Exploring the Path - Pāli Course

This well-known incident refers to a situation where Devadatta, intending to cause a schism in the Sangha, asked the Buddha to allow certain dhutaṅgāni, or strenuous ascetic practices. Devadatta's hope was that the Buddha would refuse his request, allowing him to attract followers who wanted to adopt more severe practises.¹ What is called a dhutanga is a certain strenuous practice that is supposed to ‘shake off’ (dhuta pp. of dhunāti: shake off, remove) impurities when engaging in them. These practices were already partly practised by other ascetics.

The Saṅghabhedasikkhāpada reports that prior to approaching the Buddha, Devadatta consulted his followers.² and planned to request the Buddha to mandate five specific ascetic practices from a set of thirteen. Devadatta's hope was that the Buddha would refuse, thereby allowing Devadatta to attract followers who favored a stricter lifestyle. The Buddha did not enforce these practices, instead allowing monks to undertake them voluntarily. They are:

• paṃsukūla dhutaṅga: used or abandoned robes;

• tecīvarika dhutaṅga: using three robes only;

• piṇḍapāta dhutaṅga: using only the bowl to collect one’s meals;

• sapadānacārika dhutaṅga: accepting every meal without skipping any house;

• ekāsanika dhutaṅga: one meal only,

• pattapiṇḍika dhutaṅga: using everything that has been offered within one bowl, no other recipient is used;

• khalupacchābhattika dhutaṅga: no longer accepting any extra food after having started to take the meal;

• āraññika dhutaṅga: remaining within the forest,

• rukkhamūla dhutaṅga: dwelling at the roots of a tree;

• abbhokāsikadhutaṅga: having no shelter, remaining in open space,

• susānika dhutaṅga: dwelling at spots, within charnel grounds, where bodies are buried;

• yathāsantatika dhutaṅga: sleeping at the allotted location;

• nesajjika dhutaṅga: avoiding the lying posture

The Buddha refused to enforce any of them, replying that it was up to each Bhikkhu to decide which to follow. However, he enforced and outlined a regulation about accepting fish and meat, which he called ‘tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ’.

The commentary³ expounds thus:

… ‘Macchamaṃsavatthusmiṃ⁴ tikoṭiparisuddhanti tīhi koṭīhi parisuddhaṃ, diṭṭhādīhi⁵ aparisuddhīhi virahitanti⁶ attho. Tenevāha – ‘‘adiṭṭhaṃ, asutaṃ, aparisaṅkita’’nti. Tattha ‘‘adiṭṭhaṃ’’ nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya migamacche vadhitvā gayhamānaṃ⁷ adiṭṭhaṃ. ‘‘Asutaṃ’’ nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya migamacche vadhitvā gahitanti asutaṃ. ‘‘Aparisaṅkitaṃ’’ pana diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ sutaparisaṅkitaṃ tadubhayavimuttaparisaṅkitañca⁸ ñatvā tabbipakkhato⁹ jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ?’

… ‘With regard to the issue: ‘fish and meat are pure under three conditions’ – ‘with these three conditions fulfilled’ means it is pure, if devoid of the three impurities of having been seen, of having been heard of and of having been suspected (of being killed for one’s own sake). Therefor it is said: ‘not seen, not heard and not suspected’. Here: ‘not seen’ refers to ‘meat’ (literally deer), or fish (being received with their alms) – their killing specifically for the Bhikkhus was not seen. ‘Not heard’ refers to ‘meat’ or fish received – that it was not heard that their being slaughtered was specifically for the Bhikkhus. ‘Not suspected’ means if having felt suspicion because something was seen or heard then the contrary should be found out; till having understood it to be purged from both these suspicions. How?’

‘Idha bhikkhū passanti manusse jālavāgurādihatthe¹⁰ gāmato va nikkhamante araññe vā vicarante, dutiyadivase ca nesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ¹¹ samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhiharanti. Te tena diṭṭhena parisaṅkanti¹² ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ nukho atthāya kata’’nti idaṃ diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ, nāma etaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ taṃ vaṭṭati.’

