Vinaya Essentials from the Four-Part Vinaya (四分律拾毗尼義鈔)

Explaining the Thirteen Difficulties in Seven Sections

First, a brief explanation of the obstacles: though obstacles may arise in countless ways, I will focus on the most significant ones and briefly discuss thirteen here. Among these, the first is the grave offense.

Question: Why is it called a grave offense? Answer: It is not because of killing or stealing that it is called grave. If that were the case, laypeople who commit the same acts should also be considered grave offenses. If it is because one has received the precepts and should not commit them, then violating the purity of a nun should also be considered a grave offense. If it is defined as an offense outside the community, then those who have been expelled should not be considered grave offenses, as they have not yet been expelled. If it is called grave because of its severity, then minor offenses of novices should not be considered grave.

Now, to address the essence of the grave offense: it refers to actions that violate the Buddha’s teachings. If one does not commit them, there is no issue; but if one does, it is considered beyond the bounds, hence the term "grave offense."

Question: Why is it not called expulsion? Answer: In truth, it should be called expulsion, but because such a person has already renounced the precepts, it is not given the same name as before. Moreover, between these two individuals, compared to the status of a bhikkhu, one who has obtained the Dharma is called "expelled," while the other is not called "grave." The principle is the same, but to distinguish between the two, the original term "grave offense" is retained.

Second, regarding those who violate the purity of nuns: According to the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya*, if an Arhat or an Anāgāmin—these two holy nuns—engage in sexual misconduct at the beginning, middle, or end, it is all considered a violation of their purity. For those at the stage of Srotāpanna or ordinary practitioners upholding precepts, if they willingly indulge in pleasure at the beginning, it is a violation of purity; but not if it occurs in the middle or end.

A question arises: Since holy beings are not defiled, how can this become an obstacle? The explanation is: As long as the act is completed, regardless of whether the other party is defiled, it becomes an obstacle to maintaining precepts. The *Mahāvibhāṣā* states: Violating a Śikṣamāṇā or a Śrāmaṇerikā does not obstruct ordination. However, if a bhikṣuṇī engages in sexual misconduct in three ways, it is considered a violation. Even if a nun willingly engages in sexual relations with a layperson, it does not obstruct ordination.

Some say: As long as one holds full precepts, regardless of purity or impurity, acting with arrogance is grave. For those not yet fully ordained, the offense is lighter and does not obstruct precepts. Therefore, the *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* states: "You have not defiled a bhikṣuṇī," without specifying the two lower categories. But for those holding full precepts, regardless of purity or impurity, they are regarded as venerable in the eyes of laypeople. The *Mahīśāsaka Vinaya* and *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* also state similarly. Although the first explanation does not mention purity or impurity in the three Vinayas, the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* is the most comprehensive.

A question from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*: Killing an ordinary nun up to the third fruit does not obstruct precepts. In the *Daśabhūmika Sūtra*, killing a Pratyekabuddha is not considered a grave offense. Why then does violating a nun obstruct precepts? Explanation: Killing damages the field of merit, thus constituting a grave offense. Those below are not supreme fields of merit, so killing them does not constitute a grave offense.

Question: If a Srotāpanna willingly indulges in pleasure and incurs a grave offense, should they fall into hell? Explanation: They do not receive such retribution. If so, why do ordinary nuns receive retribution? Answer: Because the circumstances differ—one involves a counterpart, the other does not—so they cannot be compared.

Question: Laymen may violate nuns, but laywomen cannot violate nuns, as they are of the same gender. If so, bhikṣus have two ways of breaking the saṅgha (through schism and through wrongful accusation), but nuns lack the breaking of the Dharma wheel, so one aspect is missing and should not constitute a residual offense. Explanation: Although nuns cannot break the Dharma wheel, the act of accusation is common to both. Laywomen violating nuns is entirely different. Another explanation: Violating a bhikṣu also constitutes an obstacle, but since men violating bhikṣus is rare, it is not explicitly stated as obstructing precepts, though in principle it does. Therefore, the *Upāsakaśīla Sūtra* says: For those receiving the five precepts, "You shall not violate a bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī."

