Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Mātṛkā (薩婆多部毘尼摩得勒伽)

Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Mātṛkā, Volume 1

Translated by Monk Sanghabhadra during the Song Dynasty's Yuanjia Era

Questions on the Parajika Rules from the Vinaya Section on Various Matters

Question: "When one violates a monastic rule, is it an act of commission or non-commission?"

Answer: "Violating a rule is an act of commission."

"Does 'unconditioned' refer to form, or to non-form?"

"Form."

"Can they be seen or not?"

The answer: "Some can be seen, some cannot. What can be seen? Bodily actions. What cannot be seen? Bodily non-actions and verbal actions."

"Are intentional actions conditioned or unconditioned?" The answer: "Intentional actions are conditioned; unintentional actions are unconditioned."

"Is it with defilements or without defilements?" The answer: "With defilements."

"Is it conditioned or unconditioned?" The reply: "It is conditioned."

"Is this worldly or beyond the world?"

The reply: "Worldly."

"Are they included in the aggregates?" The answer: "They are included in the aggregates."

"Does it belong to the realm?" The answer: "It belongs to the realm."

Question: "Does sin undergo retribution or not?" Answer: "It does not undergo retribution."

"Does it arise from sensation, or not from sensation?" The answer was: "It arises from sensation."

"Are they formed by the four elements, or not formed by the four elements?" The answer: "They are formed by the four elements."

"Is it from the bondage of rebirth, or not from the bondage of rebirth?" He replied, "It is from the bondage of rebirth."

"Recorded or unrecorded?" Answer: "It may be recorded or unrecorded. What is recorded? A transgression knowingly committed against a rule established by the Buddha. What is unrecorded? A transgression unknowingly committed against a rule established by the Buddha."

"Does it become concealed or not concealed?"

The answer: "Sometimes it becomes concealed, sometimes it does not. How does it become concealed? When one intentionally violates a precept established by the Buddha. How does it not become concealed? When one does not intentionally violate a precept established by the Buddha. The same applies to whether it is defiled or not defiled."

"Is it defiled or undefiled?" The reply was: "It is defiled."

"Are you attached to your home, or not?" He replied, "I am attached."

Question: "Can sin be argued about, or not argued about?" Answer: "It can be argued about."

"With cause or without cause?" Answer: "Without cause."

"Is the mind not the mind?" He replied, "It is not the mind."

"Is it a mental factor or not a mental factor?" The answer: "It is not a mental factor."

"Is there retribution, or is there no retribution?" The reply: "Sometimes there is retribution, sometimes there is no retribution. What is 'there is retribution'? It refers to an offense that is recorded. What is 'there is no retribution'? It refers to an offense that is not recorded."

"Is karma not karma?"

He replied, "It is karma."

"Internal sense bases or external sense bases?" Reply: "External sense bases."

"Is it past, future, or present?" The answer: "It may be past, future, or present. What is past? If a transgression has already been committed and then repented, that is past. What is future? If a transgression has not yet been committed but will certainly be committed, that is future. What is present? If a transgression has been committed but has not been confessed and repented, that is present."

Question: "Are offenses considered wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate?"

Answer: "They are either unwholesome or indeterminate. Why unwholesome? Because they are committed intentionally, violating the precepts laid down by the Buddha. Why indeterminate? Because they are committed unintentionally, not violating the precepts laid down by the Buddha. The distinctions between 'determinate' and 'indeterminate' have been explained earlier."

"Does it pertain to the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, or the Formless Realm?"

The answer: "It pertains to the Realm of Desire."

"Does it belong to the category of learners, non-learners, or neither learners nor non-learners?" The answer was: "Neither learners nor non-learners."

"Is it to be eliminated by insight, by cultivation, or not to be eliminated at all?" The answer: "By cultivation."