‘Here the Bhikkhus see men leaving the village and approaching the forest with net and snares in their hands and on the next day, when on their alms round at this village they get served with fish or meat in their bowls. Because of what they saw they become suspicious: ‘Was this done for the Bhikkhus sake?’ – This is called ‘suspected on account of something seen’ - then it should not be accepted. It can be accepted if it is not suspected in this way.’

‘Sace pana te manussā ‘‘kasmā bhante na gaṇhathā’’ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā ‘‘nayidaṃ bhante bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ atthāya vā kata’’nti vadanti kappati¹³.’

‘If these men, after having asked: ‘How come, Bhante, why did you not take this?’ having heard the reason, say: ‘No, Bhante, it hasn’t been done for the Bhikkhus, we did it for our own sake, or on behalf of the king and suchlike’ then taking it is admissible.’.

‘Naheva kho bhikkhū passanti; apica suṇanti, manussā kira jālavāgurādihatthā gāmato vā nikkhamanti, araññe vā vicarantī’’ti. Dutiyadivase ca nesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhiharanti. Te tena sutena parisaṅkanti ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ nukho atthāya kata’’nti idaṃ ‘‘sutaparisaṅkitaṃ’’ nāma. Etaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati, yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ taṃ vaṭṭati.’

‘Here the Bhikkhus do not see but hear that men leave the village and approach the forest with net and snares in their hands and on the next day, when on their alms round at this village they get served with fish or meat in their bowls. It occurs to them that this was done for the Bhikkhus sake: this it is ‘suspected on account of something heard’. Then it should not be accepted. It can be accepted if it is not suspected in this way.’

‘Sace pana te manussā ‘‘kasmā, bhante, na gaṇhathā’’ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā ‘‘nayidaṃ, bhante, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ atthāya vā kata’’nti vadanti kappati’.

 ‘If these men, after having asked: ‘How come, Bhante, why did you not take this?’ having heard the reason, say: ‘No, Bhante, it hasn’t been done for the Bhikkhus, we did it for our own sake, or on behalf of the king and suchlike’ then taking it is admissible.’

‘Na heva kho pana bhikkhū passanti na suṇanti, apica kho tesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ pattaṃ gahetvā samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhisaṅkharitvā  abhiharanti. Te parisaṅkanti ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ nu kho atthāya kata’’nti, idaṃ tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma, etampi gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭati.’

 ‘Here the Bhikkhus neither see nor hear any of this, but when on their alms round at the village they get served in their bowls with prepared fish or meat. Then if they suspect: “This was done for the Bhikkhus sake?” This is ‘not purged of these two suspicions’ and so should not be accepted. It can be accepted if it is not suspected in this way.’

‘Sace pana te manussā ‘‘kasmā, bhante, na gaṇhathā’’ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā ‘‘nayidaṃ, bhante, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ vā atthāya kataṃ, pavattamaṃsaṃ¹⁴ vā kappiyameva labhitvā bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya sampādita’’nti vadanti, kappati. Matānaṃ petakiccatthāya¹⁵ maṅgalādīnaṃ vā atthāya katepi eseva nayo. Yaṃ yañhi bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akataṃ, yattha ca nibbematiko¹⁶ hoti, taṃ sabbaṃ kappati.’

‘If these men, after having asked: ‘How come, Bhante, why did you not take this?’ having heard the reason, say: ‘No, Bhante, it hasn’t been done for the Bhikkhus, we did it for our own sake, or on behalf of the king and suchlike, having received raw flesh we thought it proper having it prepared for the Bhikkhus’ then it is admissible”. It is done as conduct¹⁷ for the wellbeing and so forth of the deceased and the dead. If it is not done especially on behalf of the Bhikkhus then it is in concordance, and taking it is admissible.’

In today’s complicated and interconnected global world, where side effects and implications of one’s profession remain often invisible, investigation into the tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ, presents a helpful tool for all who aspire to avoid harmful consequences for themselves and others.¹⁸