**The Third: The Thief Mind in Receiving Precepts**

*Shanjian* states: There are three types of theft: 1. **Stealing Form:** One who leaves home (becomes a monk) without a teacher, calls himself a bhikkhu, claims seniority, accepts veneration, participates in Sangha affairs, and receives offerings. 2. **Stealing Harmony:** One who has a teacher and has left home, has received the ten novice precepts but not the full ordination (upasampadā). He goes to another place, claims to have ten rains (vassa), accepts veneration according to seniority, participates in the Sangha's Uposatha, and receives offerings from the faithful. 3. **Stealing Both:** This can be understood based on the above.

If it is a case of **stealing form** (where one did not participate in Sangha affairs) and the person wishes to leave home again and receive precepts, it is permissible. *Sengqi* states: If a śrāmaṇera thinks, "I wonder what they discuss during the Uposatha recitation," and hides under a bed to listen secretly, if he is clever and remembers the beginning, middle, and end of the recitation, he cannot be given full ordination. Otherwise, he may receive it.

*Shisong* states: If one has listened to two or three Uposatha recitations, one should not receive ordination. If one has already been ordained, one should be expelled. If one has listened to one Uposatha, or sometimes listened and sometimes not, one may receive ordination.

*Five Hundred Questions* states: If a śrāmaṇera falsely claims to be a fully ordained monk and accepts a single bow of veneration from a full bhikkhu, this constitutes the "thief-dweller" obstacle.

**An Explanation Here:** According to the Vinaya, going before one, two, or three bhikkhus [to falsely claim status] establishes this obstacle. Therefore, both face-to-face (*kammavācā*) and Sangha (*saṅghakamma*) procedures can create this hindrance.

**The Primary Explanation:** Although one may have falsely assumed the form [of a monk] before one, two, or three individuals, performing a face-to-face confession (*pāṭidesanīya*) with them does not remove this obstacle, because this is a matter of individual confession.

Fourth, on the difficulty of refuting the two paths: This is primarily directed at refuting internal views, while also incorporating refutations of external ones.

Question: Why does the novice monk’s failure to refute pose a difficulty? How are theft and killing equally obstacles to the precepts?

Answer: Though the gravity differs between major and minor offenses, both violate the fundamental precepts.

Question: If so, why do nuns and the two lower assemblies, when violating the latter four grave offenses, not have their precepts obstructed?

Answer: The first four offenses are defined by clear boundaries—violating them immediately obstructs the precepts. The latter four are branch rules, deeply preventive in nature, and thus not of the same category.

The fifth type of eunuch challenge, according to the *Ten Recitations*, includes five categories: 1. Those born without the ability. 2. Those whose ability is irregular, occurring only every half-month. 3. Those who become aroused out of jealousy toward others’ actions. 4. Those who become aroused due to others’ sexual activity. 5. Those whose ability is impaired by illness or decay.

Among these, the first four are considered genuine challenges. As for the fifth, if the person remains unaffected, they may be allowed to stay. Even if unaffected, if they renounce the monastic life, abandon their precepts, and later seek re-ordination, they should not be accepted. If they have already been accepted, they should be expelled.

According to the *Monastic Code of the Mahāsāṃghika*, there are six categories: 1. Those born without the ability. 2. Those whose spouses, out of jealousy, damaged them in childhood. 3. Those castrated by rulers or officials to serve as gatekeepers. 4. Those who become aroused when touched by others. 5. Those who become aroused only after witnessing others’ actions. 6. Those whose ability is irregular, occurring only every half-month.

The first three should not be accepted for ordination. If already ordained, they should be expelled. The latter three should not be ordained. If already ordained, they should not be driven out, but if later sexual desire arises, they should be expelled.

According to the *Four-Part Vinaya*, there are also five categories: 1. Those born without the ability. 2. Those who have been castrated. 3. Those who become aroused out of jealousy. 4. Those whose gender has changed. 5. Those whose ability is irregular, occurring only every half-month.

