could be found living together in the 
   same monastery, practicing and conducting communal business in peace 
   and harmony. Theirs is a worthy example. We should not let our minor 
   differences become stumbling blocks on our way. 
     
     My aim throughout this book has been practical. I have avoided 
   dealing with academic issues concerning the authenticity and 
   reliability of the tradition, and instead have tried simply to 
   report and explain what the tradition has to say. Of course, I have 
   had to be selective. Whatever the unconscious factors that have 
   influenced my choice of material, the conscious considerations 
   shaping this book are briefly as follows:
     
     We are dealing primarily with rules, but rules are not the only 
   way to express disciplinary norms, and the texts we are surveying 
   express their norms in a variety of forms: as rules, principles, 
   models, and virtues. The different forms are best suited for 
   different purposes. Principles, models, and virtues are meant as 
   personal, subjective standards and tend to be loosely defined. Their 
   interpretation and application are left to the judgment of the 
   individual. Rules are meant to serve as more objective standards. To 
   work, they must be precisely defined in a way acceptable to the 
   Community at large. The compilers of the Canon, recognizing this 
   need, provided definitions for most of the terms in the rules, and 
   the authors of the commentaries continued this task, carrying it out 
   with even greater thoroughness. Thus much of this book, in reporting 
   these texts, is concerned with the definition of terms.
     
     This need for precision, though, accounts for the weakness of 
   rules in general as universal guides to behavior. First, there is 
   the question of where to draw the line between what is and is not an 
   infraction of the rule. A clear break-off point is needed because 
   rules -- unlike principles -- deal in two colors: black and white. 
   In some cases, it is difficult to find a clear break-off point that 
   corresponds exactly to one's sense of what is right and wrong, and 
   so it is necessary to include the areas of gray either with the 
   white or the black. In general, but not always, the Vibhanga's 
   position is to include the gray with the white, and to rely on the 
   principles of the Dhamma to encourage the individual bhikkhu to stay 
   away from the gray.
     
     Take, for instance, the rule against masturbation. The Vibhanga 
   limits this rule to forbidding only those forms of masturbation that 
   aim at ejaculation, for if it had drawn the line anywhere else, it 
   would have become an offense for a bhikkhu simply to scratch 
   himself. Thus self-stimulation that does not aim at ejaculation is 
   not an offense, although in many cases it is clearly against the 
   spirit of the Dhamma. The Vinaya Mukha notes, disapprovingly, a 
   number of older Vinaya guides that like to dwell on these areas of 
   gray and seem to delight in figuring out ways to avoid an offense by 
   working around the letter of the rules. In this book I am taking a 
   different tack: Under those rules that include large areas of grey 
   with the white, I have noted a few relevant principles from the 
   Dhamma to spell out a wise policy with regard to the gray areas -- 
   not to reformulate the rule, but simply as a reminder that, as noted 
   above, the Vinaya without the Dhamma does not suffice as a guide to 
   the goal.
     
     Another drawback resulting from the need for precision in rules is 
   that the more precisely a rule is defined to suit a particular time 
   and place, the less well it may fit other times and places. The 
   compilers of the Canon, in order to make up for this weakness, thus 
   provided the origin stories and precedents to show the type of 
   situation the rule was intended to prevent, providing principles and 
   models that indicate the spirit of the rule and aid in applying it 
   to differing contexts. In writing this book I have often made 
   reference to these stories, to give this added dimension. 
     
     Admittedly, the stories do not make for inspiring reading. For 
   example, instead of reading about bhikkhus accepting a meal at a 
   donor's house and then uplifting the donor with a talk on Dhamma, we 
   read about Ven. Udayin accepting a meal at the dwelling of a 
   bhikkhuni who was his former wife, and the two of them sitting there 
   exposing their genitals to each other. Still, the stories do remind 
   us that the more inspiring stories we read in the discourses took 
   place in a very real human world, and they also reveal the insight 
   and understated wit of those who framed and interpreted the rules. 
   The element of wit here is especially important, for without it 
   there is no true understanding of human nature, and no intelligent 
   system of discipline. 
     
     Finally, in compiling this book, I have tried to include whatever 
   seems most worth knowing for the bhikkhu who aims at fostering the 
   qualities of discipline in his life -- so as to help train his mind 
   and live in peace with his fellow bhikkhus -- and for anyone who 
   wants to support and encourage the bhikkhus in that aim. 
   
   
                            * * * * * * * *
