Help | Home » Theravada Text Archives » Contemporary Writers » Thanissaro Bhikkhu » Buddhist Monastic Code I

### Chapter Seven

## Part Three: The Bowl Chapter

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

> 21. An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

Alms bowls. This rule deals only with alms bowls that are fit to be determined for use. According to the Commentary, this means any that are --

> 1) made of the proper material;
> 2) the proper size;
> 3) fully paid for;
> 4) properly fired; and
> 5) not damaged beyond repair.

Material. In the Cullavagga (V.8.2 & V.9.1), the Buddha allows two kinds of alms bowls -- made of clay and made of iron -- and forbids eleven: made either of wood, gold, silver, pearl, beryl, crystal, bronze, glass, tin, lead, or copper. Using the Great Standards, it has recently been decided that stainless steel bowls are allowable, but aluminum bowls not. In the time of the Buddha, clay bowls were the more common. At present, iron and steel bowls are.

Size. The Vibhanga contains a discussion of three proper sizes for a bowl -- the medium size containing twice the volume of the small, and the large twice the volume of the medium -- but they are based on measurements that are not known with any precision at present. The author of the Vinaya Mukha reports having experimented with various sizes of bowls based on a passage in the story of Mendaka in the Dhammapada Commentary. His conclusion: A small bowl is just a little larger than a human skull, and a medium bowl approximately 27 1/2 English inches (70 cm.) in circumference, or about 8.75 inches (22.5 cm.) in diameter. He did not try making a large bowl. Any size larger than the large size or smaller than the small is inappropriate; any size between them falls under this rule.

Fully paid for. According to the Commentary, if a bowl-maker makes a gift of a bowl, it counts as fully paid for. If a bowl has been delivered to a bhikkhu but has yet to be fully paid for, it may not be determined and does not come under this rule until paid for in full.

Fired. The Commentary states that a clay bowl must be fired twice before it can be determined, to make sure it is properly hardened; and an iron bowl five times, to prevent it from rusting. Since stainless steel does not rust it need not be fired, but the accepted practice is to find some way to make it gray -- either by painting it on the outside or firing the whole bowl with leaves that will give it a smoky color -- so that it will not stand out.

Not damaged beyond repair. According to the Commentary, a clay bowl is damaged beyond repair if it has at least ten inches (fingerbreadths) of cracks in it, the smallest of the cracks being at least two inches long. (Cracks less than two inches long are said not to merit mending, and so do not count.) If a bowl has fewer cracks than that, they should be mended either with tin wire, sap (but for some reason not pure pine sap), or a mixture of sugar cane syrup and powdered stone. Other materials not to be used for repair are beeswax and sealing wax. If the total number of countable cracks equals ten inches or more, the bowl becomes a non-bowl, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one.

As for iron and steel bowls, a hole in the bowl large enough to let a millet grain pass through is enough to make the determination lapse, but not enough to make the bowl a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should plug the hole -- or have a blacksmith plug it -- with powdered metal or a tiny metal plug polished smooth with the surface of the bowl and then redetermine the bowl for use.

If the hole is small enough to be plugged in this way, then no matter how many such holes there are in the bowl, they do not make it a non-bowl, and the bhikkhu should mend it and continue using it. If, however, there is even one hole so large that the metal used to plug it cannot be polished smooth with the surface of the rest of the bowl, the tiny crevices in the patch will collect food. This makes it unfit for use, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one to replace it.

An extra alms bowl, according to the Vibhanga, is any that has not yet been determined for use or placed under shared ownership. Since a bhikkhu may have only one bowl determined for use at any one time, he should place any additional bowls he receives under dual ownership if he plans to keep them on hand. (The procedures for placing bowls under determination and dual ownership, and for rescinding their determination and dual ownership, are given in Appendices IV & V.)

Effort. According to the Commentary, once a bowl belonging to a bhikkhu fulfills all the requirements for a determinable bowl, he is responsible for it even if he has not yet received it into his keeping. For example, if a blacksmith promises to make him a bowl and send word when it is finished, the bhikkhu is responsible for the bowl as soon as he hears word from the blacksmith's messenger that the bowl is ready, even if he has yet to receive it. If the blacksmith, prior to making the bowl, promises to send it when it is done, then the bhikkhu is not responsible for it until the blacksmith's messenger brings it to him. (All of this assumes that the bowl is already fully paid for.)

If, within ten days after becoming responsible for a new bowl, a bhikkhu does not determine it for use, place it under dual ownership, abandon it (give it or throw it away), or if the bowl is not lost, stolen, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust, then on the tenth dawn after receiving it he incurs the full penalty under this rule.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if the bhikkhu thinks that ten days have not passed when they have, or if he thinks that the bowl is damaged beyond repair or placed under dual ownership, etc., when it isn't, he incurs the penalty all the same.

Forfeiture & confession. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the bowl are the same as under NP 1. For the Pali formulae to use in forfeiting and returning the bowl, see Appendix VI. As with the rules concerning robe-cloth, the bowl must be returned to the offender after he has confessed his offense. Not to return it entails a dukkata. Once the bowl is returned, the ten-day countdown starts all over again.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if within ten days the bhikkhu determines the bowl for use, places it under dual ownership, abandons it, loses it, or if the bowl is stolen, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust.

> Summary: Keeping an alms bowl for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under dual ownership is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 22. Should a bhikkhu with an alms bowl having less than five mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to the company of bhikkhus. That company of bhikkhus' final bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) "This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be kept until broken." This is the proper procedure here.

> "Now at that time a certain potter had invited the bhikkhus, saying, 'If any of the masters need a bowl, I will supply them with bowls.' So the bhikkhus, knowing no moderation, asked for many bowls. Those with small bowls asked for large ones. Those with large ones asked for small ones. The potter, making many bowls for the bhikkhus, could not make other goods for sale. (As a result,) he could not support himself, and his wife and children suffered."