Among these, if someone loses their male organ after full ordination due to other causes, they should not be expelled. If they renounce their precepts, they should not be re-ordained. Even if already ordained, if they intentionally remove their male organ, they should be expelled.

Regarding the sixth and seventh obstacles concerning killing one's parents, the *Shanjian* states: "If one kills one's animal parents, one may still leave home to become a monastic." The *Ten Recitations* says: "If one kills one's parents under mistaken perception or due to different circumstances, one may still receive the precepts."

Eighth: Killing an Arhat.

The *Jia Lun* (Karmaprajñapti) states: If one kills an Arhat with a deluded mind, they may still receive the precepts.

The *Ten Wheels Sutra* says: If a person has left home life and received full ordination, and then kills an Arhat they have personally realized as a Noble One, this is a heinous offense and a root transgression. Such a person should be expelled from the Buddha's monastic community.

The *Shan Jian Lü* (Samantapāsādikā) explains: If one kills a lay Arhat, they cannot become a monastic. However, killing a disciple who has attained the third stage of enlightenment (non-returner) does not prevent them from becoming a monastic.

The ninth question concerns the offense of causing a schism in the monastic community. According to the *Gandhavyuha-sutra* explanation: Those who have caused a schism in the Non-Form Realm cannot receive novice ordination or full ordination. However, those who have caused a schism in the Form Realm can receive both.

A question arises: When asking a novice monk, "Have you ever caused a schism?"—this is acceptable for male novices. But since women are incapable of causing a schism in the sangha, why ask them the same question?

**Answer**: Strictly speaking, this question shouldn't apply to women. However, there is a possibility that a fully ordained male monk who committed this offense might later change to the female monastic path through spiritual transformation, or might have acted as an accomplice in causing a schism. Therefore, the question is still necessary.

Similarly, it might seem that a novice (who was never a fully ordained monk) could not commit this offense. Yet there is also a possibility that someone who was once a fully ordained monk, causing a schism, later disrobed and then sought ordination again as a novice. Or they could have acted as a primary or secondary participant. Therefore, the question must be asked of them as well.

**The Tenth Ordeal: Shedding the Buddha’s Blood**

Question: Among the five heinous offenses, why is “shedding the Buddha’s blood with evil intent” named as such, while the other four are not given this name?

Answer: If one draws blood while giving medical treatment or strikes the Buddha, this is not considered evil intent. “Evil intent” refers specifically to Devadatta’s deliberate attempt to kill the Buddha by drawing blood. Therefore it is named accordingly.

The Five-Part Vinaya says: When Devadatta shed the Buddha’s blood with evil intent and split the sangha, the monks did not know how to handle this. The Buddha said, “Such a person should not be admitted into monastic life. If already ordained, they should be expelled and shunned.” The text only says “expel Devadatta,” not “Devadatta the monk.”

The Four-Part Vinaya says: “The Buddha cannot be harmed—this is impossible.” Why then is “shedding the Buddha’s blood” mentioned? An initial explanation: Injuries to the body that cause bleeding are conditions for shedding blood. Although blood may be drawn, it cannot end the Buddha’s life, so “harming” is impossible. As the Vibhasha says, “Eight hundred devas attained the ability to see past lives and witnessed the Buddha’s past actions of fishing and similar karma.”

The Ten Stages Sutra asks: If it is impossible to shed the Buddha’s blood or end his life, why display bloodshed instead of showing a death scene? Shedding blood serves two purposes: First, to demonstrate equality and impartiality—Devadatta shed the Buddha’s blood, yet the Buddha regarded him as no different from Rahula. Second, to reveal the certainty of karmic retribution, eliminating the devas’ wrong views.

The Bodhisattva Treasury says: When the Buddha’s blood was shed, countless beings attained realization, so this display was for their benefit. If there were beings who would benefit from seeing the Buddha’s apparent death, the Buddha would manifest that accordingly. The sutra says, “He should appear to enter nirvana” to show that evil deeds later bring karmic consequences. The remaining difficulties can be understood accordingly.

Question: According to the Four-Part Vinaya, if a person is questioned before receiving precepts but after their precepts are established, the assembled monks commit a minor offense. What does this mean?

