Speaking of Monks' Faults Is Evil

Buddhism was established from the day the first monastics appeared; when the sangha of monastics perishes, Buddhism perishes—this has a basis in the Buddhist sutras. All those who have been shaved and ordained under monastic precepts belong to the Three Jewels, serving a function of representing the Dharma and representing Buddhism. As for how well they represent it, that is an internal matter of the monastics and the sangha, 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 compare monastics' words and deeds 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, whose retribution is fearsome. Monastics are governed by the sangha, and the sangha will deal with monastics' faults and offenses; for those without a sangha, or those the sangha cannot govern, the Dharma-protecting deities and cause and effect will govern them—but laypeople have no standing to govern, and must absolutely never speak of any fault of the sangha. 

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 permitted 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 laypeople criticize and publicize the faults of monastics, whether or not the faults are real, it is the evil karma of slander, and at death the retribution is rebirth in the three evil paths or in hell. Those with great evil karma will even receive the flowering retribution (puṣpa-phala) in this very life, unable to wait for the retribution in later lives. 

Some people only look at monastics' shortcomings—why can they not see the worldly benefits that monastics have renounced? Even if monastics frequently violate the precepts and often commit evil deeds, could they possibly commit more evil than laypeople? Laypeople eat fish and meat every day and are constantly entangled in desires hard to relinquish; comparing the two, whose karma is greater? Otherwise, with so many people considering themselves lofty and pure, why do they not become monastics and take on the identity of a monastic? Is becoming a monastic difficult? It is not difficult—it is precisely because they cannot let go of the various desires and pleasures of the world, and the world's benefits are hard to relinquish. And so they regard the lay identity as superior and exalted, criticizing monastics and the sangha everywhere. Since the sangha is supposedly so unworthy, why not give rise to great resolve, renounce worldly desires, and courageously leave home for the sake of Buddhism, for sentient beings, and for one's own path-cultivation over long kalpas? Would protecting Buddhism and sentient beings with a monastic body not be far more beneficial?

During the Buddha's time, Devadatta and the bhikṣu Sunakṣatra, no matter what evil they committed, were restrained and governed by the Buddha and the sangha, and others had no right to interfere. If the Buddha could not govern them and the sangha could not govern them, cause and effect would punish them—falling into hell while still alive. During the Buddha's time, the group of six bhikṣus committed countless evil deeds, yet even after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa they remained bhikṣus. When the Buddha entered parinirvāṇa, the group of six bhikṣus drank alcohol and ate meat, clamoring loudly in celebration of the Buddha's parinirvāṇa; the Buddha, having no alternative, covered the eyes and ears of the devas so they would not hear it, but the Buddha did not display supernatural powers to punish them. 

When the Buddha was in the world, the Buddha was supreme; after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the precepts are supreme—whichever precepts carry the greater authority, that one is regarded as supreme and exalted. Regarding the precepts as supreme is manifested as follows: First, monastics and laypeople do not live mixed together, and those with different precepts do not live mixed together—even among monastics, if their precepts differ, they still may not live mixed together. Second, in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, in performing Buddhist affairs, and in giving generosity (dāna), 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.