According to the Commentary, the phrase, a bowl "having less than five mends" refers to one that is not beyond repair, as explained under the preceding rule. Thus this rule does not apply to a bhikkhu whose bowl is beyond repair: As the K/Commentary notes, whether or not the damage in his bowl is actually mended is not an issue here.

A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs a dukkata in asking for a new bowl, and a nissaggiya pacittiya in receiving it.

Forfeiture, confession, & bowl exchange. Once a bhikkhu has received a bowl in violation of this rule, he must forfeit it and confess the offense in the midst of the Community. (See Appendix VI for the Pali formula used in forfeiture.) He then receives the Community's "final bowl" to use in place of the new one he has forfeited.

The Community's final bowl is selected in the following way: Each bhikkhu coming to the meeting to witness the offender's forfeiture and confession must bring the bowl he has determined for his own use. If a bhikkhu has an inferior bowl in his possession -- either extra or placed under dual ownership -- he is not to determine that bowl and take it to the meeting in hopes of getting a more valuable one in the exchange about to take place. To do so entails a dukkata.

Once the bhikkhus have assembled, the offender forfeits his bowl and confesses the offense. The Community, following the pattern of one motion and one announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma) given in the Vibhanga, then chooses one of its members as bowl exchanger. The bowl exchanger's duty is to take the forfeited bowl and show it to the most senior bhikkhu, who is to choose whichever of the two bowls pleases him more -- his own or the new one. If the new bowl is preferable to his own, and yet he does not take it out of sympathy for the offender, he incurs a dukkata. The K/Commentary and Sub-commentary add that if he does not prefer the new bowl, there is no offense in not taking it.

Once the most senior bhikkhu has taken his choice, the remaining bowl is then shown to the bhikkhu second in seniority, who repeats the process, and so on down the line to the most junior bhikkhu. The bowl exchanger then takes the bowl left over from this last bhikkhu's choice -- the least desirable bowl belonging to that company of bhikkhus -- and presents it to the offender and tells him to determine it for his use and care for it as best he can.

If the offender treats it improperly -- putting in a place where it might get damaged, using it in the wrong sort of way -- or tries to get rid of it, thinking, "How can this bowl be lost or destroyed or broken," he incurs a dukkata.

Non-offenses. The Vibhanga states that a bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs no penalty if he asks for a new bowl from relatives or from people who have invited him to ask, or if he gets a new bowl with his own resources. He is also allowed to ask for a bowl for the sake of another, which -- following the Commentary to NP 6 -- means that Bhikkhu X may ask for a bowl for Y only if he asks from his own relatives or people who have invited him to ask for a bowl OR if he asks from Y's relatives or people who have invited Y to ask. Asking for and receiving a bowl for Y from people other than these would entail the full offense.

> Summary: Asking for a new alms bowl when one's current bowl is not beyond repair is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 23. There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

Tonics. The five tonics mentioned in this rule form one of four classes of edibles grouped according to the time period within which they may be eaten after being received. The other three -- food, juice drinks, and medicines -- are discussed in detail at the beginning of the Food Chapter in the pacittiya rules. Here is the story of how this group came to be a special class:

> "Then as the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this line of reasoning occurred to him: 'At present the bhikkhus, afflicted by the autumn disease, bring up the conjey they have drunk and the food they have eaten. Because of this they are thin, wretched, unattractive, and jaundiced, their bodies covered with veins. What if I were to allow medicine for them that would be both medicine and agreed to be medicine for the world, and serve as food, yet would not be considered gross (substantial) food.'

> "Then this thought occurred to him: 'There are these five tonics -- ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses -- that are both medicine and agreed to be medicine for the world, and serve as food yet would not be considered gross food. What if I were now to allow the bhikkhus, having accepted them at the right time (from dawn to noon), to consume them at the right time'...

> "Now at that time bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics at the right time, consumed them at the right time. Because of this they could not stomach even their ordinary coarse meals, much less greasy ones. As a result, afflicted both by the autumn disease and this loss of appetite for food, they became even more thin and wretched... So the Blessed One, for this cause, for this reason, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the bhikkhus: 'I allow you, bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics, to consume them both at the right time and at the wrong time (from noon to dawn).'" (Mv.VI.1)

The Vibhanga defines the five tonics as follows:

Ghee means strained, boiled butter oil made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable for bhikkhus to eat (see the introduction to the Food Chapter in the pacittiya rules).

Fresh butter must be made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable. None of the Vinaya texts go into detail on how fresh butter is made, but the Bhumija Discourse (M.126) describes the process as "having sprinkled curds in a pot, one twirls them with a churn." Fresh butter of this sort is still made in India today by taking a small churn -- looking like an orange with alternate sections removed, attached to a small stick -- and twirling it in curds, all the while sprinkling them with water. The fresh butter -- mostly milk fat plus some milk solids -- coagulates on the churn, and when the fresh butter is removed, what is left in the pot is diluted buttermilk. Fresh butter, unlike creamery butter made by churning cream, may be stored unrefrigerated in bottles for several days even in the heat of India without going rancid.

Arguing by the Great Standards, creamery butter would obviously come under fresh butter here. A more controversial topic is cheese.

In Mahavagga VI.34.21, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to consume five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and ghee. Apparently, cheese -- curds heated to evaporate their liquid content and then cured with or without mold -- was not known in those days, but it seems proper to include it under one of the five. The question is which one. Some have argued that it should come under fresh butter, since the composition is similar -- milk fat and solids derived from curds. Others have argued that it should come under curds, as it generally regarded to be more of a gross food. Since the texts give no guidance here, the best policy would seem to be to follow the views of the Community to which one belongs.