An initial explanation: This should also be considered an abandoned teaching of the Four-Part Vinaya. The Gandha Vinaya says: “If, when conferring full ordination, one does not ask about obstructing conditions but still gives the precepts, the precepts are obtained, but the monks commit a minor offense.”

Second, explaining the essential nature [of the obstacles to ordination] according to their category:

Eunuchs and the five types of sexual deviants are defined by afflictions. Animals and hungry ghosts are defined by the intensity of their suffering. Hermaphrodites are defined by their impure dual bodies and retributive form. The remaining nine types [of obstacles] are defined by unwholesome actions of intention.

Question: What is the essential nature of the five heinous offenses? Answer: All are inherently obstacles due to their gravity; they do not involve *pārājika* offenses. Just as in worldly terms, a grave obstruction does not become a *pārājika*. If we discuss *pārājika* and the like, these are included within the category of "border transgressions."

Question: [Among the obstacles to ordination,] why are the four offenses grouped together as one "border transgression," while the five heinous offenses are separate? Answer: Although killing and stealing are different acts, they do not inherently prevent ordination by their mere commission. Only by violating a serious precept does one incur a "border" offense. The violation of precepts is unified in nature, hence they are combined as one [category of] border offense. For heinous offenses, there are no precepts to violate; each act independently constitutes a grave obstruction. Thus, for obstacles to ordination, there are thirteen types but only four names: non-humans, animals, hermaphrodites, and eunuchs—named according to their retribution; border transgressions and inner corruption—named according to the violation of precepts; thief-like intentions—named according to the inherent nature; and the remaining six—named according to circumstances such as corrupting nuns and the five heinous offenses.

**Third Controversy: The Establishment and Refutation of "Difficulties"**

**Question:** Since there are countless obstacles preventing the precepts from arising, why are only thirteen specifically called "difficulties" while the rest are called "obstructions"?

**Answer:** Anything called a "difficulty" has two characteristics: first, it is fixed from beginning to end; second, even with all the necessary conditions present, the precepts still cannot arise. The thirteen "difficulties" possess both characteristics and are therefore called "difficulties." The others lack these and are only called "obstructions."

**Question:** Among the thirteen, why does only the first one get the name "border" while the others do not?

**Answer:** "Border" has four meanings: First, one who has once received the inner Dharma but is now exiled to the outside can be called "border." The others have never entered [the monastic community] and are only treated as exceptions for nuns who have corrupted their pure conduct. Second, in terms of membership, it applies to fully ordained monks; novices and those who cannot become monastics do not qualify for this "border" label. This excludes those who have violated two or more vows or have caused schism. "Thief-like conduct" is specific to novices and does not apply to fully ordained monks. These three, though they have received the inner Dharma, do not share scope with each other, hence the distinction. Third, does it apply to laypeople? Those who are eunuchs, have killed parents, have killed an Arhat, are non-humans, animals, or hermaphrodites—these seven are accessible to laypeople and are not called "border." Fourth, the offense must reach its completion to be called "border." Spilling the Buddha's blood is an incomplete act because laypeople can do it.

**Question:** If a nun commits one of the last four serious offenses and returns after giving up her precepts, does it fall under the "border" offense difficulty? If so, since these last four are not applicable to novices, would they also be "border" offenses? But breaking the unity of the Sangha, also not applying to novices, would then also have to be a "border" offense—this creates a difficulty.

**Explanation:** To avoid this difficulty, if a nun commits one of the eight serious offenses, she is not named "border" at all. Why? A nun, even if she lawfully gives up her precepts, is not allowed to take them again. So there’s no need to set up a "border" offense difficulty—thus there is no problem.

Another explanation: "Border" specifically refers to a first-time violation of the Buddha's teaching that incurs a grave offense; for subsequent matters, no teaching is being violated. Furthermore, "border" is a specific term among the thirteen. If we force all the terminologies to match, then just as the first is called "border," we would have to call the others the same—just as if we said "down to the hermaphrodite," we would have to call all twelve "hermaphrodites." The difficulty is clear. "Border" is a specific term, while "difficulty" is a general description.

