གསོ་སྦྱོང་གི་གཞི།
The Chapter on the Restoration Rite
Notes
Poṣadhavastu
འདུལ་བ་གཞི་ལས། གསོ་སྦྱོང་གི་གཞི།
’dul ba gzhi las/ gso sbyong gi gzhi
“The Chapter on the Restoration Rite” from The Chapters on Monastic Discipline
Vinayavastu Poṣadhavastu
Toh 1-2
Degé Kangyur, vol. 1 (’dul ba, ka), folios 131.a–221.b
Imprint
First published 2024
Current version v 1.0.8 (2024)
Generated by 84000 Reading Room v2.26.1
84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha is a global non-profit initiative to translate all the Buddha’s words into modern languages, and to make them available to everyone.
This work is provided under the protection of a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution - Non-commercial - No-derivatives) 3.0 copyright. It may be copied or printed for fair use, but only with full attribution, and not for commercial advantage or personal compensation. For full details, see the Creative Commons license.
Table of Contents
Summary
The Chapter on the Restoration Rite is the second of The Chapters on Monastic Discipline’s seventeen chapters. In it, the Buddha describes a seated yoga, formal protocols, and a rite of restoration that can be observed on the upavasatha (or poṣadha) holiday. After explaining how monks should practice seated yoga, the Buddha consents first to the building of small clusters of meditation residences and later to gradually larger settlements that come to include multistoried meditation halls with scented shrine rooms and rooftop verandas. This chapter also explains how all monks at a monastery must gather fortnightly in the hall or in a place that has been specially demarcated for such purposes within the monastery site’s larger boundary. There, they observe the poṣadha or “restoration rite” by listening to The Prātimokṣa Sūtra recitation and making the appropriate amends for their offenses.
The present chapter together with The Chapter on Lifting Restrictions and The Chapter on the Rains present the “Three Rites” that are considered central to monastic common living: the Rite of Restoration, the Rite of Lifting Restrictions, and the Rite of Pledging to Settle for the Rains. The regular observance of the “Three Rites” at an officially demarcated monastic site is considered a crucial component in ensuring the integrity of the monastics living there and nearby.
Acknowledgements
This text was translated from Tibetan and checked against the Sanskrit by Robert Miller. Under Dr. Haiyan Hu-von Hinüber’s direction, Maurice Ozaine read a draft of the English translation against Dr. Hu-von Hinüber’s German translation which accompanies her extensive study of the present chapter. Ven. Hejung Seok offered useful comments on the term poṣadha and Pāṇini’s grammar. Matthew Wuethrich served as style and editorial consultant to the translator. Special thanks are due to Dr. Shayne Clarke for the many suggestions and corrections he made to an early draft of the introduction. Thanks also to the 84000 Vinaya team for help in translating key technical terms.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. Nathaniel Rich and John Canti edited the translation and the introduction, and Ven. Konchog Norbu copyedited the text. Sameer Dhingra was in charge of the digital publication process.
The generous sponsorship of Dakki and Lanita, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
Text Body
The Translation
From The Chapters on Monastic Discipline
The Chapter on the Restoration Rite
The Chapter on the Restoration Rite
Notes
In the present translation and notes, we often refer to “monks”; this is for textual accuracy, not to exclude nuns from these descriptions. The exact timeline of the foundation of the nuns’ order in relation to the material discussed here is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that much of this material applies equally to nuns; Tibetan commentators like Butön Rinchen Drup use the verb kha spo ba or spo ba to describe how material for males can be “transferred” to females, for instance. The Indic commentator Dharmamitra even says that, apart from the role of officiant, which must be filled by a monk in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, nuns may serve in all positions during the nuns’ ordination ceremony, including preceptress or instructor, that is, support or niśraya—this last a term which is rendered in Tibetan as gnas mo, the feminine form of gnas. Dharmamitra Toh 4120, F.77.a: rdzogs par bsnyen pa ni dge slong zhes bya ba’i gnas thams cad du dge slong ma zhes brjod par bya ste/ ’di ltar de gsol ba la sogs pa’i las byed pa zhes bya ba rdzogs par bsnyen pa gsol ba la sogs pa’i las byed pa’i dge slong smos pa gang yin pa’i dge slong las byed pa de ma gtogs pa de las gzhan pa’i gnas bya ste/ su dper na/ gsang ste ston pa dang/ mkhan po la sogs pa dge slong zhes smos pa der dge slong ma zhes brjod par bya’o. The material on nuns is concentrated in the sixth and seventh sections (Tib. sgo) of The Chapter on Minor Matters of Monastic Discipline (Toh 6), e.g., the ordination of nuns on folios 104.b–120.b. See Ven. Jampa Tsedroen’s translation of the main parts of the manual for the nun’s ordination rite on pp. 177–272 of Tsedroen 2020.
The Sanskrit bhikṣu, or “monk,” has been related to the verbal roots √bhakṣ (“to eat”) and √bhaj (“to accept, partake of, share in, to eat”).
The Chapter on Going Forth depicts six tīrthika teachers who led large communities of non-Vedic mendicants around the time of the historical Buddha. See The Chapter on Going Forth, 1.226–1.251.
The “preceptor” (Tib. mkhan po; Skt. upādhyāya) is in charge of a “ward” (Tib. lhan gcig gnas pa; Skt. sārdhaṃvihārin). In the event that the new monk takes a new support, the mentor is called the “support instructor” (Tib. gnas kyi slob dpon; Skt. niśrayācārya) and he is in charge of the “apprentice” (Tib. nye gnas; Skt. antevāsika).
The late-eighth-century paṇḍita Kalyāṇamitra clarifies that in paying respect, the lay people would pay homage and practice the ascetics’ instructions, i.e., perform a religious observance. Toh 4113, F.308.b: lta dang bsnyen bkur bya ba’i phyir/ zhes bya ba ni phyag bya ba dang/ de’i lung rjes su bsgrub pa’i phyir ro. Kalyāṇamitra is credited as author of six Vinaya commentaries included in the Degé Tengyur: Toh 4110, 4113, 4116, 4130, 4134, and 4135. In his Overview of the Vinaya, Butön Rinchen Drup (F.57.a.6) credits “Kalyāṇamitra, the great Vinayadhara of the Middle Period” (Tib. bar gyi ’dul ba ’dzin pa chen po dge legs bshes bsnyen) as the author of Toh 4110.
Skt. niṣadyāṃ kriyāṃ poṣadhaṃ ca; Tib. mchis pa dang/ bgyi pa dang/ gso sbyong and also ’dug pa dang/ bya ba dang/ gso sbyong. The formal acts of the saṅgha (Tib. dge ’dun gyi las; Skt. saṅghakarman) are introduced under the heading “protocol” (Tib. bgyi pa and bya ba; Skt. kriyā). The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya presents these formal acts in greater detail in the Karmavastu (The Chapter on Formal Acts of the Saṅgha), chapter 10 of the Vinayavastu. For more, see Toh 4118, Guṇaprabha’s Ekottarakakarmaśataka (Tib. las brgya rtsa gcig), and Yijing’s translation of a related Mūlasarvāstivādin Ekottarakakarmaśataka, Taishō 1453 (根本説一切有部百一羯磨). Though sharing similar content, the two texts are structured differently and Yijing’s translation is considered a canonical rather than a commentarial work. We would like to thank Dr. Shayne Clarke for his observations on Yijing’s translation and for pointing out that the passage here reads Tib. bgyi pa and bya ba; Skt. kriyā, and not Tib. las; Skt. karman.
The Sanskrit gives bhikṣu or “monk” where the Tibetan translation gives rgyal po or “king.”
Kalyāṇamitra says the Buddha explained the seated yoga—i.e. śamathapoṣadha, “restoration through meditation”—first because it is the main poṣadha and also because there is less to explain. Toh 4113, F.308.b: bcom ldan ’das kyis gso sbyong ni rnam pa gnyis su gsungs te/ zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong dang/ mthun pa’i gso sbyong ngo/ /de la gtso bo yin pa’i phyir dang/ brjod par bya ba nyung ba’i phyir je dang por zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong rnam par bshad par bya’o.
The “eight limbs” are (1) yama or inner restraints such as vows; (2) niyama or outer restraints such as obligations and priorities; (3) āsana or postures; (4) prāṇāyāma or breath control; (5) pratyāhāra or withdrawal of the senses; (6) dhāraṇa or focus; (7) dhyāna or absorption; and, finally, (8) samādhi. See White 2014.
Toh 4113, F.308.a: rnal ’byor zhes bya ba ni ting nge ’dzin te lus dran pa nye bar gzhag pa la sogs pa’o. For the use of yoga in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, see Paravahera Vajirañāṇa Mahāthera 2022, p. 22.
Tib. mi sdug pa bsgom pa; Skt. aśubhabhāvanā; P. asubhabhāvanā.
Fumi Yao has argued that “Sarvāstivādin” was most likely an umbrella term encompassing many heirs to Sarvāstivādin lineages, including those who self-identified as Mūlasarvāstivādins or the “Original Sarvāstivādins” (Yao 2007, pp. 246–47). The phrase “(Mūla-)sarvāstivādin” is thus meant to include both the wider Sarvāstivādin traditions and those that identify as the “Original Sarvāstivādins,” i.e., the Mūlasarvāstivādins.
Anālayo 2003, p. 122.
See, for example, the discussion of the Yogalehrbuch in Nobuyoshi Yamabe’s 1999 dissertation, “The Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sūtra.”
On the role of visions and visualization in repentance practices that spread to China, see Greene 2021. See also Yamabe 1999 and Vignato et al. 2022.
See 2.4: rtag tu dag pa snying po ste/ / rtag tu dag pa gso sbyong yin/ /gtsang ma’i las ni dag gyur pa/ /de yi brtul zhugs ’grub par ’gyur. Kalyāṇamitra comments (Toh 4113, F.313.b): snying po ste zhes bya ba ni snying po dang ldan pa ste/ tshul khrims yongs su dag pa zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /rtag tu dag pa gso sbyong yin/ /zhes bya ba ni rtag tu rgyud dag pa ni gso sbyong yin no/ /gtsang ma’i las ni dag gyur pa/ /zhes bya ba ni tshul khrims la kha na ma tho ba med pa’o/ /de yin brtul zhugs ’grub par ’gyur/ /zhes bya ba ni spong ba’i mtshan nyid bdun gyi tshul khrims ’grub par ’gyur zhes bya ba ni tha tshig go.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.313.b): mi ’gro bar ma byed par zhes bya ba ni mnan pa’i phyir dgag pa gnyis smos so.
See 1.99. Guṇaprabha (fl. sixth–seventh c. ᴄᴇ) states in his digest of the present chapter, “The restoration should be observed on the fifteenth, every fortnight, with The Prātimokṣa Sūtra recitation.” Vin 2.2498: poṣadhaṃ kurvīran pañcadaśyām anvarddhamāsaṃ prātimokṣasūtroddeśena.
The idea of “quorum” is also found in The Chapter on Saṅgha Schisms under the phrase “a saṅgha in which [all] are present” (Tib. dge ’dun mngon sum; Skt. saṃmukhībhūtasaṃgha). See The Chapter on Saṅgha Schisms in Toh 1, ch. 17, vol. ga, F.237.b: dge ’dun mngon sum gang zhe na/ mtshams na gnas pa’i dge slong bya bar ’os pa ji snyed pa de dag thams cad ’dus shing mngon sum du gyur pa dang/ ’dun pa blang bar ’os pa rnams las ’dun pa blangs pa dang/ dge slong rnams ’dus shing mngon sum du gyur kyang mi btub cing gshe ba gang dag gis gshe bar ’os pa rnams mi btub pa med cig mi gse la las dag byed pa ’di ni dge ’dun mngon sum zhes bya’o.
See, e.g., Prebish 2003, p. 57. Prebish, citing Charles Wei-hsun Fu, explains how this social-embeddedness informs but does not comprise the whole of the saṅgha’s moral philosophy: “[T]he Vinaya was as much concerned with the pariśuddhi or complete purity of the community, individually and organizationally, as it was with the specifics of ethical conduct. Under no circumstances should we presume that ethical concerns were superseded in the Vinaya; rather, they were included in a series of tiered concerns that focused on institutional, but not exclusively ethical conduct.”
These categories reflect the way a ruling may require further elaboration or adaptation after it has been adopted, as the present chapter well illustrates. Guṇaprabha discusses these in sūtra 95 of his Sūtras on Monastic Discipline (Toh 4117 Vinayasūtra): utpatti-prajñapti-anuprajñaptiḥ-pratikṣepa-abhyanujñābhijñatvam. Tib. byung ba dang bcas pa dang rjes su bcas pa dang bkag pa dang gnang ba mngon par shes pa nyid do.
This opening narrative begins on F.2.b of Toh 3, immediately following Dharmaśreṣṭhin’s In Praise of Monastic Discipline, and ends with the section on the four defeats on F.3.b.
See Dharmamitra, Toh 4120, vol. yu, F.109.b: brtsams pa’i sde tshan ni rdzogs par bya dgos so zhes bya ba ni/ ་pham par ’gyur ba dang dge ’dun lhag ma dang ma nges pa’i sde tshan ni yang na ni thos pa bsgrags pas bsgrub po.
In their respective catalogs that include the titles of the śāstras available to the authors in fourteenth-century central Tibet, Butön Rinchen Drup (1290–1364) and Tshalpa Mönlam Dorjé (1284–1347) both attribute the authorship of The Guide to The Prātimokṣa Sūtra (Toh 4104) to Lopön Pawo (Tib. slob dpon dpa bo) or Ācārya Śūra, a.k.a. Aśvaghoṣa (Tib. rta dbyangs). See Butön’s bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba, F.105.b, and bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag (sna tshogs) nor bu’i phung po. It is not clear which of the two Indian Buddhist authors named Aśvaghoṣa authored the Vinaya commentaries. The ca. second ᴄᴇ poet Aśvaghoṣa is remembered as the author of two long verse masterpieces, the Buddhacarita and the Saundarananda, hailed as early exemplars of the kāvya style. The second Aśvaghoṣa wrote a manual on guru devotion (Skt. Gurupañcāśikā; Tib. bla ma lnga bcu pa). Śūra’s Guide to The Prātimokṣa Sūtra (Toh 4104) glosses key terms in The Prātimokṣa Sūtra in mixed verse and prose. As is not uncommon, Vimalamitra repeats Śūra on F.40.b–41.b of Toh 4106 (Skt. Prātimokṣa Sūtraṭīkā-vinayasamuccaya; Tib. so sor thar pa’i mdo’i rgya cher ’grel pa ’dul ba kun las btus pa). The latter text is Vimalamitra’s three-volume compendium of comments on The Prātimokṣa Sūtra.