Oil, according to the Vibhanga, includes sesame oil, mustard seed oil, "honey tree" oil, castor oil, and oil from tallow. The Mahavagga (VI.2.1) allows oil made from five kinds of tallow: bear, fish, alligator (shark?), pig, and donkey tallow. Since bear meat is one of the kinds normally unallowable for bhikkhus, the Sub-commentary interprets this list as meaning oil from the tallow of any animal whose flesh is allowable -- and from any animal whose flesh, if eaten, carries a dukkata -- is allowable here. Since human flesh, if eaten, carries a thullaccaya, oil from human fat is not allowed. The Commentary adds that oil made from any plants not listed in the Vibhanga carries a dukkata if kept more than seven days.

Honey means the honey of bees, although the Commentary lists two species of bee -- cirika, long and with wings, and tumbala, large, black and with hard wings -- whose honey it says is very viscous and ranks as a medicine, not as one of the five tonics.

Sugar/molasses the Vibhanga defines simply as essence of sugar cane. The Commentary interprets this as meaning not only sugar and molasses, but also fresh sugar cane juice. The Vinaya Mukha disagrees here, saying that sugar cane juice, if kept overnight, can quickly turn into alcohol and so should be classed as a juice drink. The Commentary also says that sugar or molasses made from any fruit classed as a food -- e.g., coconut, date palm, sugar beet, etc. -- ranks as a food and not as a tonic, but it is hard to guess at its reasoning here, since sugar cane itself is also classed as a food. The Vinaya Mukha seems more correct in using the Great Standards to say that all forms of sugar and molasses, no matter what the source, would be included here. Thus artificial sweeteners would also come under this rule.

According to Mv.VI.16.1, even if the sugar has a little flour mixed in with it simply to make it firmer -- as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar -- it is still classed as a tonic as long as it is still regarded simply as "sugar." If there is enough flour mixed in so that people are conscious of the flour's being there, or if the flour is meant to serve more than simply as a firming agent, the mixture counts as a food and may not be eaten after noon of the day on which it is received.

Proper use. According to Mv.VI.40.3, any tonic received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Thus, as the Commentary points out, tonics received in the morning may be eaten with food that morning; if received in the afternoon, they may not be eaten mixed with food at any time at all.

Also, the Commentary says at one point, one may take the tonic at any time during those seven days regardless of whether or not one is ill. At another point, though, it says that one may take the tonic after the morning of the day on which it is received only if one has a reason. This statement the Sub-commentary explains as meaning that any reason suffices -- e.g., hunger, weakness -- as long as one is not taking the tonic for nourishment as food. In other words, one may take enough to assuage one's hunger, but not to fill oneself up.

Mv.VI.27, though, contains a special stipulation for the use of sugar. If one is ill, one may take it "as is" at any time during the seven days; if not, then after noon of the first day one make take it only if it is mixed with water.

Forfeiture & confession. If a bhikkhu keeps a tonic past the seventh dawn after receiving it, he is to forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pacittiya offense. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if he thinks that seven days have not yet passed when they actually have -- or thinks that the tonic is no longer in his possession when it actually is -- he incurs the penalty all the same (%).

The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the tonic are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the tonic is given in Appendix VI. Once the bhikkhu receives the tonic in return, he may not use it to eat or to apply to his body, although he may use it for other external purposes, such as oil for a lamp, etc. Other bhikkhus may not eat the tonic either, but they may apply it to their bodies -- for example, as oil to rub down their limbs.

Non-offenses. According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if within seven days the tonic gets lost, destroyed, burnt, stolen, or taken on trust; or if the bhikkhu determines it for use, abandons it or -- having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind -- he receives it in return and makes use of it (%).

The Commentary has an extended discussion of the last three points.

> 1) Determining the tonic for use means that, within the seven days, the bhikkhu determines that he will use it not as a medicine, but only to apply to the outside of his body or for other external purposes instead. In this case, he may keep the tonic as long as he likes without penalty.

> 2) Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept X number of days, the no-offense clauses here do not include exemptions for tonics placed under dual ownership, but the Commentary discusses "abandons it" as if it read "places it under dual ownership." Its verdict: Any tonic placed under dual ownership may be kept for more than seven days without incurring a penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, but after the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes. The Sub-commentary adds that any tonic placed under dual ownership may not be used at all until the arrangement is rescinded.

> 3) The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya experts on the meaning of the last exemption in the list -- i.e., "having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind, he receives it in return and makes use of it." Ven. Maha Sumanatthera states that the phrase, "if within seven days" applies here as well: If within seven days the bhikkhu gives the tonic to an unordained person, having abandoned possession of it in his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for another seven days if the unordained person happens to return it to him.

Ven. Maha Padumathera disagrees, saying that the exemption "abandons it" already covers such a case, and that the exemption here refers to the situation where a bhikkhu has kept a tonic past seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return, and then gives it up to an unordained person. If the unordained person then returns the tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body.

The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates some problems, both textual and practical. To begin with, the phrase, "if within seven days," modifies every one of the other no-offense clauses, and there is nothing to indicate that it does not modify this one, too. Secondly, every one of the other exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense, and not to ways of dealing with the forfeited article after it is returned, and again there is nothing to indicate that the last exemption breaks this pattern.

On the practical side, if the exemption "abandons it" covers cases where a bhikkhu may give up the tonic to anyone at all and then receive it in return to use for another seven days, bhikkhus could spend their time trading hoards of tonics among themselves indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless. But as the origin story shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing such hoards that the rule was formulated in the first place.

> "Then Ven. Pilindavaccha approached the residence of King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, and on arrival sat down on an appointed seat. Then King Seniya Bimbisara... approached Ven. Pilindavaccha and, paying homage, sat down to one side. As he sat there, Ven. Pilindavaccha addressed him: 'For what reason, great king, has the monastery attendant's family been imprisoned?'

