Speaking of a Monk's Faults Is Itself Evil

Buddhism was established from the day the first monastic appeared; when the monastic Saṅgha perishes, Buddhism perishes—this has scriptural basis in the Buddhist sūtras. All those who have been tonsured and received the monastic precepts belong to the Three Jewels, serving a function of representing the Dharma and standing for Buddhism. As for how well they represent it, that is an internal matter of the monastics and the Saṅgha, and outsiders have no right to interfere. 

Monastics are bound and regulated by precepts and by cause and effect; even if they violate the precepts, laypeople are not permitted to speak of it. Therefore the Buddha did not allow laypeople to read the monastic precepts, lest they measure the words and deeds of monastics against the precept clauses, then give rise to arrogance, accuse them of offenses, and publicize the faults of monastics, thereby creating the evil karma of slandering the Three Jewels—the retribution of which is fearsome. Monastics are governed by the Saṅgha; the Saṅgha will deal with the faults and offenses of monastics. For those without a Saṅgha, or those the Saṅgha cannot govern, there are Dharma-protecting deities and cause and effect to govern them. But laypeople have no standing to govern, and must absolutely never speak of any fault of the Saṅgha. 

On the monastics' day of self-confession (pravāraṇā), they confess their own violations of the precepts and expose one another's violations and faults, and laypeople are not allowed to eavesdrop. If anyone eavesdrops, the Dharma-protecting deities will cut off their head with a sword. This is precisely to prevent laypeople from learning of the precept violations and faults committed by monastics and then criticizing and publicizing them. If a layperson criticizes and publicizes the faults of monastics, whether or not the faults are true, it is the evil karma of slander, and at death the retribution is rebirth in the three evil destinies or in hell. For those with grave evil karma, the flowering retribution manifests in this very life—they cannot even wait for the retribution of future lives. 

Some people only look at the shortcomings of monastics—why can they not see the worldly benefits that monastics have renounced? Even if monastics frequently violate precepts and often commit evil deeds, could they possibly commit more evil than laypeople? Laypeople eat fish and meat every day, and their cravings are constantly hard to relinquish. Comparing the two, whose karma is greater? Otherwise, with so many people who consider themselves lofty and pure, why do they not leave home and take on the identity of a monastic? Is leaving home difficult? It is not difficult—it is precisely because they cannot let go of the various cravings and pleasures of the world; the benefits of the world are hard to cut off. And so they regard the lay status as superior and exalted, and everywhere criticize monastics and the Saṅgha. Since the Saṅgha is supposedly so unworthy, why do they not bring forth a great resolve, renounce worldly cravings, and courageously leave home for the sake of Buddhism, for sentient beings, and for their own path-cultivation over long kalpas? Would it not be far more beneficial to protect Buddhism and sentient beings with a monastic body?

In the Buddha's time, Devadatta and the bhikṣu Sunakṣatra, no matter what evil they committed, were all restrained and governed by the Buddha and the Saṅgha; others had no right to interfere. If the Buddha could not govern them and the Saṅgha could not govern them, there was still the sanction of cause and effect—they fell into hell while still alive. In the Buddha's time, the group of six bhikṣus committed countless evil deeds, yet even after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa they remained bhikṣus. At the time of the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the group of six bhikṣus drank alcohol and ate meat, clamoring loudly in celebration of the Buddha's parinirvāṇa. The Buddha, having no recourse, covered the eyes and ears of the heavenly beings so they would not hear it, but the Buddha did not manifest supernatural powers to punish them. 

While the Buddha was in the world, the Buddha was supreme; after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the precepts are supreme. Whoever's precepts carry the greater authority, that one is regarded as supreme and exalted. Taking the precepts as supreme is manifested as follows: First, monastics and laypeople do not live together, and those with different precepts do not live together—even among monastics, if their precepts differ, they still may not live together. Second, in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, in performing Buddhist affairs, and in giving generosity, those who received the precepts earlier come first and those who received them later come after; monastic bodhisattva precepts rank before lay bodhisattva precepts, and lay bodhisattva precepts rank before the lay five precepts and eight precepts.