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

### Chapter Eight

## Part Three: The Exhortation Chapter

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

> 21. Should any bhikkhu, unauthorized, exhort the bhikkhunis, it is to be confessed.

> "Now at that time, elder bhikkhus, having exhorted the bhikkhunis, became recipients of robes, alms, lodgings, and medicines for the sick. (According to the Commentary, if a bhikkhu gave a good exhortation to the bhikkhunis, they would tell their supporters, who in turn would provide the exhorter with requisites.) The thought occurred to some group-of-six bhikkhus: 'At present, elder bhikkhus, having exhorted the bhikkhunis, have become recipients of robes, alms, lodgings, and medicines for the sick. Let's exhort the bhikkhunis, too.' So, having approached the bhikkhunis, they said, 'Approach us, sisters, and we too will exhort you.'

> "So the bhikkhunis went to where the group-of-six bhikkhus were staying and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. Then the group-of-six bhikkhus, after giving just a trifling Dhamma talk and spending the day with 'animal talk,' dismissed the bhikkhunis: 'You may go, now, sisters.'

> "Then the bhikkhunis went to where the Blessed One was staying and, on arrival, having bowed down, stood to one side. As they were standing there, the Blessed One addressed them: 'Was the exhortation effective, bhikkhunis?'

> "'Venerable sir, since when was the exhortation effective? The group-of-six bhikkhus, giving just a trifling Dhamma talk, dismissed us after spending the day with animal talk.'"

When Mahapajapati Gotami, the Buddha's aunt and stepmother, asked him to establish an order of bhikkhunis, he did so on the condition that she and all future bhikkhunis accept eight vows of respect (garu-dhamma). In short:

> 1) Even a bhikkhuni who has been ordained over a century must pay homage to a bhikkhu ordained that very day.

> 2) A bhikkhuni must not spend the rains in a residence where there is no bhikkhu (within half a league, says the Commentary).

> 3) Every half month a bhikkhuni should expect two things from the Community of bhikkhus: the date of Patimokkha recitation and an exhortation.

> 4) At the end of the Rains Retreat, every bhikkhuni should invite criticism both from the Community of bhikkhunis and from the Community of bhikkhus.

> 5) A bhikkhuni who has broken any of the vows of respect must undergo penance (manatta) for half a month under both Communities.

> 6) A woman may become ordained as a bhikkhuni only after becoming female novice, and then, as a probationer, observing the first six precepts without lapse for two full years.

> 7) A bhikkhuni is not to insult or abuse a bhikkhu in any way.

> 8) A bhikkhuni may not instruct a bhikkhu, although a bhikkhu may instruct a bhikkhuni.

This rule deals with the bi-weekly exhortation mentioned in vow #3. The pattern for the exhortation was that once a bhikkhu had been chosen by the bhikkhus to exhort the bhikkhunis, he was to clean and prepare the place for the exhortation within the monastery where he was dwelling, then find a companion and wait for the bhikkhunis to arrive. When they had come, he was to ask if all the bhikkhunis were present and if they were observing the eight vows of respect. If they were, he was then to exhort them on any topic dealing with the Dhamma. If they weren't, he was to exhort them on the eight vows.

Since the eight vows form the heart of the exhortation, the two factors for the full offense under this rule are defined as follows:

> 1) Object: a bhikkhuni or group of bhikkhunis.

> 2) Effort: A bhikkhu exhorts her/them concerning the eight vows of respect when he has not been properly authorized to do so, or when he has not been invited by the bhikkhuni(s) to give them instruction.

Object. A bhikkhuni had to undergo a double ordination, first in the Bhikkhuni Sangha and then in the Bhikkhu Sangha, before she was considered fully ordained. Thus only a bhikkhuni with the full double ordination is grounds for a pacittiya here. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhuni Sangha, is grounds for a dukkata, while female probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Effort. A bhikkhu, not properly authorized, who exhorts the bhikkhunis on any topic other than the eight vows incurs a dukkata.

