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

Two Indefinite Precepts: Five Verses Summary

**First: Explanation of Names**

Previously, it was explained that "screen" (discrete/private) and "revealed" (open/public) are two different categories, but the four rules have no fixed definition, hence they are called "Undetermined." "Undetermined" has four meanings:

1. **Undetermined in Violation**: Violations include pārājika (defeat), saṃghāvaśeṣa (requiring formal meeting), and sthūlātyaya (grave offense), either singly or in combination—thus the violation itself is undetermined.

2. **Undetermined in Accusation**: A laywoman who brings an accusation may not correctly identify the offense, describing improper acts—her accusation is thus undetermined, whether for one, two, or three offenses.

3. **Undetermined in Self-Confession**: Since the accusation covers many offenses, how can a single self-confession suffice? Thus the confession itself is undetermined.

4. **Undetermined in Penalty**: Depending on which of the three offense categories applies, one of three penalties is used—thus the penalty is undetermined.

The Sage's intent here is to prevent errors and establish rules. But if the violation is already undetermined, what basis is there for a precept? Moreover, what defect does "undetermined accusation" have? If it is not an actual fault, it wouldn't be something the precepts guard against—so why list it at all? And regarding "self-confession": does it mean confessing before the Saṅgha or confessing in a private place? If it is the former, it ceases to be a private confession; how could the Saṅgha, without having examined the matter, have any reason to accept such a confession? If the penalty is undetermined, how can it be applied? If each method is called "undetermined," that itself becomes a fixed definition—so why call it "undetermined"?

For these reasons, the earlier explanation is incorrect. There are actually no such names as "one, two, three, or four." It is merely because the circumstances differ between private (screen) and public (revealed) that the term "two rules" is used. The text does not state that a violation has actually occurred. Therefore, the Vinaya says: "In this, there is no fixed rule—hence it is called 'Undetermined.'" Moreover, a trustworthy woman can only report what she has seen; she does not know the actual facts of violation or non-violation. Because her knowledge is inconclusive, it is called "Undetermined."

**Second Treatise on the Offense Categories**: There are interpretations that consider the "as a Dharma" self-statement as the remedial practice, and the "not-as-a-Dharma" self-statement as the infraction to be prevented. This loses sight of the core issue regarding the "seven rules for settling disputes" and the method for dealing with offenses. The "not-as-a-Dharma" self-statement applies to the three categories of Parajika (defeat) and Sanghadisesa (serious remaining offenses), as illustrated by such examples.

**Question:** If that is the case, all seven categories of offenses involve "not-as-a-Dharma" self-statements. Why are only these three highlighted, while the other four are not? Furthermore, nuns also have "not-as-a-Dharma" self-statements. Why is there no Undetermined (Aniyata) rule for them?

**Answer:** The three offenses in private settings and the two offenses in open settings constitute the substance of the Undetermined rules. By abandoning a fixed classification by offense, and instead focusing on the location and circumstances—swapping the fixed location for a focus on the offense itself—the principle becomes clear. An offense judged by location is a fixed determination. Therefore, designating the three private and two open offenses as the "Undetermined" is justified. The three and two offenses are the infractions to be prevented. Purifying one's conduct is the remedial practice. This is why the Vinaya often emphasizes these three types of offenses.

**Question:** If these three and two offenses are what is to be prevented, why does the code of precepts not directly ask about committing these three or two offenses during the Posadha ceremony, but instead only raises the "two Undetermined" questions?

**Answer:** Because we raise the *location and circumstance* as the subject of the precept, we only ask about the circumstance, not the specific offense. If that were the case, those three and two offenses differ in severity. Why are they combined into a single precept? Furthermore, would this hypothetical monk be brought before the Buddha after having actually committed the three offenses, or before committing them? If he had already committed the three offenses, the other rules would already govern him, and he would have been dealt with under the Buddha's ten exceptional allowances. What need is there for this additional rule here? If the purpose is to prevent a repeat offense, then all other rules would also need to be re-introduced, leading to an infinite regress.

**Question:** If the rule is established *preventatively* before any offense occurs, then all other precepts would also apply under this same logic, without a unique reason. Also, by taking the three and two offenses as the substance of the Undetermined and binding them into one precept, what category of offense does this constitute? All precepts are remedial practices to prevent a specific infraction. Here, the three private offenses correspond to the name "three," and the two open offenses correspond to the name "two." If the remedial practice is also named accordingly, what becomes the substance of the precept? And under what name would this precept be known? If it is called the "Undetermined Precept," then "Undetermined" describes the cause of the offense, not the remedy. How can it be called a precept?

Because of this error, the primary interpretation is that this concerns seclusion with a woman and propriety suited to worldly customs. It is the situation where a monk alone with a woman in a private or open space, speaking lewdly, falls into the three categories of offenses, but generates suspicion, making the nature of the infraction difficult to discern. Hence it is called "Undetermined." This basis of suspicion did not exist before, so we know it arises from the overlap and ambiguity between the three offenses. This ambiguity is the foundation of the rule. If an actual offense were the basis, all sections of the Vinaya would have already established it clearly. Why would it need to be described as "initial" in this context? Moreover, the Vinaya records that the Buddha convened the monks and declared a "foolish man" to have first committed Parajika, etc. That text is already complete. To repeat it here makes no sense. Therefore, we know that the contradiction and ambiguity between the three offenses constitute the "Undetermined" substance, not that the names of the three offenses themselves make them "Undetermined."

