2. The Perfection of Morality

Miscellaneous Notes on Different Aspects of Morality

As with the perfection of giving (dāna), these notes are given in the form of answers to the following questions, quoting the authority of the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga):

1. What is Morality?

Morality [1559] may be conveniently studied as follows:

The three wrong physical actions are taking the life of other beings, taking what is not given and sexual misconduct. The four wrong verbal actions are telling lies, gossiping or backbiting, using harsh, abusive words and indulgence in vain, frivolous talks. These two categories of wrong actions may be committed in association with earning a livelihood, like that of a fisherman or a hunter, or may not be associated with earning a livelihood, like game hunting for sport.

Likewise, abstaining from these two categories of wrong actions may or may not be associated with earning a livelihood. Abstaining from three wrong physical actions, when not associated with earning a livelihood, is known as abstention through right action (sammā-kammanta-virati); abstaining from the four wrong verbal actions, when not associated with earning a livelihood, is known as abstention through right speech (sammā-vāca-virati); abstaining from these two categories of wrong actions, when associated with earning a livelihood, and from various kinds of wrong livelihood, especially those kinds which monastics are enjoined against, is known as abstention through right livelihood (sammā-ājīva-virati).

The three mental factors of abstention mentioned above are known as the morality of abstention (virati-sīla), and the mental factor of volition that accompanies them is known as the morality of volition (cetanā-sīla). The volition that arises when performing deeds of great merit of attending upon one’s teacher is also known as the morality of volition (cetanā-sīla).

The greed that prompts one to covet others’ property, harbouring the thought: “It would be good if these were mine,” is known as the wrong mental action of covetousness (abhijjhā-mano-duccarita). When one dispels such thoughts, there arise in one the mental factors of dispelling the volition (cetanā) of greedlessness (alobha) or non-covetousness (anabhijjhā). These mental factors are called morality.

Wishing harm to someone, there arises in a person the mental factor of hatred, which is known as the wrong mental action of ill-will (byāpāda-mano-duccarita). When one dispels such thoughts of ill-will, there arise in him the mental factors of dispelling volition and hatelessness (adosa or abyāpāda). These mental factors are called morality.

When someone holds that there is no such thing as generosity (dāna) and that there are no beneficial results accruing from it, he holds a wrong view which is called the wrong mental action of wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi-mano-duccarita). When he dispels such beliefs, there arises in him the dispelling volition and non-delusion (amoha) or right view (sammā-diṭṭhi). These mental factors are called morality.

When three wrong mental actions: greed (abhijjhā), ill-will (byāpāda) and wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi) are present, a person is liable to commit demeritorious deeds such as killing, etc. which ruin one’s morality. When volition and the three right mental actions arise in one, it is impossible to commit deeds, such as killing, which are ruinous to one’s morality. Therefore, the three right mental actions of non-greed (anabhijjhā), non ill-will (abyāpāda) and right view (sammā-diṭṭhi) are called morality.

When consciousness arises, it is always accompanied by volition. That volition is [1560] responsible for prompting the mind to take notice of an object; it serves as a link between the mind and an object. Without its prompting, there would be no mind-object linkage; the mind will not rest on the object; it will not be aware of the object. It is only through the services of volition that a mind-object linkage is possible at all. Thus, every volition that accompanies consciousness and arises with each moral act is called morality.

There is the morality of restraint (saṁvara-sīla) and the morality of avoiding transgression (avitikkama-sīla). The kinds of morality, as described, apply to laymen and monastics equally. But there are other forms of morality which are concerned with monastics only, that is, the morality of restraint (saṁvara-sīla) and the morality of avoiding transgressions (avitikkama-sīla). The morality of restraints (saṁvara-sīla):

The morality of avoiding transgression (avitikkama-sīla) is the morality cultivated through avoidance of physical and verbal transgression of precepts which one has undertaken to observe.

From the above descriptions of five kinds of morality of restraints (saṁvara-sīla) and avoiding transgression (avitikkama-sīla), it could be inferred that, in essence, restraint through following the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla) means a group of mental factors (cetasika) including volition and the three abstentions of non-greed (alobha), non-hate (adosa) and non-delusion (amoha). Restraint through mindfulness (sati-saṁvara) means the mental factor of mindfulness (sati), which is also accompanied by volition. Restraint through knowledge (ñāṇa-saṁvara) means the mental factor of wisdom, which is also accompanied by volition. Restraint through forbearance (khanti-saṁvara) means a group of moral consciousnesses and mental factors headed by non-hate, which has the characteristic of not losing one’s temper, in other words, the mental factor of non-hate. Restraint through development of energy (viriya-saṁvara) means the mental factor of energy, which is also accompanied by volition.

As for avoiding transgression (avitikkama-sīla), in the ultimate sense, it is a group of moral consciousnesses and mental factors which lead one to avoid transgression of precepts which one is observing. In the case of generosity (dāna), volition forms its basis. For morality too, volition serves as a main factor, but in addition to it, the group of moral consciousnesses and mental factors led by the three abstentions, the three mental factors of non-greed, non-hate, non-delusion and the three mental factors of mindfulness, wisdom, energy also play their respective roles.

2. Why is it called Morality?

The Pāḷi word sīla is translated as “morality” or “virtue.” Sīla has two meanings: first, it is employed to convey the sense of [1561] natural character, behaviour or habit. We find it used in this sense in such expression as pāpa-karaṇa-sīla, “one who is in the habit of doing evil;” dubbhāsana-sīla, “one who is in the habit of speaking evil;” abhivādana-sīla, “one who is in the habit of showing reverence to those worthy of homage;” Dhamma-kathana-sīla, “one who is in the habit of teaching the Dhamma.” It is also employed to describe natural phenomena: vassāna-samaye rukkha-rūhana-sīlā, “trees usually grow during the rainy season;” gimhāna-samaye patta-patana-sīlā, “leaves usually fall in summer.” In this first sense, sīla is employed to describe the habits of both moral and immoral persons, and also natural events which are outside the domain of morality, good or bad.

Secondly, it has the meaning of a good practice which implies only that practice which is noble, moral and ethical. This is the sense employed in this chapter on the Perfection of Morality. And in this sense also, there are two meanings: orientating and upholding.

In this chapter on the Perfection of Morality, it is mentioned that the recluse Sumedha, having received the definite prophecy that he would become a Perfectly Self-Awakened One, admonished himself to establish first the perfection of generosity. But this does not imply that he should practise generosity first without observance of precepts. In his investigation of the Buddha-making factors, by the exercise of perfection investigating wisdom (pāramī-pavicaya-ñāṇa), it was the perfection of generosity that appeared first in his mind’s eye, followed, in succession, by perfection of morality, perfection of renunciation, etc. The order of the perfections given in the text is the order in which they appeared in the mind’s eye of recluse Sumedha. It was not possible for him to discern all the ten perfections (pāramī) simultaneously; they were investigated one after another and were mentioned accordingly. The first perfection reviewed happened to be the perfection of generosity; hence it heads the list of the perfections (pāramī), but this does not mean that the order in the list is the order in which the perfections are to be fulfilled.

In actual practice, an act of giving is pure only when the supporter is established in morality; generosity is made more fruitful when it is preceeded by an observance of precepts. That is the reason why, when they are invited by lay people to accept robes and other gifts, the monastics see to it that the lay people are first established in the precepts, even though taking of precepts is not mentioned when making the invitation.

Thus, to the question: “Why is it called morality (sīla)?” the plain, clear-cut answer is: It is called morality because it does not permit physical and verbal actions to take place in a violent, disorderly manner; it controls and directs them so they are quiet and gentle; and it serves as a foundation for the arising, by stages, of the four classes of moral consciousness: the moral consciousnesses pertaining to the sensuous world, the form world, the formless world and the supermundane [1562] consciousness. Out of these discussions may arise the following questions:

Just as a royal wet-nurse holds the infant prince in her arms to keep him from crawling all over the royal chamber, so also does the element of solidity hold together other elements that arise along with it, preventing them from dispersing and scattering in all directions. In this manner, morality and the element of solidity differ in their respective functions of upholding and facilitating. ^{See the sub-commentary on the Path to Purification (Visuddhi-magga), in the Chapter on Morality.}

Although natural characteristics refer to both good and bad ones, as explained above, since we are dealing with the habit and practices of ancient sages or of Bodhisattas, Arahats, etc., we should take it that morality (sīla) refers only to good aspects. For instance, although Dhamma may be meritorious or demeritorious when we say: “I take refuge in the Dhamma,” the Dhamma here can only be the meritorious Dhamma. So also, although Saṅgha means “a group,” “an assemblage” in such words as manussa-saṅgha, “a group of people,” sakuṇa-saṅgha, “a flock of birds,” when we say: “I take refuge in the Saṅgha,” it implies only the Saṅgha of monastics.

Considered in this manner, sīla should also be taken in the sense of the Light on the Dictionary (Abhidhānappadīpikā) definition of “natural characteristic.” Thus, it should be stated that it is called morality because it is the natural characteristic of ancient sages, Bodhisattas, Arahats, etc.

3. What are its Characteristic, Function, etc.?

Morality has the characteristic of controlling one’s physical and verbal actions and orientating them towards the right direction; it also serves as a basis or foundation of all meritoriousness.

Its function is to prevent one from becoming immoral through uncontrolled physical and verbal actions. It helps one to remain spotless in conduct, free from blame by the wise.

Morality is manifested as purity in thought, word and deed. When the wise reflect on the nature of morality, they come to realise that it is purity of physical action, purity of [1563] verbal action and purity of mental action.

The proximate cause for the arising of morality is conscience about doing an immoral act (hiri) and concern about doing an immoral act (ottappa). Although listening to the Dhamma promotes the arising of morality, it serves only as a remote cause. It is only through conscience and concern that the precepts are observed.

4. What are the Benefits of Morality?

A man of virtuous conduct enjoys many benefits such as a gladdening of the heart, which leads to joy and happiness (pāmojja). This in turn results in delightful satisfaction (pīti). In one who enjoys delightful satisfaction, there arises calmness of mind and body (passaddhi), followed by bliss (sukha). The tranquil state of mind and body brings about the development of concentration (samādhi), which enables one to see things as they really are (yathā-bhūta-ñāṇa). When one gains this knowledge of things as they really are, one gets wearied of, and detached from, the ills and suffering of the cycle of rebirths. In him arises powerful insight into reality (balava-vipassanā-ñāṇa). With this insight, he becomes detached from craving and achieves the knowledge of the path, which leads to full liberation (vimutti) through the knowledge of fruition. After gaining the paths and fruitions knowledge, he develops reflective knowledge (paccavekkhaṇa-ñāṇa), which enables him to see that the cessation of phenomena of the aggregates of mind (nāma) and matter (rūpa) has taken place in him. In other words, he has realised perfect peace, Nibbāna. Thus morality has many benefits, including the realisation of Nibbāna.

In several discourses (DN 16, AN 4.22), etc., the Buddha mentions the following five benefits gained by one who observes the precepts and who is established in morality:

In the Discourse about how One might Wish (Ākaṅkheyya-sutta, MN 6), the Buddha enumerates 13 benefits which come from practising morality; such benefits range from reverence and respect shown by fellow followers of the teaching to becoming an Arahat, that is, attainment of Awakening.

5. How Many Types of Morality are There?

Morality in Groups of Twos:

1. There are precepts involving a performance of certain actions (cāritta); and precepts of abstention (vāritta). Of these two kinds, the precept laid down by the Buddha saying: “This should be done,” is morality that should be done (cāritta-sīla). For example, performance of duties towards a preceptor (upajjhāya-vatta) or duties towards a teacher (ācariya-vatta) is fulfilment of morality that should be done through practice.

Not doing what is prohibited by the Buddha, saying: “This should not be done,” is fulfilment of morality that should not be done (vāritta-sīla). For example, observance of the Exclusion (Pārājika) Vinaya rules, which [1564] prohibit monastics from indulgence in sexual intercourse, stealing, killing and falsely claiming attainments to the paths (magga) and fruitions (phala), is observance of morality that should not be done through avoidance.

Some people casually misinterpret these disciplinary rules, saying that morality that should be done is the precept which would lead to no offence if it is not fulfilled, but its observance contributes to purifying one’s morality. In interpreting thus, they make no distinction between monastics and laymen.

Actually, the Buddha has laid down definite disciplinary rules concerning duties to be performed by a pupil towards his preceptor or teacher. Any co-resident pupil who fails to abide by these rules not only fails to fulfil the morality that should be done but is also guilty of breaking the disciplinary rules concerning the performance of duties (vatta-bhedaka-dukkaṭa-āpatti).

Thus, for monastics, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of morality that should be done would lead to no offence; for them, morality that should be done is a mandatory observance of the precepts laid down by the Buddha.

As for the lay person, it may be said that avoidance of wrong deeds, which would definitely give rise to rebirths in lower planes of existence, falls under the category of morality that should be done. On the other hand, abstinence from wrong deeds, morality that should not be done (vāritta-sīla), showing reverence to the aged, which may or may not result in such rebirths, should be classified as morality that should be done (cāritta-sīla).

For example, there are five precepts to be observed by laymen: abstinence from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and taking intoxicants. Indulgence in these deeds, instead of avoiding them, leads definitely to lower planes of existence. Therefore, abstaining from these five wrong deeds which will certainly result in such rebirths constitutes morality that should not be done.

A lay person can also observe the eight precepts which are the avoidance of killing, stealing, lying and taking intoxicants – these four precepts, falling under the category of morality that should not be done – and the additional four precepts of total sexual abstinence, abstaining from eating in the afternoon, abstaining from dancing, singing, playing music and entertainments, and abstaining from using high and luxurious beds.

Actions included in these four additional precepts do not necessarily lead to the lower planes of existence. Noble lay persons, such as Stream-enterers (Sotāpanna) and Once-returners (Sakadāgāmī), enjoy lawful sexual relations with their own spouses, eat in the afternoon, dance, sing, etc. and sleep on high and luxurious beds. But, since they do so with mind unassociated with wrong view (diṭṭhi-vippayutta-citta), their actions will not result in rebirths in the lower planes of existence.

But an ordinary worldling may do these acts with minds either associated with wrong view (diṭṭhi-sampayutta) or unassociated with wrong view (diṭṭhi-vippayutta). These actions may or may not lead to rebirths in the lower plane of existence. Therefore, the four precepts: total sexual abstinence, abstaining from eating in the afternoon, abstaining from dancing, singing, playing music, etc., and abstaining from using high and luxurious beds should be called morality that should be done.

When a person who has taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, observes the five precepts with meticulous care, he would be a lay disciple (upāsaka) of the Buddha. If he makes further efforts to observe the eight precepts, it is for the purpose of practising the holy life at a higher level of endeavour. But the Buddha has not said that the observance of the eight precepts will save one from the lower destinations. Observance of the five precepts alone is not enough to secure safety from the danger of falling into the lower planes of existence.

In this sense, therefore, the four additional observances included in the eight precepts should be considered to belong to the category of morality that should be done. For monastics, however, the Buddha has strictly forbidden them from indulging in these four acts; hence for monastics, avoidance of these acts constitutes definitely morality that should not be done.