The authorization. When this rule was still newly-formulated, some group-of-six bhikkhus simply authorized one another to continue exhorting the bhikkhunis. This forced the Buddha to establish stringent standards for the type of bhikkhu who could properly be authorized. They were, in short:

> He is scrupulously virtuous.
> He is very learned.
> He thoroughly understands the qualities of the celibate life.
> He has mastered both the bhikkhus' Patimokkha and the bhikkhunis' Patimokkha.
> He has a pleasing voice and delivery.
> He is well-liked by the bhikkhunis.
> He never, before his ordination, violated a bhikkhuni, female probationer, or female novice.
> He has been a bhikkhu for at least 20 years.

As the Commentary notes, these are qualities that the group of six never possessed even in their dreams.

If a bhikkhu has been improperly authorized -- e.g., he does not meet with these qualifications -- then even if he perceives himself as properly authorized, his perception is not a mitigating factor: He does not count as authorized under this rule.

Non-offenses. Although this rule grew from a time when bhikkhus were eager to exhort the bhikkhunis, times changed. The Cullavagga (X.9.5) deals with a period when the bhikkhus tried to avoid exhorting the bhikkhunis, and Cv.X.9.4 tells what should be done when there is no bhikkhu qualified to exhort them. (The bhikkhus were to tell them, "Continue striving in good faith.")

In cases such as these, though, the bhikkhunis were not left adrift. They could approach any bhikkhu they admired and ask him for instruction. Thus the no-offense clauses here say, "There is no offense in giving an exposition (the Commentary interprets this as chanting the eight vows in Pali), giving an interrogation (this, according to the Commentary, means reciting the ancient commentary, which is hardly likely; more probably, it means questioning the bhikkhunis as to whether or not they are observing the eight vows), and then, after being requested by the bhikkhunis, giving instruction. There is also no offense if, on being asked a question by a bhikkhuni, one answers her question, or if a bhikkhuni happens to overhear any instruction one is giving for the sake of another person.

> Summary: Exhorting a bhikkhuni about the eight vows of respect -- except when one has been authorized to do so by the Community -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 22. Should any bhikkhu, even if authorized, exhort the bhikkhunis after sunset, it is to be confessed.

> "Now at that time it was Ven. Culapanthaka's turn to exhort the bhikkhunis. The bhikkhunis said, 'Today the exhortation won't be effective, for Ven. Culapanthaka will simply repeat the same old stanza over and over again.'

> "Then the bhikkhunis approached Ven. Culapanthaka and, on arrival, having paid homage to him, sat down to one side. As they were sitting there, Ven. Culapanthaka said to them, 'Are you all present, sisters?'

> "'Yes, sir, we are all present.'

> "'Are the eight vows of respect being observed?'

> "'Yes, sir, they are being observed.'

> "'This, sisters, is the exhortation.' And having given it to them, he repeated it over and over again:

> > Exalted in mind, uncomplacent,
> > The sage, trained in sagacity's ways:
> > He has no sorrows, one such as this,
> > Calmed and ever mindful.

> "The bhikkhunis said, 'Didn't we say so? Today the exhortation won't be effective, for now Ven. Culapanthaka will simply repeat the same old stanza over and over again.'

> "Ven. Culapanthaka heard the bhikkhunis' conversation. Rising up into the air, he walked back and forth in space, in the sky, stood, sat, lay down, emitted smoke, emitted flames, and disappeared, repeating the same old stanza and many other sayings of the Buddha. The bhikkhunis said, 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? Never before has there been an exhortation as effective as this!'

> "Then Ven. Culapanthaka, having exhorted the bhikkhunis until nightfall, dismissed them: 'You may go, sisters.' So the bhikkhunis -- the gates of the city being closed -- spent the night outside the city walls and entered the city only at morning. People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'These bhikkhunis are unchaste. Having spent the night with the bhikkhus in the monastery, only now are they entering the city.'"

The factors for the full offense here are two:

> Object. As with the preceding rule, a bhikkhuni or group of bhikkhunis who have received the double ordination are grounds for a pacittiya here. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhuni Sangha, is grounds for a dukkata, while female probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

> Effort. One teaches the bhikkhuni(s) any topic related to the Dhamma after the sun has set.

Non-offenses. Although the origin story suggests that it is not wise in any case to teach bhikkhunis after sunset -- because of the suspicions such an action may provoke -- the no-offense clauses give more respect to the bhikkhunis' desire for instruction than to the fear of gossiping lay people. As under the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may instruct bhikkhunis after sunset if they request it or if a bhikkhuni asks him a question. And as before, if a bhikkhuni happens to overhear any instruction he is giving for the sake of another person after sunset, no offense is entailed.

