ignorance, the three-fold sources of all evil; and issued his First Párájiká injunction, declaring that if any Bhikkhu should cohabit with a woman, he became guilty of a Párájiká and excommunicate. It must be remembered that Sudinna was exempt from this, as his fault was committed before the injunetion was given. The Bhikkhus however were not slow in discovering a way of evading this enactment, and one of them in Wesali, (probably Oude,) cohabited with a female monkey, and afterwards excused himself by saying that the previous injunetion was given with regard to women and not beasts. Bhaga wá then declared that he henceforth prohibited cohabitation with beasts.

One would be inclined to think that the matter would have been finally settled here; but no, Bhikkhus disrobed themselves for the nonce, and as laymen satisfied their brutish appetites. Men with men, men with demons, with neuters, with Hermaphrodites are reported to have done those things which it is a shame even to speak of. Every possible plan was frequently employed to evade the enactment, and yet satisfy the more than brutish desires; and when their ingenuity was exhausted with regard to the living, the Bhikkhus turned to the dead, in order apparently to prove to their master that howsoever his enactments might abound, their sins could still keep ahead, and they could discover loopholes of escape. If the corpse was free from decay the fault was a Párájiká, but if not it was only a Thullachchaya or Dukkata. Several instances of the latter are enumerated as having been committed with skeletons, skulls, &c., but these were declared to be only minor faults and easily

*Tena khopana samayena aññataro Bhikkhu siwathikan gantwa ye bhuyyena khayitan sariran passitwa tasmin Methunay Dhammag patisewi. Tassa kukkuchchan ahosi. Anapatti Bhikkhu Párájikassa. A'patti thullachchayassati.

Tenakhopana samayena aññataro Bhikkhu siwatikan gantwá chhinna sisan passitwá wattakate mukhe achchupatta angajatay pawesi.

atoned for. Very many instances are given of the Bhikkhus submitting to a little gentle violence, and afterwards declaring to Bhagawa that there was no volition on their part. He declared that then there was no culpability.

The account of the four Párájikás does not occupy more than half of the book of that name, the remainder being devoted chiefly to details, with the greatest minutiæ, of sins of self-defilement, onanism, and its kindred abominations; because in the eyes of the Great Teacher, the pure and sanctified Bhagawa, they were less heinous than cohabiting with one's former wife, or stealing an article to the value of a páda.

There are many reasons for believing that this book contains, on the whole, a true account of events which actually did take place. There are very few instances of oriental exaggeration, as found in the Commentaries, to be met with here. Bhagawá has generally only 500 Bhikkhus with him, who live and act in a manner which we know exists in India. The locality in which the various deeds were done is very limited, and the crimes mentioned are in many cases those which are peculiar to such semi-civilized countries.

The Second Párájiká, called Adinna dána Párájiká relates to stealing; and here too the enactment was preceded by a crime which compelled Bhagawá to declare that henceforth such deeds should be denominated Párájiká faults. The crime mentioned was as follows:-A Bhikkhu, the Venerable Dhaniyo, was much troubled by grass women and collectors of firewood,

Tassa kukkuchchan ahosi. Anápatti Bhikkhu Párájikassa. A'patti Dukkhatassáti.

Tenakhopana samayena aññataro Bhikkhu aññatarassa ittiya patibaddha chitto hoti. Sá kálakatá. Susáne chhadditá aṭṭhikáni wippakittú honti. Athakkho so Bhikkhu siwatikan gantwá aṭṭikáni sankadditwa nimittena angajatan patipájesi. Tassa kukkuchchan alosi. Anápatti Bhikkhu Párájikassa. A'pátti Duhkhaṭassati.

who several times destroyed his hut and made off with the materials, while he was absent begging. To prevent the recurrence of this, he resolved to make use of his knowledge as a potter, he being of that caste, and formerly very expert in his profession, and erect a house, like the tub of Diogenes, similar to a water vessel, of only one piece, from clay burnt hard. His efforts were crowned with complete success, the house was completed, was of a brick red colour, and sounded like a bell when struck; but the poor man had scarcely finished his work and gone off to collect alms, when Bhagawá saw the strange structure and enquired whose it was. Being informed that it was built by the Venerable Dhaniyo, one of his Bhikkhus, he exclaimed "Go, O Bhikkhus! and smash it."