Furthermore, as the Vibhavyittata Vinaya says, "This concerns future matters, where there may be no actual offense. Therefore, the World-Honored One made a statement of Undetermined." Extensive explanation is given there. From this, we can be certain that this is not about an actual infraction. Nevertheless, these three precepts involve contaminated acts in private and open settings, arousing suspicion, damaging the public's trust, and defiling the Sangha. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept preventatively, before any offense occurs.

**Question:** In the two Undetermined rules, what is the offense if there is no violation? Why does the Vinaya say "the monk declares he committed Parajika?" For example, if a monk says so when asked by the investigating authority?

**Answer:** If he actually committed Parajika and declares it, that falls under the previous major category. Now, the substance of the Undetermined is based on the possibility of committing an offense while not actually having done so.

**Question:** The "two Undetermined" rules contain two precepts. Why are they not distinguished by weight and simply called rules for directly dealing with the offender and the offense itself?

**Answer:** Precisely because a monk is in a private or open setting, arousing suspicion. If there were no principle for dealing with him, simply precepting him would destroy credibility, and the doubt could not be resolved. Therefore, the name of the offense by weight is discarded, and the focus becomes the rule of punishment itself.

**Question:** In the two Undetermined rules, what specific offense is committed?

**Answer:** A Dukkata (wrongdoing) offense.

**Question:** The seven categories of offenses do not contain a category called "Undetermined." How can one speak of committing a Dukkata? If this is so, categories not found in the seven would not apply, and rules like "one should be punished according to the law" would have no offense or non-offense.

**Answer:** "Should be punished according to the law" also results in a Dukkata offense. Given this, why, even though the two Undetermined rules are not named in the seven categories, can they not still result in a Dukkata offense?

Third: The Question of "First" and "Same/Different" in this Rule.

In the past, the explanation that this rule is "indeterminate" was not settled. For example, the *Prātimokṣa Sūtra* says, "As the Venerable Bashi said, 'to impose punishment'—below, there is no 'first' [offense]." Yet in the Five Categories (pārājika, saṅghādiśeṣa, etc.), the *Prātimokṣa* consistently does not include this rule under punishment. Below, however, a question arises: "First" [in relation to other rules]?

If that is the case, then earlier rules (like touching) prescribe a violation for "committing the act," while later rules prescribe saṅghādiśeṣa. But this rule also has a "first" [aspect]?

Answer: The discarded or incomplete [earlier formulations] are not valid. Now, based on separate discussion, each rule gets its own "first."

- The first five categories were established as a broad rule to supplement the brief [earlier teachings]. Later, we speak of "indeterminate" as a general rule that supplements both general and specific aspects.

Question: If that is so, shouldn’t this rule come *after* the five categories? Why, according to the *Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa*, is it sometimes placed *before* them?

Answer: The five categories were originally established separately, each rule dealing with a specific offense and its classification. Though the meaning is easy to see, the specific circumstances are difficult [to apply]. Therefore, this rule was later enacted as a general rule covering all cases, yet it takes its own "first" [position].

Thus the *Samantaṃ Pāsādikā* says: "This rule includes exceptions and no-offense clauses."

Question: If it has a "first" [as preceding the five categories], but also an "exception" below, why does the *Prātimokṣa* in the Bashi version say "to impose punishment"?

Answer: This is the method of the Lawgiver, intending to address offenses that arise later.

Question: If so, the *Prātimokṣa* introductory section asks [about offenses] generally. Does a silent falsehood (being asked during recitation and remaining silent) count as an offense?

Answer: No. If one is not asked, there is no offense. This is a separate [category of] offense—how can it be called "general"? Moreover, the introductory section asks about *all* subsequent offenses; that is what "general" means. If one is not asked, there is no offense—thus it is clear that [this rule] is not general.

Now we interpret it as follows: This rule shares the same "first" [status as the five categories], but the meaning is different. The five categories produce a real offense and thus take a "first" [position]; this rule does not necessarily produce an offense. Its "first" lies in the fact that before [this rule] was established, someone under accusation or likely to be accused could have doubts. This rule now allows him not to confess, and thus he may have doubts [about whether that is proper]. Yet because the cases of alone versus in a group differ, each gets its own "first."

**Fourth: Similarities and Differences in General and Specific Violations**

There are five types:

1. **Similarities and Differences in Categories of Offenses** As for whether an offense falls under a general or specific violation, looking at the actions involved, the seven sets of precepts and the five categories of offenses all involve only minor wrongdoing.

2. **Similarities and Differences in Place of Offense** All offenses involving violations, whether in private or in public, are covered under the five categories and seven sets. In the introductory text and the two subsequent sections, because violations are tainted and cause public criticism, they are considered the most serious.