Morality to be Done and not Done

A cursory reading of the above distinction between morality that should be done (cāritta-sīla) and morality that should not be done (vāritta-sīla) or a superficial consideration of the fact of indulgence by noble disciples such as Visākhā in [1565] lawful sexual relations, eating in the afternoon, dancing, singing, playing music, etc., and, in using high and luxurious beds, could lead one to wrong conceptions. One could easily take the wrong view that all such deeds are faultless, blameless, and, therefore, one is then liable to indulge in them more and more with the accompaniment of wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi). It is most important that one should not fall into such errors of conception.

By killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and taking intoxicants, doing demeritorious wrong deeds, one is invariably led to the lower planes of existence. There is no escape from their ill consequences. That is why noble persons (ariya) will never do such deeds, even if they are under the threat of death to do so. They will willingly give up their lives rather than acquiesce to do such deeds because they have uprooted, through path (magga) insight, all traces of a latent tendency (anusaya) to do demeritorious deeds. Just because nobles (ariya), such as Stream-enterers, Once-returners and Non-returners, indulge in taking food in the afternoon, etc. just as ordinary persons do, it is not correct to say that they do so with identical mental attitudes in their various deeds. The noble ones (ariya) do not look upon objects of sense pleasure in the same way an ordinary worldling does; their manner of indulgence in sense pleasure is also different from that of worldlings.

The commentary to the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) says that the noble ones’ attitude towards pleasurable sense objects is like that of a clean Brahmin, who, pursued by an elephant in rut, seeks refuge with loathing and much reluctance in a dumping ground of excreta. When oppressed by craving for sensual pleasures, the defilement that has not been eradicated by the knowledge of the path, the Stream-enterer or the Once-returner deals with objects of sensual pleasures with a mind unassociated with wrong view, just to pacify and subdue the burning heat of the defilement.

This exposition deserves careful consideration. Citing the example of a noble (ariya) person such as Visākhā, the worldling is liable to say wrongly that the noble ones indulge in sense-pleasures exactly in the same way as he does. As pointed out in the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) commentary, the noble ones enjoy sense pleasures, with mind unassociated with wrong view, just to calm the burning desire, which is the defilement they have not yet destroyed with the knowledge of the path, whereas the worldling indulges in sense pleasures generally with mind associated with wrong view.

To summarise, one may have a sexual relationship with one’s spouse, take meals in the afternoon, dance, sing, play music and use high and luxurious beds, etc. with mind associated with wrong view resulting in rebirths in the lower planes of existence or with mind unassociated with wrong view, not resulting in rebirth in the lower planes of existence. Therefore, abstinence from these four actions which may not lead to the lower planes of existence should be classed as morality that should be done and not as morality that should not be done.

The division of the eight precepts into four moralities that should be done (cāritta-sīla) and four four moralities that should not be done (vāritta-sīla) is tenable only when the vow of abstinence is made, separately for each individual precept as is current now. Should the vow be taken for the whole group of the eight precepts, saying: “I observe the eight precepts,” it would simply be an observance of morality that should be done (cāritta-sīla) because the eight precepts constitute a code of morality which one may or may not observe.

As for the five precepts, whether the vow is taken for the five precepts as a whole or as separate individual precepts, its observance is definitely the practice of morality that should not be done (vāritta-sīla).

Of the two categories of morality (sīla), observance of morality that should be done (cāritta-sīla) can be accomplished only when one is endowed with faith and energy. Faith is believing that good results will follow the good deeds of practising morality, and energy means the relentless effort with which one observes the precepts in keeping with his faith.

No special effort is needed to become accomplished in the observance of morality that should not be done (vāritta-sīla). It requires only faith. Mere refraining through faith from doing deeds which the Buddha has taught are demeritorious is sufficient for the fulfilment of morality that should not be done.

2. The group of moral practices (abhisamācārika-sīla) which promotes good conduct and [1566] which includes all forms of virtuous deeds other than those classed as a set of eight precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla). All forms of moral practices which are taught for the fulfilment of the paths and the fruitions come under this classification.

Eight Precepts Including the Practice of Right Livelihood

Since it forms the beginning of the life of purity consisting in the path, the set of eight precepts including the practice of right livelihood (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) is also termed morality which forms the beginning of the life of purity (ādi-brahma-cariyaka-sīla).

Precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) include three moral physical actions: abstaining from killing, stealing and indulging in wrongful sexual intercourse; four moral verbal actions: abstaining from lying, malicious speech, using harsh, abusive words and frivolous talk; and, finally, abstaining from wrong livelihood.

The Path to Purification (Visuddhi-magga) states that the set of eight precepts including right livelihood (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) may also be termed morality which forms the beginning of the life of purity (ādi-brahma-cariyaka-sīla) as it includes precepts which are to be fulfilled in the initial stage of developing the noble path.

This commentary statement is likely to be misinterpreted by some as to mean that only the eight precepts including right livelihood (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) are the precepts which should be observed first for the attainment of the path. There have even appeared some groups which maintained that the five precepts, the eight precepts and the ten precepts, which are generally observed at present, are not the initial precepts which should be observed for the attainment of the path.

On the other hand, there are some people who say that they have not even heard of this strange code of morality called the eight precepts including right livelihood (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla); it could not have been taught by the Buddha; it may be a later accretion of no particular worth.

As a matter of fact, the eight precepts including right livelihood is certainly a precept taught by the Buddha himself. The Path to Purification (Visuddhi-magga) quotes the Great Discourse on the Six Sense Spheres (Mahā-saḷāyatanika-sutta, MN 149): Tenāha pubbeva kho panassa kāya-kammaṁ vacī-kammaṁ ājīvo suparisuddho hotī ti, “therefore it was said their actions of body, speech and livelihood have been properly purified earlier,” to show that the Buddha taught the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth.

The Buddha made his appearance in the world at a time when it was enveloped in the dark mass of evil forces. People were depraved, bereft of morality, steeped as they were in evil thoughts, words and deeds. When the Buddha wanted to inculcate in those wild, debased beings a sense of gentle civility through the practice of morality, he had to select a moral code from amongst various sets of precepts which would best suit their coarse minds. He thus taught them at the initial stages the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth. When the grosser forms of evil had been removed from the habits of the untamed beings by teaching them the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth, the Buddha no longer made use of it; instead he taught the five precepts and the eight precepts in his further civilizing endeavours.

Having thus been set aside by the Buddha when a certain stage of moral purification has been reached by the people, successive teachers from the time of the Buddha till the present time have not given much attention to the eight precepts including right livelihood; lay people also have not made a special effort to observe it because the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth was originally meant for people of debased morality only.

A question arises here: Since the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth forms the initial practice for the path, and since it had been used at the time when the Buddha first appeared, would it not be even more suitable to observe it at the present time?

The term “initial practice for the path” is applicable only when the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth is observed by those who have no code of morality whatsoever at the start to serve as the precepts for the path. Those who have only recently given up wrong views and begun to embrace the Buddha’s teaching should no doubt start to purify themselves by observing this set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth but when they have become well established in the Buddhist practice after being well trained in morality (sīla), it should no longer be [1567] termed “the initial practice for the path.”

Even children of Buddhist parents have been taught to understand the dire consequences of gross misdeeds such as taking the life of sentient beings, and they refrain from doing so. Accordingly, when they grow up and begin to observe precepts, there is no need for them to keep the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth. They should gradually advance in their training from the five precepts to the eight precepts and onto the ten precepts.

In other words, observance of the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth is the necessary step which those steeped in immorality should take to rid themselves of debased habits; but for those who have been well brought up under the guidance of Buddhist parents, it is clear that they already possess a modicum of moral conduct. Therefore, there is no special need for them to observe the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth. What has been said above applies to the present time when the Buddha’s teaching is widely extant.

Although brought up in a Buddhist environment and taught to refrain from gross misdeeds, if one judges oneself to be deficient in moral conduct and to have committed all kinds of grave transgressions, one has no alternative but to start with the initial purification process of observing the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) for the practice of the noble path.

Those inclined to follow the line of least resistance are likely to find this set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth attractive if someone points out that in observing this morality (sīla), one does not have to refrain from indulging in intoxicating drinks and drugs, one does not have to refrain from dancing, singing, enjoying shows, that it is easily observed, being free from difficult restraints and that it serves as the basis for the attainment of the paths and the fruitions.

It is a weakness of human nature to look for easy means of acquiring wealth. People forget or ignore the fact that even with hard labour and diligent work it is not always possible to have one’s dream of riches fulfilled. Many of them have become a prey to fraudulent villains who claim to possess magical secrets of multiplying one’s wealth. By seeking an easy way of becoming rich, people have fallen a victim to their own avarice.

Just as there are deceivers in worldly affairs, there are also frauds in religious matters, especially concerning the attainment of the paths and fruitions which is, of course, not easy at all to come by. Many are those who, inclining to seek shortcuts, have followed to their great loss the spurious teachings of self-acclaimed masters who promise them the stage of a Stream-enterer within seven days of practising their technique, or that of a Once-returner if one has adequate intellectual development. After finishing their seven days’ course of practice, the master announces the pseudo-attainments of his pupils as a Stream-enterer or a Once-returner, and they consequently are delighted with their illusory achievements.

Here, we would like to sound a note of caution. The metal copper, if it could be converted into the precious metal of gold, through practice of alchemy, would become possessed of the properties of gold which are vastly different from those of the original base metal of copper. Likewise, a noble person who has achieved the first path and fruition only as a Stream-enterer is easily distinguished from an ordinary worldling by means of his physical, verbal and mental demeanour. Instead of placidly accepting the announcement of the master as having attained the stage of a Stream-enterer or a Once-returner, one should, by self-introspection, examine one’s true nature to see if one has changed for the better and has truly benefited by the seven days’ course of practice. Only by self-evaluation in this manner could one save oneself from being misled by dubious teachers of religion.

Thus, in matters of observing the precepts or in other pursuits there is no shortcut or easy way to achieve one’s cherished object. A person addicted to drink will not [1568] be able to observe even the five precepts, not to speak of the higher practices such as the eight precepts.

The group of moral precepts other than the said set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) is classified as precepts which promote good conduct (abhisamācārika-sīla). Even the five precepts are to be considered as superior to the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth.

It may be questioned: “How could the five precepts, which have only the one restraint, out of the four verbal restraints, not to speak lies, be superior to the eight precepts including right livelihood (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla), which requires the observance of all the four verbal restraints involving lying, gossiping, using abusive language and engaging in frivolous talks?”

The answer lies in the fact that of the four verbal restraints, lying forms the basis of the breach of all the verbal restraints. The Buddha teaches that for one who commits falsehood, there is no misdeed which he is not liable to perpetuate; and one who can abstain from lying can easily observe the remaining precepts.

How could one who does not speak lies engage in slandering, abusing and frivolous talks? This explains why only the restraint of falsehood is included as the main verbal restraint in the five precepts. The question never arises, therefore, that the eight precepts including right livelihood is superior to the five precepts.

Again, it may be asked: “Since the precept to refrain from wrong livelihood, which does not feature in the five precepts, forms the eighth precept of the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth, surely it should be deemed superior to the five precepts.”

The answer in brief to this question is: For one who observes the five precepts, no special effort is needed to refrain from wrong livelihood. After all, wrong livelihood means earning one’s living through wrong means of killing, stealing and lying. By observing the five precepts meticulously, one is automatically avoiding the misdeeds of killing, stealing and lying. Thus, the precept to refrain from wrong livelihood as an additional observance in the set of precepts with right livelihood as the eighth (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-sīla) does not justify the claim of its superiority over the five precepts. What has been discussed above applies only to lay devotees.

Monastic Morality

For members of the Saṅgha, the rules of discipline laid down by the Buddha for them as expounded in the Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka) are known as training rules (sikkhāpada). The offences, for which penalties are imposed, may be classified under seven categories depending on their nature:

Offences in the first category of offences (pārājika) and in the second category (saṅghādisesa) are classified as grave offences (garukāpatti). The remaining five categories consist of light offences (lahukāpatti).

The group of moral precepts observed by monastics so that there is no breach of lesser and minor offences classified under light offences is known as good conduct (abhisamācārika-sīla); those observed to avoid transgression of grave offences (garukāpatti) is known as morality which forms the beginning of the life of purity (ādi-brahma-cariyaka-sīla).

Of the five volumes of the Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka), the Section about Expulsion (Pārājika-kaṇḍa) and the Section about Confession (Pācittiya-kaṇḍa), also known as the Twofold Analysis (Ubhato-vibhaṅga), deal with codes of morality which belong to the fundamental morality which forms the beginning of the life of purity (ādi-brahma-cariya) category of morality (sīla); the Great Division (Mahā-vagga) and the Short Division (Cūḷa-vagga), which are collectively termed the Division containing Chapters (Khandhaka-vagga), describe the group of morality which has been classified as good conduct (abhisamācārika-sīla). ^{The last volume of the Vinaya, the Summary (Parivāra), gives a summary and classification of the rules in the four previous volumes.}

Morality Based on the Abstinences or Other Factors

Morality That is Dependent or Independent

Time-Bound Morality and Life-Bound Morality:

1. Morality observed for a limited period (kāla-pariyanta-sīla).

2. Morality observed for life (apāṇa-koṭika-sīla).

In describing morality observed for a limited period, the Path to Purification (Visuddhi-magga) mentions only in a general way the limit of the observing period, saying: Having made a limit to the time, he establishes his precepts (kāla-paricchedaṁ katvā, samādinnaṁ sīlaṁ). But its sub-commentary is more specific in prescribing the time limit: a whole day or a whole night, etc. (kāla-paricchedaṁ katvā ti imañ-ca rattiṁ, imañ-ca divan-ti ādinā viya kāla-vasena paricchedaṁ katvā).

Nowadays, many people take the precepts without mentioning any time limit; so it seems for life. But as the intention is to observe a certain precept for a day or a limited period only, it is certainly classed as a temporary morality. As the formula in the commentary and the sub-commentary for taking the vow or precept, mentioned above, requires the stating of the period of observance, one should mention the period during which one would observe the precept. However, neglecting to do so constitutes no fault; it would still be a temporary practice of morality.

The intention, though unspoken, is generally assumed to be for the whole period of a day, or a night or a whole day and night. But it is not necessarily so, according to the commentary on the Path of the Analytic Knowledges (Paṭisambhidā-magga), which states that one may observe the precepts for one sitting, like lay devotees who, having established themselves in the Three Treasures, observe a set of precepts while making a donation to an invited monastic in their home. They observe the precepts only for the duration of the ceremony of alms giving. Or they may undertake to observe a set of precepts during their sojourn at a monastery for a day or two or more. These are all observances of temporary morality.

Thus, according to this commentary, it is beneficial to observe precepts even for a very short period. Therefore, teachers explain that it is quite proper to encourage children, who are not used to go without an evening meal, to take the eight precepts on Observance (Uposatha) days and observe them all throughout the morning only. One always gains merit for doing the good deed of observing precepts, however short the duration of the observance may be.

