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

### Chapter Nine

## Patidesaniya

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

This term means "to be acknowledged." As a name for training rules, it means "entailing acknowledgement." The four training rules here are unique in that they mention, as part of the rule, the words to be used in acknowledging the violation; the second rule is especially unique in that it depicts the violators as acknowledging their offense as a group.

> 1. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food, having received it himself from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni in an inhabited area, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."

A long series of events led up to the formulation of this rule.

> "Now at that time a certain woman whose husband was away from home was made pregnant by her lover. She, having caused an abortion, said to a bhikkhuni who was dependent on her family for alms, 'Come, lady, take this fetus away in your bowl.' So the bhikkhuni, having placed the fetus in her bowl and covering it up with her outer robe, went away. Now it so happened that a certain alms-going bhikkhu had made this vow: 'I won't eat from the first almsfood I receive without having given some of it to a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni.' Seeing the bhikkhuni, he said to her, 'Come, sister, accept alms.'

> "'No, master.' -- "A second time... A third time... -- "'No, master.'

> "'Look, sister, I have made this vow: "I won't eat from the first almsfood I receive without having given some of it to a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni." So come on, accept alms.'

> "Then the bhikkhuni, being pressured by the bhikkhu, took out her bowl and showed it to him. 'You see, master: a fetus in the bowl. But don't tell anyone'...

> (Of course the bhikkhu couldn't help but tell his fellow bhikkhus, and word reached the Buddha, who formulated a double rule:) 'A bhikkhuni should not take a fetus in a bowl. I allow a bhikkhuni, when seeing a bhikkhu, to take out her bowl and show it to him.'

> "Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhunis, on seeing a bhikkhu, would turn their bowls upside down and show him the bottom side... 'I allow a bhikkhuni, when seeing a bhikkhu, to show him her bowl right side up. And she is to offer him whatever food there is in the bowl.'" (Cv.X.13)

> "Now at that time a certain bhikkhuni, on the way back from going for alms in Savatthi, seeing a certain bhikkhu, said to him, 'Come, master, accept alms.'

> "'Very well, sister.' And he took everything. As the time (for alms-going) was almost up, she was unable to go for alms and so was deprived of her meal.

> "On the second day... the third day... he took everything... she was deprived of her meal.

> "On the fourth day, she went staggering along the road. A rich merchant, coming the opposite direction in a chariot, said to her, 'Get out of the way, lady.'

> "She went and fell down right there.

> "The rich merchant apologized to her, 'I'm sorry, lady, for making you fall.'

> "'It wasn't that you made me fall, householder. It's just that I'm weak.'

> "'But why are you weak?'

> "And she told him what had happened. The rich merchant, having taken her to his house and having fed her (%), was offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can the revered ones take food from the hand of a bhikkhuni? It's difficult for women to come by things.'"

There are two factors for the full offense here.

> 1) Object: staple or non-staple food that a bhikkhu has accepted from the hand of a bhikkhuni -- unrelated to him -- while she is in a village area.

> 2) Effort: He eats the food.

Object. Actually, there are two elements to this factor: the food sub-factor and the bhikkhuni sub-factor. Under the food sub-factor: Staple food follows the standard definition given in the Food Chapter under the pacittiya rules. Non-staple food includes all edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines. Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.

As for the bhikkhuni sub-factor: Bhikkhuni refers to one who has received the double ordination. A bhikkhuni who has received only her first ordination -- in the Bhikkhuni Sangha -- is grounds for a dukkata. Unrelated means sharing no common ancestor back through seven generations. Perception as to whether or not the bhikkhuni is related is not a mitigating factor here.

A village area is defined as a house or roadway in a village, town, or city.

Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food with the purpose of eating it, and in accepting juice drinks, tonics. or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; while there is a patidesaniya for every mouthful of the staple or non-staple food one eats, and a dukkata for every mouthful one takes of the juice drinks, tonics, or medicine for the sake of food.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if a bhikkhu accepts and eats food from a related bhikkhuni, and no offense in the following situations even if the bhikkhuni is unrelated:

> She gets someone else to give him the food.

> She gives it by placing it near him (as in NP 18 and Pacittiya 41).

> She gives it to him in a monastery, nuns' quarters, a dwelling of members of other sects, or on the way back from such places.

> She gives it to him after she has left the village.

> She gives him juice drinks, tonics, or medicine, and he uses them as such, rather than as food.