> Summary: Exhorting bhikkhunis on any topic at all after sunset -- except when they request it -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 23. Should any bhikkhu, having gone to the bhikkhunis' quarters, exhort the bhikkhunis -- except at the proper occasion -- it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: A bhikkhuni is ill. This is the proper occasion here.

Here again there are two factors for the full offense:

Object. A bhikkhuni who is not ill. Ill means that she is unable to go to an exhortation or to a "samvasa," which none of the texts define but which probably means any official communal meeting of the bhikkhunis.

As with the preceding rule, a bhikkhuni or group of bhikkhunis who have received the double ordination are grounds for a pacittiya here. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhuni Sangha, is grounds for a dukkata, while female probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Effort. One goes to her residence -- any place where a bhikkhuni has spent at least one night -- and exhorts her concerning the eight vows of respect. Exhorting about any other topic is grounds for a dukkata.

Non-offenses. As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who goes to the bhikkhunis' quarters to exhort an ill bhikkhuni. Otherwise, the no-offense clauses are identical with those for the preceding rule. Here again, a bhikkhuni's desire for instruction is considered more important than the wagging tongues of the laity.

> Summary: Going to the bhikkhunis' quarters and exhorting a bhikkhuni about the eight vows of respect -- except when she is ill or has requested the instruction -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 24. Should any bhikkhu say that the bhikkhus exhort the bhikkhunis for the sake of personal gain, it is to be confessed.

Here the factors for the full offense are three:

Object: a bhikkhu who has been properly authorized to teach the bhikkhunis and who is not teaching for the sake of personal gain. If the bhikkhu has not been properly authorized, he is not grounds for an offense.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here: The bhikkhu's actual status -- properly or improperly authorized -- is what determines whether or not this factor is fulfilled. And although the texts do not touch on this point, it would seem that if the bhikkhu actually does not aim at personal gain, one would incur a pacittiya in saying that he does, regardless of how one perceives the case.

Intention. One wants to criticize, discredit, or shame him.

Effort. One accuses him of teaching for the sake of personal gain: either material gain -- gifts of robes, almsfood, etc. -- or immaterial gain, such as respect, homage, or veneration.

Non-offenses. If the bhikkhu does actually teach for the sake of personal gain, there is no offense in stating the facts of the case.

> Summary: Saying that a properly authorized bhikkhu exhorts the bhikkhunis for the sake of personal gain -- when in fact that is not the case -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 25. Should any bhikkhu give robe-cloth to a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, except in exchange, it is to be confessed.

This rule is the counterpart to NP 5. The full offense is composed of two factors: object and effort.

Object: any piece of robe-cloth of the six suitable kinds, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. Other requisites are not grounds for an offense.

Effort. The bhikkhu gives the cloth to an unrelated bhikkhuni and does not receive anything from her in exchange.

Unrelated bhikkhuni here is defined in the same terms as under NP 5: a bhikkhuni who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunis, is grounds for a dukkata. Female probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here: According to the Vibhanga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhuni as related, he is still subject to the penalty.

The Commentary states that the giving need not be hand-to-hand. If a bhikkhu simply places the cloth near a bhikkhuni as his way of giving it to her, and she accepts it as given, this factor is fulfilled.

As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhanga states that it can be worth much more then the cloth or much less. Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahapaccari, one of the ancient commentaries, as saying that even if, in return for the cloth, the bhikkhuni gives the bhikkhu a piece of yellow myrobalan -- a medicinal fruit, one of the cheapest things imaginable in India -- he escapes the penalty under this rule.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if:

> the bhikkhuni is a relation;
> the bhikkhuni is not related, but she gives one something in exchange;
> the bhikkhuni takes the cloth on trust;
> she borrows the cloth;
> one gives her a non-cloth requisite;
> one gives robe-cloth to a female probationer or female novice.

> Summary: Giving robe-cloth to an unrelated bhikkhuni without receiving anything in exchange is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 26. Should any bhikkhu sew a robe or have it sewn for a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be confessed.