According to the narrative given in The Chapter on Going Forth discussed above, the Buddha introduced the system of monastic apprenticeship to address the problem of monks who comported themselves badly or rudely, in a manner not becoming of a mendicant. These behaviors are to be distinguished from those that were deemed actual offenses against the Prātimokṣa Vow. See Prebish 2003 on the growth of The Prātimokṣa Sūtra.
Tib. bslab pa’i gzhi; Skt. śikṣāpada.
See Śūra (Toh 4104, vol. du, F.37.b–38.a): de la bcom ldan ’das mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas te/ nyan thos kyi ’khor brnyes nas lo bcu gnyis kyi bar du ni bcom ldan ’das kyi nyan thos kyi dge ’dun la skyon med cing chu bur med de/ bcom ldan ’das kyi nyan thos dge ’dun rnams kyis so sor thar pa’i mdo gdon pa yang mdor bsdus te/ ’di skad ces/ /sdig pa thams cad mi bya ste/ /dge ba phun sum tshogs par bya/ /rang gi sems ni yongs su gdul/ /’di ni sangs rgyas bstan pa yin/ /lus kyi sdom pa legs pa yin/ /ngag gi sdom pa’ang legs pa yin/ /yid kyi sdom pa’ang legs pa ste/ /thams cad du ni sdom pa legs/ /kun tu bsdams pa’i dge slong ni/ /sdug bsngal kun las rab tu ’grol/ /ngag rnams bsrung zhing yid kyis rab bsdams te/ /lus kyis mi dge ba dag mi byed cing/ /las la ma gsum po ’di dag rab sbyangs na/ /drang srong gsungs pa’i lam ni thob par ’gyur/ /zhes bton par gyur pas/ ’dul ba la nyan thos rnams kyi bslab pa’i gzhi bcas pa med do.
Skt. āśravasthānīya; Tib. zag pa’i gnas. This term implies something like a “bad apple” that spoils the bunch.
Śūra (Toh 4104, vol. du, F.38.a):lo bcu gsum pa la bab pa na/ sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das yul spong byed dag na/ ka lan da ka’i grong na bzhugs pa’i tshe ka lan da ka’i bu bzang byin bcom ldan ’das kyis legs par gsungs pa’i chos ’dul ba la skra dang kha spu bregs te/ gos dur smrig dag bgos nas/ yang dag pa kho nar dad pas khyim nas khyim med par rab tu byung ste/ dgon pa’i spyil bu na ’dug pa rang gi mas bslus nas/ des sngon gyi chung ma dang lhan cig mi tshangs par spyad pa ’khrig pa’i chos bsten te/ zag pa’i gnas lta bu’i chos mang po rnams kyi dang po ka lan da ka’i bu bzang byin gyis mi tshangs par spyad pa’i rkyen gyis byas par gyur nas/ bcom ldan ’das kyis byung ba ’di dang/ gleng gzhi ’di dang/ skabs ’di la dge slong gi dge ’dun bsdu ba mdzad de/ bslab pa bca’ ba’i phan yon bcu yang dag par gzigs pas/ ’dul ba la nyan thos rnams kyi bslab pa’i gzhi bca’ ba mdzad nas/ de phyin chad gleng gzhi re re’i rgyu las bslab pa’i gzhi re re bcas pa’i sgo nas/ ltung ba sde lnga rnam par gzhag pa mdzad nas/ da de dag ji ltar bcas pa bzhin du bshad par bya’o/ /de la gdon par gtogs pa bslab pa’i gzhi thams cad kyi mtshan nyid ni/ gleng gzhi dang/ bslab pa bcas pa dang/ ltung ba rnam par gzhag pas rgyas par ston te.
The following discussion reflects the (Mūla-)sarvāstivādin exegetical tradition’s interpretations. Charles Prebish surveys a variety of etymological explanations of the term prātimokṣa in his 1974 study and translation of The Prātimokṣa Sūtras of the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Mūlasarvāstivādins. Prebish credits Sukumar Dutt with suggesting that the Sanskrit prātimokṣa “lends itself to interpretation as something serving as a bond, the prefix Prati meaning ‘against’ and the root Mokṣa meaning ‘scattering’ ” (Prebish 2002, p. 18). Prebish critically examines the socio-historical evidence for Dutt’s suggestion on pp. 17–24. He concludes that The Prātimokṣa Sūtra may have served in some senses as a bond but finds Dutt’s etymological argument dubious. Note though that the Sanskrit saṃvara reads more readily than prātimokṣa as “bond” or “rule.” Tshonawa, p. 25: bzhi pa sgra bshad pa la gsum ste/ so sor thar pa’i sdom pa/ dang po thar pa’i sdom pa/ thar pa’i thabs kyi sdom pa zhes bya ste/ pra ti so sor thar pa zhes pa ’di la rgya gar skad du/ mok+Sha zhes so.
The following explanation draws on this passage by Śūra (Toh 4104, vol. du, F.2.a–3.a): de la rnam grangs gcig tu na dang por thar pa zhes bya bar ston te/ so sor zhes bya ba ni dang po ste/ dang po sdom pa yang dag par len pa’i tshe na/ gsum la skyabs su ’gro ba’i tshig bzlas nas/ sdom pa yang dag par blang ba’i tshig brjod pa gsum pa’i tha ma la/ sdom pa thob pa ni/ thog mar sdom pa thob pa’i gnas skabs yin pas dang po zhes bya’o/ /thar pa zhes bya ba ni grol ba ste/ de ltar sdom pa dang po thob pa de nyid kyi tshe na sdom pa ma yin pa’i mtshan nyid las grol te/ sdom pa’i mtshan nyid kyis bsdus pa’i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa’i gzugs thob pa ni thar pa zhes bya’o/ /de ltar dang po thar pa’i don de las bstan bcos ’di byung ba’am/ don der bstan bcos ’dir bsdus pas bstan bcos ’di’i ming yang dang por thar pa zhes bya bar sbyar ro/ /yang rnam grangs gzhan du na so sor thar pa zhes bya ba ston to/ so sor zhes bya ba ni rgyud tha dad pa’o/ /thar pa zhes bya ba ni rnam par grol ba ste/ gang zag rgyud tha dad pa gang zhig gis sdom pa yang dag par blangs te/ bslab pa’i gzhi rjes su sgrub par byed pa de nyid ngan ’gro dang ’khor ba las rnam par grol bar ’gyur gyi/ gzhan gyis sdom pa yang dag par blangs te/ bslab pa’i gzhi rjes su bsgrubs pas gzhan rnam par grol bar mi ’gyur bas so sor thar pa zhes bya’o/ /de ltar so sor thar pa’i don de las bstan bcos ’di byung ba’am/ don de bstan bcos ’dir bsdus pas bstan bcos ’di’i ming yang so sor thar pa zhes bya’o/ /yang rnam grangs gzhan du na thar pa’i thabs zhes bya bar ston to/ /so sor zhes bya ba ni phyir zhes bya ste/ thabs kyi don to/ /thar pa zhes bya ba ni nges par ’byung ba ste/ mya ngan las ’das pa’o/ /des na so sor thar pa’i mdo ’di ni nges par ’byung ba thob pa’i thabs kyi phyir gsungs pa ste/ lhag pa’i tshul khrims la brten nas lhag pa’i sems skye la/ lhag pa’i sems la brten nas lhag pa’i shes rab skye ba’i rim gyis nges par ’byung ba thob pa’i thabs su gyur pa’i phyir/ so sor thar pa’i mdo ’di ni nges par ’byung ba’i tshul khrims yin pas thar pa’i thabs zhes bya’o/ /de ltar thar pa’i thabs kyi don de las bstan bcos ’di byung ba’am/ don de bstan bcos ’dir bsdus pas bstan bcos ’di’i ming yang thar pa’i thabs zhes bya ba’o/ /mdo zhes bya ba ni/ don tsam zhig ston pas mdo zhes bya ste/ de ltar na bstan bcos ’di ni dang por thar pa’i mdo zhes bya ba dang/ so sor thar pa’i mdo zhes bya ba dang/ thar pa’i thabs kyi mdo zhes bya ba dag tu ston to.
See, for instance, the rite for receiving the Buddhist lay vow in The Chapter on Going Forth (Toh 1.1, 1.436): de’i ’og tu slob dpon la phyag ’tshal du bcug nas mdun du tsog tsog por ’dug tu bcug ste/ thal mo sbyor du bcug nas des ’di skad ces brjod par bya ste/ btsun pa dgongs su gsol/ bdag ming ’di zhes bgyi ba dus ’di nas bzung ste/ ji srid ’tsho’i bar du rkang gnyis rnams kyi mchog sangs rgyas la skyabs su ’chi’o [mchi’o]/ /’dod chags dang bral ba rnams kyi mchog chos la skyabs su mchi’o/ /tshogs rnams kyi mchog dge ’dun la skyabs su mchi’o/ /bdag ji srid ’tsho’i bar du dge bsnyen du btsun pas gzung du gsol/ de bzhin du lan gnyis lan gsum du bzlas/ tshig gsum pa la slob dpon gyis zhes brjod par bya’o/ /slob dpon gyis thabs yin no zhes brjod par bya’o/ /dge bsnyen gyis legs so zhes brjod par bya’o/ /de ni dge bsnyen gyi sdom pa sbyin pa’o.
See Apte 1957, vol. 2, p. 1067.
The Commentary on the Words of the Vibhaṅga, by Vinītadeva, explains pratimokṣa to mean “initial liberation.” See Toh 4114, F.62.b (’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa’i tshig rnam par bshad pa; Skt. Vinayavibhaṅgapadavyākhyāna).
The Fifty Fascicles refers to Vimalamitra’s three-volume compendium of comments on The Prātimokṣa Sūtra. The discussion of prātimokṣa’s etymology is found on F.3.a-b of Toh 4106. Tshonawa pp. 25–26: bzhi pa sgra bshad pa la gsum ste/ so sor thar pa’i sdom pa/ dang po thar pa’i sdom pa/ thar pa’i thabs kyi sdom pa zhes bya ste/ pra ti (so sor thar pa zhes pa ’di la rgya gar skad du)/ mok+Sha zhes so/ /de la sgra bshad gsum ste/ pra ti zhes pa so so yin la/ mok+Sha zhes pa thar pa yin pas so sor thar pa zhes bya ste/ tshul khrims bsrung ba’i gang zag so so ngan ’gro dang ’khor ba las thar bar ’gyur gyi/ gzhan gyis tshul khrims bsrungs pas gzhan thar par mi ’gyur ba’i phyir ro/ /pra ti zhes pa dang po yin la/ mok+Sha zhes pa thar pa yin pas dang po thar pa zhes kyang bya ste/ sdom pa thob pa’i skad cig dang po de nyid kyi tshe na/ sngar rang rang gi skabs kyi sdom min yin pa de las thar pa’i phyir ro/ /pra ti zhes pa ni sgra’i rkyen gyis thabs kyi don to/ /mok+Sha zhes pa thar pa yin pas thar pa’i thabs zhes pa ste/ des na thar pa’i thabs kyi sdom pa zhes kyang bya’o/ /sgra bshad de gsum ni bam po lnga bcu pa las bshad do. See Toh 4106, F.3.a–b.
The Prātimokṣa Sūtra’s narrative introduction incorporates a portion of Dharmaśreṣṭhin’s In Praise of the Vinaya Toh 4136, F. 133.b–134.a). Tibetan monastic communities have developed their own liturgies around The Prātimokṣa Sūtra recitation. For an eighteenth-century example, see Paṇchen Sönam Drakpa’s gso sbyong ji ltar bya ba’i tshul la sbyor ba dngos gzhi mjug gsum dang dmigs bsal dang bcas pa rim par bshad pa (pp. 405–15), from his so thar tshul khrims kyi rgyas byed ’dul ba’i legs bshad lung rigs kyi nyi ma.
See Prebish 2002, pp. 52, 53, 63, 65, 75, 93, 95, 107, and 109.
Guṇaprabha explains these preparatory steps: “During the rite of quorum restoration, in front of where they will gather for the restoration rite, monks should make amends by scrutinizing themselves for any offenses they have incurred in the two weeks since the last quorum restoration rite and either confess, pledge to refrain from, or sanction that offense they recognize” (Guṇaprabha, Toh 4119, F. 210.a.1–2). The textual precedent for this statement by Guṇaprabha can be found in the “King” section of the present chapter, 4.37-4.45.
See, e.g., the entries on “Monasticism” and “Repentance and Confession” in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Buswell 2004). Some offenses, however, must be sanctioned (Tib. byin gyis brlab par bya ba; Skt. adhiṣṭheya) through a formal act, and thus are to be confessed before the rite. Such acts are, specifically, saṅgha remnants and transgressions requiring forfeiture. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.244.a–b): byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag ces bya ba ni dge ’dun lhag ma dang/ spang ba’i ltung byed dag go.
Tib. bshags sdom.
These three components seem to correspond to the last three of the four remedial forces of support, rejection, recommitment, and remedy (Tib. rten gyi stob, rnam par sun ’byin pa’i stobs, nyes pa las slar sdog pa’i stobs, and gnyen po kun tu spyod pa’i stobs). In tantric circles and among later Kadampa (Tib. bka’ gdams pa) teachers of mind training (Tib. blo sbyong), these “four remedial powers” or “four antidotes” (Tib. gnyen po stobs bzhi) were taught to neutralize past karma and mitigate the effects of wrongdoing and offenses.
According to Dutt, “The days of the Full Moon and the New Moon were from the earliest times in India regarded as sacred for sacrificial purposes. The Full Moon and the New Moon are effusively greeted in two hymns of the Atharva-veda. The Vedic sacrifices of Paurnamāsa and Darśa used to be offered on these days. As preliminary to these sacrifices, the preceding days had to be kept holy by the intending sacrificer by fasting or partial abstention from food, as well as by retirement at night into the house in which the sacrificial fire was kept” (Dutt 1924, p. 101).
Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa 1.1.1.7: te ’sya viśve devā gṛhān āgacchanti te ’sya gṛheṣūpavasanti sa upavasathaḥ. English translation by Julius Eggeling (1882), courtesy of the Wisdom Library, Satapatha-brahmana [Sanskrit]. See also Dutt 1924, p. 101.
Entry 7137 reads: bsnyung bar ’dugs pa’am nye bar gso spyong byed, i.e., Skt. upavāsa and, apparently, upoṣadha, where Tib. nye bar renders the Skt. prefix upa while the Tib. gso and sbyong render √puṣ and √dhāv, as explained by the authors of The Two-Volume Lexicon or sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. But see also upoṣadhaḥ/gso sbyong ’phags (entry 3556) as the name of a king.