> She is a female novice or probationer.

Even in these cases, though, it would be a wise policy not to take so much of her food that she is deprived of a full meal.

> Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food, after having accepted it from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni in a village area, is a patidesaniya offense.

* * *

> 2. In case bhikkhus, being invited, are eating in family homes, and if a bhikkhuni is standing there as though giving directions, (saying,) "Give curry here, give rice here," then the bhikkhus are to dismiss her: "Go away, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating." If not one of the bhikkhus should speak to dismiss her, "Go away, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating," the bhikkhus are to acknowledge it: "Friends, we have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. We acknowledge it."

This rule refers to situations where lay donors invite bhikkhus to a meal, and a bhikkhuni stands giving orders, based on favoritism, as to which bhikkhus should get which food. The duty of the bhikkhus in such cases is to tell her to go away. If even just one of them does, they are all exempted from the offense here. If none of them does, and the following factors are fulfilled, they all incur the penalty and must acknowledge their offense as a group.

Object. As with the preceding rule, there are two objects here: the food and the bhikkhuni. Any one of the five staple foods received in the above situation would fulfill the food sub-factor. A bhikkhuni who has received double ordination would fulfill the bhikkhuni sub-factor. A bhikkhuni ordained only in the Bhikkhuni Sangha would be grounds for a dukkata.

Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting the staple food received under such circumstances, and a patidesaniya for every mouthful one eats.

Non-offenses. There is no offense --

> if the bhikkhuni gets others to give her food to the bhikkhus;
> if she herself gives the food of other people to the bhikkhus;
> if she gets the donors to give food they have forgotten;
> if she gets them to give to a bhikkhu they have passed over;
> if she gets them to give the food equally to all;
> if she is a female probationer or novice; or
> if she gets them to give anything but the five staple foods.

> Summary: Eating staple food accepted at a meal to which one has been invited and where a bhikkhuni has given directions, based on favoritism, as to which bhikkhu should get which food, and none of the bhikkhus have dismissed her, is a patidesaniya offense.

* * *

> 3. There are families designated as in training. Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, uninvited beforehand, chew or consume staple or non-staple food, having received it himself at the homes of families designated as in training, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."

The term in training (sekha) is usually used to refer to anyone who has attained at least the first noble path but has yet to become an arahant. Here, though, the Vibhanga uses it to refer to any family whose faith is increasing but whose wealth is decreasing -- i.e., a family whose faith is so strong that they become generous to the point of suffering financially. In cases such as these, the Community may, as a formal act, declare them as families in training so as to protect them with this rule from bhikkhus who might abuse their generosity.

The factors for the offense here are two.

> 1) Object: staple or non-staple food accepted at the home of a family designated as in training when one is not ill and has not been invited by them beforehand.

> 2) Effort: One eats the food.

Object. Staple food follows the standard definition given in the Food Chapter under the pacittiya rules. Non-staple food includes all edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines. Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.

Ill is defined as being unable to go for alms.

Invited means that one has been invited on that day or a previous day by a member of the family -- or a messenger -- standing outside of the house or its yard/compound. If they invite one while they are inside the home or its yard/compound, one is not exempted from the offense in accepting and eating their food.

Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food with the purpose of eating it, or in accepting juice drinks, tonics, or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; a patidesaniya for every mouthful of the staple or non-staple food one eats; and a dukkata for every mouthful one takes of the juice drinks, tonics, or medicine for the sake of food.

Non-offenses. There is no offense in eating food that one has accepted from the house of a family in training if --

> one is ill;

> one was invited;

> the food was set out in the house or its yard by people other than the members of the family in training (%);

> the family has made an arrangement to provide food by drawing lots or on a regular or rotating basis, and one accepts the food as part of that arrangement;

> one eats the leftovers of one who received the food at their house when he was invited or ill; or

> the members of the family give the food outside of their home or yard/compound. The Commentary quotes the Mahapaccari, one of the ancient commentaries, as saying that this last exemption holds regardless of whether they take the food out of the home before or after seeing one approach.

> Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food, after accepting it -- when one is neither ill nor invited -- at the home of a family formally designated as "in training," is a patidesaniya offense.

* * *

> 4. There are wilderness abodes that are dubious and risky. Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, living in such abodes, chew or consume unannounced (gifts of) staple or non-staple food, having received them himself in the abode, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."