"Is it a violation through the body, speech, or mind?" The answer: "It is either through the body or through speech. What are violations through the body? If a monk intentionally kills living beings, steals, commits sexual acts involving touch, intentionally emits semen, destroys plants, digs the ground with his own hands, eats at improper times, or drinks alcohol—these are violations through the body. What are violations through speech? If a monk falsely claims to have attained higher spiritual attainments he does not possess, speaks coarse or vulgar words to a woman, or teaches the Dharma to a woman without a suitable third party present—these are violations through speech. There are no violations committed by the mind alone."

Question: "Is there a case where performing a certain action constitutes an offense, while performing the same action does not?" Answer: "It may be an offense, or it may not be. How is it an offense? If a monk has not received the kathina cloth, and yet keeps surplus robes, eats separately from the community, eats at various places, or enters a village without informing anyone—each of these, according to the circumstances, constitutes an offense. How is it not an offense? If a monk has received the kathina cloth, and then keeps robes as he wishes, eats separately, eats at various places, or enters a village without informing—each of these, according to the circumstances, is not an offense. Therefore, the same action may be an offense or not, depending on the situation."

Question: "Is there a case where carrying out this procedure constitutes an offense, and carrying out the same procedure does not constitute an offense?" Answer: "Yes. For example, if a monk has been subjected to the penalty of 'not seeing' or 'not reforming evil views,' and he humbles himself before the other monks, complies and follows them, and the monks carry out the procedure to lift his penalty outside the boundaries [of the monastic community], then, according to the circumstances, it is an offense. Why is it not an offense? If a monk has been subjected to the penalty of 'not seeing' or 'not reforming evil views,' and he humbles himself before the other monks, complies and follows them, and the monks carry out the procedure to lift his penalty within the boundaries, then it is not an offense. Therefore, carrying out this procedure may or may not constitute an offense."

Question: "Is there a case where speaking of an act as an offense—does that mean this act is indeed an offense?"

Answer: "Yes. How is speaking of an act as an offense? For example, when a monk has been cast out for not seeing his offense or for not giving up his wrong views, and that monk humbles himself, reforms, and complies with the other monks, and the monks, outside the boundary, lift his penalty and then eat, dwell, and sleep together with him. The monks ask this monk: 'Venerable, this monk was cast out for not seeing his offense or for not giving up his wrong views. Do not eat, dwell, or sleep together with this monk.' He replies: 'This venerable monk has humbled himself, reformed, and complied, and we have already lifted his penalty outside the boundary.' According to the actual situation, this is an offense.

How is it not an offense? When the monks cast out a monk for not seeing his offense or for not giving up his wrong views, and that monk humbles himself, reforms, and complies with the other monks, and the monks, within the boundary, lift his penalty and then eat, dwell, and sleep together with him. The monks tell this monk: 'This venerable monk was cast out for not seeing his offense, as described above.' The monks reply: 'This venerable monk has humbled himself, reformed, and complied, and his penalty has already been lifted.' The monks ask: 'Where?' They answer: 'Within the boundary.' Lifting the penalty within the boundary is not an offense. Therefore, speaking of this act as an offense or not an offense depends on how it is done."

Question: "Is there such a thing as an offense where speaking of it is a violation, and not speaking of it is also a violation?" Answer: "Yes. What is meant by 'speaking of it is a violation'? If a monk, having committed any one of the offenses in the five categories of precepts, confesses that offense himself, this is called 'speaking of it is a violation.' What is meant by 'not speaking of it is also a violation'? If a monk, having committed any one of the offenses in the five categories, whether he speaks of it or not, still intentionally commits it again. Therefore, it is called 'not speaking of it is also a violation.'"

Question: "Is there such a thing as confessing one's own offense, or having an offense confessed by another?" Answer: "Yes. What is confessing one's own offense? If a monk commits any offense within the five categories of precepts, and he himself confesses it to another, this is called confessing one's own offense. What is having an offense confessed by another? When monks, trusting the words of a trustworthy laywoman, bring a monk to justice according to the precepts, this is called having an offense confessed by another."