Hu-von Hinüber 1994, p. 1.
Vernacular terms were translated into literary languages such as Sanskrit, Pāli, and different Prakrits, leading to differing results with differing implications. Prakrits are written forms of vernacular language.
Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa and his autocommentary (a.k.a. the Bhāṣya) are said to report the positions on abhidharma issues of Kaśmiri Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika monastic scholars, generally affiliated with Sarvāstivādin vinaya lineages.
Here the Skt. poṣadha is rendered in Tibetan as bsnyen gnas: Tib. yan lag brgyad dang ldan pa’i bsnyen gnas; Skt. aṣṭāṅgapoṣadha (or Skt. poṣadhaṃ vratam).
This may mean that those eight precepts are observed for only one day at a time and so can only approach monastic restraint, which in the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition entails a life-long commitment.
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Pradhan 1967, 213.25–214.2): arhatāṃ samīpe vasanty anenety upavāsas teṣām anuśikṣaṇāt | yāvaj jīvikasaṃvarasamīpe vasanty anenety apare | alpakuśalamūlānāṃ kuśalamūlapoṣaṇāt poṣadha iti vā | poṣaṃ dadhāti manasaḥ kuśalasya yasmād uktas tato bhagavatā kila poṣadho ’yam iti. In Tibetan translation, chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi bshad pa (Toh 4090, F.182.a): ’dis dgra bcom pa dag dang nye bar gnas par byed pas na bsnyen gnas te/ de dag gi rjes su slob pa’i phyir ro/ /gzhan dag na re/ ’dis ji srid ’tsho’i bar gyi sdom pa dang nye bar gnas par byed pa’i phyir ro zhes zer ro/ yang na dge ba’i rtsa ba chung ngu rnams kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba gsos ’debs pa’i phyir te/ /gang phyir yid kyi dge ba gsos ’debs de yi phyir/ ’di ni bcom ldan ’das kyis gso sbyong bshad ces grag/ zhes ’byung bas na gso sbyong yin no.
Rather than √dhā, “to foster.”
We take dhava gatiśuddhau to be a mis-citation of sūtra 386 of Pāṇini’s Dhātupāṭha, which reads dhāvu gatiśuddhyoḥ. Our thanks to Ven. Hejung Seok for his assistance with these Pāṇini citations.
poṣadha zhes bya ba poṣa ni puṣṇate dge ba gso zhing rgyas par byed pa la bya/ dha ni dhava gatiśuddhau zhes bya ste/ rgyug pa’am dag par byed pa lta bu la bya/ spyir na dus drug tu khrims brgyad nod pa dang/ dge slong khrims kyi yan lag las nyams pa rnams gso zhing sbyong ba’i ming ste gso sbyong zhes bya (Stok Palace Kangyur, sna tshogs vol. co, F.154.b.6–155.a.2).
gso sbyong zhes bya ba ni tshul khrims gso zhing sbyong ba ste gso bar byed ces bya ba’i tha tshig go (Kalyāṇamitra, F.312.b2–3).
See Vimalamitra, vol. du, F.27.b: gso sbyong zhes bya ba ni bslab pa gsum po dag gso zhing sbyong bar byed pa gnas ste/ de yang rnam pa gnyis te/ mthun pa’i gso sbyong dang/ zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong ngo/ /de la mthun pa’i gso sbyong ni lhag pa’i tshul khrims kyi dbang du byas te/ gnas dang tshogs pa dang cho gas mthun par bya’o/ /zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong ni lhag pa’i sems dang lhag pa’i shes rab kyi dbang du byas te spong ba’i yan lag bsgom pa’o. The text continues: “Furthermore, the quorum restoration acts to restrain since it restrains future karma with a dam against improper action, while the śamatha restoration acts to nurture since it is a purification of past karma through meditation. Thus, [these two] are understood to be the quorum restoration and śamatha restoration because the Three Trainings are nurtured and purified through the arising of adhicitta on the foundation of adhiśīla and the arising of adhiprajñā on the foundation of adhicitta.” de yang las phyi ma rnams ni mi bya ba’i chu lon gyis bsdams pa yin pas de ni mthun pa’i gso sbyong gis sdom par byed do/ /las snga ma rnams ni bsgom pa’i rnam pas sbyangs pa yin pas de ni zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong gis gso bar byed de des na lhag pa’i tshul khrims la brten te lhag pa’i sems skye la/ lhag pa’i sems la brten te lhag pa’i shes rab skye bas bslab pa gsum po dag gso zhing sbyong ba ni mthun pa’i gso sbyong dang zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong yin par shes par bya’o. Since participation in this rite is mandatory and all participants must first make amends for any offenses they have incurred, the restoration rite serves to purify monastic precepts in support of the training in discipline (Vimalamitra, Toh 4106, vol. pu, F.30.b.3–5).
We have not found any evidence for the restoration through meditation in the Vinayapiṭaka, Aṭṭhakathā, or Ṭīkā preserved in Pāli. Nor have we found any explicit mention of a twofold poṣadha rubric including restoration through meditation in the vinayas in Chinese translation. The role of meditation in repentance rites, however, was well established among medieval Chinese Buddhist communities, on which see, e.g., Greene 2021.
See Brick 2017, p. 315.
Tib. sdig pa, Skt. pāpa; and Tib. ltung ba, Skt. āpatti, respectively.
Toh 3276 (Skt. Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣyaratnālokālaṃkāra; Tib. mdo kun las btus pa’i bshad pa rin po che snang ba’i rgyan), F.327.b: ltung ba ste ltung bar byed pa dang sgrib par byed pa’i phyir te/ sgrib pa ni las dang lam gyi gegs byed pa’i phyir ro/ /lhag ma ni ’gyod pa ste yid la gcags pa’o.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.326.a): chos bzhin zhes bya ba ni ltung ba’i ngo bo nyid las mi ’da’ bar ro/ /’dul ba bzhin zhes bya ba ni ’dul ba bzhin phyir bcos pa las mi ’da’ bar ro.
The following is not an exhaustive enumeration of all the types of offense mentioned in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya though it would seem that all other offenses can ultimately be classed into one of the following five classes of offense. For example, there are offenses that may temporarily be “undetermined” (Tib. ma nges pa; Skt. aniyata), but ultimately are classed either as saṅgha remnants or transgressions. Furthermore, Mūlasarvāstivādin monastics may also incur a “breach” (Tib. ’gal tshabs; Skt. atisāra), which is a transgression, according to Kalyāṇamitra (F.241.b): ’gal tshabs can zhes bya ba ni nyes pa dang bcas pa ste/ nyes byas kyi ltung ba dang ldan zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go. Śīlapālita, however, records a variety of opinions, including those that consider a “breach” to be a saṅgha remnant, a grievous fault, a simple atonement, and even a misdeed, and concludes that context determines which class a breach belongs to; (Toh 4115, F.183.b): ’gal tshabs can du ’gyur ro zhes bya ba ni ’ga’ zhig tu dge ’dun lhag ma’i gnas ngan len smra ba la sogs pa dang/ ’ga’ zhig tu ji ltar gos kyis bar du chod pa’i bud med kyi yul gyi lus la reg pa bdag gir byed pa’i nyes pa sbom po dang/ kha cig tu myos par byed pa ’thung ba la sogs pa ltung byed ’ba’ zhig pa dang/ kha cig tu gar la sogs pa’i nyes byas dag la ’dir ci rigs par ’gal tshabs can gyi don du blta bar bya’o. There is also a type of offense called a “grievous fault” (Tib. nyes pa sbom po; Skt. sthūlātyaya), as mentioned by Śīlapālita in the previous quote. A “grievous fault” is an “incomplete” sexual act, which would otherwise be classed as a defeat or saṅgha remnant. See Śīlapālita (Toh 4115, F.147.a): nyes pa sbom por ’gyur ro zhes bya ba ’di ni mi tshangs par spyod pa’i pham par gyur pa gcod par byed pa yin no.
Tib. pham pa; Skt. pārājika.
Tib. dge ’dun lhag ma; Skt. saṃghāvaśeṣa. Kalyāṇamitra (F.292.a): dge ’dun lhag ma zhes bya ba ni khu ba ’byin pa la sogs pa ste/ ltung ba de gso ba’i lhag ma dge ’dun tsam zhig la las pa ste/ de sbyar ba’i phyir chad pa’i las dge ’dun las ’thob ces bya ba’i tha tshig go.
Tib. ltung byed; see Skt. pāyantika, pātayantika, prāyaścittika.
Tib. spang ba’i ltung byed; Skt. naiḥsargikā-pātayantika.
Tib. ltung byed ’ba’ zhig pa; Skt. śuddha-prāyaścittika.
Tib. sor bshags; Skt. pratideśanīya.
Tib. nyes byas; Skt. duṣkṛta. The Prātimokṣa Sūtra (Toh 2) describes these as “principles of training” (Tib. bslab pa’i chos; Skt. śaikṣadharma).
For the complete English translation, see The Chapter on Going Forth (1.472): dge slong gang dag de’i las kyi gnas su ’jug par ’gyur ba de dag gis kyang der ’du bar ’gyur ba’i tshe zla ba phyed ’das pa’i nyes pa bsdam par bya ba dang/ bshags par bya ba dang/ byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag la so sor brtag par bya zhing nyes pa shes pa bsdam pa’am/ bshags pa’am/ byin gyis brlabs pas phyir bcos te ’dug par bya’o.
Tib. ltung ba sde lnga; Skt. pañcāpattinikāya. Note though that this rubric does not appear explicitly in The Prātimokṣa Sūtras (Toh 2 and 4).
Kalyāṇamitra (F.244.a–b): nyes pa de yang gang zhe na/ de’i phyir bsdam par ad ag dang/ bshags par bya ba dang/ byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag ces bya ba gsungs te/ bsdam par bya ba zhes bya ba ni yid kyi nyes byas phra mo’o/ /bshags par bya ba zhes bya ba ni ltung byed dang/ so sor bshags par bya ba dang/ bshags pa’i nyes byas so/ byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag ces bya ba ni dge ’dun lhag ma dang/ spang ba’i ltung byed dag go.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.244.a–b): ’dir ltung byed la sogs pa bshags par gsungs pa ni nyi ma de nyid la phyir bcos par nus pa yin pas de dag ni byin gyis brlabs pas dag pa nyid du mi ’gyur ro zhes bstan te/ dge ’dun lhag ma dang spang ba dag byin gyis brlabs par gsungs pa ni nyi ma de nyid la phyir bcos pa mi nus pa yin pas byin gyis brlabs pas dag pa nyid du ’gyur ro zhes bstan to.
Pārivāsikavastu, Toh 1, ch. 13. Punishments meted out on intransigent community members are the subject of three chapters within The Chapters on Monastic Discipline (Toh 1): The Chapter on the Monks of Kauśāmbī (Kauśāmbakavastu, Toh 1, ch. 9), The Chapter on a Group of Troublesome Monks (Pāṇḍulohitakavastu, Toh 1, ch. 11), and The Chapter on Types of Persons (Pudgalavastu, Toh 1, ch. 12).
Tib. bslab pa byin pa; Skt. śikṣādattaka. For more on the origin of the rehabilitative trainee, or śikṣādattaka, as recounted in The Chapter on Minor Matters of the Discipline (Kṣudrakavastu, Toh 6), see Clarke 2009.
The Pāli Vinaya’s The Chapter on the Restoration Rite—the Uposathakkhandaka—identifies five types of lena or “residence” (Tib. gnas; Skt. layana) that can serve as a restoration site (Pāli uposathāgāra). These five are vihāra, aḍḍhayoga, pāsāda, hammiya, and guhā (Hu-von Hinüber 1994, p. 189). These “five residences” correspond to the five “allowable places” (Skt. kalpikaśālā, Tib. rung ba’i gnas) discussed in The Chapter on Medicines (Toh 1, ch. 6), 10.14 ff. See also Prebish 1974, p. 9.
The text concludes with several lengthy formulaic repetitions (Tib. sbyar ba, Skt. paryāya, P. peyāla). According to Hu-von Hinüber, Sanskrit and Pāli texts generally elide such repetitions, reflecting the oral tradition of old India and Ceylon, whereas Tibetan translators generally chose not to abridge the material (personal communication, June 19, 2016). For a discussion of formulaic repetitions, see Hu-von Hinüber 1994, p. 157. For deviations between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Poṣadhavastu associated with these, see Hu-von Hinüber 1994, pp. 239–47.
The Sanskrit reads “monk” in place of “king.”
The Sanskrit for this index translates as: “Tīrthikas offer poṣadha. / Why does he not observe poṣadha? / They don’t sit if there is division on a site. / May you describe a poṣadha.” In her study of the Poṣadhavastu, Hu-von Hinüber analyzes the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya’s system of uddāna and the ways in which it differs from those of other Vinaya schools. See Hu-von Hinüber 1994, pp. 155–67 and Hu-von Hinüber 2016, p. 101, n. 177. This discrepancy appears to reflect a general pattern for the present text, in which the Sanskrit uddāna read as prose summaries while the Tibetan translations of these indices are lists that do not form complete sentences. Though its relevance to the present textual discrepancy is uncertain, the Tibetan tradition preserves at least two ways of organizing the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: a canonical tradition of the Kangyur and a commentarial tradition that follows Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtravṛtti, in which the canonical tradition’s material is rearranged and presented according to topic. See Hu-von Hinüber 1997a and 1997b and Emms 2012.
The Sanskrit reads “every day” (divādivam).
Yoga, that is, samādhi, e.g., the close placement of mindfulness on the body, etc., according to Kalyāṇamitra (F.308.b). Later in the text (F.312.a.6), Kalyāṇamitra describes this seated practice (’dug pa) as the “śamatha restoration rite” (gzhi gnas kyi gso sbyong).
The Sanskrit gives romāṇi, suggesting body hair instead of facial hair.
The Sanskrit reads “tears, sweat, saliva, mucus, oils.”
Here, “rounds” (Tib. spyod yul; Skt. gocara) refers to “sustenance,” i.e. almsfood.
The translation “infantrymen” (Tib. rkang thang pa, lit. “foot soldiers”) follows Kalyāṇamitra’s gloss: dpung bu chung zhes bya ba ni rkang thang ngo (F.182.a).
Kalyāṇamitra glosses ’du ba with mngon par ’du ba’i gnas (F.309.a). This taunt does not appear in the Sanskrit.
Our translation of Tib. khyams; Skt. prāsāda as “terrace” follows Kalyāṇamitra: khyams zhes bya ba ni gtsug lag khang gi sgo’i bar gyi bang rim mo (F.316.a).