> "Now at that time Ven. Udayin had become skilled at making robes. A certain bhikkhuni went to where he was staying and on arrival said, 'Be so good, Ven. sir, as to sew me a robe.' So Ven. Udayin, having sewed a robe for the bhikkhuni, having made it well-dyed and well-finished, having embroidered an obscene design in the middle (a man and woman in mid-intercourse, done in full color, says the Commentary), and having folded it up, placed it to one side. Then the bhikkhuni went to him and on arrival said, 'Where is the robe, Ven. sir?'

> "'Here you are, sister. Take this robe as it is folded and place it aside. When the Community of bhikkhunis comes for exhortation, put it on and come at the back of the line.'

> "So the bhikkhuni took the robe as it was folded and placed it aside. When the Community of bhikkhunis came for exhortation, she put it on and came at the back of the line. People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How brazen these bhikkhunis are, how shameless and sly, in that they embroider obscene designs on a robe!'

> "The bhikkhunis said, 'Whose work is this?'

> "'Master Udayin's,' the bhikkhuni answered.

> "'A thing like this should not adorn even those who are brazen, shameless, and sly. It is Master Udayin's, isn't it?'"

The full offense here has three factors:

> 1) Effort: One sews -- or gets someone else to sew --

> 2) Object: a robe

> 3) Intention: for the sake of a bhikkhuni unrelated to oneself.

Effort. The Vibhanga says that there is a pacittiya for every stitch one makes in the robe. If one gets someone else to sew the robe, there is a pacittiya in giving the command or making the request, and another pacittiya when the other person does as commanded/requested, no matter how many stitches he/she makes.

Object. Robe here means any of the six kinds of robe-cloth made into a robe that can be worn. Other cloth requisites are not grounds for an offense.

Intention. Unrelated bhikkhuni here is defined in the same terms as under the preceding rule: a bhikkhuni who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunis, is grounds for a dukkata. Female probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here: According to the Vibhanga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhuni as related, he is still subject to the penalty.

The Commentary states that if Bhikkhu X is sewing a robe for a bhikkhuni related to him, and Bhikkhu Y -- who is not related to her -- helps him sew it, Bhikkhu Y incurs a pacittiya for every stitch he sews in the robe. The Sub-commentary adds, though, that if Bhikkhu Y does not know that the robe is for the bhikkhuni, he is exempt from the offense.

Non-offenses. There is no offense in sewing a cloth requisite other than a robe for an unrelated bhikkhuni, in sewing anything for a bhikkhuni who is a relation, or in sewing anything for a female probationer or female novice, related or not.

> Summary: Sewing a robe -- or having one sewn -- for an unrelated bhikkhuni is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 27. Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, travel together with a bhikkhuni even for the interval between one village and the next, except at the proper occasion, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: The road is to be traveled by caravan (%), and is considered dubious and risky. This is the proper occasion here.

Here the full offense has two factors.

> 1) Object: a bhikkhuni

> 2) Effort: (a) One makes an arrangement together with her to travel together; (b) one actually travels together with her as arranged (c) from one village to another (d) except at the allowable time.

Object. A bhikkhuni who has received the double ordination is grounds for a pacittiya here. Any other woman would come under Pacittiya 67.

Making an arrangement. According to the Vibhanga, the bhikkhu must give his verbal consent to the arrangement for this part of the factor to be fulfilled. In other words, if the bhikkhuni proposes the arrangement, and he agrees; or he proposes it, regardless of whether or not she agrees, this part of the factor is fulfilled. The penalty for fulfilling it is a dukkata.

If the bhikkhuni proposes the arrangement but the bhikkhu does not give his verbal assent, then even if he does travel together as she proposed, he incurs no penalty in doing so.

Going as arranged. If a specific time frame was part of the arrangement, then the two parties must begin traveling together within that time frame for this factor to be fulfilled. If they happen to start out earlier or later than arranged, again the bhikkhu incurs no penalty.

From one village to another. There is some controversy as to whether this phrase -- gamantara -- means "from one village to another" or "from one house to another." According to Buddhaghosa, the ancient commentaries opted for "village," while he opts for "house." The ancient commentaries have the support of the Canon here, in that the Bhikkhunis' Sanghadisesa 3 & Pacittiya 37 also use the term in question, and there it definitely means the area outside a village, and not the interval from one house to another within a village.