Question: "Is there such a thing as a violation that is remembered, and a violation that is not remembered?" Answer: "Yes. What is a remembered violation? If a monk, having committed an offense in any of the five categories of precepts, remembers all of it or remembers part of it, this is called a remembered violation. What is an unremembered violation? If a monk, having committed an offense in any of the five categories of precepts, does not remember any of it or does not remember part of it, this is called an unremembered violation."

Question: "Are there offenses committed in the presence of others, and offenses not committed in the presence of others?"

Answer: "Yes. What is an offense committed in the presence of others? It is when a transgression occurs while someone is present. What is an offense not committed in the presence of others? It is when a transgression does not occur while someone is present."

Question: "Is there anyone who commits evil and wrong views, and is thus not allowed to live together with others, and because of this very matter is excluded from communal living in various ways?" Answer: "Yes. For example, one who refuses to see or acknowledge their faults is expelled, and one who does not abandon their evil views is likewise excluded."

Question: "Is there a case where one performs this formal act of expulsion, and then through that same formal act, various forms of exclusion follow?" Answer: "Yes, as previously explained."

Question: "Is there a case where the Karma (ceremonial act) is spoken of as 'not dwelling together,' and this same Karma is described in various ways as 'not dwelling together'?" Answer: "Yes, there is. As explained in detail above."

Question: "Is there anyone who claims to dwell apart and claims to associate with all kinds of different people?" Answer: "Yes. This matter should be explained in detail."

Question: "Is there a case where a monk who has committed an offense undergoes a formal proceeding, and based on that same matter, a group of monks—whether two or even one—can carry out such a proceeding?"

Answer: "Yes, there is. How does a monk who has committed an offense undergo a proceeding by the monastic community? If the community of nuns imposes on a monk a proceeding of not bowing to him, a proceeding of not speaking with him, or a proceeding of not offering alms to him, this is called a proceeding by the monastic community. The same applies to a group of monks, two monks, or even one monk."

Question: "Is there a way to use this same matter for a stern admonition, for expulsion, for banishment, or for correction?" Answer: "Yes. According to the explanation, acquiring those three or five phrases as taught in the scriptures is not valid—admonition is one thing, expulsion another, banishment another, and correction another. The other three procedural categories follow the same pattern."

Question: "Is there an offense that, if committed, constitutes a Pārājika, and if committed in another circumstance, constitutes a Saṃghāvaśeṣa?" Answer: "Yes. If a nun touches a body with lustful intent, it is a Pārājika; if a monk touches with lustful intent, it is a Saṃghāvaśeṣa."

Question: "Is there any offense that is a Parajika (defeat) offense, and which also constitutes a Pacittiya (confession) offense for the same act?" Answer: "Yes. A bhikkhuni (nun) who conceals a serious offense commits a Parajika offense; a bhikkhu (monk) who conceals a serious offense commits a Pacittiya offense."

Question: "Is there an offense that results in Pārājika, yet the same act results in a Dukkaṭa?" Answer: "Yes. If a nun follows and sides with an expelled monk, she commits Pārājika; if a monk follows and sides with an expelled monk, he commits Dukkaṭa."

Question: "Is there an offense that, when committed, constitutes a Sanghadisesa offense, and the same act, when committed by another, constitutes a Pacittiya offense?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk intentionally emits semen, it is a Sanghadisesa offense; if a nun intentionally emits semen, it is a Pacittiya offense."

Question: "Is there a case where committing this act results in an offense requiring formal meeting (Saṅghādisesa), while the same act results in a minor offense (Dukkaṭa)?"

Answer: "Yes. If a nun encourages another nun to accept food, clothing, and other offerings from a man with lustful intent, the offense is Saṅghādisesa. If a monk encourages this, it is a Dukkaṭa offense."