Shortly after the owner returned, and his chagrin may be more easily imagined than described. Bhagawá severely censured him, because by such actions damage would be done to insects, worms, &c. Dhaniyo then had recourse to an old friend, a conservator of the royal forests, and requested him to supply him with timber suitable for a wooden house. The keeper declared his inability to give without permission from the king. Dhaniyo said, "I have permission," and took some timber which was near a certain city. The timber was missed, and the conservator called to account for it. On his way to trial he was met by the Venerable Dhaniyo, who promised to haste to the king, and explain the matter; otherwise the conservator might lose his life. He accordingly went and reminded the sovereign of Magadha Seniyo Bimbi Saro, that when he was crowned, he promised to all ecclesiastics "firewood, grass and water." The king acknowledged this, but replied that by the promise of firewood, timber was not included, and severely reprimanded the Bhikkhu for his dishonesty. People in general took up the matter, and the whole company of Bhikkhus was charged with

pilfering and theft. Bhagawá speedily collected his Bhikkhus, censured Dhaniyo, and declared, that if any Bhikkhu with a dishonest purpose shall take a thing not given, he shall become guilty of a Párájiká and excommunicate. Several hundreds of instances are then given of the Bhikkhus evading or endeavouring to evade Bhagawa's enactments, by taking goods from places which he had not then specified, or of such a value as not to come within the definition of the Párájiká fault. Thus when Bhagawa had prohibited taking things in the jungle, the Bhikkhus took from the villages, and when that had been prohibited, they said the command applied only to things on the ground, and took those which were on a table or any other article of furniture; things suspended in the air, in the water, &c. The Páda is mentioned as the value necessary to make the fault a Párájiká. This was a coin of gold or silver equal to five másas, the latter weighing about 44 grains each.

There are three degrees of guilt mentioned as connected with stealing any article:-(1) Approaching, examining and feeling with a dishonest purpose the property of another is a Dukkața fault; one only requiring confession to a superior Bhikkhu.

(2.) Shaking the article is a Thullachchaya fault, only a little greater, and atoned for by confession.

(3.) Removing it from its place is a Párájiká.

We now proceed to give a brief summary of the Third Párájiká, called Manussa Wiggaha Párájiká, which relates to murder. This too opens with the story of Migalandaka Bhikkhu, who, for the purpose of appropriating to himself the bowl and robes of the Bhikkhus, went about sword in hand and promised any one who wished speedy deliverance from this evil world and admission into a better, to fulfil their desire by the weapon he carried about with him. It seems that

many believed his word, for he succeeded in disposing of the lives of 60 Bhikkhus before Bhagawá returned from a season of meditation in the wilderness. On his arrival, Buddha in a long discourse descanted on the moral benefits to be derived from slow and systematic breathing, and at its close severely reprimanded Migalandaka for his wholesale murders, and declared, that if any Bhikkhu wittingly take away the life of a man, or take a weapon in his hand for that purpose, he becomes guilty of a Párájiká. Afterwards some Bhikkhus who had become attached to the wife of a sick devotee, assured him that death was far preferable to life, as by its means he would enter on a state far superior to any he could possibly anticipate here. He listened to their advice, refused food and medicine, and died. His widow however spread an ill-report of the Bhikkhus, and Bhagawá declared, that if any Bhikkhu henceforth persuade a man to die, he shall be guilty of a Párájikâ fault and excommunicate.

A vast number of instances are then given of Bhikkhus taking away life, yet so as to evade previous prohibitions, and in many cases they were successful. Thus, a Bhikkhu ordered a Bhikkhu, saying, take away the life of such an one. "This is a Dukkata fault. He, mistaking his victim, murders another man. The originator is not guilty, but to the perpetrator there is a Párájiká.

Again, A commands B to tell C to tell D to tell E to take away the life of F. This is a Dukkața fault. E consents; this is a Dukkata. E kills F; the originator is not guilty; but to D and E there is a Párájikâ.

These two instances, extracted from a large number, are quite sufficient to enable us to estimate the standard of morals which Bhagawa established for the Bhikkhus, and which they very frequently sought to evade.