> "Now at that time the Sakyan slaves were rebelling. The Sakyan ladies wanted to make a meal (for the bhikkhus) in wilderness abodes. The Sakyan slaves heard, 'The Sakyan ladies, they say, want to make a meal in the wilderness abodes,' so they infested the way. The Sakyan ladies, taking exquisite staple and non-staple foods, went to the wilderness abodes. The Sakyan slaves, coming out, plundered and raped them. The Sakyans, having come out and captured the thieves with the goods, were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can the revered ones not inform us that there are thieves living in the monastery?'"

Here again there are two factors for the full offense.

> 1) Object: an unannounced gift of staple or non-staple food that one has received, when not ill, in a dubious and risky wilderness abode.

> 2) Effort: One eats the food.

Object. The Vibhanga defines a wilderness abode as one at least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest village, measuring by the shortest walkable path between the two, and not as the crow flies. Such an abode is considered dubious if thieves are known to be about, and risky if people are known to have been hurt or plundered by them.

Staple food follows the standard definition given in the Food Chapter under the pacittiya rules. Non-staple food includes all edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines.

Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.

The Vibhanga gives specific instructions for how the gift of food should be announced. The donor(s) or a messenger must come to the abode and tell one of the inhabitants that a gift of food will be brought. The inhabitant must then tell the informant that the area is dubious and risky. If the informant says, "Never mind, the donor(s) will come anyway," then someone in the abode must tell the thieves, "Go away. People are coming to serve food." This is unlikely to make the thieves go away but, as the Commentary explains, it absolves the bhikkhus from any responsibility if the thieves attack the donors.

Even if the informant specifies that only certain types of food will be brought, anything that comes along with those foods counts as announced (%). Here the Commentary adds that if other people learn of the intended donation and bring food to add to it, their food counts as announced as well. The Vibhanga also states that if the informant says a particular group is coming to bring food, the announcement covers anything brought by any member of the group.

The Vibhanga makes clear that the announcement is valid only if the donor makes it in the abode or its yard/compound. Thus, for example, if the donors announce their intended donation to the bhikkhu while he is in the village for alms, the donation is still considered unannounced. And, for the same reason, such things as telephone calls, letters, and faxes would also not count.

The Commentary adds that if the donors send a bhikkhu or novice to the monastery to announce the donation, it does not count as announced. In other words, the messenger must be a lay person.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here. If the food is not properly announced, then regardless of whether one perceives it as properly announced or not, it still fulfills this factor.

A bhikkhu counts as ill if he is unable to go for alms.

Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food with the purpose of eating it, or in accepting juice drinks, tonics or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; a patidesaniya for every mouthful of the staple or non-staple food one eats; and a dukkata for every mouthful one takes of the juice drinks, tonics, or medicine for the sake of food.

Non-offenses. There is no offense in eating food accepted in the monastery if one is ill or if the gift was announced. There is also no offense --

> in using roots, bark, leaves, or flowers growing in the abode;
> in eating left-over announced food or food given to one who is ill;
> in accepting food outside the abode and eating it inside; or
> in accepting and eating juice drinks, tonics, and medicines as such and not as food.

The Commentary, in discussing these allowances, makes the following points: 1) If lay people take any of the fruits, roots, etc., growing in the abode and cook them at home, they must announce the gift before bringing them back to the abode. 2) If the donors, after announcing the gift, bring large amounts of food, some of it may be set aside -- without presenting it to the bhikkhus -- to be presented on a later day.

All of this causes no hardships in communities where everyone knows that they have to announce a gift of food before bringing it to the dangerous abode, but there are bound to be cases where donors do not know that the abode is dangerous or that they should announce their gifts before bringing them, and they are likely to show up at the abode with unannounced gifts of food. In such cases, the Commentary recommends: 1) Either have the donor take the food outside the area of the abode, come back in to announce it, and then go out to bring the food back in to present it; or 2) have the donor take the food outside and have a bhikkhu follow him/her out to accept it there.

In order to minimize the need for doing this, though, it would be a wise policy for a bhikkhu who finds himself living in such an abode to announce to all his supporters beforehand -- and ask them to spread the word -- that if they want to bring him gifts of food, they have to come and announce them in advance.

> Summary: Eating an unannounced gift of staple or non-staple food after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode when one is not ill is a patidesaniya offense.

[ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ]

Revised: Thu 14 March 2002