There is a pacittiya for every village-to-village interval one passes. In an area where there are no villages -- i.e., says the Sub-commentary, where villages are further than half a league (8 km. or 5 miles) apart -- there is a pacittiya for every half-league one travels together as arranged.

The allowable occasions. A road to be traveled by caravan (%) is one too dubious or risky to travel alone. (Some have translated this as a "road to be traveled with a weapon," but since bhikkhus and bhikkhunis are not allowed even to touch weapons, it's a doubtful translation at best.)

Dubious means that thieves are known to be about; risky, that people are known to have been beaten, plundered, or robbed by them.

Non-offenses. There is no offense:

> if the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni happen to travel together without having made an arrangement;

> if the bhikkhuni proposes an arrangement, while the bhikkhu does not give his verbal assent;

> if they travel on a dubious and risky road; or

> if there are other dangers. The Commentary illustrates this last contingency with a stock phrase whose meaning admits two interpretations. It starts, "Savage tribes are attacking the countryside," and then comes the ambiguous part, either, "People mount their wheels (their carriages, says the Sub-commentary)," or, what is more likely, "The tribes seize power (another meaning for 'wheel')."

> Summary: Traveling by arrangement with a bhikkhuni from one village to another -- except when the road is risky or there are other dangers -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 28. Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, get in the same boat with a bhikkhuni going upstream or downstream -- except to cross over to the other bank -- it is to be confessed.

> "Now at that time, some group-of-six bhikkhus, having made an arrangement with some bhikkhunis, got in the same boat with them. People were offended and annoyed and spread it about: 'Just as we amuse ourselves with our wives in a boat, so too these Sakyan contemplatives, having made an arrangement with bhikkhunis, amuse themselves in a boat...'"

> (The Buddha then formulated the first version of this rule, without the exception for crossing over to the other bank.)

> "Then at that time a number of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis were traveling on the road from Saketa to Savatthi. Along the way, they had to cross over a river. The bhikkhunis said to the bhikkhus, 'We'll cross over with the masters.'

> "'Sisters, it isn't proper for bhikkhus, having made an arrangement, to get in the same boat with bhikkhunis. Either you go first or we'll go first.'

> "'The masters are outstanding men. Let the masters go first.'

> "Then as the bhikkhunis were crossing over afterward, thieves robbed them and raped them."

The factors for the full offense here are similar to those for the previous rule.

1) Object: a bhikkhuni.

2) Effort: (a) One makes an arrangement together with her to get in a boat together; (b) one actually travels together with her as arranged, going upstream or downstream along a river (c) from one village to another.

Object. A bhikkhuni who has received the double ordination is grounds for a pacittiya here. One who has received only her first ordination -- from the Bhikkhuni Sangha -- would seem to be grounds for a dukkata, and female probationers and female novices grounds for no offense, but none of the texts mention these points.

Effort. The conditions for making an arrangement here are identical with those under the preceding rule: If the bhikkhuni proposes the arrangement, and the bhikkhu agrees; or he bhikkhu proposes it, regardless of whether or not she agrees, this part of the factor is fulfilled and he incurs a dukkata.

The next part of the factor -- going as arranged -- is fulfilled only if they get in the boat together within the time frame they had agreed on. If they get in earlier or later, there is no offense.

Once they get in the boat as arranged, he incurs a pacittiya for every village-to-village interval they pass along the riverbank while going upstream or downstream. If the villages are further than 8 km. apart, he incurs a pacittiya for every 8 km. they travel together.

The commentaries try to add "intention" as an additional factor here -- the bhikkhu's purpose in traveling with the bhikkhuni(s) is to amuse himself -- but there is no basis for this in the Vibhanga.

Non-offenses. As the rule says, there is no offense in making an arrangement and crossing over a river with a bhikkhuni. The Commentary adds that this applies not only to rivers but also to oceans: If one travels from one seaport to another by arrangement with a bhikkhuni, no penalty is entailed.

The K/Commentary goes even further and says that this rule applies only to rivers, and that a bhikkhu seeking to amuse himself with a bhikkhuni may make a date with her and travel around the ocean as much as he likes with no offense. The Sub-commentary disagrees here, saying that a bhikkhu traveling by arrangement with a bhikkhuni in a boat on the ocean incurs a dukkata for every 8 km. they travel. The Sub-commentary's position here is more in keeping with the Great Standards and so carries more weight.