Two stories in the Stories about Petas (Peta-vatthu) illustrate this point. During the time of the Buddha (see Pv 3.7), there was, in Rājagaha, a hunter who earned his living by killing deer day and night. A friend of his was a disciple of the Buddha, being established in the Three Treasures. The friend advised the hunter to refrain from the evil act of killing animals. But his [1570] advice fell on deaf ears. Undaunted, he suggested to the hunter to refrain from killing at least during the nighttime and instead to engage himself in the meritorious act of observing precepts. The hunter finally gave in to his friend’s persistent persuasion and abandoning all acts of preparations for killing during the nighttime, he spent his time observing precepts.

After his death, the hunter gained rebirth near Rājagaha as a Vemānika Peta, who was subjected to great suffering during the day but lived a happy life at night, enjoying fully the pleasures of the senses.

Ven. Nārada, encountering this Peta in the course of his wanderings, enquired of him as to what kind of meritorious deeds he had performed in his previous lives. The Peta recounted his life as a hunter, how he earned his living by killing; how his friend, who was established in the Three Treasures, counselled him to give up his wrong mode of living; how he refused his friend’s good advice at first but finally succumbed to his persuasion by giving up hunting at nighttime and devoting himself to the good deed of observing the precepts. For his cruel misdeeds in the day time, he was suffering intensely during the day while at night he lived the blissful, sensuous life of Devas.

The second Peta story is similar (see Pv 3.8), but it concerns a wealthy sportsman who hunted deer, day and night, as a pastime for sheer enjoyment, not for livelihood. He also paid no heed to a friend of his who proffered him good advice for his benefit. Ultimately, he was won over by an Arahat, who came on an alms round to his friend’s house, who instructed him to devote at least the nighttime to meritorious deeds instead of the full-time pursuit of sport. He suffered the same fate after death as the hunter of the previous story.

We learn from these two stories that we reap the benefit of meritorious deeds even if they were performed only for the limited period of during the nighttime. Accordingly, we should make an endeavour to observe the precepts for whatever time we could afford, however short it may be.

Broken Observance and Unbroken Observance

Morality, the observance of which is brought to an end before a stipulated time for some reason (sapariyanta-sīla), such as being coaxed or tempted with an offer of wealth or servants and attendants to break the observance or being threatened with the destruction of one’s life and limbs or of one’s relatives to do so. In this type of morality, it should be noted that although its observance is brought to an end through outside interference, nevertheless, merit has been already gained, commensurate with one’s precepts. Morality observed before is not rendered fruitless by its termination.

Morality, the observance of which is not cut short by any outside influence (apariyanta-sīla) but is maintained till completion of the intended period.

Worldly Morality and Supermundane Morality

Morality subject to, or accompanied by, the pollutants (āsava) such as sensual desire, desire for future existence, wrong view and ignorance (lokiya-sīla). Morality not subject to, or not accompanied by, the mental pollutants (lokuttara-sīla).

Morality subject to the pollutants is conducive to happy future rebirth as a human being or a Deva and is a prerequisite for escape from the cycle of rebirths. Morality not subject to the pollutants brings about escape from Saṁsāra; it is also an object for contemplation with reflective knowledge (paccavekkhaṇa-ñāṇa).

Morality in Groups of Threes

Low, Middle and Finest Morality

When the precepts are observed with the four elements – will (chanda), energy (viriya), consciousness (citta) and investigative knowledge (vimaṁsā) – of inferior quality it is low morality (hīna-sīla); when they are of medium quality it is middle morality (majjhima-sīla); when they are of superior quality it is finest morality (paṇīta-sīla). [1571]

Again:

Again:

Self-regarding, World-regarding, and Respecting Dhamma

Morality That Is Grasping, Non-grasping, and Calming

Morality That Is Pure, Not Pure and Doubtful

Morality of One under Training, Beyond Training or Neither

Morality in Groups of Fours

Declining, Stagnating, Gaining Distinction and Penetrating

Precepts of Monks, Nuns, Novices and Householders

There are different views on the meaning of the Pāḷi phrase: sati vā ussāhe, “when possible” of the Path to Purification. Some teachers take the view that not only the five precepts but also the ten precepts are to be observed as a permanent undertaking. They wrongly apply to the ten precepts the attribute of a permanent undertaking (nicca-sīla), which is only meant for the five precepts.

These teachers say: “To observe the five precepts, it is not necessary to consider whether a person has the ability; he should observe the five precepts forever. Regarding the ten precepts, even though it is urged that the ten precepts should be observed as a permanent undertaking, only persons with the ability should observe them. Ability here means the ability to abandon his treasure of gold and silver with no more attachment to it; giving up his possessions in this manner, he should observe the ten precepts for the whole of his life, not just for some days and months only. If his intention is to avoid handling gold and silver during the period of observance only and to use them again afterwards, then he should not observe them at all.”

Again, some people erroneously think and say: “It is difficult for people to abandon their own possessions of gold and silver; therefore, laymen are not fit to observe the ten precepts.”

Also, according to the sub-commentary on the Path to Purification Visuddhi-magga), the term ten (dasa) should be taken as the ten precepts of novices. It is commented upon further that rules (sīla) here is meant to be like the rules observed by Ghaṭikāra the pot-maker and others. This commentarial statement makes for more confusion in the already mistaken view of these people. They take the extreme view that it is not enough for people to merely refrain from acquiring and accepting new wealth; they should be able to abandon all that they have already possessed, just as Ghaṭikāra in the Discourse about Ghaṭikāra (Ghaṭikāra-sutta, MN 81) refrained from using gold and silver for his whole life. And only when they are like Ghaṭikāra in this respect, they can be fully established in the ten precepts. Thus, they have made an overstatement.

Their view is that only when a person can “abandon his treasure of gold and silver with no more attachment to it” should he observe the ten precepts. It is mistaken as it arises with reference to the training rule about gold (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada) of the ten precepts. According to this interpretation, only when people can abandon all the wealth they possess, without clinging any more, they will be fully established in the precepts. Ghaṭikāra is a Non-returner (Anāgāmī) who has already abandoned all his wealth without clinging any more. Nowadays, although the laity do not acquire fresh wealth on the day of observance of the ten precepts, they have stored up at home and elsewhere all the wealth they have made previously, and so it is against the training rule about gold (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada). Hence, they should not observe the ten precepts unless they abandon all their wealth with no more attachment. Even if they take the ten precepts, they fail to keep them.

The interpretation of these teachers is not sustainable because there is for monastics the training rule concerning handling and possession of money (rūpiya-sikkhāpada), which is more subtle and noble than the training rule about gold and silver of the laity (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada). According to that training rule (sikkhāpada), a monastic should not accept money nor let others do so for him; if it is left near him in the absence of someone to receive it, he should not remain complacent but raise his objection saying: “Gold and silver is not allowable for monastics; we do not accept it.” If he does not [1575] raise any objection, then he commits an offence and the gold and silver should be abandoned by him too. This is the disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha.

Suppose a supporter (dāyaka) comes to a monastic and offers money, even though the monastic, following the Discipline, forbade him and refuses to accepts it, but he leaves it all the same and goes away; if another supporter comes along, and the monastic tells him about the money and the supporter says: “Then please show me a safe place for keeping the money,” the monastic may go up to the seventh terrace of the monastery, taking the supporter with him, and say: “Here is a safe place.” But he should not say: “Keep it here.” However, when the supporter has gone away after keeping the money safely in the place shown by the monastic, the monastic can close the door of the room carefully and keep watch on it. In doing so, the monastic is not guilty of infringement of any disciplinary rule. The commentary states this clearly when considering the training rule about money (rūpiya-sikkhāpada).

If possession of gold and silver is not allowable for the laity observing the training rule about gold (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada), it will, by no means, be allowable for the monastic who observes the subtler and nobler precepts to keep watch on his gold and silver. Thus, it should be noted that if such a monastic is free from offence, so is the laity who is not affected in the observance of the training rule about gold by his possession of wealth left in a place of security.

In the sub-commentary on the Path to Purification, the example of Ghaṭikāra the pot-maker is not cited to convey the meaning that “the laity should observe the ten precepts only when they can abandon all their wealth without clinging any more,” like Ghaṭikāra. Actually, the example of Ghaṭikāra, a superior observer of the ten precepts, is cited just to exhort the people not to be content with their ordinary observance of the ten precepts, that they should make efforts to become observers of a higher type following Ghaṭikāra’s example. Even though they cannot be equal to him, the citation is made in order to encourage them to emulate Ghaṭikāra as far as possible.

The authority for this remark is in the commentary to the Thus-Saids (Iti-vuttaka-aṭṭhakathā) by Acariya Dhammapāla, who is also the author of the sub-commentary on the Path to Purification: Sīlam-ayanti nicca-sīla-uposatha-niyamādi-vasena pañca, aṭṭha, dasa vā sīlāni samādiyantassa. The commentary mentions three kinds of morality: 1) The five precepts observed permanently (nicca-sīla); 2) the eight precepts observed on Observance Days (Uposatha-sīla); and 3) the ten precepts observed occasionally (niyama-sīla). It is clear that, according to this commentary, the ten precepts are not observed permanently; they are observed occasionally.

Again, in the Discourse about Worshipping Householders (Gahaṭṭha-vandanā-sutta, SN 11.18), we find the following account. Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, came down from Vejayanta Palace to go to the royal garden. When he was about to get onto his chariot, he paid homage to the eight directions. Then the Deva Mātali said: “To whom do you pay homage, sir?” Sakka said:

Ye gahaṭṭhā puñña-karā, sīlavanto upāsakā,
Dhammena dāraṁ posenti, te namassāmi Mātali.

Mātali, some people perform meritorious deeds; they are also endowed with morality; they take refuge in the Three Treasures of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha, and they support their wives and children righteously. To them I pay homage.

The term endowed with morality (sīlavanto) in Sakka’s reply is explained by the commentator thus: Sīlavanto ti upāsakatte patiṭṭhāya pañca hi pi dasa hi pi sīlehi samannāgatā, “those who are endowed with morality means those who take refuge in the Three Treasures and become established in the five precepts and the ten precepts.”

According to this commentary, it is clear that the people to whom Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, pays homage are the people who, living with their families, observe the five and ten precepts.

Also, in the Collection of the Thematic Discourses (Saṁyutta-nikāya) sub-commentary, it is commented thus: Nicca-sīla-vasena pañcahi, [1576] niyama-sīla-vasena dasahi, “the five precepts should be taken as permanent rules (nicca-sīla), the ten precepts as delimited rules (niyama-sīla).”

In the Light on the Dictionary (Abhidhānappadīpikā, vs 444), the meaning of delimited rules is briefly shown thus:

Yaṁ deha-sādhanāpekkhaṁ, niccaṁ kamma-mayaṁ yamo,
āgantu-sādhanaṁ kammaṁ, aniccaṁ niyamo bhave.

The morality which must be observed forever is unlimited rules (yāma-sīla). The morality which is not observed forever but only occasionally is called delimited rules (niyāma-sīla).

The expressions unlimited rules and delimited rules have their origins in Brahmanism, see Amara’s Dictionary (Amara-kosa-abhidhāna, vs 49):

Not harming, not speaking lies, not stealing, not indulging in ignoble sexual acts, not accepting alms food: these five are unlimited rules (yama-sīla), which must be observed forever; purifying, being easily content, practising austerity, reciting the Vedas, recollecting Brahma; these five are delimited rules (niyama-sīla), which should be observed occasionally.

According to the Collection of the Thematic Discourses (Saṁyutta-nikāya) and its commentary, it is clear that even the people who are supporting their families by right livelihood can observe the ten precepts. Hence the view: “People should observe the ten precepts only when they can abandon their gold and silver without clinging anymore, like Ghaṭikāra, the pot-maker,” is not a right one; it is an overstatement.

Moreover, of the ten duties of a king, mentioned in the Long Birth Story about the Golden Goose (Mahā-haṁsa-jātaka, Ja 534), the commentary says that by the term morality (sīla) is meant both for the five and the ten precepts. Therefore, it is evident that kings observe also the ten precepts as one of their duties. If it is maintained that “the ten precepts should be observed only when they can be observed forever,” then kings who have chief queens, lesser queens, maids of honour and a treasury filled with gold and silver would not be able to observe the ten precepts because of the training rules about celibacy (abrahma-cariya-sikkhāpada) and gold (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada). Had it been impossible for kings to observe, then the commentator would not have included the ten precepts in his comment on morality (sīla) of the ten kingly duties. But the commentator has definitely mentioned them in his comment. Therefore, the ten precepts are not permanent morality (nicca-sīla); they are the morality limited to whenever one is able to do so.

Moreover, the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) commentary explains how the eight precepts are derived from the ten training rules (sikkhāpada). The ten precepts (dasa sikkhāpada) are refraining from:

Of the ten precepts, the first two, the training rule about not taking life (pāṇātipāta-sikkhāpada) and about not taking what has not been given (adinnādāna-sikkhāpada), are to be observed by the laity or novices as permanent precepts (nicca-sīla). The third precept, about celibacy (abrahmacariya-sikkhāpada), is not mentioned as a permanent precept (nicca-sīla) for the laity. It is the precept to be observed only when one is able to do so. Again, out of the ten precepts, the seventh one: the training rule about dance and songs (nacca-gīta-sikkhāpada) and the eighth one about garlands and perfumes (mālā-gandha-sikkhāpada) merge into one factor; and the last training rule about gold is excluded.

In accordance with this commentary also, those out of the ten precepts which the laity should observe permanently are four: refraining from killing, stealing, lies and taking intoxicants. The laity cannot always observe the precept about celibacy (abrahmacariya-sikkhāpada). They are also unable to observe permanently the precepts about food at the wrong time (vikālabhojana,) dance and songs (nacca-gīta), etc. Thus it is clear that all these ten precepts are a limited (niyama) type of morality (sīla) to be observed only when able.

Although it is mentioned in the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) commentary that the training rule about money (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada) is a special precept for novices, breaking it will not entail falling from novicehood. Because in the Great Chapter (Mahā-khandhaka, Vin Mv 1), although the Fortunate One laid down the ten factors (dasaṅga) which will make the novices fall from their novicehood, only the first five of the ten precepts are included in them. The last five are not included. Therefore, in spite of breaking one of these last five factors, the novices will not fall from their novicehood; they are only guilty of a breach of the rules which entail due punishment. If they take the punishment imposed by their teachers they will become again good novices, duly absolved from guilt. [1577]

Thus, even novices for whom the ten precepts are mandatory will not fall from their novicehood in spite of the training rule about money (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada). It is clear, therefore, that of the ten precepts, the last five are not so important as the first five for novices. Thus, it is not proper to say and write exhorting strict observance of the money precept for the laity when it is not regarded as so important even for novices.

It is accepted that both the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga) and the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) commentaries are written by Ven. Mahā Buddhaghosa. As the two books are written by one and the same author, the exposition should not be different. The passage from the Path of Purification which says: Upāsaka-upāsikānaṁ nicca-sīla-vasena pañca-sikkhāpadāni, sati vā ussāhe dasa, “the ten precepts are not permanent morality (nicca-sīla) for the laity; they are delimited (niyama-sīla), and to be observed only when able” should thus be noted to be in line with the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) and Thus-Saids (Iti-vuttaka) commentaries.