Both the Tib. gnas khang and Skt. layana are grammatically singular here and so we have translated this as “residence hall.” In the description of the meditation residence below, it is translated as “dwelling” since multiple “dwellings” are prescribed.
“Panthers” (Tib. gung) does not appear in the Sanskrit.
This taunt does not appear in the Sanskrit.
In the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrated Vinaya manual (called The Moonlight that Destroys Ignorance of Faults and Offenses: The Traditional Drawings that Illustrate the Shape and Size of the Prohibitions, Prescriptions, Consents, and Boundary Required by the Prātimokṣa Training Precepts, as Given in the Four Vinaya Āgama and Tshonawa’s Ṭīkā, an Annotated Commentary on the Vinayasūtra), these dwellings are drawn rather flat and without perspective but it is clear that they depict rows of dwellings or “monastic cells” in (from left to right) small clusters of 1–3 dwellings, medium clusters of 4–9 dwellings, and large clusters of 10–12 dwellings. In each case a passage or walkway runs between the dwellings and, in the case of the large cluster of dwellings, they are split into a grid pattern. See F.3.a (BDRC W1EE45): 
‘Storeroom.’ The Tib. sbyang byed pa suggests the Skt. koṣṭhāgāra, a room without doors or windows used for storage. But the Sanskrit here reads yathāgrāhya “free to be taken.” The translation follows the Tibetan, which is contextually more appropriate.
This instruction does not appear in the Sanskrit.
The Sanskrit omits “leopards.”
That is, shaped like an isosceles trapezoid with the shorter base on the exterior side of the hut wall.
Śīlapālita writes, “Shutters is the name given to the wooden board(s) that close the above (i.e. latticed) window” (Toh 4115, F.21.b): sgo glegs ni sgo glegs kyi ming can gyi shing leb ste/ gang gi glo skar gyi sgo gcod par byed pa’o.
The “bar” along with related items in the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrated Vinaya manual on F.5.a (BDRC W1EE45). 
From left to right from the middle of the picture: (1) “key lever,” Tib. dbyug gu skam ka; (2) “catch,” Tib. sgo gtan; (3) “doorsill,” Tib. sgo glegs; (4) “ring,” Tib. yang mig; (5) “lever,” Tib. ’khar gtan (’khor gtan); (6) “handle,” Tib. lag gzung; (7) “bar,” Tib. phred gtan; and (8) “cross bolt,” Tib. gnam gzer (also “wooden peg,” Tib. shing gzer).
The above two instructions do not appear in the Sanskrit. Śīlapālita explains what a “lever” is and refers to the “cross bolt” here as the “wooden peg”: “The lever is a way to prevent the door panels from opening. A small wooden peg, one cubit long, is affixed in the center between two door panels. Because this piece of wood turns like a wheel in order to hold the doors in place, it is called a lever.” (Toh 4115, F.21.b): ’khor gtan ni sgo glegs phyir mi phyed pa’i thabs su gyur pa ste/ sgo’i sgo glegs kyi dbus kyi phyogs su khru gang gi tshad kyi shing gzer bus sbyar ba de ’dzin pa’i shing de ’khor lo bzhin yongs su bskor nas gzung bar bya ba de la ’jog par byed pa’i phyir ’khor gtan zhes bya’o.
Śīlapālita writes, “The key lever; a piece of wood shaped like a goat’s leg, which (is used to) make the bolt pass in and out” (Toh 4115, F.21.b): ra’i rkang pa’i rnam pa can gyi shing bu ni dbyug gi skam kha ste/ gang gi phyir des glo skar gyi ’phred gtan ’dzud pa dang ’byin par byed pa’o.
This instruction is missing from the Sanskrit.
This material (Tib. sha na, Skt. śāṇa) is identified variously as hemp, jute, and flax.
The identification of these weaving grasses follows the Sanskrit: bhagavān āha | paṃca vāṇāḥ | muṃjaśāṇavālvajo paṭaḥ sūkṣṃo vetraḥ. Tib. bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa/ shing bal dag ni lnga ste/ arga’i shing bal dang/ ka shika’i shing bal dang/ er ka’i shing bal dang/ spra ba’i shing bal dang/ shal ma li’i shing bal dag yin no/ /gzhan yang lnga ste/ bal dang/ sha na’i shing bal dang/ ras bal dang/ ras ma dang.
Skt. bhagavān āha | paṃca tūlikāni | arkakāśikairakābakaśālmalītūlikāni | aparāṇy api paṃca tūlāni | ūrṇā śanaḥ karpāso nantakāni pāṃsutūlāni. Tib. bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa/ thags ma ni lnga ste/ mun dza’i dang/ sha na’i dang/ gres ma’i dang/ ras ma’i dang/ spa phra mo’i ’o.
The Degé version differs slightly from Kalyāṇamitra’s citation of the root text, which reads mdo mdor srubs bya rog gis gzungs gdab par bya’o (Kalyāṇamitra, F.310.a.5–6).
The instruction “a jar should be tied” does not appear in the Sanskrit. The underlying Sanskrit for “jar” is, apparently, ghaṭikā (Tib. gdos bu). The Skt. ghaṭikā, however, has two meanings, the more common being “water-jar, bucket,” (Apte 1957, vol. 2 p. 683). Specialized water jars were used to mark the passage of time (i.e. a “water clock,” as in Tib. chu tshod). The less common meaning of ghaṭikā is “small stick,” (Edgerton, p. 219, col. 2). This is the meaning that Kalyāṇamitra gives in glossing Tib. gdos bu; Skt. ghaṭikā as “ ‘stick,’ [an item] made from wood or some other substance used to wake individuals from slumber: gdos bu zhes bya ba ni gnyid sel bar byed pa shing la sogs pa las byas pa’i gdos bu’o (F.310.a.6). The commentator Śīlapālita recognizes both meanings in his glosses on the Buddha’s allowing a “jug and ball” (Tib. bum pa dang pho long) to be used in meditation in a narrative in The Chapter on Minor Matters of Monastic Discipline (Toh 6). These are depicted in the same illustration above. Where Toh 6 reads “jug and ball,” the commentator Śīlapālita cites the root text as reading “small jug and ball” (Tib. ril chung and pho long). He describes two types of ghāṭikā: (1) a “small jug” or “water jar” and (2) a “small stick.” We have added the numbers for clarity: “(1) Having filled it with water, tied it to the neck with string, and hung it from the ear, [the small sphere] will shake violently when [the meditator] falls asleep, causing the spillage to splash upon their face, waking them up. (2) Having chipped off a chit-shaped piece of wood a full span [between the extended thumb and little finger] in size, it is either hung from the ear with string or placed on the head when practicing yoga so that when [the meditator] wobbles, it pokes on their limbs.” See Śīlapālita (F.62.a): ril chung zhes bya ba ni ril ba chung ngu chus yongs su bkang ba ske ba la skud pas btags pa rna ba la dpyangs pa na/ gang gi tshe gnyid log par gyur pa rab tu g.yo bar gyur pa de’i tshe yongs su bo ba gdong la babs pa des gnyid sad par ’gyur ro/ /byang bu’i rnam pa can du shing bzhogs pa mtho gang gi tshad du byas pa de yang rnal ’byor gyi dus su skud pas rna ba la dpyangs pa’am/ mgo bo la bzhag na rab tu g.yo ba’i tshe des kyang yan lag gi tshogs la phog pa las gnyid sangs pa’i thabs yin no. In the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Vinaya illustrations, a “jar” is shown hanging above the monk’s left shoulder while ball-like objects hang over his right shoulder and from his ears. Meanwhile, the balls hanging from his ears apparently represent the “jug and ball” (Tib. bum pa dang pho long) described by Śīlapālita. But the corresponding legend on F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45) reads, “An example of a jar, a means to wake up [the meditator] if they fall asleep: [The Chapter on the Restoration Rite] says, ‘A jar should be tied.’ ” 
The Sanskrit says simply that the stick fell.
Tib. dbyug gu and dbyu gu; Skt. yaṣṭi. This instruction is depicted in the first illustration and legend from the right of F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations, mentioned in n.97. The legend reads, “A method for waking if [the meditator] lapses into sleep: ‘[The meditator] should be gently prodded with a rod.’ ”
I.e., with a flat end. See the first illustration and legend from the right of F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations above. The extant Sanskrit is partial, reading: + + chedyā kartavyā; i.e., “A [rod] shaped like a + + should be used.” The Tib. bre of bre’i bcad ’phro lta bur bya’o suggests the Skt. droṇa, which means both “bucket” and “a weight of measure.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.310.a) gives “ ‘shaped like a bucket,’ flat like the bottom of a weighing pan, or bucket” (bre’i bcad ’phro lta bu zhes bya ba ni bre zhes bya ba gzhal snod kyi rnam pa de’i zhabs ltar mnyam pa’o).
This instruction is depicted in the first illustration and legend from the left on F.4.a (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations. 
The legend reads, “A method for waking if [the meditator] lapses into sleep: ‘A ball should be tossed [at the meditator].’ ” Śīlapālita writes, “ ‘Ball,’ a bunch of yarn or string made into a rounded shape that moves back and forth, thus waking up [the meditator].” (Toh 4115, F.62.a): pho long ni skud pa’i tshogs zlum por byas pa des gnyid bsal ba’i phan tshun ’phen par byed pa’o.
This instruction is depicted in the second illustration and legend from the left on F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations. The legend reads, “An illustration of a lamp, another method of waking [the meditator] if they fall asleep: ‘A lamp should be placed in front [of the meditator].’ ”
This instruction is depicted in the second illustration and legend from the left on F.4.a (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations. The legend reads, “If even that does not work, an illustration of extending a single leg: ‘The leg should be released.’ ”
This instruction is depicted in the third illustration and legend from the left on F.4.a (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations. The legend reads, “An illustration of extending two legs if even that does not work: ‘The pair of legs [should be released].’ ”
A rope strung along a walkway, which meditators hold as they walk (Kalyāṇamitra, F.310.b). This instruction is depicted in the first illustration and legend from the left on F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s illustrations. The second instruction describes a lead or leash affixed to the rope, as depicted here. The above two instructions do not appear in the Sanskrit.
The mat is depicted on the “recitation walkway” depicted in the first illustration and legend from the left on F.3.b (BDRC W1EE45); see previous note and illustration.
“Meditators” here is a rendering of the Sanskrit and Tibetan terms (see glossary entry) that are used in this context for monks dedicated to the practice of “renunciation” or “abandonment” (Tib. spong ba, Skt. prahāṇa), described in the present chapter as a meditation on the impurity of the human body. Bass (2013, pp. 241–64) argues that this term carries a derogatory connotation in the Mūlasarvāstivāvada Vinaya—specifically, that monks dedicated to the prahāṇa practice often displayed a disregard for personal hygiene, though it should be said that meditators are not depicted in such a derogatory manner in the present chapter. For more on this term, see Schopen 2006 and Altenburg 2022.
In the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Vinaya illustrations, a “meditation monastery” (Tib. bsam gtan pa’i gtsug lag khang) is depicted in the first image on the right of F.3.a (BDRC W1EE45). The last inscription paraphrases The Chapter on The Restoration Rite here, where it says that when the monks no longer fit, a “large hall” (Tib. khang mo che) may be built on top of the meditation hall. The third story is a “rooftop pavilion” (Tib. yang thog). This illustration also depicts, the “ring of dwellings around the meditation hall” (Tib. phyi rol du spong khang chen po; Skt. bahirlayanapaṅkti), mentioned below in the text.
Tib. sgo snol mar gdod par bya’o. Dharmamitra glosses Guṇaprabha’s digest of this, making clear that doorways should be offset to allow for privacy, a policy adopted with other monastic buildings as well, such as privies: sgo’i thad kar sgo gdod par mi bya’o zhes bya ba ni/ gnas khang thams cad la sgo gcig gi byang thad du sgo gzhan gdod par mi bya ba’o/ /’di ni de dag nyen kor du ’gyur ba’i sgo dag ’dod cing phan tshun snang nas/ bcom ldan ’das bka’ stsal pa/ sgo dag gzur te gdod par bya’o zhes gsungs pa bsdus pa yin no (vol. yu, F.97.b). This is clearly depicted on F.3.a (BDRC W1EE45) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Vinaya illustrations:
That is, build a gatehouse for the meditation residence; see Dharmamitra: sgo khang bya’o zhes bya ni/ spong khang la sgo khang bya’o (vol. yu, F.97.b).
Following Dharmamitra: phug kyang ngo zhes bya ba ni/ de’i nyen kor gyi ched du sa phug la sogs pa yang bya ba’o (vol. yu, F.97.b).
Here “regret” (Tib. ’gyod pa; Skt. kaukṛtya) refers to repentance, which acts to purify an offense that has been committed. Thus, in saying, “This need not be regretted,” the Buddha is saying that hanging a blanket or cloth near the door and sleeping there does not constitute an offense. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.269.b): ’gyod pa zhes bya ba ni yid la gcags pa ste/ nyes byas la sogs pa’i ltung ba lhag par sbyang pa’i phyir yid la gcags pa skyes pa gang yin pa’o.
The Sanskrit says “and did not return.”
The saṅgha appoints the monk meditation manager through a twofold act of motion and resolution (Kalyāṇamitra, F.311.a.7): spang ba’i zhal ta byed pa bsgo bar bya ste zhes bya ba ni dge slong spong ba rnams kyi phyir zhal ta byed pa ni spong ba’i zhal ta byed pa zhes bya ba ste/ dge ’dun gyi gsol ba dang gnyis kyi las kyis bsko bar bya’o.
In the Sanskrit, the fifth disqualifying factor is “not knowing whether the meditator is awake or not.” Kalyāṇamitra’s commentary can be read in two ways when he says that not knowing “which of the meditators’ needs ought and ought not be attended to” means being forgetful, since forgetfulness is contrary to mindfulness (Kalyāṇamitra, F.311.b.1).
In the Sanskrit, the fifth factor is to “know whether the meditator is awake or not.”
Lit. “tolerate, bear, or accept” (Tib. bzod; Skt. kṣamate), which Kalyāṇamitra (F.236.b) glosses as “accept, assent, agree” (Tib. ’dod).
“Lay out the seats” does not appear in the Sanskrit.
“Clods of dirt” does not appear in the Sanskrit.
These last four items would be used in place of modern conveniences like toilet paper and for hygienic purposes, as earth and sawdust are sometimes used in outhouses.
See The Gaṇḍī Sūtra (Toh 298), where the Buddha describes the gaṇḍī beam’s use and characteristics.
For formal acts, the Sanskrit says to strike in one sustained roll punctuated with two, not three, sharp raps. Kalyāṇamitra affirms the reading of the Tibetan translation but then notes that some maintain the gaṇḍī beam should be struck in three sustained rolls punctuated by two sharp raps for formal acts (Kalyāṇamitra, F.311.b.4–5).