> "'Sir, in the monastery attendant's house was a garland of gold: beautiful, attractive, exquisite. There is no garland of gold like it even in our own women's quarters. From where could he have gotten it? It must have been stolen.'

> "Then Ven. Pilindavaccha willed that the palace of King Seniya Bimbisara be gold. And it became made entirely of gold. 'But from where did you get so much gold, great king?'

> "(Saying,) 'I understand, sir. This is simply the master's psychic power,' he had the monastery attendant's family released.

> "The people, saying, 'The master Pilindavaccha displayed a psychic wonder, a superior human feat, to the king and his retinue,' were gladdened and delighted. They presented Ven. Pilindavaccha with the five tonics: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar.

> "Now ordinarily Ven. Pilindavaccha was already a receiver of the five tonics, so he distributed his gains among his company, who came to live in abundance. They put away their gains having filled pots and pitchers. They hung up their gains having filled water strainers and bags. These kept oozing and seeping, and their dwellings were crawling and creeping with rats. People, engaged in a tour of the dwellings, having seen this, were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives have inner store rooms like the king...'"

Thus it seems more likely that the Vibhanga's no-offense clauses should be interpreted like this: A bhikkhu is no longer held responsible for a tonic if he abandons it or gives it away -- no matter who he gives it to, or what his state of mind -- but he may receive it in return and use it another seven days only if he has given it to an unordained person, having abandoned all possession of it in his mind.

> Summary: Keeping any of the five tonics -- ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or sugar/molasses -- for more than seven days, unless one determines to use them only externally, is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 24. When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth. When a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn. If when more than a month is left to the hot season he should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

Bhikkhus in the time of the Buddha commonly bathed in a river or lake. Passages in the Canon give an indication of some of the dangers involved: They had to watch over their robes to make sure they weren't stolen or washed away by the river, and at the same time make sure they didn't expose themselves. (S.II.10 tells of a female deity who, seeing a young bhikkhu bathing, became smitten with the sight of him wearing only his under robe. She appeared to him, suggesting that he leave the monkhood to take his fill of sensual pleasures before his youth had past, but fortunately he was far enough in the practice to resist her advances.) A further danger during the rainy season was that the rivers would become swollen and their currents strong. During this time, then, bhikkhus would bathe in the rain.

Rains-bathing cloth. The Mahavagga (Mv.VIII.15.1-7) contains the story of a servant girl who went to a monastery and -- seeing bhikkhus out bathing naked in the rain -- concluded that there were no bhikkhus there, but only naked ascetics. She returned to tell her mistress, Lady Visakha, who realized what was actually happening and made this the occasion to ask permission of the Buddha to provide rains-bathing cloths for the bhikkhus, because as she put it, "Nakedness is repulsive." He granted her request, and at a later point (Mv.VIII.20.2) stated that a rains-bathing cloth could be determined for use during the four months of the rainy season -- beginning with the day after the full moon in July, or the second if there are two -- and that at the end of the four months it was to be placed under dual ownership. This training rule deals with the protocol for seeking and using such a cloth during the rains and the period immediately preceding them.

The protocol is sketched out in the Vibhanga, the details being filled in by the Commentary as follows: During the first two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season -- the lunar cycle ending with the full moon in July, or the first if there are two -- a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth and make it if he gets enough material, but may not yet use it or determine it for use. In seeking the cloth he may directly ask for it from relatives or people who have invited him to ask, or he may approach people who have provided rains-bathing cloths in the past and give them such hints as: "It is the time for material for a rains-bathing cloth," or "People are giving material for a rains-bathing cloth." If he asks directly from people who are not relatives or who have not invited him to ask, he incurs a dukkata; if he then receives cloth from them, he incurs the full penalty under NP 6. If he gives hints to people who have never provided rains-bathing cloths in the past, he incurs a dukkata.

During the last two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season he may now begin using his cloth, although he may not yet determine it for use. This shows clearly that this rule is providing an exemption to NP 1, under which he otherwise would be forced to determine the cloth within ten days after receiving it. If he has not yet received enough material, he may continue seeking for more in the way described above and make himself a cloth when he receives enough.

When the first day of the rainy season arrives, he may determine the cloth. If he does not yet have enough material to make his rains-bathing cloth, he may continue seeking it throughout the four months of the rains. If he bathes naked in the rain when he has a cloth to use, he incurs a dukkata, although he may bathe naked in a lake or river without penalty. If he has no cloth to use, he may also bathe naked in the rain.

At the end of the four months, he is to wash his cloth, place it under dual ownership, and put it aside if it is still usable. He may begin using it again the last two weeks of the last lunar month before the next rainy season and is to redetermine it for use on the day the rainy season officially begins.

Towards the end of his discussion of this rule, Buddhaghosa adds his own personal opinion on when the rains-bathing cloth should be determined for use if it is finished during the rains -- on the grounds that the ancient commentaries do not discuss the issue -- one of the few places where he overtly gives his own opinion anywhere in the Commentary. His verdict: If one receives enough material to finish the cloth within ten days, one should determine it within those ten days. If not, one may keep what material one has, undetermined and throughout the rainy season if need be, until one does obtain enough material and then determine the cloth on the day it is completed.

Offenses. As the K/Commentary points out, this rule covers two separate offenses whose factors are somewhat different: the offense for seeking a rains-bathing cloth at the wrong time and that for using it at the wrong time.

Seeking. The factors here are three: object, effort, and result. The bhikkhu is looking for material for a rains-bathing cloth, he makes hints to people during the time he is not allowed to make hints, and he receives the cloth. There is a dukkata in the hinting and a full offense in receiving the cloth.