Now, regarding the fourth point—that the collection of difficulties is not exhaustive—there are two interpretations. First, in terms of wording, it is difficult to fully express, for there are countless [cases]. Here we simply list the thirteen and thirty-three as the difficulties. The *Lun* by Vasubandhu also says that those who have severed wholesome roots also cannot receive the precepts. The *Shanjian* says that six types of people do not obstruct the path of gods and humans but obstruct the noble path: pandakas, animals, those with two faculties, thieves who live in the monastery, corrupters of nuns, and destroyers of the path. As for the five heinous crimes, such people are obstructed from both the paths of gods and humans and the noble path. The *Mahīśāsaka Vinaya* further adds: a novice with evil wrong views does not engage in the karma ceremony. The *Shou* commentary suggests they may still receive the precepts. The *Lun of Clear Understanding* says: the Vinaya states that twenty types of people cannot receive the precepts, as extensively explained in that treatise. However, here we simply list thirteen; if not asked, do they still receive the precepts? If not asked, they do not receive them. For the remaining cases, some, even if asked, still do not receive; some, without being asked, do receive. The *Duolun* says: if one lacks robes and bowl, one may still receive the precepts. If so, why must robes and bowl be required? Answer: First, for the sake of proper deportment; second, to inspire faith and respect in others; third, to manifest distinction in outward appearance. Since inner virtue differs, outward marks also differ. The *Shanjian* says: if one receives the precepts without robes and bowl, the master and the assembly of monks incur offense—it does not say one receives the precepts. Since this is not a single interpretation, the collection is not exhaustive.

Here we must specify: one who has the intention to leave home, follows the sangha, requests the precepts, and undergoes the ritual procedure—if they do not receive them, that is called a difficulty. The rest fall under the category of countless difficulties and are not re-incorporated here. For example, an animal who can take human form and request the precepts is a difficulty; other animals have no reason to come and request, so they are not included here.

Question: If so, one who is under twenty years of age but has the intention to request the precepts and does not receive them should be classified as a difficulty. Answer: This is consistently not permitted; it belongs to the thirteen. For one who is under age, once they reach full age they will receive them, so the meaning is not shared [with the other difficulties].

Question: If so, a preceptor of nine years' standing should also not confer the precepts. Answer: Though the state of being under-age is the same, both are in the category of obstruction—this concerns secondary conditions versus primary causes, and therefore there is a difference between receiving and not receiving. Similarly, a śikṣamāṇā who is under age should also have a difficulty. This should be assessed according to circumstances.

Question: Why are the eight difficulties not mentioned? Answer: Those obstruct the precepts, while these obstruct hearing and contemplation; hence they are omitted. Another interpretation: they are not different from what was said before.

The *Flower Garland Sutra* says: the four light [practices] crush the eight difficulties. The *Chengshi* says: first, dwell in a good place; second, rely on good people; third, give rise to right mindfulness; fourth, plant wholesome roots. The first wheel crushes five difficulties: the three evil paths and long-lived gods and humans. The second crushes [being born] before or after a Buddha. The third crushes worldly wisdom and clever eloquence. The fourth crushes deafness, blindness, and muteness. A detailed discussion has already been made above. Since they have no intention to come and request [the precepts], they are not included in this category.

The fifth section on the three obstructions and the thirteen difficulties: The first difficulty, being a eunuch, falls under the obstruction of afflictions, since such a person is overwhelmed by craving and desire; being impotent also falls under the obstruction of karmic retribution. The grave offenses—corrupting a nun, stealing with a defiled mind, destroying the path—these five reversible acts are collected under the obstruction of karma. If the obstruction prevents the arising of the precepts, the first four belong to karma. If it obstructs realization through hearing and reflection, only the five reversible acts qualify; the first four are not obstructions. Non-human beings and animals, and those with both male and female organs—these three are obstructions of karmic retribution.

Question: Among the thirteen difficulties, which are broad, which are narrow, which are light, which are heavy?