Tib. byi bo. Kalyāṇamitra explains that a gaṇḍī beam for the dead is struck to summon people to gather and carry the bier. For such an occasion, the gaṇḍī beam is struck in the muṇḍikā, i.e., two sustained rolls with no rap to punctuate the end of either roll, though some sources say it is struck in one sustained roll followed by one punctuating rap (Kalyāṇamitra, F.311.b.5–6). For more details on how the gaṇḍī beam is made, consecrated, and used, see The Gaṇḍī Sūtra (Toh 298) and The Sūtra on Timings for the Gaṇḍī (Toh 299).
See The Sūtra on the Ringing Staff (Toh 335), where the Buddha allows the carrying of the ringing staff and describes its characteristics, and The Rite for the Protocols Associated with Carrying the Ringing Staff (Toh 336), where the Buddha prescribes the rite of taking up a ringing staff and explains its use. Kalyāṇamitra reports that some sources say the “gaṇḍī beam for meditation” is simply a smaller version of the standard gaṇḍī beam (Kalyāṇamitra, F.311.b.6).
The practice of paying homage to the Three Jewels, reciting a sūtra, and dedicating merit. According to Kalyāṇamitra, the Three Implements (tridaṇḍaka) are the implement of the Three Jewels, the implement of discourse, and the implement of dedicating merit. These three are referred to as implements because reciting the sublime Dharma is as fundamental or essential to Buddhists as the three implements (a ladle and two funnels) used in fire pūjas are to wandering renunciant (F.312.a.3–4): rgyun chags gsum pa gdon par bya’o zhes bya ba ni ’gyes kar dkon mchog gsum gyi rgyud dang/ mdo sde’i rgyud dang/ bsngo ba’i rgyud chags gsum gdon par bya’o/ /de yang dper na kun du rgyu dag gi ril pa’i gzhi shing bu gsum la brten pa dang ’dra bar dam pa’i chos gdon pa’i gzhi ni rgyun chags gsum po ’di yin pas de’i phyir rgyun chags gsum zhes bya ba’o. See Schopen 2010, pp. 232–33, n. 62, for a discussion of this practice and other applications of the phrase tridaṇḍaka.
Kalyāṇamitra says that “explain patronage” ( yon bshad pa) means to explain the benefits of generosity after reciting the Three Implements (F.312.a.5): yon bshad par bya’o zhes bya ba ni rgyun chags gsum pa bton pa’i ’og tu sbyin pa’i phan yon bshad par bya’o.
Namely, if the monk meditation manager encounters any of four obstacles or threats to his training, such as “hindering qualities to his spiritual training, life, or the holy life, and so forth.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.312.a.5–6): gal te rkyen de lta bu byung na zhes bya ba ni dge sbyong gi tshul dang srog dang tshangs par spyod pa’i bar chad du ’gyur ba la sogs pa zhig byung na’o.
Kalyāṇamitra notes that here ends the section on the seated practice, which he calls the “restoration through meditation.” This is followed by an aside on the second upavasatha observance prescribed by the Buddha, the “protocol,” in which the formal acts of saṅgha are introduced and the Buddha explains how to agree on a restoration rite site. The chapter then continues to the third observance, listening to the recitation of The Prātimokṣa Sūtra, which Kalyāṇamitra calls the “quorum restoration.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.312.a.6–7): de ni ’dug pa’o zhes bya ba ni zhi gnas kyi gso sbyong ngo/ da ni gso sbyong gi gzhi las mthun pa’i gso sbyong gi skabs brjod par bya ste/ de la dang por mthun pa’i gso sbyong gi gnas la blo mthun par bya ba’i zhar la las bstan pa’i phyir bya ba gang zhe na zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so.
A motion refers to an act of simple motion in which the proposed act need only be announced. An act by motion and resolution, or twofold act and motion, requires a single statement of the act and a motion. An act by motion and triple resolution, or fourfold act and motion, requires three announcements of the act and one motion (Kalyāṇamitra, F.312.a.6–b.1). For a more detailed explanation of these formal acts of the saṅgha, see The Chapter on Formal Acts of the Saṅgha (Toh 1, ch. 10).
The Sanskrit states simply that the site should be fixed in every regard. Kalyāṇamitra explains a natural site (grub pa) as one whose features formed naturally during the world’s formation, a created site (byas pa) as akin to an abode created by a resident animal, while claimed (zin pa) means one that is suitable for use (Kalyāṇamitra, F.313.a.1–2).
When the act is being announced, the monk need only say which one of the three relevant criteria (natural, created, or claimed) the site meets (Kalyāṇamitra, F.313.a.4–5).
During the rains retreat, restrictions are placed on discussing transgressions. However, those restrictions are lifted at the end of the rains retreat and those monks who committed to participate in it are given the opportunity to discuss transgressions they have seen, heard, or suspect were committed (Kalyāṇamitra, F.313.a.5).
There is a lack of a quorum if the consent of absent monks is not sought (Kalyāṇamitra, F.313.b.5–6).
The Sanskrit for this summary translates as: “The boundary is created on account of Kapphiṇa; there [the rule for] robes is agreed upon./ At a site in which no boundary has been demarcated, there occurs expansion and shrinkage,/ Acts, and the five [ways to recite] the Prātimokṣa.”
The Sanskrit phrase rājagṛhe nidānam, missing in Tibetan, indicates that this portion of the text relates the narrative introduction (Tib. gleng gzhi, Skt. nidāna) of the boundary (Tib. mtshams, Skt. sīmā), which the Buddha first prescribed while resident at the Senikā Cave vihara near Rājagṛha.
That is, pledge to gather as one saṅgha and perform the restoration rite at the same place (Kalyāṇamitra, F.313.a).
“I now allow”: Tib. de ta bas na….rjes su gnang ngo; Skt. tasmād anujānāmi.
“A boarding monk (Tib. dge slong gnas pa, Skt. āvāsikabhikṣu) is a short-term occupant unfamiliar with the inner and outer workings of the community. A resident (Tib. gnyug mar gnas pa, Skt. naivāsika) is a long-term occupant familiar with the inner and outer workings of the community.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.313.b.4–5): gnas pa zhes bya ba ni dus thung ngur gnas pa phyi nang gi rgyus mi shes pa’o/ /gnyug mar gnas pa zhes bya ba ni dus yun ring du gnas pa phyi nang gi rgyus shes pa’o. For an in-depth discussion of how these terms are used differently in the different vinaya traditions, see chapter 8 of Silk 2008.
The Sanskrit mentions only the following markers: “wall, tree, rock, fence, or mountainside.”
In practice, the wording would have to be adapted to the specific markers used.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.314.a) defines the “forests” (Tib. dgon pa; Skt. araṇyam) as “beyond a distance of two and a half furlongs.”
In this translation, we distinguish between “residence” (Tib. gnas mal; Skt. śayanāsana) and “dwelling” (Tib. gnas khang; Skt. layana). Note too that the term translated here as “residence” (Tib. gnas mal; Skt. śayanāsana) includes the residence’s furnishings, i.e. its “bedding and seating” (also Tib. gnas mal; Skt. śayanāsana). A mention in The Chapter on Going Forth (Toh 1, ch. 1) in the Degé reads gnas mal la thug or “adjoining the residence” (Skt. śayanāsana). Kalyāṇamitra (F.314.a) cites gnas la thug, glossing gnas with “monastery” (gnas la thug pa zhes bya ba na gtsug lag khang la thug pa’o).
The clause “so that the saṅgha may gather at the site and be at ease” (Tib. gnas bsdu ba dang/ dge slong rnams bde ba la reg par gnas par bgyi ba’i slad) does not appear in the Sanskrit.
“Daily practice”: Tib. nyin mo spyod pa; Skt. divāvihāra. This Tibetan term also renders the Skt. dinācaryā, which carries the same meaning in Buddhist usage. Kalyāṇamitra explains that this “daily practice” refers to engaging in virtuous endeavors (F.222.b): nyin mo spyod pa zhes bya ba ni nyin par dge ba’i phyogs byed pa’o. Dharmamitra mentions the “place for daily practice” as the place where monks should gather to listen to Dharma teachings in the night leading up to the restoration rite; Dharmamitra (vol. yu, F.145.a): tshes bcu bzhi’i nyin mo spyod yul du de skad sbran nas tshes bcu bzhi’i nub mo thams cad tshogs pa na dge slong mdo sde dang ’dul ba dang ma mo ’dzin pa gsol ba btab pa dag gis mtshan thog thag tu kha ton gdon pas chos mnyan pa sbyin par bya’o. Note that Edgerton defines the Skt. divāvihāra as “daily rest” (p. 264, col. 2), as in a siesta. In the Mūlasarvāstivādin sources, however, wards and apprentices are allowed time in the morning and afternoon to cultivate their own practice of recitation and meditation. Wards and apprentices are also depicted spending this time in walking meditation and paying homage to reliquaries.
Once a boundary is established and accepted by a saṅgha, the monastics do not need to have their mantle (Tib. snam sbyar; Skt. saṃghāṭī) on their person while within the site boundary. Hence, even if a monk or nun were to leave their mantle in their cell, they would not incur an offense of being separated from their robes so long as they are within the boundary.
Thus, monastics do not need to be in possession of the mantle (Tib. snam sbyar; Skt. saṃghāṭī) while within the monastery boundaries (Kalyāṇamitra, F.314.a.4–5).
Kalyāṇamitra says the “group of four” refers to the confession of the “light” grievous faults that are incomplete defeats, while the “group of five” refers to the confession of the “heavy” grievous faults that are incomplete saṅgha remnants. Monks who have committed such acts must serve a penance and/or probation and then be given a recission before they can participate in formal acts of the saṅgha. And since proper formal acts of saṅgha require a quorum of all monks on site, no formal acts can be carried out while the offending monks are on site. Kalyāṇamitra notes another opinion: some say the “group of four acts” refers to the restoration rite act, which requires four monks, the “group of five” refers to the act of lifting of restrictions, which requires five monks, and the “group of ten” refers to the act of granting ordination in a central land, which requires ten monks. Kalyāṇamitra (F.314.a.5–6): bzhi yi tshogs kyis las bya ba/ /zhes bya ba ni pham par ’gyur ba’i nyes pa sbom po yang bshags pa’o/ /lnga yi tshogs kyis las bya ba/ /zhes bya ba ni dge ’dun lhag mar ’gyur ba’i nyes pa sbom po lci ba bshags pa’o/ /kha cig na re bzhi’i tshogs kyis las bya ba ni gso sbyong gi las so/ /lnga’i tshogs kyis las bya ba ni dgag dbye’i las so zhes zer ro/ /bcu yi tshogs kyis las bya ba/ /zhes bya ba ni yul dbus su rdzogs par bsnyen pa’i las so.
Commenting on a passage in The Chapter on Going Forth, Kalyāṇamitra glossed the phrase “even their dedication to virtue had lapsed,” (Skt. kuśalapakṣaparihāṇir bhavati) to mean the monks had lost their dedication to meditation (Tib. bsam gtan; Skt. dhyāna) and recitation (Tib. bklag pa; Skt. svādhyāya). See Kalyāṇamitra (F.285.b): dge ba’i phyogs kyang yongs su nyams par ’gyur bas zhes bya ba ni bsam gtan dang bklag pa dag yongs su nyams par ’gyur bas so.
The order of the present chapter in the Degé and the Gilgit Manuscripts is slightly different. GM folios 49 and 50 are placed in the Tibetan between GM folio 58 (ending in Tibetan on F.146.b.7) and GM folio 59 (starting in Tibetan on F.147.a.4).
That is, they will not incur an offense for being separated from their mantle (Tib. snam sbyar; Skt. saṃghāṭī).
The Sanskrit gives the following markers: “wall, tree, rock, fence, mountainside, a furrow, a rock, or a wooden wedge.”
This section of six paragraphs, from F.146.b.7–F.147.a.6, corresponds to GM folios 49 and 50. Note that the phrase “not demarcated” (ma bcad pa) in the index reads “not fixed” (ma bkum pa) in the body of the text here.
This sentence does not appear in the Sanskrit; instead, it says simply that the boundaries extend to the surrounding walls.
This question and answer do not appear in the Sanskrit.
Compare “properly” (Tib. chos kyis; Skt. dharmeṇa) and “proper” (Tib. chos dang ldan pa; Skt, dhārmika). Here, “improperly” (Tib. chos ma yin pas; Skt. adharmeṇa) refers to reciting something other than The Prātimokṣa Sūtra (e.g. some minor scripture), failing to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra’s narrative introduction, failing to “announce the heading,” reciting The Prātimokṣa Sūtra at a time other than during the restoration rite, or for persons who are not authorized (i.e., those who haven’t been ordained) to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra. “Without a quorum” means for monks within the act’s boundary to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra without physically attending the restoration rite or submitting their proxy, or for them to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra without first making a motion. Kalyāṇamitra (F.315.b): btsun pa gso sbyong gi las su mchis zhes bya ba ni chos dang chos ma yin pa dang mthun pa dang mi mthun pa’i mtshan nyid ston to/ /chos ma yin pas zhes bya ba ni gdon par bya ba dang/ de’i tshad dang dus dang/ ’don par byed pa rnams de kho na bzhin nye bar gzung ba ste/ de la gdon par bya ba de kho na bzhin nye bar ma bzung ba ni so sor thar pa’i mdo las gzhan phran tshegs la sogs pa ’don pa’o/ /de’i tshad de kho na bzhin nye bar ma bzung ba ni gleng gzhi mi ’don zhing lhag ma rnams kyang thos pa bsgrags pas sgrub par mi byed pa’o/ /de’i dus de kho na bzhin nye bar ma bzung ba ni gso sbyong gi dus las gzhan pa’i dus su byad pa’o/ /’don par byed pa de kho na bzhin nye bar ma bzung ba ni gang zag gang dag gi dbang du gso sbyong byed pa rdzogs par bsnyen pa dang bcas pa lta ba dang tshul khrims dag gis ris mthun pa de dag las gzhan pas byed pa’o/ /yang na gang gdon par bya ba dang/ ji snyed gdon par bya ba dang/ gang gi tshe gdon par bya ba dang/ gang dag gis gdon par bya ba de dag yongs su spangs te/ gdon par bya ba dang tshad dang dus dang gdon par byed pa gzhan nyid nye bar ’dzin par byed pa de ni ’dir mi ’chags par byed pa yin pas chos ma yin par shes par bya’o/ /de las bzlog pa ni chos kyis byed pa yin no.