With respect to a breach of precepts, the Short Readings commentary, after dealing with matters concerning novices, states: “Whereas, in the case of the laity, after taking the vow of the five precepts, if one of them is broken, only that one is broken, and if that one be observed by taking a new vow, the five precepts are complete again.” But some teachers (apare) maintain this: “If the five precepts are taken separately, one after another, a breach of one will not cause the breach of the rest.” However, if they say, at the beginning of taking the precepts: Pañcaṅga-samannāgataṁ sīlaṁ samādiyāmi, “I vow to observe the complete five precepts,” then, if one of them is broken, all are broken because the vow was initially taken to keep the precepts together. As to the result of a breach of precepts, each breach will have its own consequences, not affecting others.

But some teachers rationalize this view by saying that after vowing to observe the complete five precepts, if one of them is broken, all are not broken; others remain unaffected. If we thus accept this rationalization, there will be no difference at all in their views. In this connection, the Analsis of the Training Rules (Sikkhāpada-vibhaṅga) of the Dispeller of Delusion (Sammoha-vinodanī, VibhA) states:

Gahaṭṭhā yaṁ yaṁ vītikkamanti, taṁ tad-eva khaṇḍaṁ hoti bhijjati, avasesaṁ na bhijjati. Kasmā? Gahaṭṭhā hi anibaddha-sīlā honti, yaṁ yaṁ sakkonti taṁ tad-eva gopenti.

After taking the precepts, if the laymen break one of them, only that one is broken; the rest are not; because for the laity there is no mandatory permanent precepts to observe like novices.

Of the five precepts, they may observe whichever they can; one, two or three, but not necessarily all five. We should not say that because they observe only partially and do not observe the complete five precepts, it does not amount to observance of the precepts and that they will not get any merit for it.

It should be noted thus that even though the laity cannot observe all five precepts but only as many as possible, they will get merit and that their morality (sīla) is genuine. In this connection, the Path of the Analytic Knowledges (Paṭisambhidā-magga) commentary comments on pariyanta-pārisuddhi-sīla: ^{This morality is described fully under morality in the groups of fives.} “There are two kinds of limit regarding morality (sīla): the limit to the number of precepts observed and the limit to the duration of observance. The laity may observe one precept, or two, three, four, five, eight or ten precepts. But the trainees (sikkhamāna, sāmaṇera and sāmaṇerī) have to observe the ten precepts in full. This is the limit to the number of precepts observed.”

The essential meaning here is: If the laity take precepts numbering one, two, three, four, five, eight or ten and observes them properly, their morality will become a pure morality with a limit in number (sikkhāpada-pariyanta-pārisuddhi-sīla).

Therefore, although in practice one does not vow to take one, two, three or four but all five precepts, it is not mandatory to observe all of them. If they can observe only one precept, they should observe that one. If they can observe two, they should observe those two, and so on.

It may be questioned: When the laity have the right to observe any number of precepts they wish, why the five precepts alone are prescribed in the commentary to the Path to Purification (Visuddhi-magga) thus: For lay men and women regarding the permanent precepts, these are the five training rules (upāsaka-upāsikānaṁ nicca-sīla-vasena pañca-sikkhāpadāni)? [1578]

The answer is that the commentary is here concerned mainly with the principle of morality, which requires that all the five precepts must be observed permanently (nicca-sīla-vasena pañca-sikkhāpadāni). We have no right to leave out any precept we wish. It is wrong to break any one of the five precepts. It is not only in the Path to Purification but also in other texts that the five precepts are shown as permanent precepts (nicca-sīla) in the light of the principle of morality.

The Five Precepts with Celibacy as Fifth

In addition to the five, eight and ten precepts, there are also the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth (brahma-cariya-pañcama-sīla), which can be observed by the laity. However, the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth are, in reality, the five precepts. The third precept of the original five, undertaking to not behave wrongly in sexual matters (kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṁ samādiyāmi), is replaced by undertaking to observe celibacy (abrahmacariyā-veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṁ samādiyāmi) in order for it to be the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth.

The precepts which have celibacy as the fifth was observed at the time of Buddha Kassapa by the layman Gavesi, as recorded in the Discourse concerning Gavesi (Gavesi-sutta, AN 5.180). At the time of Buddha Gotama, this morality (sīla) was observed by Ugga, the rich man of Vesālī and Ugga, the rich man of Hatthigāma in the Vajjian country; see the First Discourse about Ugga (Paṭhama-ugga-sutta, AN 8.21) and the Second Discourse about Ugga (Dutiya-ugga-sutta, AN 8.22). The two Uggas took the precepts which has celibacy as the fifth from the Fortunate One and observed them; of the four wives they each possessed, the eldest ones were given away in marriage to the men they loved, and the remaining ones were abandoned likewise, and thereafter they remained single for life; they were lay Non-returners. It should not be misunderstood that married persons who want to observe the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth at the present time have to abandon their wives with no more attachment to them. In other words, it should not be taken that they may not observe this morality (sīla) unless they are prepared to renounce their wives altogether. Because in the words of the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) commentary, mentioned above: “Of the ten precepts, only four: those restraining from the taking of life, taking what is not given, lying and intoxicants are regarded as permanent precepts (nicca-sīla).”

Hence it is evident that the training rule about celibacy (abrahma-cariya-sikkhāpada) and the remaining precepts, such as not eating at the wrong time (vikāla-bhojana), etc., are not permanent; they are delimited morality (niyama-sīla), to be observed occasionally. Even though they cannot observe the precepts exactly like Ghaṭikāra the pot-maker, they can observe them occasionally as far as possible. So also, with regard to the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth, the two Uggas, being Non-returners, abandoned their wives without any attachment and observed the precepts for life. If other people can follow their example and observe this precept, it is all well and good, but if they cannot emulate them fully, they should observe the precept according to their ability.

The Five Precepts with Celibacy as Fifth and One Time Eating

Furthermore, there are also the precepts which have celibacy as the fifth and one time eating, or simply the one time eating morality (eka-bhattika-sīla). One time eating means taking only one meal a day, in the morning. So, if lay people want to observe this morality (sīla), they may, after making the vow of the precepts which has celibacy as the fifth, take one more precept by saying they undertake to refrain from eating at the wrong time: vikāla-bhojanā veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṁ samādiyāmi. Or, if they wish to take the vow as a whole, they may do so by saying they undertake the precepts which has celibacy as the fifth and will refrain from eating at the wrong time: brahma-cariya-pañcama-eka-bhattika-sīlaṁ samādiyāmi. This morality (sīla) was observed by the layman Dhammika and laywoman Nandamātā, at the time of the Fortunate One, according to the commentary on the Discourse concerning Dhammika (Dhammika-sutta, Snp 2.14). At the time of Buddha Kassapa, the layman Gavesi also observed this morality (sīla); so did 500 laymen; see the Discourse concerning Gavesi (Gavesi-sutta, AN 5.180).

The Eightfold Observance Day Precepts

It may be questioned why, regarding the five precepts, the term five (pañca) alone is used, and, regarding the ten precepts, the term ten (dasa) is used, whereas in describing the eight precepts, not only the term eight (aṭṭha) but the additional term Observance (Uposatha) is used?

The term Observance (Uposatha) has five meanings:

Of these five, the first meaning 1) is concerned only with the monastic, and the second meaning, 2) being the name for a Prince (e.g. Prince Uposatha, or of an elephant, e.g. the Uposatha elephant, etc.), has no connection with this chapter on morality (sīla); only the remaining three meanings are to be considered here.

The three meanings are derived from the Pāḷi term upavāsa which means observing or fulfilling the precepts. The third meaning 3) is the act of observing the precepts. The fourth meaning 4) is the precepts which should be kept. The fifth meaning 5) is the day on which the precepts are kept.

No particular day was fixed by the virtuous people in the past for observance of the five precepts and the ten precepts; only the eight precepts were observed on a specially fixed day; hence the special epithet of Observance Day (Uposatha) for these eight precepts.

There is another point to consider. The five precepts are not as numerous as the eight precepts, and as it is to be kept everyday, no special day was named for their observance. But as the ten precepts are higher than the eight precepts, the virtuous people in the past should have fixed a special day for their observance. If so, why had they not done so? The probable reason is that the eight precepts are specially suitable for the laity, whereas the ten precepts are not. According to the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga), the ten precepts are for novices. The Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha) commentary also states that the last precept of the ten precepts, regarding not using money (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada) is a special one for novices. It is, therefore, evident that the ten precepts are specifically for novices, not for laymen.

Therefore, the learned and virtuous in the past selected, out of the two kinds of morality (sīla) which concerned them, the eight precepts, which is of a higher form, to be observed on a specially appointed day. Only the eight precepts are therefore called Uposatha as explained in the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga).

The virtuous are not content with the observance of morality (sīla) only; they also wish to do meritorious deeds through giving alms, which entail acquiring, buying and shopping for things to offer. Consequently, they cannot properly observe the training rule about gold and silver (jāta-rūpa-sikkhāpada). Therefore, the ancient people fixed a special day for observance of the eight precepts only.

The Ninefold Observance

In the Discourse on the Ninefold Observance Day Precepts (Navaṅguposatha-sutta, AN 9.18), there is an exposition on the ninefold Observance Day precepts (navaṅguposatha-sīla) given with this introduction: “The nine precepts are beneficial, advantageous and powerful.” In enumerating them, the Fortunate One expounds the usual eight precepts from the precept about killing (pāṇātipātā-sikkhāpada) up to the precept about high and luxurious beds (uccā-sayana-mahā-sayana-sikkhāpada) but ends with the formula for the practice of loving-kindness thus: Mettā sahāgatena cetasā ekaṁ disaṁ pharitvā viharāmi, “I abide with thoughts of loving-kindness directed to beings in one direction.”

According to the discourse, to keep the ninefold Observance Day precepts (navaṅguposatha-sīla), after taking the usual eight precepts, one develops loving-kindness. A man who observes the eight precepts without any breach and keeps on developing loving-kindness is called an observer of the nine precepts. Loving-kindness is to be developed, whereas morality (sīla) is to be observed. Therefore, to practise the nine precepts, one need not recite the nine precepts when taking the vow. It is sufficient to take the usual eight precepts and to develop loving-kindness as much as possible, then one is said to be practising the nine precepts (navaṅguposatha).

With regard to loving-kindness, as the Fortunate One particularly mentioned one direction (ekaṁ disaṁ), diffusing loving-kindness with one direction in mind is more effective than doing so without minding the direction. One should direct one’s thought to all beings in the ten directions, the four cardinal points, the four intermediate points, plus above and below, one after another, beginning from whichever direction one wishes. [1580]

Even though there are four sublime mental states, ^{The four sublime mental states: loving-kindness (mettā), compassion (karuṇā), sympathetic joy (muditā) and equanimity (upekkhā).} the Fortunate One takes only loving-kindness and adds it to the eight, thus prescribing the nine precepts because loving-kindness has great power. That is why the Fortunate One has expounded the Discourse on Friendliness Meditation (Metta-sutta), recorded in both the Supplementary Readings (Khuddaka-pāṭha, Khp 9) and the Discourse Collection (Sutta-nipāta, Snp 8).

In the Discourse on the Advantages of Loving-Kindness (Mettānisaṁsa-sutta, AN 11:16) eleven advantages are expounded that accrue to him who repeatedly develops loving-kindness:

Therefore, it is clear that loving-kindness is more powerful than the other three sublime mental states.

Three Kinds of Observance Day Morality

Observance Day morality (Uposatha-sīla) is of three kinds:

As expounded by the Fortunate One in the Discourse about the Observance Day (Uposatha-sutta, AN 3.70), the essential meanings are:

Again, the noble observance (ariya-uposatha) is of six kinds: [1581]

It should be noted that the division of the Observance Day into the three and the six kinds is in reference to the manner of keeping it. Primarily, however, the morality (sīla) which is observed is of two kinds only: The eightfold Observance Day precepts (aṭṭhaṅga-uposatha-sīla) and the ninefold Observance Day precepts (navaṅguposatha-sīla) as already stated above.

Three Kinds of Observance Day

The classification below is made in the light of the Discourse about the Four Great Kings (Catu-mahā-rāja-sutta, AN 3.37), which says: Observing and keeping vigil during the Observance day (Uposathaṁ upavasanti paṭijāgaronti) … and:

Cātuddasiṁ pañca-dasiṁ, yā ca pakkhassa aṭṭhamī,
pāṭihāriya-pakkhañ-ca, aṭṭhaṅga-susamāgataṁ.

Those which are the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the eighth of the lunar phase, and the wonderful lunar phase is the eightfold gathering.

In the verse above, the lines reading Cātuddasiṁ pañca-dasiṁ, yā ca pakkhassa aṭṭhamī “the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the eighth of the lunar phase,” refer to ordinary Observance Days. In accordance with this, each fortnight of a month, waxing or waning, has three Observance Days: the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth days. Therefore, a month has six Observance Days, which are called ordinary Observance Days. In the commentary, however, the waxing fortnight has four Observance Days, [1582] namely, the fifth, the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth waxing days; the waning fortnight has four Observance Days, too: the fifth, the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth waning days; altogether there are eight Observance Days in a month. These eight are ordinary Observance Days usually observed by the laity.

The vigilant Observance Day (paṭijāgara-uposatha) means the eight ordinary Observance Days observed with one additional day before and after each of them. Paṭi here means “repeatedly;” jāgara means “waking.” Therefore, paṭijāgara-sīla may be interpreted as morality which repeatedly wakes up from the slumber of the defilements. To calculate the number of days: The fifth waxing Observance Day is preceeded by the fourth waxing and followed by the sixth waxing Observance Day; the eighth Observance Day is preceeded by the seventh waxing and followed by the ninth waxing Observance Day; the fortnight waxing Observance Day is preceeded by the thirteenth waxing Observance Day, but there is not an Observance Day to follow; the full moon day is not preceeded by an Observance Day but is followed by the first waning Observance Day.

Hence, serially there are the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth waxing; the full moon and the first waning days. Thus there are ten days in the waxing fortnight and ten days in the waning fortnight of the month, making altogether eight ordinary Observance Days (pakati-uposatha) and twelve vigilant Observance Days (paṭijāgara-uposatha) days in a month.

The Observance Day which is more powerful than the vigilant (paṭijāgara) is called wonderful (pāṭihāriya). The vigilant Observance Day has intervening days in the waxing and waning fortnight. The wonderful Observance Day has no such days, morality (sīla) being observed continuously.

If the laity wants to observe the wonderful Observance Day, they should observe for the whole three months of the Rains Retreat (Vassa) without a break; but if they cannot observe for the whole three months, they should do so for one month, from the full moon of October (Assayuja) to the full moon of November (Kattikā); but if they cannot observe for one month, they should do so for fifteen days from the full moon to the new moon of October (Assayuja). This is stated in the commentary to the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya).

However, according to the commentary to the Discourse concerning Dhammika (Dhammika-sutta, Snp 2.14), the Observance Day observed for five months of July (Āsāḷha), August (Sāvaṇa), September (Poṭṭhapāda), October (Assayuja) and November (Kattikā) without a break is a wonderful Observance Day (pāṭihāriya-uposatha), whereas other teachers say that the Observance Day observed for each of the three months of July (Āsāḷha), November (Kattikā) and March (Phagguṇa) without a break is called the wonderful Observance Day.

Still other teachers say that, according to the Pāḷi texts, there are three ordinary observance (pakati-uposatha) days: the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth of each fortnight of a month. If, in addition to those three ordinary Observance Days (pakati-uposatha), four more days: the seventh before the eighth and the ninth, the thirteenth before the fourteenth and the first day after the fifteenth are observed, such Observance Days are called wonderful Observance Days (pāṭihāriya-uposatha). The commentator remarks that for the benefit of the good people, who wish to acquire good merit, all kinds of precepts are mentioned to enable them to observe whichever they like.

Of the three views shown in the Anthology of Discourses (Sutta-nipāta) commentary, the commentator’s own view was that: “The Observance Day observed for five months is the wonderful Observance Day (pāṭihāriya-uposatha),” and he agrees in essence with the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) commentary, where the period of continuous observance is shown as three months, whereas in the Anthology of Discourses commentary, it is five months. That is the only difference.

The third view from the Anthology of Discourses commentary is in agreement with that of the commentaries on the Birth Story about King Nimi (Nimi-jātaka, Ja 541), the Story about Uttara’s Heavenly Mansion (Uttara-vimāna-vatthu, Vv 15), the Verses of the Elder Monks (Thera-gāthā, no further ref. given) and the Birth Story about Suruci, King of Mithilā (Suruci-jātaka, Ja 489).

However, according to the commentary on the Collection of the Thematic Discourses (Saṁyutta-nikāya, PTS 1.307), the wonderful Observance Day in each fortnight of the month are the seventh, the ninth, the thirteenth, and the first waning or waxing day after the fifteenth and the half month after the Rains Retreat (Vassa), i.e., from the first waning to the new-moon day of October (Assayuja). [1583]

Herein, there is one thing to consider: Even though the commentaries on the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya), the Anthology of Discourses (Sutta-nipāta), the Birth Stories (Jātaka), and the Collection of the Thematic Discourses (Saṁyutta-nikāya) are written by the same commentator, Ven. Mahā Buddhaghosa, they are different from one another regarding the Observance Days. Why is this?

That the Buddha actually described the three kinds of Observance Days are clear from the Discourse about the Uposatha Day (Uposatha-sutta, AN 3.71), but there is no discourse delivered by the Buddha to set aside specific days, three or six, as Observance Days. The fourteenth observance, the fifteenth observance, the eighth observance and the wonderful Observance Day (pāṭihāriya-uposatha) mentioned before are not prescribed by the Fortunate One as Observance Days. Indeed, it was Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, who said to the Tāvatiṁsa deities: “People observe the Observance Days on the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the eighth. On the days called wonderful (pāṭihāriya), too, they observe Observance Days.” He was given this information by the Catumahārājika Devas, who went round in the human world preparing a list of the virtuous. The Buddha was only reproducing the words of Sakka. The classification of the fourteenth, the fifteenth and the eighth Observance Days is merely a statement of the Observance Days traditionally observed by people. There is no special discourse expounded by the Fortunate One to enjoin that the Observance Days must be observed on these days or must not be observed on other days.

Thus the fourteenth, the fifteenth and the eighth Observance Days were the Observance Days prescribed by the ancient people. So, traditionally, there were only three ordinary Observance Days (pakati-uposatha), but later on, people observed the fifth day also, and therefore there come to be four Observance Days in each fortnight of a month. Thus the fifth Observance Day is mentioned in the commentary. Nowadays, people observe only four Observance Days in a month.

The Buddha did not prescribe any specific Observance Days because people can observe the precepts on whichever day they like. In mentioning vigilant (paṭijāgara) and wonderful (pāṭihāriya) Observance Days as special days for observance, the commentators are merely recording the various customary practices of the people, hence these seeming differences in the commentaries.

Moreover, the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya), the Anthology of Discourses (Sutta-nipāta), the Collection of the Thematic Discourses (Saṁyutta-nikāya) and the Birth Stories (Jātaka), which make expositions of morality (sīla), are known as the teachings in the discourses; they are also known as common-usage teachings (vohāra-desanā) because, in these discourses, the Buddha, who is incomparable in the usage of the world, employs the terms and expressions of the people, which can never be uniform. Thus, with regard to different classifications of the Observance Days, as all are meant to develop merit, it is not necessary to decide which view is right and which view is wrong. In the Anthology of Discourses commentary, the three views are described advising readers to accept whichever they like.

Those who observe morality select suitable days which they prefer, and they observe the Observance Days accordingly in many ways. And all their observance develops merit, so the commentators write, recording the ways employed by the people. In the teaching in the discourses (suttanta-desanā), even the Buddha expounded the following usages of the people. Why did the Fortunate One expound in this manner? It was because he did not wish them to violate traditional customs which are not demeritorious.

The principal objective of the Fortunate One is to expound only such ultimate realities as mind and matter (nāma-rūpa-paramattha-dhamma) that would facilitate the attainment of the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna. Teaching in such abstruse terms could be beneficial to those with the right perception, but it could make those lacking right perception commit wrong deeds which would lead them to the four lower worlds. For example, those who have a wrong perception of mind and matter (nāma-rūpa) would think thus: “In this world, there is mind and matter only; there is neither ‘I’ nor ‘others;’ if there are no ‘others’ there will be no harm in killing them, and there will be neither ‘mine’ nor ‘others;’ therefore, there will be no harm in stealing things, in committing adultery, etc.” In this manner, they will freely break the rules of society and do such unwholesome deeds which will cause rebirths in the lower planes of existence.

In terms of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca), there is neither “I” nor “others,” neither “man” nor “woman,” etc. There are only aggregates of mind and matter (nāma-rūpa) which are mental and physical phenomena. For those incapable of understanding the terms of ultimate truth, the Buddha employed terms of conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) when giving discourses (suttanta-desanā). [1584] Though all is a mass of mind and matter (nāma-rūpa), by conventional usage, it is determined for easy discrimination that such-and-such a mass is “I,” such and such a mass is “they,” such-and-such a mass is “mother,” “father,” etc. If people deviate from the norms set up by conventional usage, they will go astray doing wrong deeds. It is to prevent them from falling into the lower planes of existence as a consequence of their misdeeds that the Buddha teaches the discourses in conventional terms.

If, however, only discourses were delivered, people would take such terms as “I,” “they,” “my son,” “my daughter,” “my wife,” “my property,” etc., as ultimate realities and their belief in a permanent personality (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) would become so great that they would not attain the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna, hence the teaching of ultimate reality of mind and matter (nāma-rūpa-paramattha-dhamma) by the Buddha.

Some teachers write: “In the Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka) there is an injunction for monastics not to observe the monastic Observance Days, or recitation of the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha) on non-Observance Days. If they do so, they commit the offence of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa-apatti). Likewise, laymen should not observe the eight precepts on non-Observance Days.”

Such writing shows that they are not accomplished in interpreting the teaching of the Buddha. The Teaching of the Discipline (Vinaya-desanā) is called a teaching of the rules (āṇā-desanā) in Buddhist literature; it means the authoritative injunction laid down by the Fortunate One. If a monastic commits, even with good intention, a forbidden act, he is guilty because he goes against the command of the Fortunate One and transgresses the Discipline. To assume that such a Vinaya rule is also applicable to laymen in their observance of Observance Days, to say that people must not observe precepts on non-Observance Days and that doing so will be an offence, is a clear misinterpretation of the teaching. In brief, a pure and noble observance can be fulfilled on any day. The more it is observed the greater will be the beneficial results.

Therefore, the sub-commentary on the Discourse about King Mahā Suddasana (Mahā-sudassana-sutta, DN 17) says: The Observance Day (Uposatha) is said to be the precepts (sīla) with eight factors that can be observed by laymen on all days (uposathaṁ vuccati aṭṭhaṅga-samannāgataṁ sabba-divasesu gahaṭṭhehi rakkhitabba-sīlaṁ).

Natural, Traditional, Lawful and Because of the Past Precepts

The Four Realms of Morality

These four are chiefly concerned with the monastic. When the Bodhisatta Sumedha the ascetic, reflected on the perfection of morality, he said to himself (Bv 2.124): Likewise, you should fulfil the four realms of morality (tatheva tvaṁ catūsu bhūmisu sīlāni paripūraya).

The morality that liberates its observer from suffering in the four lower worlds is called morality according to restraint by the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla); pāti, “observe,” mokkha, “to set free,” or, “set free by observing the rules.”

The observer of this morality 1) Should have proper conduct; 2) should have blameless, wholesome resorts; 3) should see great danger in the slightest fault; the offence may be small like a particle of dust but one should see in it a danger as big as Mount Meru, which has a height of 168,000 leagues above and under water; and 4) should observe and practise the precepts properly. To explain further:

1. In the world, there is what should be practised (ācāra-dhamma), and there is what should not be practised (anācāra-dhamma). The three wrong physical actions of killing, stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse, the four wrongs of telling lies, backbiting, abusing and babbling, altogether being seven wrong doings (duccarita) and other deeds that cause a breach of morality constitute what should not be practised (anācāra).

To give some examples of unwholesome actions that would cause a breach of morality: In the world, some monastics earn their living by making gifts of bamboo, leaves, flowers, fruits, soap powder and toothpicks to the laity; they degrade themselves by approving of the wrong speech of the laity, flattering them to gain favour, telling much falsehood mixed with a little truth just like a lot of uncooked peas mixed with a few cooked ones in a pot. They look after children of the laity as nurse-maids, embracing them, dressing them, etc. They serve as messengers running errands for their lay supporters; they give medical treatment to the laity, look after their properties, exchange food and beverage with them. Such wrong livelihood, as well as every other resort of wrong livelihood condemned by the Buddha, is called wrong conduct (anācāra-dhamma).

It is improper for a monastic to give bamboo, leaves, etc. even if the laity comes and asks for their use; more so, therefore, when they are not asked for. Such acts of giving are not the business of monastics. If they do so, they would be destroying the faith of the laity (kula-dūsana) in the Vinaya.

In this connection, it might be asked whether the laity’s faith would not be destroyed if the monastic does not give them what they want, or if the monastic gave them what they want, their faith would develop with the thought: “This is a monastic who satisfies our needs.” The laity’s faith in the monastic as a disciple of the Fortunate One has been genuine and pure even before receiving gifts from the monastic; after their reception, the laity will see him as the giver of bamboo, the giver of leaves, etc., and as a result attachment will arise in them. Therefore, their faith in the monastic becomes tainted with attachment. The genuine faith has been destroyed. Accordingly, the Fortunate One has condemned the giving of gifts by the monastic, naming such deeds as corruption of the laity (kula-dūsana). All practices which are the opposite of the aforesaid wrong conduct (anācāra) are right conduct (ācāra) practices, which should be cultivated.

2. Resort is of two kinds: wrong resort and right resort. Some monastics, in the teachings of the Buddha, have intimate dealings with prostitutes, widows, divorced women, spinsters, eunuchs and nuns; or they frequent ale-houses, which is unbecoming for a monastic. They mingle with kings, ministers, heretics and their followers like ordinary laymen. They associate with people who have no faith, who abuse and threaten the disciples of the Buddha, monks, nuns, male and [1586] female lay devotees and who wish them ill. All these intimate associates of monastics and places frequented by them are wrong resort for monastics.

“Wrong resorts” here refers to unwholesome friendship and association and improper places for monastics to visit. But if a prostitute invites monastics for an alms offering, they can go and receive it, maintaining steadfast mindfulness. Herein, prostitutes, widows, divorced women, spinsters, eunuchs and nuns are regarded as unwholesome resorts because they form the bases for the five sensual pleasures. Ale-houses, taverns, etc. are dangerous to the noble practice of Dhamma. Association with kings and ministers are also not beneficial; offerings made by them may prove destructive like a thunderbolt. And the houses where there is no faith, where people are abusive and threatening, are unwholesome resorts because they discourage faith and cause fear in the monastic.

People and places as opposed to those described above constitute the monastic’s wholesome resort. Some lay people have faith and confidence in the Three Treasures; they believe also in productive deeds (kamma) and their results; they are like wells or lakes where the monastic may enjoy an inexhaustible supply of water. Their houses are brightened by the colour of the robes of monastics who visit them frequently. The atmosphere of such a place is filled with the breeze which is caused by the movements of monastics. Here, people wish them well, wish for the welfare of male and female monastics, and male and female lay devotees; such a house is a wholesome resort for monastics.

To explain improper conduct (anācāra), proper conduct (ācāra) and proper resort (gocara) further.

Improper conduct (anācāra): There are two kinds of improper conduct: improper bodily conduct (kāyika-anācāra) and improper verbal conduct (vācasika-anācāra).

Improper bodily conduct (kāyika-anācāra): After entering the Saṅgha, a monastic acts disrespectfully towards the Saṅgha. He stands jostling the elders, sits jostling them, stands or sits in front of them; takes a seat higher than those of the elders; sits with his head covered with the robe; speaks while standing; waves his hands while talking; walks with his footwear on while the elders are walking bare foot; takes a higher path while the elders are taking a lower path; walks on a path while the elders are walking on the ground; sits pushing the elders; stands pushing them and gives no place to the younger monastics.

At the bath house, he puts faggots into the stove without permission of the elders and closes the door; at the bathing place, he pushes the elders and gets into the water in front of them, pushes them and bathes before they do; comes out jostling them before they do and goes out before them, overtaking the elders ahead of him; on reaching the village and town, he hurries into the laity’s private and secret chambers and ladies’ rooms; he strokes children’s heads showing signs of fondness. This is called improper bodily conduct (kāyika-anācāra).

Improper verbal conduct (vācasika-anācāra): After entering the Saṅgha, a monastic acts disrespectfully towards the Saṅgha. He talks about Dhamma without asking for permission from the elders; answers questions or recites the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha) without permission; talks while standing; waves his hands while talking. On reaching the village and town, without restraining himself, he speaks to the women or young girls: “You so and so of such and such a family, what do you have? Is there rice gruel? Is there cooked rice? Is there hard food to eat? What shall we drink? What hard food shall we eat? What sort of food shall we eat? What will you offer me?” etc. This is called improper verbal conduct (vācasika-anācāra).

Proper conduct (ācāra): Proper conduct should be understood as the reverse of the said improper conduct (anācāra). Furthermore, a monastic is reverential, obedient, possessed of conscience and concern; wears his lower robe properly; wears his upper robe properly; his manners inspire reverential faith whether moving forwards or backwards, looking sideways, bending or stretching; his eyes are downcast, he guards the doors of his sense-faculties; he knows the right measure [1587] in eating; he strives to be always wakeful; possesses mindfulness with full comprehension; he wants little, is easily contented; is strenuous in the practice of wholesome Dhamma; observes with meticulous care the proper conduct (abhisamācārika-sīla) described above. This is called proper conduct (ācāra).

Proper resort (gocara) is of three kinds: the resort that serves as a powerful support for one’s moral development (upanissaya-gocara); the resort that serves as a guardian of the mind (ārakkha-gocara); and the resort that serves as an anchor of the mind (upanibandha-gocara).

A good friend who always uses the ten kinds of right speech conducive to liberation from Saṁsāra is called a support (upanissaya-gocara). By depending upon such a friend, he hears the Dhamma which is unheard of before, dispels doubts, rectifies his views, gains clearness of mind. In addition to these benefits, he grows in faith, morality, learning, generosity and wisdom. Hence that good friend is a powerful support (upanissaya-gocara) for developing wholesome qualities, such as morality, etc. The ten kinds of speech conducive to liberation:

In brief, the person who uses the ten kinds of speech relating to liberation from the suffering of Saṁsāra thus brings five advantages, such as hearing the Dhamma unheard of before, and so on; the good friend, who can make others progress in five attributes: faith, morality, learning, generosity and wisdom, is called a proper resort (upanissaya-gocara), the resort which provides the strong sufficing condition for the development of wholesome qualities, such as morality.

Mindfulness (sati) that guards the mind is called a resort that guards the mind (ārakkha-gocara). A monastic who takes resort in mindfulness goes for alms round into the village and town with downcast eyes, only looking the length of a plough yoke in front of him, and guarding his sense faculties. He goes without looking at the troops of elephants, or troops of horses, troops of chariots, infantry soldiers or at women or men. He does not look up or down or towards any of the eight directions and keeps going.

A monastic who does not take resort in mindfulness (ārakkha-gocara) when going round for alms food in the village and town looks this way and that way, everywhere, like a crow kept in a covered basket. Hence, mindfulness is the resort that protects the mind of the monastic from the danger of evil thoughts. [1588]

As the four foundations of steadfast mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna-kammaṭṭhāna) are the resort to which the mind is anchored, it is called the anchoring resort (upanibandha-gocara) from upanibanda, “where the mind is anchored;” gocara, “resort.”

The monastic who wants to make his restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla) completely pure, should have proper conduct, wholesome resort and look upon the slightest fault as an enormous danger.

Guarding of the faculty of the senses (indriya-saṁvara-sīla); the six sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind are here called faculties (indriya). The faculties means governing (indriya) the senses. In seeing a sight, the eye (cakkhu-pasāda) is the governing organ. If the eye is defective, it cannot see an object because eye-consciousness cannot arise; therefore, the Buddha says that the eye is the eye-faculty (cakkhundriya).

Similarly, in hearing a sound, the ear (sota-pasāda) is the governing organ. If the ear is defective, it cannot hear a sound because ear-consciousness cannot arise; therefore, the ear is the ear-faculty (sotindriya).

In smelling an odour, the nose (ghāna-pasāda) is the governing organ; if the nose is defective, it cannot smell an odour because nose-consciousness cannot arise; therefore, the nose is the nose-faculty (ghānindriya).

In tasting a flavour, the tongue (jivhā-pasāda) is the governing organ. If the tongue is defective, it cannot taste a flavour because tongue-consciousness cannot arise; therefore, the tongue is the tongue-faculty (jivhindriya).

In touching a tangible object, the body (kāya-pasāda) is the governing organ. If the body is defective, it cannot feel a tangible object because body-consciousness cannot arise; therefore, the body is the body-faculty (kāyindriya).

In cognizing a mental object, the mind (mana) is the governing organ. Without mind, there cannot arise mind-consciousness; therefore, mind is the mind-faculty (manindriya).

Thus it is called guarding these six faculties (indriya-saṁvara-sīla). This is how to guard the six sense faculties: When seeing a visible object with the eye, one should be aware of it only as a visible object; one should not cognize even the general aspect of what is seen, e.g., “this is a woman,” “this is a man,” “this is beautiful,” that will cause the arising of defilements. Nor should one give attention to details (anubyañjana) regarding the sign or image of that woman, man, etc., such as the shape of the hands and the legs. The manner of smiling, laughing, talking, etc. looking aside, etc., which will cause repeated arising of defilements.

Ven. Mahā Tissa

With regard to guarding the faculty of the eye, Ven. Mahā Tissa who lived on the top of Mount Cetiya should be shown as an example. One day, Ven. Mahā Tissa went into Anurādhapura for alms food. That day, a woman, who had quarrelled with her husband, left her house to go back to her parents’ place. She had dressed herself in fine clothes. Seeing Ven. Mahā Tissa, who was coming with his faculties restrained, she laughed loudly with the thought: “I will make him my husband after tempting him.” Ven. Mahā Tissa looked up to see what it was. Seeing the bones of her teeth, he developed the perception of foulness (asubha-saññā) and contemplating on it, he became an Arahat. Her husband, who was going after her, saw Ven. Mahā Tissa and asked: “Venerable sir, did you see a woman on the way?”

Nābhijānāmi itthi vā, puriso vā ito gato,
api ca aṭṭhi-saṅghato gacchatesa mahā-pathe.

Friend, I didn’t notice whether it was a man or a woman that went by, I was only aware that a skeleton had gone along the road.

Even though Ven. Mahā Tissa saw the sight of a woman, he just saw it but was not aware that it was a woman; instead, he simply developed his meditation and became an Arahat. That incident should be taken as a good example.

Without control of the sense of sight, when a monastic sees a pleasant object, covetousness (abhijjhā) will arise in him; if he sees an unpleasant object, unhappiness, grief (domanassa), will arise in him. Therefore, one should exercise control over one’s sense of sight through [1589] mindfulness to prevent the arising of such unwholesome states of mind.

With regard to the remaining sense doors, similar control is to be maintained so that no defilement arises from hearing a sound, smelling an odour, tasting a flavour, touching a tangible object or cognizing a mental object.

The morality of purity of livelihood (ājīva-parisuddhi-sīla) means avoiding the six kinds of livelihood which the Vinaya prohibits and avoiding of all other kinds of wrong livelihood. The six training rules (sikkhāpada) promulgated by the Buddha with regard to livelihood are:

Other kinds of wrong livelihood, in addition to the above six, are:

1. Hypocrisy (kuhanā) is of three kinds: Hypocrisy in the use of requisites (paccaya-paṭisevana); hypocrisy in talk on subjects close to attainments of the path and the fruition states (samanta-jappā); hypocrisy in change of postures to deceive lay devotees (iriyāpatha-saṇṭhapana).

When lay devotees offer a monastic robes, bowls, etc., although he wants them, having evil desires to pretend and pose as if he has attributes which are non-existent, he says, in order to get even more: “What is the use of such expensive robes for a monastic? Only robes made of refuse rags (paṁsu-kūlika) is proper for him.”

He says: “What is the use of such expensive food for a monastic? Only food obtained on alms round is proper for a monastic;” or “What is the use of such a fine dwelling place for a monastic? Only dwelling at the foot of a tree or in the open air is proper for him;” or “What is the use of such expensive medicine for a monastic? Cow urine or a portion of gall nut or myrobalan is proper for him as medicine.”

Accordingly, to practise what he teaches, he uses only coarse robes, coarse dwelling places and coarse medicines. Lay devotees think so highly of him thus: “This venerable one has few wishes; he is easily contented; he is free from desires for material goods and sense pleasures; he does not mix with lay people; he is also very diligent in the practice of Dhamma.” Then they invite him to accept more and more requisites.

Then the monastic with evil desires boastfully says: “Supporter, when these three things: Faith, material goods to offer and the person to receive them are present, then the good person who has [1590] faith can develop much merit. Here, you devotees surely have faith; you have things to give away in generosity, and indeed, I am a worthy recipient. If I do not accept your alms, your merit will decline. So out of compassion for you, I should accept your alms, although I am not in need of them.” So saying, he accepts cartloads of robes and food, numerous dwelling places and large quantities of medicine. Thus, though he is avaricious, he pretends to be of little wants and uses coarse requisites to make others think highly of him. This is called hypocrisy in use of requisites (paccaya-paṭisevana-kuhanā).

Without saying directly: “I have already attained the absorptions, paths and fruitions,” he makes other people think that he is already in possession of them by insinuating: “The monastic who wears such kinds of robes is powerful; the monastic who carries such a bowl, water filter, water strainer, waist-band, sandals, etc., is powerful.” This is called hypocrisy in talk on subjects close to the attainments of the absorptions, paths and fruitions (samanta-jappā).

Determined on gaining the praise and high esteem of lay devotees, the monastic thinks: “If I were to walk like this, people will praise me and think highly of me,” and effects the deportment of noble ones in going, standing, sitting and lying down. This is called hypocrisy in change of posture to deceive lay devotees (iriyā-patha-saṇṭhapana).

2. Talking with an evil motive (lapanā). When the monastic sees people coming to the monastery, he speaks to them first: “Supporter, for what purpose do you come here? Do you come here to invite monastics? If so, you go ahead, I will follow you carrying the bowl,” or he says: “I am Ven. Tissa, even the king reveres me. The ministers revere me,” etc. While talking with the people, he takes care not to go against them or to bore them, thus avoiding their displeasure. He flatters them, calling them “a great banker,” “a great miller,” etc. Talking thus in many ways to wheedle alms from lay devotees is called talking with an evil motive (lapanā).

3. Hinting by making signs or giving indications with an evil motive to induce generosity (nemitti-katā). For example, seeing a man carrying some food, he gives an indication that he also wants some food by saying: “Have you already got food? Where have you got it from? How do you manage to get it?” etc. Seeing cowherds, he points to the calves and says: “Do these calves grow up on milk or water?” The cowherds reply: “Venerable sir, the calves grow up on milk.” “I don’t think so. Should the calves get milk, the monastics would have got it, too,” etc. thus sending the message through to their parents to offer them milk, hinting thus to induce generosity (nemitti-katā).

The form of talk which gives more direct and glaring indications of what one wants is called roundabout talk (sāmanta-jappā). Both hinting (nemitti-katā) and roundabout talk (sāmanta-jappā) are different kinds of talking with an evil motive (lapanā).

In describing the roundabout talk (sāmanta-jappā), which indicates unmistakably the object of desire, the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga) gives the story of a monastic who habitually visited lay people (kulupaka).

A Monastic Who Visits Lay People

Wanting a meal, a monastic, who was in the habit of visiting lay people, entered a house and took a seat uninvited. Seeing the monastic and unwilling to give food to him, the woman of the house grumbled: “I haven’t got any rice,” went out as though to look for some and stayed at a nearby house. The monastic then stealthily went into an inner room and looking everywhere saw sugarcane in the corner behind the door, lumps of jaggery in a bowl, a flattened piece of dried fish in a basket, rice in a pot and butter in a jar. Thereafter, he returned to his seat and sat there as before.

The woman came back murmuring: “I didn’t get any rice.” The monastic then said: “Supporter, this morning I saw some signs suggesting that I would get nothing to eat.” – “What signs, venerable sir?” the woman asked. “As I came to this house for alms food, I saw on the way a snake as big as sugarcane in the corner behind the door. To drive it away, I looked for something and found a stone which was as big as the lump of jaggery in your bowl. When I hurled the stone at the snake, its hood spread out to the size of the piece of flattened dried fish in your basket. When the snake opened its mouth to bite the stone, it [1591] showed its teeth and fangs which were like the rice-grains in your pot. The foamy saliva mixed with poison of the angry snake was like the butter in your jar.” Caught inextricably in the web of words which glaringly indicates his wish, the woman thought to herself: “There is no way to deceive the shaven headed one!” And she reluctantly gave him the sugarcane, cooked the rice and offered it to him together with the butter, jaggery and dried fish.

4. Another form of wickedness means pursuit of gain by wiping off or grinding or pulverising the virtuous qualities of a lay devotee (nippesi-katā), as in the pursuit of perfume by grinding or pulverising scented materials. Such pursuit is made in many ways: the use of abusive language to compel one to give; reproaching, by saying: “You are a fellow with no faith at all” “You are not like other devotees.” Sarcasm, by saying to one who does not give: “Oh, what a supporter! Oh, what a great supporter;” ridiculing remarks made to a non-giver in the midst of people by saying: “Why do you say so when this man does not offer anything? He always says: ‘I have nothing,’ to everyone who comes for alms.” Such pursuit of gain by belittling the virtuous qualities of lay devotees is called belittling (nippesi-katā).

5. Pursuit of gain with gain motivated by covetousness (lābhena lābhaṁ nijigīsanatā). For example, after receiving some food offered at a supporter’s house, a monastic gives it away to the children in the neighbourhood. He does so just to make the families of children give him more in return to express their thanks and delight for his seeming interest in their children. In brief, seeking for more alms from another house by giving away the few offerings he has already received is called pursuit of gain with gain (lābhena lābhaṁ nijigīsanatā).

The five kinds of wrong livelihood, such as hypocrisy, described above, are different from one another only in the manner of the pursuance in their nature; they are all the same, in the sense that they beguile lay devotees into giving offerings, even though they are reluctant.

Thus living on things obtained by infringing the six training rules (sikkhāpada) laid down by the Buddha with regard to livelihood and things obtained by evil practices of hypocrisy, talking, hinting, belittling and pursuing gain with gain, is called wrong livelihood (micchājīva). Refraining from all forms of wrong livelihood and becoming pure in means of living is called purification of livelihood (ājīva-pārisuddhi-sīla).

Morality fulfilled by depending on the four requisites (paccaya-sannissita-sīla), where the four requisites are robes, food, dwelling places and medicines; they are indispensable; living is impossible without them. But when using them, one should reflect on the nature of the requisite concerned so that such evils as greed, hatred, etc. do not arise.

The way in which one should reflect while using robes, without considering it as an embellishment, which will cause the arising of demeritorious thoughts, one thinks on it wisely: “For the purpose of protection from the cold, from the heat of the sun, from contact with mosquitoes, gad-flies, wind, snakes, scorpions, fleas, etc., for concealing the private parts of the body that would disturb conscience, I wear this robe.”

While using alms food, one reflects wisely: “I take this alms food not for amusement as children do; I take this alms food not for intoxication with manliness; I take this alms food not for development of bodily beauty; I take this alms food not for a clear skin and complexion; I take this alms food only for long endurance and maintenance of the body; I take this alms food for warding off the oppression of hunger; I take this alms food for facilitating the noble practice. By thus taking alms food, the old suffering of hunger and thirst will diminish; I will also ward off the new suffering of indigestion due to overeating, etc. By moderate eating, the old suffering of hunger and thirst and the new suffering of indigestion due to over-eating cannot arise, and my body will be maintained. This alms food is sought properly and eaten in a blameless manner and by taking it moderately, I shall live in comfort.” [1592]

With regard to living in comfort by eating moderately, Ven Sāriputta ^{[The learned author attributed this verse to the Buddha, but it seems the only canonical reference is to Ven Sāriputta’s verse.]} said (Thag 982-983):

Cattāro pañca ālope, abhutvā udakaṁ pive,
alaṁ phāsu-vihārāya, pahitattassa bhikkhuno.

With four or five morsels still to eat, a monastic should finish off his meal by drinking water. This is sufficient to abide in comfort for the monastic who has resolute will for meditation.

Even though this discourse was expounded primarily to meditating yogis, it is also beneficial to non-meditators. By following this instruction, they can abide in ease, free from the discomfort of immoderate eating.

While using a dwelling place, one reflects: “I use this dwelling place for the purpose of protection from the cold, from the heat of the sun, from mosquitoes, gadflies, wind, snakes, scorpions, fleas, etc., to ward off the perils of extreme climates and for enjoying a secluded living.”

While using medicine, one reflects: “I take this medicine for the purpose of countering illness, for the protection of life and for immunity from afflictions that have arisen or are arising.” This elaborate manner of reflection is called the great reflection (mahā-paccavekkhaṇā).

How to Fulfil These Four Kinds of Morality?

Of these four kinds, the restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla) should be fulfilled with faith and confidence (saddhā) in the Buddha, thinking thus: “The Fortunate One, who has promulgated the training rules (sikkhāpada), is truly a Buddha who realizes all the laws of nature without exception; that is, by having a clear vision of the Buddha.” Faith and confidence in the Dhamma can be fulfilled, thinking thus: “The training rules (sikkhāpada) to be practised by the Saṅgha are indeed those promulgated by the Buddha, that is, by having a clear vision of the Dhamma.” Faith and confidence in the Saṅgha can be fulfilled, thinking thus: “Members of the Saṅgha are the disciples of the Buddha, all of whom are practising these training rules (sikkhāpada) well, that is, by having a clear vision of the Saṅgha.”

Thus, if one has faith and confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha, one would be able to fulfil the restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla).

Therefore, the training rules as promulgated by the Buddha should be observed without exception, with faith and confidence, and should be fulfilled even at the cost of one’s life. This, ^{[Again the author attributes this to the Buddha, though it only appears in the Collection of the Long Discourses (Dīgha-nikāya) commentary, PTS 1.56, and the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga).]} indeed, has been expounded thus (Vism 1, Catu-pārisuddhi-sampādana-vidhi):

Kikīva aṇḍaṁ, camarīva vāladhiṁ,
piyaṁ va puttaṁ, nayanaṁ va ekakaṁ.
Tatheva sīlaṁ, anurakkhamānā,
supesalā hotha, sadā sagāravā.

Just as the female pheasant guards her eggs, even sacrificing her life, just as the yak (camari) guards its tail, even sacrificing its life, just as the householder guards his only son with loving-kindness, just as the one-eyed man protects his only eye with meticulous care, even so the observers of moral precepts in all three ages should have a high regard for morality and guard it with affection.

Elders Who Were Restrained according to the Rules

Once, in the Mahā Vattani forest grove of Śrī Laṅkā, robbers caught a venerable and bound him with creepers and made him lie down. Even though he could free himself with his effort, if he so desired, he feared that should he make a struggle, the black creepers would break and he would be guilty of the confession offence against the destruction of plants (Pāc 11). So he developed insight by meditation for seven days in his lying posture and attained the fruition state of a Non-returner (Anāgāmi-phala), and passed away on that very spot. He was reborn in the Brahma world.

Also in Śrī Laṅkā, a venerable was similarly mistreated by robbers. At that time a forest fire broke out. Even though he could manage to free himself, he feared that he might be guilty of the destroying of plants confession rule (Pāc 11). By developing insight without cutting the creepers, he became an Arahat, whose defilements and lifespan ended at the same [1593] time (sama-sīsī), and attained Parinibbāna. Then Ven. Abhaya, the Collection of the Long Discourses reciter (Dīgha-nikāya-bhāṇaka), together with 500 monastics, arrived on the scene. Seeing the body, he had it cremated properly and a shrine built. Therefore, it is thus stated in the commentary (Vism 1, Catu-pārisuddhi-sampādana-vidhi):

Pātimokkhaṁ visodhento, appeva jīvitaṁ jahe,
paññattaṁ loka-nāthena, na bhinde sīla-saṁvaraṁ.

The good man who maintains the purity of the restraint according to the Monastic Rules would sacrifice his own life rather than break the precepts laid down by the Buddha.

Just as the restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Pātimokkha-saṁvara-sīla) is fulfilled with faith and confidence, so should the restraint of the senses (indriya-saṁvara-sīla) be fulfilled with mindfulness. Only when the restraint of the senses is well-guarded by mindfulness, the restraint according to the Monastic Rules will endure long. When the restraint of the senses is broken, the restraint according to the Monastic Rules will be broken too.

At the time of the Buddha, a newly ordained monastic, Ven. Vaṅgīsa, while going on alms round, broke the restraint of the senses and was filled with lust on seeing a woman. He said to Ven. Ānanda: “Ven. Ānanda, I am burning with sensual lust, my mind is consumed by the flames of lust. Out of compassion, please teach me the Dhamma to extinguish the burning flames.”

Then Ven. Ānanda replied: “As you perceive wrongly, the burning flames consume your mind. Dispel your perception of pleasantness in what you see for it leads to lust; see foulness there to purify your mind.” Ven. Vaṅgīsa followed Ven. Ānanda’s advice, and the burning fires of lust died down.

There are two other examples which should be followed by one who wishes to fulfil the restraint of the senses.

The Story of Ven. Cittagutta

In the great cave Kurandaka, in Śrī Laṅkā, there was a lovely painting depicting the renunciation of the Seven Buddhas, such as Vipassī, Sikhī and so on. A number of guest monastics while wandering amidst the dwellings saw the painting and said: “Venerable sir, what a lovely painting it is in your cave!” Ven. Cittagutta replied: “For more than 60 years, friends, I have lived in the cave, and I did not know whether there was a painting here or not. Today, I come to know about it through you who have keen eyesight.”

Hearing Ven. Cittagutta’s strict observance of the restraint of the senses, the King of Mahāgāma sent for him three times, desiring to pay homage to him. When Ven. Cittagutta did not go, the king had the breasts of all the women with infants in the village bound and sealed off, saying: “As long as Ven. Cittagutta does not come, let the children go without milk.” Out of compassion for the children, Ven. Cittagutta went to Mahāgāma.

Being informed that Ven. Cittagutta had arrived, the king said: “Go and bring the venerable into the palace. I want to take the precepts.” In the inner chamber, the king paid homage to Ven. Cittagutta and provided him with a meal, after which he said: “Venerable sir, it is not opportune for me today to take the precepts. I shall do so tomorrow.” Carrying Ven. Cittagutta’s bowl, he followed him for a short distance and paid homage with the queen. Whether it was the king or the queen who paid homage to him, Ven. Cittagutta gave the blessing: “May the king be happy!” Seven days went by in this manner.

The fellow monastics asked him: “Venerable sir, why it is that, whether it is the king or the queen who pays homage, you say: ‘May the king be happy?’ ” Ven. Cittagutta replied: “Friends, I have no particular awareness whether it is the king or the queen.” At the end [1594] of seven days, when the king found that Ven. Cittagutta was not happy living there, he allowed him to leave. He went back to the great cave at Kurandaka. When night came, he went out onto his walk.

A Deva, who dwelt in the Ironwood tree, stood by with a torch, and Ven. Cittagutta’s meditation was so pure and bright it gladdened him. Immediately after the middle watch, he became an Arahat, making the whole mountain resound with a thunderous roar. This story gives a good example of how the restraint of the senses (indriya-saṁvara-sīla) should be observed.

The Story of Ven. Mahā Mitta

Ven. Mahā Mitta’s mother was sick with a breast tumour. She told her daughter, who also had gone forth as a nun: “Go to your brother. Tell him my trouble and bring back some medicine.” She went and told him, but he said: “I do not know how to gather herbs and concoct a medicine from them. But I will rather tell you a kind of medicine: ‘Since I became a recluse, I have not broken my morality regarding the restraint of the senses (indriya-saṁvara-sīla) by looking at the bodily form of the opposite sex with lustful thoughts. By this declaration of truth, may my mother recover,’ go back and repeat the words of truth I have just uttered and rub her body.” She went back and reported to her mother what her brother had told her and did as she had been instructed. At that very moment, the mother’s tumour vanished like a lump of froth breaking into pieces. She got up and uttered with joy: “If the Fully Awakened One were still alive, why should he not stroke with his net-adorned hand the head of a monastic like my son!”

Ven. Mahā Mitta’s way of restraint of the faculties is somewhat different from that of the former Ven. Cittagutta. Ven. Cittagutta restrained his faculties with downcast eyes so as not to look at any of the objects even by chance, whereas Ven. Mahā Mitta did not restrain with downcast eyes, and he looked at things as they presented themselves. Even when he caught the sight of the opposite sex, he restrained his faculty of eye to prevent lust from arising.

Ven. Cittagutta’s way of restraint of the faculties is like the closing of the door of the house completely, not letting any robbers come in. Ven. Mahā Mitta’s way of restraint is not closing the door, but keeping the robbers from entering the house even once. Both types of restraint are marvellous and worthy of emulation.

While restraint of the faculties is to be undertaken with mindfulness (sati), purification of livelihood is to be practised with energy (viriya). This is because one is able to abandon wrong livelihood only by applying right energy. Therefore, avoiding unbefitting, improper means, purification of livelihood should be undertaken with the right kind of search, like going on alms round with energy.

No hint, roundabout talk, indication or intimation is allowable to acquire such requisites as robes and alms food. But, as regards acquiring a dwelling place, only intimation is not allowable.

When a monastic who is preparing the ground, etc. as if to build a dwelling place, is asked: “What is being done, venerable sir? Who is having it done?” and he replies: “No one,” such a reply of his is a “hint” implying that there is no supporter yet for the dwelling place. All other actions which communicate his need for a residence also constitute “hinting.”

A monastic asks a lay devotee: “What kind of a house do you live in?” – “In a mansion, venerable sir.” – “But, supporter, is a mansion not allowed for monastics?” This and any such expressions constitute “roundabout talk.”

Saying: “The dwelling place is too small for the community of monastics,” or any other such suggestive talk constitutes an “indication.”

All four forms of talk, such as hinting, roundabout talk, etc., are allowed in the case of medicine. But when [1595] the disease is cured, is it or is it not allowed to use the medicine obtained in this way? Herein, the Discipline specialists say that since the Buddha has opened the way for its use, it is allowable. But the Discourse specialists maintain that though there is no offence, nevertheless the purity of livelihood is sullied; therefore, it is not allowable. But one who wishes to live a completely pure noble life should not use hinting, roundabout talk, indication or intimation, even though these are permitted by the Fortunate One. Endowed as he is with special qualities such as having few wants, he should make use only of requisites obtained by means other than hinting, etc., even when he is to risk his life. Such a one is called a person of extremely noble, austere practice like Ven. Sāriputta.

The Story of Ven. Sāriputta

Once, Ven. Sāriputta, wishing to cultivate the noble life, lived in a solitary place in a certain forest with Ven. Mahā Moggallāna. One day, an affliction of colic arose in him, causing him great pain. In the evening, Ven. Mahā Moggallāna went to confer with him and found him lying down. He asked: “What is the matter?” When Ven. Sāriputta explained, he asked again: “What had helped you in the past?” Ven. Sāriputta said: “When I was a layman, friend, my mother gave me rice gruel prepared with a mixture of ghee, honey, sugar and so on. That used to help me recover.” Then Ven. Mahā Moggallāna said: “So be it, friend, if either you or I have accumulated enough merit, perhaps tomorrow we shall get some.”

Now a Deva, who lived in a tree at the end of the walkway, overheard their conversation. Thinking: “I will find rice gruel for Ven. Sāriputta tomorrow,” he went immediately to the family who was supporting Ven. Mahā Moggallāna and entered the eldest son’s body to cause him discomfort. Then he told the boy’s family, who had gathered, that if they would prepare rice gruel of such and such a kind on the next day for Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, he would set the boy free. They replied: “Even without being told by you, we regularly offer alms food to Ven. Mahā Moggallāna.” The next day they prepared rice gruel.

Ven. Mahā Moggallāna went to Ven. Sāriputta in the morning and told him: “Stay here, friend, till I come back from the alms round.” Then he went into the village. The people met him, took his bowl, filled it with rice gruel, prepared as required, and gave it back to him. When Ven. Mahā Moggallāna wanted to leave, they said: “Eat, venerable sir, we shall give you more.” When Ven. Mahā Moggallāna had eaten, they gave him another bowlful. Ven. Mahā Moggallāna left taking the alms food to Ven. Sāriputta and told him to eat.

When Ven. Sāriputta saw it, he thought: “The rice gruel is very nice. How was it got?” He then reflected and, seeing how it had been obtained, said: “Friend, the alms food is not fit to be used.” Instead of feeling offended and thinking: “He does not eat the alms food brought by someone like me,” Ven. Mahā Moggallāna at once took the bowl by the rim and turned it over.

As the rice gruel fell on the ground, Ven. Sāriputta’s affliction vanished, and it did not reappear during the remaining 45 years of his life. Then he said to Ven. Mahā Moggallāna: “Friend, even if one’s bowels come out and fall to the ground through hunger, it is not fitting to eat gruel got by verbal intimation.”

Herein, it should be noted: The Fortunate One prohibited only verbal intimation about the food. Ven. Sāriputta did not use verbal intimation to get the food. When Ven. Mahā Moggallāna wanted to know was, what had cured his affliction before, he only related the relief given by rice gruel in the past. However, he was not pleased that a verbal intimation had been made at all and did not accept the rice gruel.

Ven. Ambakhādaka Mahā Tissa

Let alone a venerable of Ven. Sāriputta’s stature during the lifetime of the Buddha, even little-known Ven. Mahā Tissa of Ciragumba in Śrī Laṅkā, long after the demise of the Buddha, had strictly observed the disciplinary rules. Once, Ven. Mahā Tissa, while travelling during a famine, became weary and weak owing to lack of food and a tedious journey. So he [1596] lay down at the foot of a mango tree, which was full of fruit. Several mangoes fell everywhere on the ground near him. But he would not think of picking up some to eat in spite of his hunger.

At that time, an old man came near him and, seeing him in the state of exhaustion, prepared some mango juice and offered it to him. Then, carrying him on his back, the man took him where he wanted to go. While being carried thus, Ven. Mahā Tissa thought to himself: “This man is not my father, nor my mother, nor any relative of mine. Yet, he carries me on his back; this is only because of the morality I possess.” Reflecting thus he admonished himself to keep his morality and concentration of mind intact without blemish. He then developed insight and while still being carried on the back of the man, he became an Arahat through successive stages of the path. This venerable is a noble person whose abstemiousness in food serves as an example for emulation.

While purification of livelihood (ājīva-pārisuddhi-sīla) is to be practised with energy (viriya), morality which depends upon the four requisites (paccaya-sannissita-sīla) should be fulfilled with wisdom (paññā). Since only men of wisdom can discern the advantages and dangers of the four requisites, morality which depends upon the four requisites is the morality which is fulfilled through wisdom. Therefore, one should make use of the four requisites which have been obtained lawfully without craving for them and after reflecting with wisdom in the aforesaid manner.

Two Kinds of Reflection

There are two kinds of reflection (paccavekkhaṇa) on the four requisites; reflection at the time of receiving them and reflection at the time of using them. Not only at the time of using the requisites but also at the time of receiving them, one reflects on them either as mere elements (dhātu-paccavekkhaṇa) or as repulsive objects (paṭikūla-paccavekkhaṇa) and put them away for later use.

If a monastic reflects on the robes, etc. at the time of receiving them and if he does again at the time of use, his use of the requisites is blameless from beginning to end.

Four Kinds of Use

To dispel doubts about the use of requisites, one should take note of four kinds of their use:

The use of requisites by an immoral person in the midst of the Saṅgha is called usage that is like a thief (theyya-paribhoga).

The use of requisites by a moral person without due reflection is like owing a debt. One should reflect every time a robe is used; every time a morsel of food is eaten. If one fails to do so at the time of using these requisites, one should reflect on them in the morning, at dusk, during the first watch, middle watch and last watch of the night. If dawn breaks without his making such a reflection, he finds himself in the position of one who owes a debt.

Every time he passes under the roof to enter the dwelling place and after entering it, every time he sits, every time he lies down, he should make due reflection. In receiving a requisite of medicine and in using it, he should make reflection. But if he reflects while receiving and fails to do so when using it, he is guilty of an offence. On the other hand, even if he fails to make reflection when receiving but does so when using it, he is free from guilt.

Four Kinds of Purification of Morality

If a monastic happens to have committed an offence, he should take a recourse to one of the four kinds of purification of his morality as mentioned below:

1. Purification by admission of fault (desanā-suddhi): Restraint according to the Monastic Rules (Patimokkha-saṁvara-sīla) is purified by an open declaration of its breach.

2. Purification by restraint (saṁvara-suddhi): Restraint of the senses (indriya-saṁvara-sīla) is purified by making the resolution: “Never will I do it again.”

3. Purification by search (pariyeṭṭhi-suddhi): Purification of livelihood (ājīva-pārisuddhi-sīla) is purified by abandoning wrong search and seeking requisites in a lawful manner.

4. Purification by reflection (paccavekkaṇa-suddhi): morality which depends upon the four requisites (paccaya-sannissita-sīla) is purified by reflection according to the manner mentioned above.

Use of the requisites by the seven kinds of learners, meaning noble ones who have realized the three lower paths and three lower fruition states and the path, but not the fruition, of an Arahat. These seven kinds of learners are sons of the Buddha. Just as a son is an heir to his father, these noble persons, as heirs, make use of the requisites allowed by the Buddha.

Usage that is like a master is usage by an Arahat (sāmi-paribhoga). Worldlings (puthujjana) and learners (sekkha) are not free from craving, accordingly, they remain subject to craving, and their use of requisites is not as masters but as slaves of craving. On the other hand, Arahats have been liberated from servitude to craving, and their use of requisites is as masters with full control over craving. Therefore, they can use disgusting things, reflecting on their non-disgusting nature, or use non-disgusting things, reflecting on their disgusting nature, or use them reflecting that they are neither disgusting nor non-disgusting things.

Of these four kinds of use, use like a master by an Arahat, and use like getting an inheritance are allowable to all. Herein, as said before, use of requisites like a master is applicable only to Arahats, but if trainees (sekkha) and worldlings (puthujjana) use the requisites by abandoning craving through perception of their foulness, it is like being liberated from the servitude to craving; therefore, this kind of use may also be classed as use like a master (sāmi-paribhoga). In the same way, Arahats and worldlings may also be considered as inheriting sons of the Buddha.

Use that is like owing a debt is not allowable, more so is the usage like an act of thieving which is certainly not allowable. Use of requisites after reflection by one endowed with morality is opposite to use that is like owing a debt (iṇa-paribhoga), and is thus called use without owing a debt (ānaṇya-paribhoga). At the same time, worldlings [1598] endowed with morality who use the requisites after due reflection may be reckoned as trainees (sekkha) or noble persons. Therefore, use of requisites after due reflection by such worldlings endowed with morality is also reckoned as use like getting an inheritance.

Of these four kinds of use, use that is like a master by an Arahat is the noblest; a monastic who wishes to use the requisites like a master should fulfil the morality which depends upon the four requisites (paccaya-sannissita-sīla) by using the four requisites only after due reflection.

Morality in Groups of Fives

1. Morality is of five kinds:

1. Morality that is limited in purity (pariyanta-pārisuddhi-sīla). Morality observed by lay devotees and novices is called morality consisting in limited purification, because it is limited by the number of precepts to be kept.

The Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga) does not explain the limit by the number of the precepts in the morality that is limited in purity. But the Path of the Analytic Knowledges (Paṭisambhidā-magga) commentary explains, as has been mentioned before, two kinds of limit: The limit regarding the number of precepts observed (sikkhāpada-pariyanta) and the limit regarding the period of observance of the precepts (kāla-pariyanta).

The limit regarding the number of precepts observed refers to the number of precepts traditionally observed by lay devotees: one, two, three or four precepts; five, eight or ten precepts or whatever number of precepts they can observe. Probationers and novices keep the ten precepts. This is the limit regarding the number of precept observed.

The limit regarding the period of observance of precepts refers to when lay devotees make a ceremonial offering of alms, and also observe precepts within the limited period of the ceremony; whenever they go to monastery too, they observe precepts before returning home or for a few days or more during the daytime or nighttime. This is the limit regarding the period of observance of precepts.

2. Morality that is unlimited in purity (apariyanta-pārisuddhi-sīla). The Two Summaries (Dve Mātikā), which are the summary of the Twofold Analysis (Ubhato-vibhaṅga), enumerate 227 training rules (sikkhāpada) for members of the male Saṅgha. When expanded, these training rules total up to 9,185,036,000 rules. These disciplinary rules for monastics are promulgated by the Buddha and were recorded in brief by the convenors of the First Council. The whole group of these disciplinary rules is called morality that is unlimited in purity (apariyanta-pārisuddhi-sīla).

Though the disciplinary rules are laid down by the Buddha in a definite number, the Saṅgha has to observe all of them without exception; furthermore, it is impossible to foresee the termination of the observance of morality (sīla) through the five kinds of destruction: that due to gain, fame, relatives, impairment of body and loss of life. For these reasons, these disciplinary rules are collectively called morality that is unlimited in purity. This is the kind of morality observed by Ven. Mahā Tissa of Ciragumba described above.

3. Morality which is completely purified by a worldling who is striving for the spiritual good is called morality that is fulfilled in purity (paripuṇṇa-pārisuddhi-sīla). His morality, since the time of admission to the Saṅgha, has been very pure, like a bright ruby properly cut or like well-refined gold. Therefore, it is devoid of even the stain of impure thoughts and becomes the approximate cause for Awakening. Hence it is called morality that is fulfilled in purity. Ven. Mahā [1599] Saṅgharakkhita and his nephew, Ven. Saṅgharakkhita, are examples of how such morality is to be observed.

The Story of Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita

While Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita of over 60 years standing in the Saṅgha at the age of 80 was lying on his death bed, monastics enquired of him: “Venerable sir, have you attained the supermundane states?” Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita replied: “I have not made any such attainment yet.” At that time a young monastic attendant of Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita addressed him: “Venerable sir, people living within twelve leagues have assembled here thinking that the venerable one has passed into Parinibbāna. If they come to know that you have passed away as an ordinary worldling, they will be much disappointed.”

Then Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita said, “Friend, thinking I will see the coming of Buddha Metteyya, I have not striven for insight meditation. If it will be a disappointment for many, help me to sit up and give me a chance to contemplate with mindfulness.” The young monastic helped Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita to sit up and went out. As soon as the young monastic left the room Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita became an Arahat and gave a sign by a snap of his fingers. The young monastic then returned and made him lie down as before.

He reported the matter to the Saṅgha who assembled and addressed Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita: “Venerable sir, you have performed such a difficult task of attaining the supermundane state even when so close to death.” Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita replied: “Friends, it is not difficult for me to become an Arahat when the hour of death is drawing near. Rather, I will tell you what is really difficult to perform. Friends, I see no action which I have done without mindfulness and full comprehension since the time of my admission into the Saṅgha. Such actions, which are always accompanied by mindfulness and full comprehension, are far more difficult to do.” Ven. Mahā Saṅgharakkhita’s nephew also became an Arahat like him when he completed his 56th year as a monastic.

4. Morality unaffected by wrong view and observed by trainees, noble persons and morality untarnished by lust and observed by worldlings is called morality that is irreproachable in purity (aparāmaṭṭha-pārisuddhi-sīla), the kind of morality observed by Ven. Tissa, the householder’s son.

The Story of Ven. Tissa, the Son of a Householder

A householder in Śrī Laṅkā had two sons. After the death of their father, the elder son, Tissa, gave all inheritance to his younger brother and became a monastic, practising meditation in a jungle monastery. Then the younger brother’s wife thought to herself: “Now we get all the wealth because my brother-in-law became a monastic. If he decides to return to the layman’s life, we will have to give him back half the wealth. There is no knowing whether he will do so or not. We will have peace of mind only when he dies.” With this thought she engaged some men to kill her brother-in-law.

The men went to the jungle monastery and seized Ven. Tissa in the evening. He told them that he possessed nothing which they might want. The men explained: “We do not come here to get your wealth. We come here to kill you at the instance of your sister-in-law.” Ven. Tissa said: “I possess pure morality, but I haven’t yet become an Arahat (Arahatta-phala). As I want to achieve Awakening depending on this pure morality, allow me to practise insight meditation before dawn.” – “We cannot grant your request. If you run away during the night, we will have to take the trouble of catching you again.” Saying: “I will let you see clearly how I cannot run away,” Ven. Tissa broke his two knees himself with a big stone.

When both knees were completely broken thus, Ven. Tissa said: “Now you have seen my condition. By no means can I run away from you. I abhor to die as a worldling, tainted with sensual lust. I feel ashamed of it.” Only then did the men give him permission to practise meditation. Then Ven. Tissa, depending upon his morality, which was not tarnished by lust, made efforts throughout the night until dawn when he became an Arahat. [1600]

The Story of a Senior Monk

Once there was a senior monk who was very ill and unable to eat with his hands. He lay rolling around, smeared with his own urine and excrement. Seeing him, a young monastic exclaimed: “Oh, how painful is the life process!” The senior monk said: “Friend, if I die now, I will surely achieve divine bliss. I have no doubt of that. The bliss obtained by breaking ^{To break morality (sīla) means to die without becoming an Arahat.} this morality is like forsaking becoming a monk and becoming a layman. But I am determined to die with my morality intact.” ^{“Morality intact,” means passing away only after attaining the Arahat fruition.} So saying, he lay in the same place, contemplating the same illness inherent in the five aggregates of mind and matter and became an Arahat. The morality of both these noble venerables is irreproachable (aparāmaṭṭha-sīla).

5. Morality of Arahats, etc. ^{Here, “etc.” refers to other Awakened Ones, namely, Paccekabuddhas and Sammā-sambuddhas.} which is purified through subsidence of the fires of defilements is called morality that is calmed in purity (paṭippassaddhi-pārisuddhi-sīla).

Morality is of five kinds:

1. Morality observed by abandoning killing, stealing, etc. is called morality through abandoning (pahāna-sīla).

2. Morality observed by abstaining from killing, stealing, etc. is called morality of abstention (veramaṇi-sīla). In terms of the Abhidhamma, it is a group of wholesome consciousnesses together with their mental concomitants headed by abstinence (virati-cetasika).

3. Morality observed by volition which associates avoidance of killing with consciousness is called morality of volition (cetanā-sīla).

4. Morality observed by preventing thoughts of wrong deeds, such as killing, from defiling the mind is called morality of restraint (saṁvara-sīla). In terms of Abhidhamma, it is a group of wholesome consciousnesses together with their mental concomitants headed by mindfulness (sati-cetasika).

5. Morality observed by not committing wrong deeds, such as killing, is called morality of non-transgression (avitikkama-sīla). In terms of Abhidhamma, it is the wholesome consciousnesses together with their mental concomitants.

What is the Defilement and Purification of Morality?

In answering these questions, defilement and purification of morality should be explained together. Defilement of morality means impairment of morality; and in reverse, non-impairment of morality is purification of morality. Impairment of morality may arise through destruction due to gain, fame, etc. or through seven minor acts of sexuality.

To explain further, there are seven groups of trangressions:

Of these seven groups of transgression (āpatti), if a training rule (sikkhāpada) of the first or the last group is impaired due to craving for gain, fame, etc. a monastic’s morality is said to be torn like the cloth which is cut at the edge.

If a training rule in the middle group is impaired, his morality is said to be rent like the cloth having a hole in the middle. If two or three training rules are impaired serially, his morality is said to be blotched like a cow having irregular marks of brown, red and other colours on her back or belly. If the training rules are impaired at intervals, his morality is said to be mottled like a cow having variegated spots of different colours on her body. Thus impairment of morality through tearing, rending, blotching or mottling due to gain, fame, etc. are defilements of morality.

Even in the absence of an impairment of morality through tearing, rending, blotching or mottling, there can be a defilement of morality through the seven minor acts of sexuality.

The seven minor acts of sexuality are expounded elaborately by the Buddha in the Discourse about Sexual Intercourse (Methuna-sutta, AN 7.50 ^{[The author mentions this discourse under the name the Discourse concerning Jāṇussoṇi (Jāṇussoṇi-sutta). It does indeed feature the brahmin Jāṇussoṇi, but it is called the Discourse about Intercourse (Methuna-sutta) in Cst4.]}). They may be mentioned briefly as follows:

Thus, impairment of morality through tearing, rending, blotching or mottling due to gain, fame, etc. and also through seven minor acts of sexuality is a defilement of morality. Purification of morality is characterized by non-tearing, non-rending, non-blotching or non-mottling of morality and is brought about in the following manner:

These types of morality (sīla) which are not torn, rent, blotched or mottled, also assume other names such as liberating morality (bhujissa-sīla) because they set one free from the servitude of craving. They are extolled by the wise (viññupasaṭṭha-sīla) because they are praised by the wise. They are irreproachable (aparāmaṭṭha-sīla) because they are not driven by craving: “My morality is very pure, it will produce great beneficial results in the future” or by wrong personality belief: “This morality is mine; my morality is very pure; no one possesses morality like mine.” It leads to concentration (samādhi-saṁvattanika-sīla) because it is conducive to advancement towards access concentration (upacāra-samādhi) and absorption concentration (appanā-samādhi).

As stated above, these seven factors: not torn, not rent, not blotched, not mottled, liberating, praised by the wise and not tarnished by craving and wrong view, are the factors conducive to purification of morality. Only when morality is complete with these seven factors can it develop the aforesaid two kinds of concentration. Therefore, a noble person wishing to develop these two kinds of concentration should earnestly endeavour to make his morality (sīla) complete with all these seven factors.