Using. The factors here are two: object -- he has a rains-bathing cloth -- and effort -- he has other robes to use, there are no dangers, and yet he wears the cloth during the period when he is not allowed to wear it. (The conditions here are based on the no-offenses clauses, which we will discuss below.)

In neither of these cases is perception a mitigating factor. Even if a bhikkhu thinks that the right time to hint for the cloth or to wear it has come when it actually hasn't, he is not immune from an offense.

Forfeiture & confession. A bhikkhu who has committed either of the two full offenses here is to forfeit the cloth and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1.

Non-offenses. As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who hints for a rains-bathing cloth within the last lunar month of the hot season, or for one who wears his rains-bathing cloth during the last two weeks of that month.

The Vibhanga then refers to a situation that occasionally happens under the lunar calendar: The four months of the hot season end, but the Rains Retreat is delayed another lunar cycle due to the fact that a thirteenth lunar month has to be added to that year in order to bring the lunar year back into line with the solar year. (This usually occurs when there are two full moons in July.) In this case, it says that the rains-bathing cloth -- having been sought for during the fourth month and worn during the last two weeks of the hot season -- is to be washed and then put aside. When the proper season arrives, it may be brought out for use (%).

The Commentary adds that there is no need to determine the cloth in this period until the day the Rains Retreat officially starts, but it doesn't say whether the proper season to use the cloth begins with the Rains Retreat or two weeks before. It would make sense to allow the bhikkhu to begin using the cloth two weeks before, but this is simply my own opinion.

The Vibhanga then adds three more exemptions: There is no offense for a "stolen-robe" bhikkhu, a "destroyed-robe" bhikkhu, or when there are dangers. The Commentary interprets "robe" here as meaning rains-bathing cloth, and says that these exemptions apply to the dukkata offense for bathing naked in the rain. A bhikkhu whose rains-bathing cloth has been stolen or destroyed may bathe naked in the rain without incurring a penalty, as may a bhikkhu with an expensive bathing cloth who would rather bathe naked because of his fear of cloth thieves.

Strangely enough, Buddhaghosa's own K/Commentary makes the Vibhanga's exemptions refer also to the full offense. If a bhikkhu's other robes have been stolen or destroyed, he may wear his rains-bathing cloth out of season. The same holds true when, in the words of the K/Commentary, "naked thieves are plundering," and a bhikkhu decides to wear his rains-bathing cloth out-of-season in order to protect either it or his other robes from being stolen.

The Sub-commentary follows the K/Commentary in holding to both interpretations.

At present, much of this discussion is purely academic, inasmuch as most bhikkhus -- if they use a bathing cloth -- tend to determine it for use as a "cloth accessory" so as to avoid any possible offense under this rule.

> Summary: Seeking and receiving a rains-bathing cloth before the fourth month of the hot season is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

> Using a rains-bathing cloth before the last two weeks of the fourth month of the hot season is also a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 25. Should any bhikkhu, having himself given a robe-cloth to (another) bhikkhu, and then being angered and displeased, snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

> "At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan said to his brother's student, 'Come, friend, let's set out on a tour of the countryside.'

> "'I can't go, sir. My robe is threadbare.'

> "'Come, friend, I'll give you a robe.' And he gave him a robe. Then that bhikkhu heard, 'The Blessed One, they say, is going to set out on a tour of the countryside.' The thought occurred to him: 'In that case I won't set out on a tour of the countryside with Ven. Upananda the Sakyan. I'll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.'

> "Then Ven. Upananda said to him, 'Come, friend, let's set out on that tour of the countryside now.'

> "'I won't set out on a tour of the countryside with you, sir. I'll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.'

> "'But the robe I gave you, my friend, will set out on a tour of the countryside with me.' And angered and displeased, he snatched the robe back."

As the Commentary points out, this rule applies to cases where one perceives the robe-cloth as being rightfully one's own even after having given it away, as when giving it on an implicit or explicit condition that the recipient does not later fulfill. Thus the act of snatching away here does not entail a parajika. If, however, one has mentally abandoned ownership of the robe and then for some reason snatches it back, the case would come under Parajika 2.

The factors for an offense here are two.

Object: a piece of any of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.

Effort. One has given the cloth to another bhikkhu on one condition or another and then, angered and displeased with him, either snatches it back or has someone else snatch it back. In the latter case, one incurs a dukkata in giving the order to snatch the robe, and the full offense when the robe is snatched. Perception (with regard to the recipient/victim) is not a mitigating factor here. If he actually is a bhikkhu, then whether or not one perceives him to be so makes no difference as far as the offense is concerned.

Forfeiture & confession. A bhikkhu who has obtained robe-cloth in violation of this rule is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI.

Lesser offenses. There is a dukkata for angrily snatching back from a bhikkhu requisites other than cloth; and for angrily snatching back any kind of requisite -- cloth or otherwise -- that one has given to someone who is not a bhikkhu. The Sub-commentary adds that to give robe-cloth to a layman planning to be ordained, and then to snatch it back in this way after his ordination, entails the full offense.

According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if the recipient returns the robe of his own accord or if the donor takes it back on trust (%). The Commentary's discussion of the first exemption shows that if the recipient returns the robe after receiving a gentle hint from the donor -- "I gave you the robe in hopes that you would study with me, but now you are studying with someone else" -- the donor incurs no penalty. But if the donor's hint shows anger -- "I gave this robe to a bhikkhu who would study with me, not to one who would study with somebody else!" -- he incurs a dukkata for the hint, but no penalty when the recipient returns the robe.

> Summary: Having given another bhikkhu a robe on a condition and then -- angry and displeased -- snatching it back or having it snatched back is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 26. Should any bhikkhu, having requested thread, have a robe woven by weavers, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

The factors for an offense here are three: object, effort, and result.