The expression “communicated through the headings” (Tib. thos pa bsgrags pa; Skt. śruteṇa śrāvayanti)—more literally “announced/expressed by the hearing”—refers to simply reciting the names of the five categories of offense or āpatti (Tib. ltung ba sde lnga) without reciting the specific offenses that comprise those categories. Dharmamitra (vol. yu, F.109.b) explains that once the reciter has begun to recite the specific offenses that comprise that type of offense, that section must be recited in full in order to qualify as a proper and complete recitation of The Prātimokṣa Sūtra (brtsams pa’i sde tshan ni rdzogs par bya dgos so zhes bya ba ni/་pham par ’gyur ba dang dge ’dun lhag ma dang ma nges pa’i sde tshan ni yang na ni thos pa bsgrags pas bsgrub po).
For more, see chapter 1 of Prebish 2002.
Hu-von Hinüber notes the last phrase cittotpādena (Tib. sems bskyed pa) does not appear in the Sanskrit and suggests emending it to adhiṣṭhāna, or “resolution.” Hu-von Hinüber’s suggestion captures the purpose of this section, where monks who cannot perform the restoration rite because they lack the necessary quorum of four monks state that they are “making a resolution” (Tib. byin gyis brlab pa; Skt. adhiṣṭhāna) that they will perform the restoration rite when circumstances allow. Note, however, that sems bskyed pa, the Tibetan correlate to cittotpāda, does appear in the relevant place on 3.40, the corresponding Sanskrit folios for which (61, 62, and 63) have been lost.
“Caretaker” (Tib. bstabs pa; Skt. parihāra): (1) “site caretaker” (Tib. gnas bstabs pa; Skt. vastuparihāra); (2) “residence caretaker” (Tib. gnas mal bstabs pa; Skt. śayanāsanaparihāra); (3) “work caretaker” (Tib. las bstabs pa; Skt. karmaparihāra); (4) “supplies caretaker” (Tib. rnyed pa bstabs pa; Skt. lābhaparihāra); and (5) “attendant caretaker” (Tib. bsnyen bkur ba bstabs pa; Skt. upasthāyakaparihāra). Silk does not record the Sanskrit parihāra or this list of five positions in his excellent study of Buddhist monastic administration. He does, however, note the form Tib. gnas mal stobs pa’i dge slong; Skt. śayanāsanagrāhako bhikṣuḥ; and Ch. fenyoju bichu 分臥具苾芻 from Yijing (Taishō 1445), which is attested in the Tib. and Skt. parallels of The Chapter on the Rains (Toh 1, ch. 4) (Silk 2008, p. 201 and p. 201, n. 15). Schopen translates Tib. gnas mal stobs pa’i dge slong; Skt. śayanāsanagrāhako bhikṣuḥ from Toh 1, ch. 4 as the “monk holder of bedding and seating” (Schopen 2002, p. 364). Silk notices the Skt. and Tib. Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya’s mention of the position again in the Kauśāmbakavastu (The Chapter on the Monks of Kauśāmbī, Toh 1, ch. 9), and the Śayanāsanavastu (The Chapter on Residences, Toh 1, ch. 15), where the Skt. śayanāsanagrāhako bhikṣuḥ is translated into Tibetan as gnas mal ’gyed pa’ dge slong, lit. “monk residence distributor.” Silk observes that the Pāli Samantapāsādikā distinguishes between the senāsana-gāhāpaka who distributes “bedding and seating” for the rains retreat and the senāsana-paññapaka, a temporary post filled by resident monks (Silk 2008, p. 108, n. 24). In his comments on Toh 1, ch. 4, Kalyāṇamitra explains that the “monk residence caretaker” must not lose the “bedding and seating” (Tib. mal cha and stan; Skt. śayana and āsana), hence this position may also be translated “monk bedding and seating caretaker” as Schopen and Silk do. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a): gnas mal bstabs pa zhes bya ba ni mal cha dang stan la sogs pa las mi dbral ba’o. Note though that this monk is also in charge of distributing keys to individual “dwellings” (Tib. gnas khang; Skt. layana, but see also vihāra; Ch. 房) and, furthermore, the Tib. gnas mal; Skt. śayana is used to mean “residence” elsewhere in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, e.g. “remote residence” (Tib. bas mtha’ gnas mal; Skt. prāntaśayana).
That is, for three months, starting on the 16th day of Āṣāḍha, the middle of summer’s three months. Kalyāṇamitra F.316.a: dbyar snga ma zhes bya ba ni dbyar zla ’bring po’i tshes bcu drug go.
That is, for three months, starting on the 15th day of Śrāvaṇa, the last of summer’s three months. Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a): dbyar phyi ma zhes bya ba ni dbyar zla tha chungs tshes bcu drug go.
That is, consider where they will go for the lifting of restrictions that marks the end of the rains if they cannot find someone to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra. Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a.4–5): so sor brtags te zhes bya ba ni bcom ldan ’das kyis dbyar nye bar bsgrub pa ni gnyis bka’ stsal gyi/ gsum pa ni med pas dgag dbye snga ma shos nyid btsal bar bya’o snyam du so sor brtags te’o.
In this case, mātṛkā (Tib. ma mo) refers to the Basket of Abhidharma. The term mātṛkā or “matrix” as a designation for the Basket of Abhidharma may reflect the way germinal lists called mātṛkā played an important role in “birthing” further texts. See Clarke 2004 and Hirakawa 1990, chapter 10.
Tib. khyams; Skt. pariṣanḍā. Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a): khyams zhes bya ba ni gtsug lag khang gi sgo’i bar gyi bang rim mo.
“ ’Should be bathed’; should massage and rub and wash with water as appropriate to the season” (Kalyāṇamitra, F.316.a.6).
The Tibetan translation appears to elide two sentences where it reads de dag la gnas bstabs pa dang/ gnas mal bstabs pa dang/ las bstabs pa dang/ rnyed pa bstabs pa dang/ bsnyen bkur ba bstabs pa dang/ chos mnyan pa sbyin par bya’o. The Sanskrit does not mention listening to teachings but rather says only that the visiting monk should be given the services of these monastery officials (Poṣadhavastu 63.2, teṣāṃ vastuparihāraḥ śayanāsanaparihāraḥ karmaparihāraḥ lābhaparihāra upasthāyakaparihāro dātavyaḥ). Both Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a) and Dharmamitra (vol. yu, F.114.b) give two sentences, first stating that monastery officials should tend to the visiting monk’s needs and then stating the monks should listen to the Dharma (chos mnyan par bya’o). Everyone on site should willingly embrace the opportunity to receive teachings, set up a lion’s throne, and not talk so as not to create a clamor. Kalyāṇamitra (F.316.a): chos mnyan par bya’o zhes bya ba ni der thams cad kyi spro ba bskyed par bya zhing seng ge’i khri bshams pa la sogs pa thams cad kyis brjod par mi bya ste ca cor ’gyur ba’i phyir ro.
Here, Kalyāṇamitra explains “hindering qualities” to mean “defeats, and so on,” so offenses that have already been confessed and expiated through the appropriate means are not considered “hindering.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.317.a): bar chad kyi chos rnams zhes bya ba ni pham par ’gyur ba la sogs pa’o.
Here, “consent” renders Tib. ’dun pa; Skt. chanda, whereas above “consent” has rendered Tib. gnang ba; Skt. adhivāsana and Tib. rjes su gnang; Skt. anujānāmi.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.317.b): nam mkha’ la ’dug par mi bya’o zhes bya ba ni nam mkha’ la ’dug pa’am ’gro bar mi bya’o.
The exact meaning of the phrase chu lkog ma nub tsam is unclear and does not appear in the Sanskrit. Kalyāṇamitra notes that this is allowed if there is no other path: chu lkog ma nub tsam la ’bog par mi bya’o zhes bya ba ni ’gro ba’i lam gzhan yod na ste med na ni nyes pa med do (Kalyāṇamitra, F.317.a.7).
Absentmindedness is a sort of frivolous forgetfulness between doubt, uncertainty, disinterest, or disrespect for the teaching. Kalyāṇamitra (F.317.b): ma klas pa nyid ces bya ba ni bstan pa de la the tshom za ba nyid dang/ ma nges pa nyid dang/ ma mos pa nyid dang/ ma gus pa nyid kyi bar ma do na g.yel bag tu ldom pa’o.
The following alternative does not appear in the Sanskrit.
The words “the monk who has received a profession of purity” have been added to the translation here, and in paragraphs 3.31 and 3.35 below, to make the questions clear.
The following two questions and replies do not appear in the Sanskrit.
In receiving a sick monastic’s profession of purity, the monk who has received it should assure the sick monastic he will deliver the message to the saṅgha. The monk messenger’s mere appearance before the saṅgha is therefore taken to be sufficient to assuage doubts about the sick monastic’s purity regardless of whether or not the monk is able to receive the profession of purity in full (Kalyāṇamitra, F.317.b.6–7). In short, the monastic who is sick is considered to have professed purity even if the messenger never gets to communicate or verbalize that profession.
That is, announce that the Dharma will be taught or recited. The extant Sanskrit stops here and picks up again with the Tibetan on F.176.b.
Kalyāṇamitra glosses “sanction” (Tib. byin gyis brlabs) to mean “in order to do at another time and ‘I shall do another.’ ” See Kalyāṇamitra (F.318.a.2): byin gyis brlab po zhes bya ba ni dus gzhan du bya ba’i phyir dang/ gzhan par bya ba’o. This is a formal acknowledgement that the rite could not be performed as prescribed by a saṅgha of at least four members and a declaration of one’s intention to perform it properly when circumstances allow.
Protocol demands that all monks within the boundary must be in a quorum with the saṅgha’s acts by either attending in person or giving their consent. If an apprehended monk is within the boundary, for instance at a monastic site within a town, an inner circle is formed so that the saṅgha can convene without securing a quorum from the apprehended monk who, given his detainment, is unable to give it (Kalyāṇamitra, F.318.a.6).
A monastic absent from any official act of the saṅgha (except the demarcating of a boundary, which is done to establish a monastic site) must first send word they consent to any official acts taken in their absence. Such consent is sent by proxy. A profession of purity is required from all monastics within a boundary before The Prātimokṣa Sūtra can be recited during the restoration rite. So, if a monastic cannot attend the rites of restoration or lifting restrictions, they must convey a profession of their purity as well as consent to the act. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.318.a–b): de’i ’dun pa blang bar bya’o zhes bya ba la/ gal te ’dun pa dang yongs su dag pa gnyis la bye brag ci yod ce na/ ’dun pa dbul ba la ni las mthun pa bsgrub pa’i phyir ro/ /yongs su dag pa dbul ba ni bdag nyid kyis gso sbyong nyams su myong bar bya ba’i phyir ro/ /de’i phyir dge slong des bdag nyid yongs su dag par bya ba’i phyir yongs su dag par dbul bar bya zhing dge ’dun gyis las mthun par bya ba’i phyir de’i ’dun pa yang blang bar bya’o zhes gsungs pa yin no/ de lta bas na gso sbyong dang dgag dbye gnyis la ni dge slong gis ’dun pa dang yongs su dag pa gnyis ka blang bar bya ba la mtshams bcad pa ma gtogs pa’i las gzhan la ni ’dun pa ’ba’ zhig blang bar bya ste/ nye ba ’khor mtshams bcad pa ma gtogs pa’i las gzhan thams cad ni ’dun pa dang bcas pa yin no zhes gsungs pa’i phyir ro.
Tib. chos bzhin du; Skt. yathā dharmam.
The words “the monk receiving consent and a profession of purity” have been added to the translation here, and in paragraphs 4.21 and 4.25 below, to make the questions clear.
The scripts for such formal procedures usually include a generic “monk so-and-so” (Tib. che ge mo). Here, the script names Saikata, the subject who prompted the original ruling, but presumably, in practice, the wording would have been adapted to fit the circumstances.
Tib. lan pa.
Tib. ’chags pa.
That is, when monks are recollecting offenses on the day of the restoration rite. Kalyāṇamitra (F.318.b): “Here, ‘hindrance’ means ‘should not be done’ ” (bar bcad ba zhes bya ba ni ’dir mi bya ba’o), i.e. the restoration rite. Hence, the restoration rite may be done after offenses are confessed.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.318.b) says the former is doubt held by others while the latter is doubt held by oneself: dogs pa zhes bya ba ni gzhan gyis byas pa’i the tshom mo/ /yid gnyis zhes bya ba ni rang gis byas pa’i the tshom mo. Kalyāṇamitra explains that every fortnight before performing the restoration rite, if they have not already done so, monastics should scrutinize themselves for things that should be curbed (Tib. bsdam par bya ba; Skt. saṃvarakaraṇīya), that is, subtle mental faults; things that should be confessed (Tib. bshags par bya ba; Skt. deśanīya), that is, simple atonements, confessables, and misdeeds; and things that should be sanctioned (Tib. byin gyis brlab pa; Skt. adhiṣṭheya), that is, saṅgha remnants and transgressions requiring forfeiture. Kalyāṇamitra (F.244.a): ’di dang snga ma’i byin gyis brlab pa’i skabs dag tu ha cang yun ring na mi mdzes pas sngags lan re bzlas pas chog ste lan gsum ni mi nyes pa de yang gang zhe na/ de’i phyir bsdam par bya ba dang/ bshags par bya ba dang/ byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag ces bya ba gsungs te/ bsdam par bya ba zhes bya ba ni yid kyi nyes byas phra mo’o/ bshags par bya ba zhes bya ba ni ltung byed dang/ so sor bshags par bya ba dang/ bshags pa’i nyes byas so/ /byin gyis brlab par bya ba dag ces bya ba ni dge ’dun lhag ma dang/ spang ba’i ltung byed dag go/ /de dag la so sor brtag par bya zhing zhes bya ba ni/ bdag la nyes pa de dag gang byung ba la so sor brtag par bya zhing ngo.
Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a) says that the protocol for sanctioning (Tib. byin gyis brlab pa; Skt. adhi√sthā) a saṅgha remnant or a transgression requiring forfeiture would take an inappropriately long time, so it is permissible to recite the relevant formulas once rather than three times: ’di dang snga ma’i byin gyis brlab pa’i skabs dag tu ha cang yun ring na mi mdzes pas sngags lan re bzlas pas chog ste lan gsum ni mi dgos so.
The Tibetan translation here reads chos bzhin du slar byi’o, which is presumably the same as phyir bcos, to “make amends” for an offense.
Kalyāṇamitra explains “in accord with the Vinaya” to mean “to make amends as (stipulated) in the Vinaya.” Kalyāṇamitra (F.326.a): ’dul ba bzhin zhes bya ba ni ’dul ba bzhin phyir bcos pa las mi ’da’ bar ro.