Question: “Is there a case where committing the same act constitutes a Pācittiya offense, while committing that very act constitutes a Pāṭidesanīya offense?” Answer: “Yes. If a nun requests fine food, it is a Pāṭidesanīya offense; if a monk does so, it is a Pācittiya offense.”

Question: "Is there any case where committing a certain act results in a Pācittiya offense, and committing the same act results in a Dukkaṭa offense?" Answer: "Yes. If a nun urinates or defecates on fresh grass, it is a Pācittiya offense; for a monk, it is a Dukkaṭa offense."

Question: "Is there a case where, having committed this act, a nun who has been defiled is not permitted to renounce the household life or receive full ordination; and is there a case where, having committed this act, a defiled nun is allowed to renounce and receive full ordination?"

Answer: "Yes. A nun who has been defiled by engaging in unchaste conduct—such a person is not to be allowed to renounce or receive full ordination. But one who has been defiled through physical contact—this person may be allowed to renounce and receive full ordination."

Question: "A person who has secretly lived among the monastic community without ordination cannot be granted full ordination. Is there any situation where such a person can receive full ordination?" Answer: "Yes. If the person has participated in two or three Posadha (confession) ceremonies, they cannot be ordained. However, if they have participated in only one or none, they may be granted full ordination."

Question: "If someone has caused a schism in the monastic community, are they truly barred from being ordained and receiving full monastic precepts? Is there any circumstance where such a person could nonetheless be ordained?"

Answer: "Yes, there is. If one has caused a schism with wrongful intentions, they are not permitted to be ordained or receive full monastic precepts. However, if one has caused a schism with right understanding, they may be ordained and receive full monastic precepts."

Question: "If a person kills their mother, they cannot be ordained or receive full precepts. But what if someone commits such an act — can they still be ordained and receive the full precepts?"

Answer: "Yes, in certain cases. If a person kills with the intention of killing their mother, they cannot be ordained or receive the full precepts. However, if they kill without such intention — for example, mistaking someone else for their target — they may be ordained and receive the full precepts. The same applies to killing a father or an arhat (an enlightened being)."

Upāli asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One! Is it possible for someone to kill their mother with a wholesome mind, an unwholesome mind, or a neutral mind?" The Buddha said to Upāli, "There are cases of killing one's mother with a wholesome mind, with an unwholesome mind, and with a neutral mind. What is killing one's mother with a wholesome mind? If the mother is seriously ill and one ends her life so that she will not suffer for long, this is called killing one's mother with a wholesome mind. What is killing one's mother with an unwholesome mind? If one takes the mother's life for the sake of wealth or for the sake of one's wife and children, this is called killing one's mother with an unwholesome mind. What is killing one's mother with a neutral mind? If while cutting wood, a wall, or the ground one accidentally kills the mother, this is called killing one's mother with a neutral mind."

Someone further asked the Buddha: "If one kills their mother with good intentions, do they commit a grave offense and an unforgivable sin? Or if one kills their mother with good intentions, do they not commit a grave offense and not incur an unforgivable sin?" The Buddha said: "There are cases. How does killing one's mother with good intentions constitute a grave offense and an unforgivable sin? If the mother is severely ill as previously described, this is called killing the mother with good intentions, committing a grave offense, and incurring an unforgivable sin. How does killing one's mother with good intentions not constitute a grave offense and not incur an unforgivable sin? If the mother is ill and one gives her medicine, but due to the medicine she passes away, this does not constitute a grave offense nor incur an unforgivable sin."

They further asked the Buddha: "If one kills one's mother with an unwholesome mind, does one commit a Parajika offense and incur the grave sin of violating filial duty? If one kills one's mother with an unwholesome mind, does one not commit a Parajika offense and incur no grave sin?" The Buddha said: "There are such cases. How does one, with an unwholesome mind, kill one's mother and commit a Parajika offense and incur the grave sin? This occurs when one does so for the sake of wealth and other reasons, as explained earlier. How does one, with an unwholesome mind, kill one's mother without committing a Parajika offense and without incurring the grave sin? If one kills another's mother, a sheep's mother, a deer's mother, and so on—this is killing a 'mother' with an unwholesome mind, but it does not constitute a Parajika offense nor incur the grave sin."