> 1) Object: thread or yarn of the six allowable types for robe-cloth, that a bhikkhu -- with the purpose of making a robe -- has requested from people who are not his relatives or who have not invited him to ask.

> 2) Effort: He takes this thread to weavers who are unrelated to him and have not offered their services for free, and gets them to weave him robe-cloth measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.

> 3) Result: He receives the cloth.

Offenses. The Commentary has a table that works out the various combinations of offenses here based on two variables: thread properly or improperly received, and weavers proper or improper for the bhikkhu to ask. Thread properly received is any that the bhikkhu has requested from people who are related to him or have invited him to ask. Similarly, weavers proper for him to ask are any who are related to him or have offered him their services.

If both the thread and the weavers are classed as not proper, there is a dukkata in getting them to weave cloth, and a nissaggiya pacittiya in receiving the cloth when it is done.

There is a dukkata in receiving the cloth if the thread is proper, but the weavers not; OR if the thread is not proper, but the weavers are. (For ease of remembrance: a dukkata if one variable is proper and the other not.)

If both variables are proper, there is no offense.

The Commentary then has a field day working out the permutations if two different weavers -- one proper and one improper -- work on the cloth, or if proper and improper thread are used in the cloth -- proper warp and improper woof, or alternating strands of proper and improper thread -- which if nothing else goes to show how few truly burning issues have sprung up around this rule.

Forfeiture & confession. Robe-cloth received in a way that entails the full offense under this rule is to be forfeited and the offense confessed, following the procedure under NP 1.

Non-offenses. The Vibhanga says that there is no offense "to sew a robe, or in a binding, a belt, a shoulder-strap, a bag for carrying the bowl, or a water-strainer." The Commentary interprets this as meaning that there is no offense in asking for thread or yarn to sew a robe or to make any of the other things listed. Since these articles are small, and since bhikkhus are allowed looms (Cv.V.28.2), perhaps they are things that bhikkhus could be expected to make themselves.

The no-offense clauses also say that there is no offense if they -- the donors or the weavers -- are relatives, if they have invited one to ask, if the cloth is for the sake of another, or if it is by means of one's own property. These exemptions apply both to asking for thread and for getting weavers to weave cloth. As under NP 6 & 22, "for the sake of another" means that one may ask from one's own relatives or from those who have invited one to ask OR from relatives of the other person or people who have invited him to ask. Asking for his sake from people other than these would entail the full offense.

If the cloth is obtained by means of one's own property -- i.e., one arranges to pay for the thread and hire the weavers -- the Commentary states that one is responsible for the cloth as soon as it is finished and fully paid for, whether or not it is delivered into one's possession. One must therefore determine it for use within 10 days of that date so as not to commit an offense under NP 1. If the weavers have promised to send word when the cloth is done, one's responsibility starts when one receives word from their messenger; similarly, if they have promised to send the cloth when done, one's responsibility begins when their messenger delivers it.

> Summary: Taking thread that one has asked for improperly and getting weavers to weave cloth from it -- when they are unrelated and have not made a previous offer to weave -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 27. In case a man or woman householder unrelated to a bhikkhu has weavers weave robe-cloth for his sake, and if the bhikkhu, not previously invited (by the householder), having approached the weavers, should make stipulations with regard to the cloth, saying, "This cloth, friends, is to be woven for my sake. Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well scraped, well smoothed, and perhaps I may reward you with a little something;" and should the bhikkhu, having said that, reward them with a little something, even as much as alms food, it (the cloth) is to be forfeited and confessed.

Here the factors for an offense are four:

Object: a piece of any of the six allowable types of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, which is being made for one's sake by the arrangement of a donor who is unrelated and has not given an invitation to ask.

Intention. One wants to get better cloth than what the donors are planning to give.

Effort. One approaches the weavers and gets them to increase the amount of thread going into the cloth. The Commentary explains that the bhikkhu's words quoted in the rule are meant simply to be an example of any way in which one might do this. The Vibhanga defines the reward of "alms food" as covering anything of even the slightest material value -- food, a lump of powder, tooth wood, unwoven thread, or even a phrase of Dhamma. A bhikkhu who offers to pay for the extra thread in full would thus also fulfill this factor.

The Sub-commentary adds that even if the bhikkhu doesn't deliver the reward, this factor is fulfilled all the same as long as the weavers, as a result of his stipulations, actually increase the amount of thread from that which they and the donors had agreed on.

Result. One receives the cloth.

Offenses. The bhikkhu incurs a dukkata as soon as the weavers add even a little extra thread to the cloth, and the full offense when he receives it. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if --

> the donors are relatives,

> they have invited one to ask,

> one asks for the sake of another,

> one gets the weavers to make the cloth less expensive than the donors had ordered, or if it is by means of one's own property. (This last point refers only to cases where the bhikkhu was the one who had the weavers hired in the first place.)

> Summary: When donors who are not relatives -- and have not invited one to ask -- have arranged for weavers to weave robe-cloth intended for one: Receiving the cloth after getting the weavers to increase the amount of thread used in it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 28. Ten days prior to the third-month Kattika full moon, should robe-cloth offered in urgency accrue to a bhikkhu, he is to accept it if he regards it as offered in urgency. Once he has accepted it, he may keep it throughout the robe season. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

The third-month Kattika full moon is the full moon in October, or the first if there are two. This is the final day of the Rains Retreat, and the day before the beginning of the robe season.

Robe-cloth offered in urgency is any piece of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, offered by a person who does not want to wait until the robe season to make an offering, either because his/her survival is in doubt -- as when a soldier is going into war, a traveler is about to set out on a journey, or a woman has become pregnant -- or because he/she has developed new-found faith in the religion.

The Commentary points out that the period allowed for giving robe-cloth offered in urgency begins on the fifth day of the waxing moon before the end of the Rains Retreat; and that robe-cloth offered to an individual bhikkhu beginning on the sixth day of the waning moon can, under NP 1, be kept throughout the robe season because the tenth dawn after the sixth waning moon is the beginning of the robe season. Thus it would seem that this rule is giving only a one-day special allowance.

However, we should note that the Vibhanga implicitly, and the Commentary explicitly, treat robe-cloth offered in urgency as in-season cloth (see NP 3): In other words, the cloth goes to the Community, and is to be divided only among those bhikkhus who spend the Rains Retreat in that Community. Thus if a bhikkhu has broken the retreat, he must return his share to the Community, as he no longer has any right to it.

The factors for an offense here are two: object -- robe-cloth offered in urgency; and effort -- one keeps it past the end of the robe season: the dawn after the full moon following the Rains Retreat, if one does not participate in a kathina; or the end of one's kathina privileges, if one does. And, as noted above, if one has broken one's Retreat, one has no right to any share in such cloth and must return it to the Community immediately.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Thus if the period to keep the cloth has passed even though one thinks it hasn't -- or if it is not determined for use, etc., when one thinks it is -- one is still subject to the offense all the same.

The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. See Appendix VI for the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if, before the robe season is over, one determines the cloth, places it under dual ownership, or abandons it (gives it away or throws it away); if it is lost, destroyed, burnt, or stolen, or if someone else takes it on trust.

> Summary: Keeping robe-cloth offered in urgency past the end of the robe season after having accepted it during the last eleven days of the Rains Retreat is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 29. There are wilderness abodes that are considered dubious and risky. A bhikkhu living in such abodes after the (fourth-month) Kattika full moon has passed may keep any one of his three robes in a village if he so desires. Should he have any reason to live apart from the robe, he may do so for six nights at most. If he should live apart from it longer than that -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

As we noted under NP 2, every bhikkhu who has spent the Rains Retreat has the right to live separated from his set of three robes during the following month. This rule is a partial one-month extension of this right for bhikkhus living in dangerous wilderness areas. The reason for this extension is that this one-month period was when thieves were active -- perhaps because they knew that bhikkhus had just received new cloth, or simply because now that roads were passable again it was time for them to get back to their work.

The Commentary defines this situation in terms of four factors:

> 1) The bhikkhu has spent the first Rains Retreat -- the one beginning with the full moon in July, or the second full moon if there are two in that month -- without break.

> 2) He is staying in a wilderness abode, defined in the Vibhanga as one at least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest village, this distance being measured by the shortest walkable path between the two and not as the crow flies. At the same time, he is not so far from a village that he cannot go for alms there in the morning and then return to eat in his abode before noon.

> 3) The abode is dubious and risky: dubious in that thieves are known to be about, risky in that people are known to have been hurt or plundered by them.

> 4) The time period for the extension is one month beginning the day after the fourth Kattika moon, the full moon one month after the end of the Rains Retreat.

The dawn after this full moon day is when the robe season normally ends for those bhikkhus who have not participated in a kathina. However, a bhikkhu living in the situation outlined above may keep one of his set of triple robes in the village where he normally goes for alms, and -- if he has a reason -- may stay apart from it six nights at most. As usual, nights are counted by dawns.

The factors for an offense here are two: object -- one of a bhikkhu's basic set of three robes; and effort -- staying away from the robe past the sixth dawn after first being apart from it. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one thinks that six nights have not passed when they actually have, one is not immune from the offense.

As the Sub-commentary points out, the Commentary and K/Commentary differ in their definition of the factor of effort here. According to the K/Commentary, the bhikkhu staying in a forest abode during the period in question is counted as being apart from his robe when it is placed in the village, and thus can keep it there while he is in his forest abode only six nights at a stretch. Thus, it says, if he is in his wilderness abode at the sixth dawn, he incurs the full penalty.

The Commentary, however, maintains that the bhikkhu staying in the wilderness abode is not counted as being apart from his robe when it is placed in the village, but if he leaves that abode on business and lets his robe remain in the village, he may stay away from the abode only six nights at a stretch. Thus, it says, if in returning from his business he cannot make it to his forest abode by the sixth dawn, and the village is closer, he may stop over in the village long enough to check up on the robe and still be immune from the offense.

The second interpretation makes more sense, in that if the bhikkhu is staying in his abode and going for alms in the village, he may check up on his robe every day. It is also more in line with the Vibhanga's definition of "any reason" -- i.e., "any business" -- which indicates situations where the bhikkhu would be away from his abode. The Sub-commentary, following Bhadanta Buddhadatta Thera, adopts the second interpretation.

Forfeiture & confession. A bhikkhu under these conditions who has been away from his robe for more than six nights is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the robe is in Appendix VI.

Non-offenses. There is no offense for a bhikkhu who has stayed away from his robe six nights or less; or

> if, having been apart from his robe six nights, he enters the village boundary (and, according to the Commentary, stays long enough to check up on his robe);

> if, within the six nights, he rescinds the determination of the robe, places it under dual ownership, abandons it; or the robe gets lost, burnt, destroyed, stolen, or taken by someone on trust;

> or if he has been authorized by the Community to be apart from his robe. (This, according to the Commentary, refers to the authorization discussed under NP 2.)

The commentaries refer the reader to NP 2 for the remaining explanations to this rule, which would seem to indicate that if a bhikkhu's kathina privileges are still in effect, he is also immune from an offense under this rule during the period in question no matter how many nights he is away from his robe.

> Summary: When one is living in a dangerous wilderness abode during the month after the fourth Kattika full moon and has left one of one's robes in the village where one normally goes for alms: Being away from the abode and the village for more than six nights at a stretch -- except when authorized by the Community -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 30. Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to himself gains that had been intended for a Community, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

> "Now in Savatthi at that time a certain guild had prepared a meal with cloth for the Community, (thinking,) 'Having fed (the bhikkhus) we will supply them with cloth.'

> "Then some group-of-six bhikkhus went to where the guild members were staying and on arrival said, 'Give us these cloths, friends.'

> "'We can't, sirs. We arrange alms with cloth for the Community (like this) on a yearly basis.'

> "'The Community has lots of donors, my friends. The Community gets lots of meals. It is in dependence on you, looking to you, that we live here. If you won't give to us, is there anyone who will? Give us the cloths, friends.'

> "So the guild, pressured by the group-of-six bhikkhus, gave them what cloth they had prepared and then served the meal to the Community. The bhikkhus who knew that a meal with cloth had been prepared, but not that the cloth had been given to the group-of-six bhikkhus, addressed the guild members: 'Present the cloth to the Community, friends.'

> "'There isn't any, sirs. What cloth we had prepared, the masters -- the group-of-six bhikkhus -- have diverted to themselves.'

> "Those bhikkhus who were of few wants... were offended and annoyed and spread it about: 'How can these group-of-six bhikkhus divert to themselves gains intended for the Community?'"

There are four factors for an offense here.

Object: any requisite -- "robe-cloth, alms-food, lodgings, medicine, even a lump of powder, toothwood, or unwoven thread" -- that donors have indicated by word or gesture that they intend to give to a Community. As the Commentary notes, donors here include not only lay people in general, but also one's fellow bhikkhus and relatives -- even one's own mother: The fact that a gift is intended for a Community overrides all other considerations, even when one is ill.

Perception. One perceives that the donors have intended the requisite for a Community (%).

Effort. One tries to persuade them that they should give it to oneself instead. This in itself, following on the first two factors, entails a dukkata.

Result. One receives the article from the donors. This entails the full offense.

Forfeiture & confession. Any gains received in violation of this rule are to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The procedures here are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the gains is in Appendix VI.

Related offenses. If one knowingly tries to divert gains intended for a Community to oneself, but the donors go ahead and give the gains to the Community anyway, then the Commentary says that one should not have a share in them. If one does receive a share from the Community, one should return it. If, instead of returning it, one shares it among lay people, the case is to be treated under Parajika 2.

If one is in doubt as to whether items are intended for the Community but goes ahead and diverts them anyway, one incurs a dukkata regardless of whether the items really were intended for the Community or not (%).

To divert items intended for a Community to another individual entails a pacittiya under Pacittiya 82. To divert items intended for one Community of bhikkhus to another Community or to a shrine, entails a dukkata. The same holds true for diverting items intended for a shrine to a Community, to an individual, or to another shrine; and for diverting items intended for an individual to a Community, to a shrine, or to another individual.

The Commentary states that the term individual here can mean common animals as well as human beings, and that this last case thus includes even such things as saying, "Don't give it to that dog. Give it to this one." This point is well-taken: A bhikkhu has no business interfering with the gains that are to be freely given to another being, no matter what that being's current status.

The Sub-commentary holds that once an item has been presented by a donor, there is nothing wrong in diverting it elsewhere. Thus, it says, taking flowers presented to one shrine and placing them at another -- or chasing a dog away from food that has been given to it so that another dog can have a share -- would be perfectly all right, but the Thai editors of the Sub-commentary state in a footnote that they disagree.

Non-offenses. There is no offense in diverting items to oneself if one does not perceive them as intended for a Community, another individual, or a shrine, regardless of whether the donors intended them that way or not. Still, one should be careful not to do this in such a way as to violate any of the other rules on asking from people who are unrelated or have not given an invitation to ask.

The no-offense clauses recommend a safer line of conduct: If one is asked, "To whom should we give this?" one may answer, "Give wherever your gift would be used, or would be well-cared for, or would last long, or wherever your mind feels inspired."

> Summary: Persuading a donor to give to oneself a gift that he or she had planned to give to the Community -- when one knows that it was intended for the Community -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

A bhikkhu who commits an offense against any of these thirty nissaggiya pacittiya offenses must first forfeit the item in question before confessing the offense. If he makes use of the item before forfeiting it, he incurs an extra dukkata -- except for money received in violation of NP 18 or 19, which would involve another nissaggiya pacittiya if used in trade. If the item gets lost or destroyed before the bhikkhu forfeits it, he may simply confess a pacittiya.

Except in cases where forfeiture must be made to a Community of four bhikkhus or more (NP 18, 19, & 22), the offender may forfeit the item to a single bhikkhu, to a group of two or three, or to a Community of four or more. Once he has confessed the offense, he is cleared of the penalty.

In cases where he must forfeit the item to the Community, he may not receive it in return. In the remaining cases, though, the item must be returned to him. Not to do so entails a dukkata for the bhikkhu(s) to whom it is forfeited. In a few cases, there are restrictions as to what use a bhikkhu may make of an item received in return after forfeiture -- e.g., he may not use the five tonics to treat his body internally or externally, and may not use felt made with silk or composed of more than 1/2 black wool as a rug -- but apart from this he is free to use the returned item as he likes.

The act of forfeiture is thus symbolic in most cases, and the effect of the rules is more internal: The offender may not make use of the item until he has confessed his wrong-doing, and this in itself should give him time to reflect on his actions. Similarly, in the act of handing the nissaggiya item over to another, he has an opportunity to reflect on whether or not it is worth whatever greed, anger, or delusion it has sparked in his mind.

Offenses of this and the remaining categories in this book are classed as light offenses (lahukapatti) and are also termed desana-gamini, meaning that they can be cleared through confession.

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

Revised: Thu 14 March 2002