The text does not state so explicitly but, according to the proper protocol for an act of motion alone, or any official act of the saṅgha, the “monk officiant” (Tib. dge slong las byed pa; Skt. karmakārako bhikṣuḥ) would say this on behalf of the entire assembly.
These four terms signify different degrees of acquaintance or intimacy but in all cases imply a friendly and warm relationship. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.266.b): gtam ’dres pa zhes bya ba ni tshur shog ’ongs pa legs so zhes bya ba la sogs pa’i gtam ’dres dga’ bar gyur pa’o/ /phebs par smra ba zhes bya ba ni yid gcugs pa smra bas bshes par gyur pa’o/ /smos ’drin zhes bya ba ni ngo shes shing ming dang rus la sogs pa ’dzin pas snying du sdug par gyur pa’o/ /’grogs bshes zhes bya ba ni lam gcig tu ’gro ba la sogs pa’i bya bas shes ba cung zad skyes pa’o.
Our translation of this last sentence is uncertain.
Where one can be seen, e.g. in front of the hall and so on. Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a.1): snang ba’i phyogs su zhes bya ba ni khyams la sogs par ro.
To “prompt” (Tib. gleng ba; Skt. codanā) means to state the fault for the monastic suspected of an offense. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a): gleng bar mi bya zhes bya ba ni nyes pa bsgrags pas so.
That is, suggesting a time and companions for confession. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a): dran par mi bya zhes bya ba ni bshags pa’i dus dang grogs brjod pas so.
This final section does not contain a “summary” (Tib. sdom; Skt. uddāna) like the previous four. Instead, each section concludes with an “intervening summary” (Tib. bar sdom; Skt. antaroddāna).
Kalyāṇamitra explains that “monks who have not yet arrived” refers to monks who live within the site boundary but have not yet arrived at the restoration rite site. See F.319.a: dge slong gang dag ma lhags pa zhes bya ba ni mtshams kyi nang na gnas pa gang dag las kyi gnas der ma lhags pa dag go.
In the following section, the Tibetan translation details eighty-one permutations, comprising nine sets of nine. Each set of nine represents three motivations—fabricated, doubtful, and divisive—multiplied by three scenarios: where a group of monks—resident, visiting, or some combination thereof—performs the restoration rite without waiting for monks who are yet to arrive. These eighty-one permutations establish one basic principle: monks should not proceed with the restoration rite until all monks have arrived. While the Sanskrit for most of this section is no longer extant, an “intervening summary” (Tib. bar sdom; Skt. antaroddāna) survives that reads: bhedo vimatir vyagraḥ kalpā | na labhanti labhanti ca (Poṣadhavastu 97), corresponding to the summary on F.220.a of the Tibetan text in the Degé Kangyur (dbyen dang yid gnyis mi mthun dang/ rtog dang ma rnyed rnyed pa’o, translated here at 5.538). This adds one further motivation—vyagra or “discord” (Tib. mi mthun pa)—to the Tibetan index of this section on F.176.b (translated here at 5.166), which gives rtog pa dang ni yid gnyis dbyen, or fabricated (kalpā), doubt (vimati), and divisiveness (bheda). We have translated Tib. rtog pa; Skt. kalpā as “fabricated” following Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a), who glosses rtog pa as “deceit” (Tib. sgyu thabs; Skt. vyāja): rtog pa zhes bya ba ni sgyu thabs so/ /des don du gnyer ba ni sgyu thabs kyis jug pa’i las des gso sbyong don du gnyer zhing byed ’dod pa’o. The scenario being described here is one in which a group of monks maintain (wrongly) that it is valid to proceed even if some monks have not yet arrived. Following Kalyāṇamitra, the reader must assume that the monks in question are intentionally using this as a pretense to exclude other monks from the restoration rite. A similar list of four motivations is found the Uposathakkhandaka, the Pāli parallel to the present text, which gives vaggāvaggasaññī, vematika, kukkuccapakata, and bhedapurekkhāra, or “the perception of an incomplete [assembly] as complete”; “doubtful”; “anxious by nature” or “having a bad character”; and “intent on or preparing for division.” Note also that the last items in both the Pāli and Sanskrit lists do not exactly correspond. The Pāli gives bhedapurekkhāra (Skt. bhedapuraskāra) where the Sanskrit gives bhedapariṣkāra (Tib. yo byad can). This difference may be inconsequential, however, since both purekkhāra and pariṣkāra can mean “preparation.”
Kalyāṇamitra (F.319.a): rtog pa’i yo byad can zhes bya ba ni sgyu thabs de nyid yo byad dang rgyur sbyar nas gso sbyong gi las la ’jug pa gang la yod pa dag go.
Here starts the second of nine sets of nine, in which resident monks perform the restoration rite before visiting monks arrive.
Here starts the third of nine sets of nine, in which resident monks perform the restoration rite before a mix of visiting and resident monks arrives.
Here starts the fourth of nine sets of nine, in which visiting monks perform the restoration rite before visiting monks arrive.
Here starts the fifth of nine sets of nine, in which visiting monks perform the restoration rite before resident monks arrive.
Here starts the sixth of nine sets of nine, in which visiting monks perform the restoration rite before a mix of visiting and resident monks arrives.
The Degé (F.168.b.4–5) mistakenly repeats “equal number of visiting monks” (Tib. dge slong glo bur du ’ong pa mnyam pa dag).
The Degé (F.169.a.1) mistakenly repeats “equal number of visiting monks” (Tib. dge slong glo bur du ’ong pa mnyam pa dag).
The Degé (F.169.a.4) mistakenly repeats “equal number of visiting monks” (Tib. dge slong glo bur du ’ong pa mnyam pa dag).
Here starts the seventh of nine sets of nine, in which a mix of visiting and resident monks perform the restoration rite before a smaller group of visiting monks arrives.
Here starts the eighth of nine sets of nine, in which a mix of visiting and resident monks perform the restoration rite before visiting monks arrive.
Here starts the ninth of nine sets of nine, in which a mix of visiting and resident monks perform the restoration rite before resident monks arrive.
The Sanskrit of this “intervening summary” (Tib. bar sdom; Skt. antaroddāna) reads: bhedo vimatir vyagraḥ kalpā | na labhanti labhanti ca.
“Thinking of their duty” (Tib. chos kyi ’dus shes can; Skt. dharmasaṃjñina) and “thinking there is a quorum” (Tib. mthun pa’i ’dus shes can; Skt. samagrasaṃjñina). That is, not wanting to neglect the restoration rite and not realizing they did not have a quorum. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.320.a): chos kyi ’du shes can zhes bya ba ni gso sbyong gi cho ga nyams par mi ’dod pa’i phyir ro/ /mthun pa’i ’du shes can zhes bya ba ni dge slong ’ga’ dang yang mi mthun par mi ’dod pa’i phyir te/ gang dag mtshams kyi nang na gnas pa de dag thams cad der tshogs par sems pa’o.
Here starts the first of nine sets of eight, in which a group of resident monks arrives before a group of resident monks. The Sanskrit (Gilgit Manuscripts 6.730) resumes here with sūtroddeśam uddiśanti. This also marks the start of another set of permutations, this one seventy-two in total, which describe how communities can avoid hurt feelings when a group of monastics arrives after the restoration rite has already begun. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.320.a–b): tshig ’di ni phyis lhags pa dag mi dga’ bar ’gyur ba spang ba’i phyir te/ ’di ltar dge slong gnyug mar gnas pa dag phyi rol du dong ban na de dag gis gso sbyong brtsams shing de’i ’og tu gnyug mar gnas pa de dag phyir lhags pa na/ de dag ’di snyam du bdag cag phyi rol du dong ba na ’di dag gis ma bsdad par gso sbyong bya bar brtsams so zhes mi dga’ bar ’gyur bas de spang ba’i phyir ro.
That is, they are still within earshot and have not left the restoration rite site. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.320.b): de’i phyir ma dong bar zhes bya ba gsungs te/ thos pa’i nye ’khor nas ma ’das shing gso sbyong gi gnas ma btang ba zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go.
The monks who gathered earlier for the restoration rite should make the motion and then all the monks together should perform the restoration rite (Kalyāṇamitra, F.320.b.4). This should be applied to all similar instances in the following sections of the text.
Translating tshogs rnyed na after Kalyāṇamitra (F.320.b): tshogs pa zhes bya ba ni dong ba rnams yang gso sbyong gi gnas su phyir bsdu ba’o/ /’di ni ’dod pas ’jug pa yin gyi nges pa ni ma yin no.
Following Kalyāṇamitra (F.320.b): de dag gis dkyil ’khor bar dong ste zhes bya ba ni phyis lhags pa dag gis te/ ’di ni mi mthun pa spang ba’i phyir ro.
Here starts the second of nine sets of eight, in which a group of resident monks arrives before a group of visiting monks.
Here starts the third of nine sets of eight, in which a group of resident monks begins the restoration rite before a group of visiting and resident monks.
Here starts the fourth of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting monks begins the restoration rite before another group of visiting monks.
Here starts the fifth of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting monks begins the restoration rite before a group of resident monks.
Here starts the sixth of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting monks begins the restoration rite before a group of visiting and resident monks.
Here starts the seventh of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting and resident monks begins the restoration rite before another group of visiting and resident monks .
Here starts the eighth of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting monks begins the restoration rite before a group of visiting and resident monks arrives.
Here starts the ninth of nine sets of eight, in which a group of visiting and resident monks begins the restoration rite before a group of visiting monks.
Here starts the first of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the second of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the third of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the fourth of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the fifth of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the sixth of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the seventh of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the eighth of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
Here starts the ninth of nine sets of four, in which a greater number of monks arrives after a smaller group.
The restoration rite is held on the new and full moons, which occur roughly every fifteen days or on the fifteenth of the month. The first of the lunar month occurs on the day of the new moon while the fourteenth occurs on the day before the full moon.
When there is disagreement over the date of the restoration rite, the minority must “follow” or “defer” to the majority, for the rule of the majority is a basic saṅgha principle. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.322.a): rjes su ’jug par bya’o zhes bya ba ni de dag gi tshig gis gso sbyong bya ba’am mi bya’o/ /’dir nyung dus mang po dag gi rjes su ’jug par bya ba ni nges pa yin te/ mang po dag mthu che ba’i phyir ro.
If the sides are evenly split, visiting monks defer to resident monks, for residents have greater authority than visitors. See Kalyāṇamitra (F.322.a): mnyam pa yin na ni gnyug mar gnas pa dag gi rjes su ’jug par bya ste/ gnyug mar gnas pa dag mthu che ba’i phyir ro.
For instance, a visitor’s belongings placed in an appropriate place. Kalyāṇamitra (F.322.b): glo bur du ’ongs pa’i rnam pa zhes bya ba ni yo byad dag gnas pa ma yin par gzhag pa’o. Tib. rnam pa; Skt. ākāra.
For instance, several visitors’ belongings in a pile. Kalyāṇamitra (F.322.b): glo bur du ’ongs pa’i rtags zhes bya ba ni yo byad dag phung po gcig tu byas pa’o. Tib. rtags; Skt. liṅga.
For instance, dirt and grass from a visitor’s sandals or clothes. Kalyāṇamitra (F.322.b): glo bur du ’ongs pa’i mtshan ma zhes bya ba ni mchil lham dang gos las byung ba’i rdul gyi rtswa dag bsogs pa’o. Tib. mtshan ma; Skt. nimitta.
Skt. yaṣṭi. Following Kalyāṇamitra, read ’khar ba for khar ba (Kalyāṇamitra, F.322.b.3).
Here starts the first of three groups of six in the first of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks see a smaller number of visiting monks.
Tib. chos ma yin pa’i ’du shes can mi mthun pa’i ’du shes can; Skt. adharmasaṃjñina vyagrasaṃjñina. “Heedless of duty” is a somewhat loose translation of chos ma yin pa’i ’du shes can/adharmasaṃjñin but is, we believe, supported by the context. The term mi mthun pa’i ’du shes can/vyagrasaṃjñina suggests an intention to undermine the unity of the saṅgha, thereby leaving it unable to perform any official acts.
Here starts the second of three groups of six in the first of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks see an equal number of visiting monks.
Here starts the third of three groups of six in the first of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks see a greater number of visiting monks.
Here starts the first of three groups of six in the second of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks hear a smaller number of visiting monks.
Here starts the second of three groups of six in the second of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks hear an equal number of visiting monks.
Here starts the third of three groups of six in the second of four sets of eighteen, in which resident monks hear a greater number of visiting monks.
For instance, the dust wet down with sprinkled water.
For instance, sitting mats laid out.
For instance, oil lamps burning.
Here starts the first of three groups of six in the third of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks see a smaller number of resident monks.
Here starts the second of three groups of six in the third of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks see an equal number of resident monks.
Here starts the third of three groups of six in the third of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks see a greater number of resident monks.
Here starts the first of three groups of six in the final of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks hear a smaller number of resident monks.
Here starts the second of three groups of six in the final of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks hear an equal number of resident monks.
Here starts the third of three groups of six in the final of four sets of eighteen, in which visiting monks hear a greater number of resident monks.
Six different types of residences are presented here: (1) A “site with monks” is a site where all of the formal acts of the saṅgha are performed. (2) A “site/nonsite with monks” is a site where only some of the formal acts are performed. (3) A “site with nuns” is a site where nuns reside and, presumably, host all of the formal acts of the saṅgha with the assistance of a monk saṅgha where ritually stipulated. (4–5) A “nonsite,” with or without monks, is where no formal acts of saṅgha are performed, either because the monks on site do not know how to recite The Prātimokṣa Sūtra or because non-Buddhists reside there. (6) A “site/nonsite without monks” refers to an uninhabited place (Kalyāṇamitra, F.323.a.5). See also 5.551.
Circumstances that threaten a monastic’s pure conduct (Tib. tshul khrims; Skt. śīla). See Kalyāṇamitra (F.323.b): gnod pa zhes bya ba ni dge slong gi tshul khrims kyi bar chad do.
The extant Sanskrit ends here.
“All acts” refers to the 101 official or formal acts of the saṅgha (Kalyāṇamitra, F.323.b.4).
Tib. dge sbyong du khas che ba rnams dang ma yin (not found in the Sanskrit).
A colophon to the Tibetan text appears only at the very end of The Chapters on Monastic Discipline (Toh 1, ch. 17, vol. nga F.302.a), but a translation is included here for the benefit of readers while the final chapter remains unpublished. It reads as follows:
May those beautiful flowers that have rained downFrom the Great Sage’s moon-like visageRemain among beings for a long time to come,Overcoming evil views without being snared.Translated by the Kāśmirī preceptor Sarvajñādeva, the Indian preceptor Vidyākāraprabha, the Kāśmirī preceptor Dharmākāra, and the translator and monk Palgyi Lhunpo. The Indian preceptor Vidyākāraprabha and the chief editor of translations, the monk Paltsek, retranslated and proofed the text before settling upon the final version.