He further asked the Buddha: "If one kills their mother without conscious intent, do they commit a grave offense and an unpardonable sin? If one kills their mother without conscious intent, do they not commit a grave offense or an unpardonable sin?" The Buddha said: "There are such cases. How does one kill their mother without conscious intent and yet commit a grave offense and an unpardonable sin? If one first makes preparations to kill their mother, and then the mother dies while he is asleep, he commits a grave offense and an unpardonable sin—this is killing one's mother without conscious intent, yet committing a grave offense and an unpardonable sin. How does one kill their mother without conscious intent and not commit a grave offense or an unpardonable sin? If one is cutting down trees or doing similar activities, as previously explained, and the mother dies as a result, this is killing one's mother without conscious intent, yet not committing a grave offense or an unpardonable sin."

The monk asked the Buddha again: "If a monk who observes pure conduct resides within the boundary but does not join the monastic community when it performs formal acts, does he commit an offense?" The Buddha said: "There is such a case. This refers to the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Fully Enlightened One."

The question was asked: "Are there monks who recite the Patimokkha in five ways, and by each successive recitation, does the Uposatha ceremony become complete?" The answer: "Yes. This refers to the Uposatha performed by reciting three times."

He asked further: "According to the Buddha's teaching, if a layperson is present among the monks during the observance of the Uposatha and the recitation of the Pratimoksha, would the recitation still be considered valid without incurring any offense?" The answer: "Yes, there is such a case. The story of King Bimbisara should be explained in detail here."

Question: "Is there such a thing as breaking precepts with a wholesome mind, breaking precepts with an unwholesome mind, or breaking precepts with a neutral mind?" Answer: "Yes. What does it mean to break precepts with a wholesome mind? For example, a newly ordained monk who does not yet know the precepts pulls up living grass on clean ground with his own hands, or picks flowers to make garlands while walking—this is breaking precepts with a wholesome mind. What does it mean to break precepts with an unwholesome mind? It is intentionally violating the precepts established by the Buddha. What does it mean to break precepts with a neutral mind? It is unintentionally violating the precepts established by the Buddha."

Question: "Does an Arhat break precepts with a wholesome mind, an unwholesome mind, or a neutral mind?" Answer: "Yes. If an Arhat breaks precepts, it is always with a neutral mind. How does one break precepts with a neutral mind? If an Arhat, while asleep, is lifted by someone onto a high bed, or a woman secretly enters and spends the night in his room, or after staying two nights with someone who has not yet received full ordination, that person later secretly enters and stays again—this is called breaking precepts with a neutral mind."

Question: "If someone commits schism in the Sangha, do all such offenders live for one entire eon? And if one lives an eon, does that mean they necessarily committed schism?"

Fourfold analysis: 1. One who causes a schism in the Sangha but does not live a full kalpa. 2. One who lives a full kalpa but does not cause a schism in the Sangha. 3. One who both causes a schism in the Sangha and lives a full kalpa. 4. One who neither causes a schism in the Sangha nor lives a full kalpa.

What does it mean to cause a schism in the Sangha but not live a full kalpa? It refers to one who intends to cause a schism in the Sangha.

What does it mean to live a full kalpa but not cause a schism in the Sangha? It refers to the Dragon King Elāpattra, the Dragon King Sudarśana, the Dragon King Manasvin, the Dragon King Vāmaparṇa, the Dragon King Uttara, the Dragon King Tīrtha, the Dragon King Kāla, the Dragon King Nanda, the Dragon King Upananda, and the Brahmā deities of the梵富婆天 — these beings live a full kalpa but do not cause a schism in the Sangha.