Finally, there is no offense if:

> the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni happen to travel together in the same boat without having made an arrangement;
> the bhikkhuni proposes an arrangement, while the bhikkhu does not give his verbal assent; or
> there are dangers.

> Summary: Traveling by arrangement with a bhikkhuni upriver or downriver in the same boat -- except when crossing a river -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 29. Should any bhikkhu knowingly eat almsfood donated through the prompting of a bhikkhuni, except for food that householders had already intended for him prior (to her prompting), it is to be confessed.

> "Now at that time Bhikkhuni Thullananda regularly took her meals with a certain family. Then one day the head of the household invited some senior monks to a meal. Bhikkhuni Thullananda, dressing in the early morning, carrying her robe and bowl, went to the family's place and on arrival said to the head of the household, 'Why has so much food been prepared?'

> "'I have invited some senior bhikkhus for a meal.'

> "'But who, to you, are senior bhikkhus?'

> "'Ven. Sariputta, Ven. Maha Moggallana, Ven. Maha Kaccana, Ven. Maha Kotthita, Ven. Maha Kappina, Ven. Maha Cunda, Ven. Anuruddha, Ven. Revata, Ven. Upali, Ven. Ananda, Ven. Rahula.'

> "'But why have you invited these scoundrels masquerading as great heroes?'

> "'And who, to you, are great heroes?'

> "'Ven. Devadatta, Ven. Kokakalika, Ven. Katamoraka Tissaka, Ven. Khanda Deviyaputta, Ven. Samuddadatta...' At that point, Bhikkhuni Thullananda was interrupted in mid-sentence when the senior monks entered. 'Is it true, householder, that you have invited these great heroes?'

> "'Just now you made them out to be scoundrels, and now great heroes.' So he threw her out of the house and put an end to her regular meals."

The factors for the full offense here are three:

> 1) Object: any of the five staple foods (see the preface to the Food Chapter, below) offered by a lay person at the instigation of a bhikkhuni.

> 2) Perception: One knows that it was offered at her instigation.

> 3) Effort: One eats the food.

Object. Any of the five staple foods is grounds for a pacittiya. Any edible aside from them is not grounds for an offense.

Bhikkhuni here refers to one who has received the double ordination. The K/Commentary says that one who has received only her first ordination -- from the Bhikkhuni Sangha -- is grounds for a dukkata, while the Vibhanga notes that female novices and female probationers are not grounds for an offense.

Instigating means that the bhikkhuni praises Bhikkhu X to a lay person who is not already planning to give him food and concludes with the suggestion that food be presented to him. If the lay person was already planning to give food to X, this factor is not fulfilled. The Vibhanga defines "already planning to give food" in the following terms: Either X and the lay person are related, the lay person has previously invited X to ask for food, or the lay person already normally prepares food for X. The Commentary adds that if the lay person had already prepared food for X before the bhikkhuni's instigation, X incurs no penalty in eating the food even if none of the Vibhanga's three conditions apply.

Perception. If one is in doubt as to whether or not the food was offered at a bhikkhuni's instigation, the penalty for eating it is a dukkata regardless of whether or not it was. If one does not know, then even if it was, there is no offense.

Effort. There is a dukkata for accepting food with the purpose of eating it, and a pacittiya for every mouthful one eats.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if:

> one does not know,

> one eats any edible aside from the five staples offered at a bhikkhuni's instigation,

> the lay person was instigated by a female probationer or female novice, or

> the lay person was already planning to present one with the food before the bhikkhuni's instigation. As we noted above, one's relatives, people who have invited one to ask for food, and people who ordinarily provide one with food also fit under this allowance.

> Summary: Eating any of the five staple foods that a lay person has offered as the result of a bhikkhuni's prompting -- unless the lay person was already planning to offer the food before her prompting -- is a pacittiya offense.

* * *

> 30. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a bhikkhuni, it is to be confessed.

This rule is completely subsumed under another one -- Pacittiya 45 -- the only instance where this happens in the Patimokkha. For explanations, see the discussion under that rule.

> Summary: Sitting or lying down with a bhikkhuni in a place out of sight and out of hearing with no one else present is a pacittiya offense.

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

Revised: Thu 14 March 2002