The Buddha said that acceptance is the supreme hardship, acceptance is the supreme nirvāṇa.One who harms other renunciants and does violence to them is not an ascetic.ye dharmā hetuprabhavā hetuṃ teṣāṃ tathāgata uvāca, teṣāṃ ca yo nirodha evaṃvadī mahāśramaṇaḥ
Bibliography
Kangyur and Tengyur Sources
gso sbyong gi gzhi (Poṣadhavastu). Toh 1, ch. 2, Degé Kangyur vol. 1 (’dul ba, ka), folios 131.a–221.b.
gso sbyong gi gzhi. bka’ ’gyur (dpe sdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 1, pp. 308–517 and pp. 767–86.
dgag dbye’i gzhi (Pravāraṇāvastu). Toh 1, ch. 3, Degé Kangyur vol. 1 (’dul ba, ka), folios 221.b–237.b.
dbyar gyi gzhi (Varṣāvastu). Toh 1, ch. 4, Degé Kangyur, vol. 1 (’dul ba, ka), folios F.237.b–251.b.
sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa (Nighaṇṭu) [The Two-Volume Lexicon]. Toh 4347, Degé Tengyur vol. 204 (bstan bcos sna tshogs, co), folios 131.b–160.a.
bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa chen po (Mahāvyutpatti). Toh 4346, Degé Tengyur vol. 204 (sna tshogs, co), folios 1.b–131.a.
Dharmamitra. ’dul ba’i mdo’i rgya cher ’grel pa (Vinayasūtraṭīkā). Toh 4120, Degé Tengyur vols. 162–63 (’dul ba, ’u–yu): vol. ’u, folios 1b–388.a; vol. yu, folios 1.b–390.a.
Guṇaprabha. las brgya rtsa gcig pa (Ekottarakarmaśataka). Toh 4118, Degé Tengyur vol. 159 (’dul ba, wu), folios 100.b–259.a.
———. ’dul ba mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa zhes bya ba (Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna-nāma). Toh 4119, Degé Tengyur vols. 160–61 (’dul ba, zhu–zu): vol. zhu, folios 1.b–278.a; vol. zu, folios 1.b–274.a.
———. ’dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa (Vinayasūtravṛtti). Toh 4122, Degé Tengyur vol. 165 (’dul ba, lu), folios 1.a–344.a.
Kalyāṇamitra. ’dul ba gzhi rgya cher ’grel ba (Vinayavastuṭīkā). Toh 4113, Degé Tengyur vol. 156 (’dul ba, tsu), folios 177.b–326.b.
Ratnākaraśānti. mdo kun las bdus pa’i bshad pa rin po che snang ba’i rgyan (Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣyaratnālokālaṃkāranāma). Toh 3935, Degé Tengyur vol. 115 (mdo ’grel, chi), folios 1b1-61a7.
Śīlapālita. lung phran tshegs kyi rnam par bshad pa (Āgamakṣudrakavyākhyāna). Toh 4115, Degé Tengyur vol. 158, (’dul ba, dzu), folios 1.b–232.a.
Śūra. so sor thar pa’i mdo’i gzhung ’grel (Prātimokṣa Sūtrapaddhati). Toh 4104, Degé Tengyur vols. 150–51 (’dul ba, du–nu): vol. du, folios 1.b–239.a; vol. nu, folios 1.b–87.b.
Vimalamitra. so sor thar pa’i mdo’i rgya cher ’grel pa ’dul ba kun las btus pa (Pratimokṣasūtraṭīkāvinayasamuccaya). Toh 4106, Degé Tengyur vols. 152–54 (’dul ba, pu–bu): vol. pu, folios 1.b–312.a; vol. phu, folios 1.b—281.a; vol. bu, folios 1.b–150.a.
Vinītadeva. ’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa’i tshig rnam par bshad pa (Vinayavibhaṅgapadavyākhyāna). Toh 4114, Degé Tengyur vol. 157 (’dul ba, tshu), folios 1.b–207.a.
Sanskrit Sources
Dutt, Nalinaksha. Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. III, Parts I–IV. Calcutta: Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939–1959.
Guṇaprabha. Vinayasūtra. GRETIL input by Yoshiyasu Yonezawa et al.
Pradhan, K. P. Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asaṅga. Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan Press, Santiniketan, 1950.
Pradhan, Prahlad, and Aruna Haldar, eds. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 8. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa. For English translation see Eggeling (1882).
Secondary Sources
84000. The Chapter on Going Forth (Pravrajyāvastu, rab tu ’byung ba’i gzhi, Toh 1, ch. 1). Translated by Robert Miller. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018.
————. Determining the Vinaya: Upāli’s Questions (Vinayaviniścayopāliparipṛcchā, ’dul ba rnam par gtan la dbab pa nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa, Toh 68). Translated by the UCSB Buddhist Studies Translation Group. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021.
————. The Gaṇḍī Sūtra (Gaṇḍīsūtra, gaN+DI’i mdo, Toh 298). Translated by Annie Bien. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
————. The Rite for the Protocols Associated with Carrying the Ringing Staff (’khar gsil ’chang ba’i kun spyod pa’i cho ga, Toh 336). Translated by Sarasvatī Translation Team. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
————. The Sūtra on the Ringing Staff (’khar gsil gyi mdo, Toh 335). Translated by Sarasvatī Translation Team. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
————. The Sūtra on Timings for the Gaṇḍī (Gaṇḍīsamayasūtra, gaN+DI’i mdo, Toh 299). Translated by Lowell Cook. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2024.
Altenburg, Gerjan Piet. “Rules of Customary Behavior in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya. PhD Diss., McMaster University, 2022.
Anālayo, Bhikkhu. Sathirathai: The Direct Path to Realization. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2003.
Apte, Vaman Shivaram. Revised and Enlarged Edition of Prin. V. S. Apte’s The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957.
Bass, Jeffrey Wayne. “Meditation in an Indian Buddhist Code.” PhD diss., UCLA, 2013.
Boesi, Alessandro. “Plant Categories and Types in Tibetan Materia Medica.” The Tibet Journal, vol. XXX no. 4 (Summer 2005), and vol. XXXI no. 1 (Spring 2006): 67–92.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
——— (1990). The Logic of Practice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.
Brick, David. “Penance: Prāyaścitta. ” In The Oxford History of Hinduism: “Hindu Law.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Buswell, Robert E., Jr., ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004.
Butön Rinchen Drup (bu ston rin chen grub). bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba. In The Collected Works of Bu-Ston, edited by Lokesh Candra, vol. 26 (la), pp. 413–656. International Academy Of Indian Culture, 1965–1971. BDRC MW22106.
Clarke, Shayne (2004). “Vinaya Mātṛkā: Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner’s Handling of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.” Indo-Iranian Journal no. 47: 77–120.
——— (2009). “Monks Who Have Sex: Pārājika Penance in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms.” Journal of Indian Philosophy no. 37: 1–43.
——— (2014). Vinaya Texts, vol. 1: Gilgit Manuscripts in the National Archives of India: Facsimile Edition. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2014.
Drakpa Gyaltsen (grags pa rgyal mtshan). bslab pa yongs su sbyong ba’i gzhi gsum cho ga sogs so sor thar pa’i blang dor gyi gnas rnams mdor bsdus [A Summary of Key Prātimokṣa Practices, Including the Three Vastu Rites for Purifying the Precepts]. bkra shis lhun po: Dgon Gzhung, 1996, 43 ff (pp. 473–557).
Dungkar, Lozang Trinlé (blo bzang phrin las dung dkar). dung dkar tshig mdzod chen mo [Dungkar’s Dictionary]. Vols. 1–2. Beijing: Krung go‛i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (Chinese-Tibetan Studies Publishing House), 2002.
Dutt, Sukumar (1924). Early Buddhist Monachism: 600 B.C.–100 A.D. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1924.
——— (1962). Buddhist Monks and Monasteries in India. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1962.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary Vol. II: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. Online version.
Eggeling, Julius (tr.). English translation of Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa (1882). Online version: Wisdom Library.
Emms, Christopher. “Evidence for Two Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya Traditions in the Gilgit Prātimokṣa-sūtras.” Master’s thesis submitted to McMaster University on Oct. 1, 2012. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Paper 7337.
Geshé Tsewang Nyima (dge bshes tshe dbang nyi ma). dam chos ’dul ba gtso gyur gyi gzhung sne mang las btus pa‛i tshig mdzod mun sel sgron me. Taipei: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 2009.
Gethin, Rupert. “The Mātikās: Memorization, Mindfulness and the List.” In In the Mirror of Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian & Tibetan Buddhism. Edited by Janet Gyatso, 149–72. Albany: State University of New York, 1992.
Greene, Eric M. Chan before Chan: Meditation, Repentance, and Visionary Experience in Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2021.
Gyalwa Gendun Drub, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (Tā la’i bla ma 13 thub bstan rgya mtsho). ’dul ba lung sde bzhi mdo rtsa mchan ’grel mtsho ṭik sogs las byung ba’i so thar bslab gzhi’i dgag sgrub gnang mtshams nye mkho’i dbyibs tshad bcas phyag len mthong rgyun ltar dpe ris su bkod pa nyes ltung mun pa ’joms pa’i zla ’od [The Moonlight that Destroys Ignorance of Faults and Offenses: The Traditional Drawings that Illustrate the Shape and Size of the Prohibitions, Prescriptions, Consents, and Boundary Required by the Prātimokṣa Training Precepts, As Given in the Four Vinaya Āgama and Tshonawa’s Ṭīkā, an Annotated Commentary on the Vinayasūtra]. Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC), W1EE45.
Hinüber, Oskar von. “Buddhist Law According to the Theravada-Vinaya. A Survey of Theory and Practice.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 18.1 (1995): 7.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana. Translated by Paul Groner. Hawaii: University of Hawai’i Press, 1990.
Hu-von Hinüber, Haiyan (1994). Das Poṣadhavastu: Vorschriften für die buddhistische Beichtfeier im Vinaya der Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. Reinbeck: Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen, 1994.
——— (1997a). “On the Sources of Some Entries in the Mahāvyutpatti, A Contribution to Indo-Tibetan Lexicography.” In Untersuchungen zur buddhistsichen Literatur II, Gustav Roth zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Heinz Bechert und Petra Kieffer-Pülz, 183–199. Göttingen; Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 8, 1997.
——— (1997b). “The 17 Titles of the Vinayavastu in the Mahāvyutpatti. Contribution to Indo-Tibetan Lexicography II” in Bauddhavidyāsudhākarah Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Petra Kieffer-Pülz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, 339–345. Swisttal-Odendorf; Indica et Tibetica, 30, 1997.
——— (2016). Sambhoga. Die Zugehörigkeit zur Ordensgemeinschaft im frühen Jainismus und Buddhismus [Saṃbhoga: The Affiliation with a Religious Order in Early Jainism and Buddhism] in Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series XXXIII. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2016.
Hureau, Sylvie. “Preaching and translating on poṣadha days: Kumārajīva’s role in adapting an Indian ceremony to China.” Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, vol. X (2006): 87–119.
Monier-Williams, Monier. Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (digitized version).
Negi, J. S. bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo [Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary]. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993–2005.
Nordrang Orgyen (nor brang o rgyan). gangs can rig brgya’i chos kyi rnam grangs mthong tshad kun las btus pa ngo mtshar ’phrul gyi sde mig chen po [A Great and Wondrous Key: A Compendium of All the Enumerations from the Snow Land’s One Hundred Fields of Knowledge]. Vols. 1–3. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (Chinese-Tibetan Studies Publishing House), 2008.
Paṇchen Sönam Drakpa (paN chen bsod nams grags pa). gso sbyong ji ltar bya ba’i tshul la sbyor ba dngos gzhi mjug gsum dang dmigs bsal dang bcas pa rim par bshad pa. gsung ’bum bsod nams grags pa, vol. 8, pp. 407–17. Drepung Loseling Library Society. BDRC MW23828 80FF1D
Paravahera Vajirañāṇa Mahāthera. Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice: A general exposition according to the Pāli Canon of the Theravāda School. Translated by Allan R. Bomhard. Kuala Lumpur: Buddhist Missionary Society, 1974.
Prebish, Charles S. (1974). “The Prātimokṣa Puzzle: Fact versus Fantasy,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94, no. 2 (1974): 168–76 (online version).
——— (2002). Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Prātimokṣa Sūtras of the Mahāsāṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2002.
Schopen, Gregory (2002). “Counting the Buddha and Local Spirits in a Monastic Ritual of Inclusion for the Rains Retreat.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 30, no. 4 (2002): 359–88 (online version).
——— (2006). “On Monks and Menial Labors: Some Monastic Accounts of Building Buddhist Monasteries.” In Architetti, Capomastri, Artigiani: L’Organizzazione dei Cantieri e della Produzione Artistica nell’Asia Ellenistica. Edited by P. Callieri, 225–45. Studi Offerti a Domenico Faccenna nel suo 294 Ottantesimo Compleanno (Serie Orientale Roma 100), Rome, 2006.
——— (2010). “On Avoiding Ghosts and Social Censure: Monastic Funerals in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya.” In Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional, and Archaeological Evidence. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2010.
Silk, Jonathan A. Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Monastic Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Roloff, Carola (Bhikṣuṇī Jampa Tsedroen). The Buddhist Nuns’ Ordination in the Tibetan Canon: Possibilities of the Revival of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuṇī Lineage. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 15. Bochum: Projektverlag, 2020.
Tshalpa Mönlam Dorjé (tshal pa smon lam rdo rje). bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag sna tshogs nor bu’i phung po. Edited by Jampa Samten (byams pa bsam gtan), Central University of Tibetan Studies, 2016. BDRC W8LS34520.
Tshonawa Sherab Zangpo (mtsho sna ba shes rab bzang po). ’dul ba’i mdo rtsa’i rnam bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho. Zining: krung go bod rig shes rig, 1993.
Upasak, C. S. Dictionary of Early Buddhist Monastic Terms: Based on Pali Literature. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan, 1975.
White, David Gordon. The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014
Vignato, Giuseppi and Satomi Hiyama, Petra Kieffer-Pülz, and Yoko Taniguchi. Traces of the Sarvāstivādins in the Buddhist Monasteries of Kucha. Dev Publishers & Distributors: New Delhi, 2022.
Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “The Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sūtra.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1999. ProQuest (AAT 9930977)
Yao, Fumi. “On the Name ‘Mūlasarvāstivādin.’ ” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 55, no. 2 (2007): 897.