3. **Similarities and Differences in Silence as an Offense** One may ask: In private or public settings, are offenses that fall under the five categories committed? When the monastic community recites the precepts, three offenses are raised in private settings, and two in public settings. Apart from these, are there any offenses that are not listed? For example, is there an offense of silent falsehood? If there is no answer, then silence represents an offense. If one conceals wrongdoing, there is a fault. Apart from the three in private and two in public, where there is no fault of silence, there is no offense because there is no one asking. If that were the case, then why do the seven methods of dispute resolution, along with the seven other methods, all involve silence as an offense?

Answer: When a monk raises these seven methods of dispute resolution, the question is whether the monastic assembly carries out these seven methods to resolve disputes. Now, in the case under consideration, when one raises the issue of offenses in both private and public contexts, it is not simply a general raising of offenses in both settings—it is a separate inquiry. Therefore, general and specific offenses are different.

4. **Similarities and Differences in Monastic and Individual Matters** This refers to different individuals being questioned about offenses. Therefore, offenses involve individual violations. What follows is only about questioning the monastic community, because the method of resolution is a monastic process.

5. **Similarities and Differences in Offenses and Remedies** One may ask: In both cases, there are remedies and offenses—why does this section ask only about offenses, while the subsequent section asks about remedies?

Answer: The purpose of the Vinaya is to eliminate disputes. When a noble one (arhat) raises an offense, it is not done to create conflict—meaning it is conflict-free—so there is no need to ask about remedies. In the following section on seven methods of dispute resolution, the people involved in raising the offense include both ordinary individuals and noble ones, and they may have both offenses and disputes. If we only ask about offenses, then offenses and disputes are separate and not mutually inclusive. If we ask about both offenses and disputes, then both are present—hence there is always a problem—so we set them aside. In this section, the focus is on remedies, which is why we ask about their differences.

One may ask: In this uncertain context, is there any difference between dealing with offenses and dealing with people (as discussed here) and the later section on resolving disputes?

Answer: Here, dealing with offenses and people is intended to stop the doubts of monastics and laypeople. In the section on resolving disputes, the purpose is specifically to eliminate disputes, not to stop doubts—hence the difference.

Furthermore, this section has three types of "ways of dealing" (Vinaya methods), whereas the seven methods of dispute resolution have a different set. Here, there are three: (1) "When a monk speaks" is the same as the method of "self-declaration," (2) "When a trustworthy brahmin speaks" is the same as the method of "assigning a place." These two methods require three to five witnesses to be present in order to resolve the offense—hence that is "presence."

So why are there no four others? The two methods of "memory" (remembrance) and "non-insanity" are used when a pure person is falsely accused—they are methods to settle disputes through legal processes. In this case, when a noble woman raises an offense, it is truthful and conflict-free, so these two methods are not used. The "majority opinion" method is used to determine what is correct and what is incorrect in order to resolve a dispute. Here, when a noble woman raises an offense, there is no dispute over right and wrong, nor is there any dispute to be resolved—so why use the majority method?

Since the offense raised by a noble one does not involve debating the severity of the offense, and it is not a year-long dispute that is difficult to resolve, why use the "covering with grass" method?

Moreover, in this section, a confession (self-declaration) leads to the offense being acknowledged, but it does not immediately clear the offense—there is no dispute to be eliminated. There is only a distant possibility of resolution, so the general term "Vinaya" (method) may be used. In the later section on seven methods, confession leads to repentance and clears the offense—the specific purpose is to end a dispute, and that is its unique meaning as "Vinaya."

Furthermore, in this section, confession only includes the first three categories of offenses, not the last two. In the seven methods of dispute resolution, confession only covers the last three, not the first two. However, both methods can be applied generally to all five categories.

Also, in this section, both the remedy and the offense are described for the sake of completeness, but since it is not the main topic, it is briefly mentioned without full explanation. In the section on resolving disputes, confession is the main topic, so the remedy is fully explained.

Here, "presence" means that the offense has not yet been cleared, and there is no dispute to be settled. It only involves getting people to submit and stopping external doubts and slander—this is generally called "Vinaya." In the later section, it involves governing people, clearing offenses, and resolving disputes—that specific purpose is the specific meaning of "Vinaya." Since general and specific are different, they cannot be considered the same. Details can be found in separate chapters.

Fifth, regarding whether nuns have the two "indefinite" rules:

One explanation: Monks have violations that can be either concealed or exposed, which may be undetermined. Nuns have only exposed violations, which are definite and leave no room for doubt—thus nuns do not have indefinite rules. Another explanation: The Buddha established that accusations of wrongdoing require both men and women to witness and verify each other. Since a nun is accusing her teacher, she must rely on trustworthy women, leading to more varied circumstances and thus indefinite rules for monks only. A third explanation: Nuns must not travel alone; they always have companions. Since there is no third party present to cause an offense in either concealed or exposed situations, nuns have no indefinite rules. For example, when a monk sits with a woman in private or in public, the husband’s distrust could lead to serious trouble, so the Buddha taught these rules. But nuns sitting with men do not incur such severe consequences—husbands have no grounds for expulsion—so the offense is minor, and thus nuns have no such regulations. ((Explanation continuous))