What does it mean to both live a full kalpa and cause a schism in the Sangha? It refers to Devadatta.

What does it mean to neither cause a schism in the Sangha nor live a full kalpa? It refers to all other cases apart from these.

Question: "Is it possible to commit an act that creates the karmic consequence of an eon in hell without actually splitting the monastic community, or to split the community without incurring that eon-long consequence?" Answer: "Yes. How can one split the community without incurring the eon-long consequence? When the schism is based on wrong views that are not fully formed—this is called a schism in thought only. Such a schism does not bring the eon-long consequence. How can one incur the eon-long consequence without splitting the community? This includes beings like the dragon king Elāpattra, except for those in the Brahmā-fruit heaven. How can one both split the community and incur the eon-long consequence? This refers to Devadatta. And how is it that one neither splits the community nor incurs the consequence? This refers to all cases other than those mentioned."

Question: “If one causes a schism in the Sangha, are all such acts considered to be in the realm of wrong concentration?”

Answer: This can be explained in four ways.

1. What is causing a schism in the Sangha but not being in wrong concentration? Causing a schism through one's thoughts or intentions (i.e., without physically carrying it out).

2. What is being in wrong concentration but not causing a schism in the Sangha? Killing one's mother, killing one's father, killing an Arhat, or maliciously drawing blood from a Thus-Come One—these are wrong concentration but not causing a schism.

3. What is both wrong concentration and causing a schism in the Sangha? This refers to Devadatta.

4. What is neither wrong concentration nor causing a schism in the Sangha? All other cases except those mentioned above.

Question: "Does every schism of the Sangha illuminate or obscure?" Answer: "There are four cases. What is neither illumination nor obscuration? The schism caused by the perception of phenomena. What is obscuration without illumination or schism? The six heterodox teachers. What is schism that is both illumination and obscuration? Devadatta. What is neither schism nor illumination nor obscuration? Everything else apart from these."

Then he asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One, is it only monks who create schisms in the Sangha, not nuns, female novices, or male and female initiates?" The Buddha said to Upali, "It is monks who create schisms in the Sangha, not nuns, female novices, or male and female initiates; they only assist in creating schisms."

Question: "Is it only a nun who causes a schism among the community of nuns, and not a monk, a trainee nun, or others?" "As explained above."

Question: "Is committing schism in the Sangha the same as committing an offense?" "Upali, one who creates a schism in the Sangha commits an offense. What kind of offense? It is a grave offense. If one has already confessed for the schism, what kind of offense remains? It is an offense requiring formal meeting with the Sangha."

Question: "Do all those who accept the teachings dwell together in harmony?" Answer: There are four cases. What is it to accept the teachings yet not dwell together? It is when one accepts the five teachings—this is accepting the teachings but not dwelling together. What is it to not dwell together yet not accept the teachings? It is when one commits any one of the grave offenses (pārājika) without accepting the five teachings—this is not accepting the teachings and also not dwelling together. What is it to both accept the teachings and not dwell together? It is when one accepts the five teachings and commits any one of the grave offenses. What is it to neither accept the teachings nor be one who does not dwell together? Except for these cases.

Question: "Do all dharmas that are received abide separately and not together?" Answer: There are four cases. 1. What is separate, not co-abiding, yet not a received dharma? It refers to those who have been expelled from the community and not allowed to return, and those whose evil views have not been removed and are thus expelled.

Question: "Are there those who do not dwell together, and is that the case in every instance of not dwelling together in all its forms?" Answer: "This can be expressed in four ways. One type of not dwelling together is not the same as another, such as when one persists in evil views without abandoning them."

Question: "Is there an act of expulsion that is also an act of falling (into offense)?" Answer: "Yes, an act of expulsion can also be an act of falling. What is the act? What is the matter of the act? The offense that arises is the act; repentance is the matter of the act."

“What is Katina? What is receiving Katina? What is relinquishing Katina?” “The cloth is Katina. Generating nine kinds of intention is receiving Katina. Eight factors constitute relinquishing Katina.”

Question: "Is there any case where taking three coins constitutes a Pārājika offense?" Answer: "Yes. If the coins belong to the Kāli sage, worth twelve coins each."

Question: "Is there a case where taking ten coins or taking five coins constitutes a Parajika offense?" Answer: "Yes. If it involves Kāli-sen, which is worth forty coins, or worth twenty coins."

Question: "Is there a case where reducing [something] constitutes an offense, and reducing [something] does not constitute an offense?" Answer: "Yes. Reducing a white article constitutes a sin requiring confession, while reducing a black article does not."

Question: "Are there offenses that increase wrongdoing, and offenses that increase merit?" Answer: "Increasing darkness brings offense; increasing brightness brings no offense."

Question: "Is there such a thing as an equal measure of offense and an equal measure of no offense?" Answer: "Yes. Offense of the same measure as the Buddha's robe incurs a Pacittiya; offense of the same measure as the body does not."

Question: "Is there a case where not doing something constitutes an offense, while doing it does not?" Answer: "Yes. If one receives new clothing and does not tear it in three places to mark it as worn, it is an offense of expiation (pācittiya). But if one does tear it, there is no offense."

Question: “Is there a monk who, upon entering the first meditation, commits a *shulaka* offense, and upon emerging from it, commits a *sanghavasesa* offense?”

Answer: “Yes. If a monk says to another monk, ‘Build a dwelling for me,’ and having said this, enters the first meditation, and upon emerging, the dwelling is completed, he commits a *sanghavasesa* offense. The same applies to the second, third, and fourth meditations.

Alternatively, one may commit an offense while not being a monk, but become pure upon becoming a monk. Or, one may commit an offense while being a monk, but become pure upon no longer being a monk.

What does it mean to commit an offense while not being a monk, but become pure upon becoming a monk? If a nun commits a *sanghavasesa* offense that is exclusive to nuns, and then her gender changes and she becomes a monk, she becomes pure—this is committing an offense while not being a monk, but becoming pure upon becoming a monk.

What does it mean to commit an offense while being a monk, but become pure upon no longer being a monk? If a monk commits a *sanghavasesa* offense that is exclusive to monks, and then his gender changes and he becomes a nun, he becomes pure.”

Question: "Is there such a thing as unknowingly committing an offense but knowingly being purified, and knowingly committing an offense but unknowingly being purified?" Answer: "Yes. What is unknowingly committing an offense but knowingly being purified? If a monk is sleeping soundly, and someone lifts him onto a high bed, as described before. When he wakes up, he removes the offense in accordance with the Dharma. This is called unknowingly committing an offense but knowingly being purified. What is knowingly committing an offense but unknowingly being purified? If a monk commits a Saṅghādisesa offense, and when the confession ceremony begins, he hears the announcement and then falls asleep. While he is asleep, the ceremony is completed. This is called knowingly committing an offense but unknowingly being purified."

Question: "Is there a single action that violates three major precepts at once?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk tells someone, 'You know I have claimed superhuman powers, killed someone, and stolen something valuable' — this single statement violates three major precepts."

Question: “Is there a case where a bhikkhuni commits four pārājika offenses through a single act?” Answer: “Yes. For instance, a bhikkhuni might conspire with another, saying: ‘When you see me following the motion to expel a monk, kill such a person, steal such heavy items, and recognize that I have attained Arahantship.’ This is called a bhikkhuni committing four pārājika offenses through a single act.”

Question: "Is there a monk who, in a single sitting, could violate all five categories of precepts?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk, while at a layperson's home, personally receives food—either chewed or eaten—he commits a Pātayantika offense (requiring confession). If he eats by scooping food from one side only, he commits a Dukkaṭa wrongdoing. If, without a proper attendant, he teaches the Dharma to a woman beyond five or six sentences, he commits a Pācittiya offense. If he speaks lewd or coarse words to a woman, he commits a Saṃghāvaśeṣa offense. And if, being utterly without spiritual attainments, he claims to have realized superhuman qualities, he commits a Pārājika offense—an outright defeat."