Answer: If we analyze in terms of the thirteen, karma is broad, karmic retribution is medium, and affliction is the narrowest. If we explain the three obstructions in general, they extend across all five realms—karmic retribution is the broadest, affliction is medium, and karma is the narrowest, since it arises only in a small portion of the human realm. When matching the eight difficulties to the obstructions, the first seven are karmic retribution and the last one is affliction; the eight difficulties have no karma. As for lightness and heaviness: the obstruction of afflictions is the root of all obstructions, so it is heavy; karma is medium; karmic retribution is the lightest. If we consider what can and cannot be transformed: the obstruction of karmic retribution cannot be transformed, so it is heavy; the other two can be transformed and brought to cessation, so they are called light.

The sixth point concerns obstacles. Question: Besides humans and animals, there are also eunuchs and others—why are they not discussed separately? Answer: Because humans are capable of receiving the Path, so eunuchs and hermaphrodites are mentioned as obstructed. Animals have no capacity to receive the Path, so they are inherently unsuitable—even though eunuchs and hermaphrodites exist among animals, this does not obstruct their precepts, so they are not discussed as an obstacle. Question: Why are gods not discussed as an obstacle? Answer: Because gods cling to pleasure and do not seek to leave home. If one can feel aversion and seek to receive precepts, one obtains them, so they are not discussed. The Four-Part Vinaya says: a heavenly being is also classified as unsuitable. The Abhidharma text says: Maudgalyayana's disciple, when ill, sought out Jivaka and went to the Trayastrimsha Heaven, where he encountered Jivaka, who was absorbed in pleasure and could not respect his teacher—this is explained in detail in the Abhidharma text. If we discuss location: in the northern region, retribution obstacles with no capacity for action—such a meaning—are not discussed as obstructing precepts. The three other regions may have them, but in varying numbers. In the east and west: eleven, excluding shedding the Buddha's blood and causing schism. In the south: all thirteen. As for time: when the Buddha was present there were thirteen; after his passing, only eleven. As for persons: among men there are thirteen, among women only twelve. If counted for a monk, eleven are relevant—excluding the two: destroying nuns and the thief-like dwelling. A novice monk has ten—excluding the two: destruction and the nun. Among laypeople there are also ten—excluding the two: the extreme offenses.

If someone who has never received the precepts wishes to receive them, they first face the ten obstacles described above. For someone who has received the novice precepts, the ten obstacles apply as above. For someone who previously received full ordination but later gave it up, there may be eleven obstacles, adding the offense of "borderline transgression" — that is, if one received full ordination without giving it up previously, or if one was not genuinely ordained but falsely claimed to be, or if one violated a nun, then for such a person, even if these conditions arise, they are still called borderline transgressions. In the complete set of eleven, some are known as obstacles and some are not.

The two types — those who are sexually defective and those with both male and female characteristics — even from birth, definitely lose the precepts, because they obstruct the precepts; therefore they are called obstacles. Non-human beings and animals, in their second birth, are called obstacles.

Those who are definitely transformed — because their karmic body transforms, they lose the precepts, and this is called an obstacle. Those with supernatural powers who temporarily transform do not necessarily lose the precepts, so it is not an obstacle.

For the five types of eunuchs, if the condition exists before receiving the precepts, because the offense is heavy, none of them can receive the precepts. If it arises after receiving, the five are not heavy karma and do not cause loss of precepts. However, there is a distinction between those who must be expelled and those who need not be. Only in the case of self-castration is expulsion required, because one has become disgusted with one's own body. If castrated by others, or castrated as a result of karmic retribution, no expulsion is required, because there is no disgust with the body.

However, it cannot be said that because one may be expelled, one therefore loses the precepts immediately. Those who can be expelled may lose the precepts; the rest, even if such conditions arise, only commit offenses themselves. Now, expulsion definitely does not cause loss of precepts — the thirteen cases are like this. The sixteen obstructive conditions are too numerous, so they are not explained here.

Borderline transgression, thief-like intention, and breaking both paths also apply to the obstructive conditions. Therefore, the four-part analysis follows the fourfold division.

Volume One of the Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya