[reload all]
[simple read]

Mv IV 22
PTS: Mv IV 16 | CS: vin.mv.04.22
Pavāraṇāṭhapanaṁ
The Cancellation of the Invitation[1]
by
Ven. Khematto Bhikkhu
Alternate translations/layout: 'line by line' Pāḷi - English

(Mv.IV.16.1) [245] Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, having offenses, invited. They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, one who has an offense should not invite. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“I allow when one with an offense is inviting that, having gotten him to give leave, one charge him with the offense.”

(Mv.IV.16.2) Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, being asked to give leave, didn’t want to give leave. They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow, when one does not give leave, that the Invitation be canceled. [2]

“And, monks, it should be canceled like this:

“On the day of the Invitation — the fourteenth or the fifteenth — face-to-face with the individual, in the midst of the Saṅgha, it should be announced,

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. An individual named such-and-such is inviting with an offense. I cancel his Invitation. One should not invite when face-to-face with him.’

“His Invitation is canceled.”

(Mv.IV.16.3) Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, (thinking,) “Before, the well-behaved monks canceled our Invitations” — without grounds, without reason — canceled the Invitation of pure monks without offenses as a precaution.[3] They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, one should not — without grounds, without reason — cancel the Invitation of pure monks without offenses. Whoever should cancel it: an offense of wrong doing.

“And one should not cancel the Invitation of those who have already made an Invitation. Whoever should cancel it: an offense of wrong doing.

(Mv.IV.16.4) [246] “Monks, the Invitation is (properly) canceled like this; and not (properly) canceled like this:

“And how, monks, is the Invitation not (properly) canceled?

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by three statements has been spoken, uttered, and concluded, then the Invitation is not canceled.

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains has been spoken, uttered, and concluded, then the Invitation is not canceled.

“In this way, monks, the Invitation is not (properly) canceled.

(Mv.IV.16.5) “And how, monks, is the Invitation (properly) canceled?

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by three statements is being spoken, uttered, but has not been concluded, then the Invitation is canceled.

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains is being spoken, uttered, but has not been concluded, then the Invitation is canceled.

“In this way, monks, the Invitation is (properly) canceled.

(Mv.IV.16.6) [247] “Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.[4]

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is impure in his bodily conduct, impure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account (of what happened),’ then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

(Mv.IV.16.7) “Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, impure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’ then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

(Mv.IV.16.8) “Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’ then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.[5]

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, pure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’ then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

(Mv.IV.16.10) “Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, pure in his livelihood, wise, experienced and competent. He is able, when being brought to account, to give an account,’ then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling: Why are you canceling it? Are you canceling it because of a defect in virtue, are you canceling it because of a defect in conduct, (or) are you canceling it because of a defect in view?’

(Mv.IV.16.11) “If he should say, ‘I am canceling it because of a defect in virtue … because of a defect in conduct … (or) because of a defect in view,’ then he should be asked, ‘But does the venerable one know what a defect in virtue is, what a defect in conduct is, what a defect in view is?’

“If he should say, ‘Friends, I know what a defect in virtue is, what a defect in conduct is, what a defect in view is,’ then he should be asked, “Then, friend, which is a defect in virtue, which is a defect in conduct, which is a defect in view?’

(Mv.IV.16.12) “If he should say, ‘The four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas: This is a defect in virtue. A thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita: This is a defect in conduct. Wrong view and a view holding to an extreme: This is a defect in view,’ [6] then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this bhikkhu that you are canceling, are you canceling it on the basis of what was seen, are you canceling it on the basis of what was heard, (or) are you canceling it on the basis of what is suspected?’

(Mv.IV.16.13) “If he should say, ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what was seen’ or ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what was heard’ or ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what is suspected,’ then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this bhikkhu that you are canceling on the grounds of what was seen: What did you see? What exactly did you see? When did you see it? Where did you see it? Was he seen committing a pārājika? Was he seen committing a saṅghādisesa? Was he seen committing a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita? And where were you? And where was this monk? And what were you doing? And what was this monk doing?’

(Mv.IV.16.14) “If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this bhikkhu on the grounds of what was seen. It’s actually on the grounds of what was heard that I’m canceling (his) invitation,’ then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling on the grounds of what was heard: What did you hear? What exactly did you hear? When did you hear it? Where did you hear it? Was he heard to have committed a pārājika? Was he heard to have committed a saṅghādisesa? Was he heard to have committed a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita?

“‘Was this heard from a monk? Was this heard from a bhikkhunī? … from one in training? … from a male novice? … from a female novice? … from a male lay follower? … from a female lay follower? … from kings? … from king’s ministers? … from the leaders of other sects? … from the disciples of other sects?’

(Mv.IV.16.15) “If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this monk on the grounds of what was heard. It’s actually on the grounds of what is suspected that I’m canceling (his) invitation,’ then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling on the grounds of what is suspected: What do you suspect? What exactly do you suspect? When do you suspect (it happened)? Where do you suspect (it happened)? Do you suspect him to have committed a pārājika? Do you suspect him to have committed a saṅghādisesa? Do you suspect him to have committed a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita?

(Mv.IV.16.16) “‘Do you suspect from having heard a monk? Do you suspect from having heard a bhikkhunī? … one in training? … a male novice? … a female novice? … a male lay follower? … a female lay follower? … kings? … king’s ministers? … the leaders of other sects? … the disciples of other sects?’

“If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this bhikkhu on the grounds of what is suspected. In fact, even I don’t know on what grounds I’m canceling the invitation of this monk, then if the monk making the charge does not satisfy the minds of his observant fellows in the holy life with his account, it is enough to say that the monk who has been charged does not stand accused.

“But if the monk making the charge does satisfy the minds of his observant fellows in the holy life with his account, then it is enough to say that the monk who has been charged stands accused.

(Mv.IV.16.17) “If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded pārājika offense, then having initiated the procedure for a saṅghadisesa, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded saṅghadisesa offense, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule,[7] the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, (or) dubbhāsita offense, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule,[8] the Saṅgha should invite.

(Mv.IV.16.18) “If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a pārājika offense, admits it, then having expelled him, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a saṅghadisesa offense, admits it, then having initiated the procedure for a saṅghadisesa, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, (or) dubbhāsita offense, admits it, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, the Saṅgha should invite.”

Notes

1.
See also: BMCII: Chap. 16: Accusations.
2.
BMCI: Sg. 12.
3.
Mv.II.16.3.
4.
BMCI: Chap. 11: Accusations.
5.
idha pana bhikkhave tadahupavāraṇāya [ME inserts: bhikkhu] bhikkhussa pavāraṇaṁ ṭhapeti.
6.
BMCI: As 6.
7.
BMCI: Pc 76.
8.
BMCI: Pc 76.
[previous page][next page]