Question: "Is there a monk who, through a single action, commits hundreds or thousands of offenses?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk, out of anger, scatters sand or beans at other monks, he commits a transgression with each one he hits."

Question: "Is there a case where a monk steals a heavy item from its original place but does not commit a pārājika offense?" Answer: "Yes. If the heavy item belongs to a non-human being."

Question: "Is there a monk who has never broken the precepts, even down to the minor rules, and yet is not a true monk?" Answer: "Yes. One who has lost the roots [of faith]."

Question: "Is there a nun who has never violated the precepts, even down to the most minor offense, and yet is not a true nun?" Answer: "Yes. The one who has lost her faculties."

Question: "Is there a monk who, while alone in his room, commits one of the four grave offenses?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk, with an erect male organ, engages in sexual intercourse with himself, having first laid the groundwork for theft, murder, and lying by claiming to be an arhat."

Question: "Is there a monk who, while in his dwelling, loses his robe and breaks his retreat?" Answer: "Yes. If a monk has completed his retreat commitment and, before the Pavāraṇā ceremony, places his robe on his bed, then — without having received the seven-night allowance — while the robe remains unattended and dawn breaks in the open air, he breaks his retreat and loses his robe."

Question: “Is there a monk who kills a nun, where the nun is neither his mother nor an arhat, and he commits a grave offense warranting expulsion and incurs a heinous crime?” Answer: “Yes. If the father has left home and received full ordination as a monk, and then changes gender to become a nun, [and the son kills her], that would be such a case.”

Question: "Is there a case where a nun kills a monk, where the monk is neither her father nor an Arahant, and she incurs both the offense of Pārājika and the grave offense of parricide?" Answer: "Yes. A mother who has gone forth and received full ordination as a nun could later change gender and become a monk."

Question: "Is there a monk who commits a non-celibate act and breaks the fundamental precept, and also a monk who commits a non-celibate act but does not break the fundamental precept?"

Answer: "Yes. If a monk engages in intercourse with a living woman whose genital organ is intact, he breaks the fundamental precept. If the organ is damaged, he does not break the fundamental precept."

Question: "Is there a monk who has spoken of superhuman qualities and committed an offense requiring expulsion, and also one who has spoken of such qualities without committing that offense?"

Answer: "Yes. If one speaks of superhuman qualities without distorted intention, it is an offense requiring expulsion. If one speaks out of exaggerated self-perception, it is not an offense requiring expulsion."

Question: "Is there an offense that, when committed by one person, results in a Pārājika (defeat) for them, but when committed by another, does not result in a Pārājika?"

Answer: "Yes. If a nun touches a male's body with lustful intent, she commits a Pārājika; but if a monk touches a female's body with lustful intent, it does not constitute a Pārājika. If a nun follows and supports a monk who has been expelled (by the Sangha), she commits a Pārājika; but if a monk follows and supports someone, it does not constitute a Pārājika. If a nun conceals a serious offense (committed by another), she commits a Pārājika; but if a monk conceals such an offense, it does not constitute a Pārājika."

Question: "Is there any offense that constitutes a Sanghadisesa for one person, but not for another, even though both commit the same act?" Answer: "Yes. For instance, if a monk intentionally emits semen, he commits a Sanghadisesa offense; but if a nun emits semen, she does not commit a Sanghadisesa offense. If a monk touches a woman's body with lustful intent, it is a Sanghadisesa offense for him; but a nun who touches a man's body does not commit a Sanghadisesa offense. If a nun, with a defiled mind, accepts food from a man, she commits a Sanghadisesa offense; a monk, however, does not commit a Sanghadisesa offense in such a case."