CHAPTER SEVEN

Part Two: The Silk Chapter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11.Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of a

mixture containing silk, it is to be forfeited and

confessed.

//Santhata//, defined here as a felt blanket/rug, is a type of cloth

described in the texts simply by its method of manufacture:  Instead

of being woven, it is made by strewing threads over a smooth

surface, sprinkling them with a glue-like mixture made from boiled

rice, rolling it smooth, and then repeating the process until the

felt is thick and strong enough for one's purposes.  Although felt

made like this can be used for a number of purposes, its major use

in the time of the texts seems to have been as a small personal rug

for sitting or lying down, or as a rough blanket for wearing around

oneself when sick or cold.  Blanket/ rugs like this are still made

and used in parts of India even today, and as the no-offense clauses

to this and the following rules show, it is precisely to this type

of blanket/rug that these rules apply.

There are three factors for the full offense here:

1) //Object//:  a felt blanket/rug containing silk threads and

intended for one's own use.

2) //Effort//:  One either makes it oneself, gets someone else to

make it, finishes what others have let unfinished, or gets

someone else to finish what one has left unfinished.

3) //Result//:  One obtains it after it is finished (or finishes

it, if one is making it oneself).

According to the Commentary, intention and perception are not

mitigating factors here.  Thus if one is making a felt blanket/rug,

and silk threads happen to float in on the breeze and land in the

felt, one commits an offense all the same.  Perhaps the Commentary's

interpretation here is why bhikkhus no longer use felt rugs, for

there is no way of knowing whether or not there are any stray silk

filaments in them that would make them unsuitable for use.

There is a dukkata in the effort of making a blanket/rug with silk

mixed in it -- or in having it made -- and once it is obtained (or

finished, if one is making it oneself), it is to be forfeited and

the nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed. The procedures for

forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are

the same as in the preceding rules.  Since there is a dukkata in

using //any// felt blanket/rug made with silk in it, the bhikkhu

receiving such a rug in return after forfeiting it may use it only

in the ways described in the no-offense clauses.

According to the Vibhanga, there is a dukkata in making a

blanket/rug with silk mixed in it for another's use, and a dukkata

in acquiring or using such a blanket/rug made for someone else.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense in making felt with silk mixed

in it to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow,

or a kneeling mat.

Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug with silk mixed in it

for one's own use -- or having it made -- is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

12.Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of pure

black wool, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

The origin story to this rule indicates that a pure black felt

blanket/rug was considered stylish at that time, and thus

inappropriate for a bhikkhu's use.  This is a recurrent theme

throughout the Vinaya:  that stylish, luxurious, or elegant articles

are not in keeping with the bhikkhus' way of life.

All other explanations for this training rule are the same as for

the preceding rule, simply replacing "a felt blanket/rug made with

silk mixed in it" with "a felt blanket made entirely of black wool."

Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug entirely of black wool

for one's own use -- or having it made -- is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

13.When a bhikkhu is making a new felt (blanket/rug), two

parts of pure black wool are to be incorporated, a third

(part) of white, and a fourth of brown.  If a bhikkhu should

have a new felt (blanket/rug) made without incorporating two

parts of pure black wool, a third of white, and a fourth of

brown, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

This is a continuation of the preceding rule and its purpose is to

set the maximum amount of black wool a bhikkhu may include when

making his felt blanket/rug or having it made for his own use.  The

Vibhanga gives precise measures for how much black, white, and brown

wool one should use in making the rug, but the Commentary says that

these quantities are relative:  As long as black wool constitutes no

more than half the total amount of wool used, the bhikkhu making the

rug commits no offense.

As in the preceding rules, there is a dukkata in acquiring and

using a felt blanket/rug that is more than one-half black wool no

matter who it is made for.  Thus if a bhikkhu makes such a rug,

forfeits it, and receives it in return, he may use it only in the

ways indicated by the no-offense clauses.

Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga states that there is no offense if the

rug is more than one-quarter white wool, more than one-quarter brown

wool, or made entirely of white wool or of brown. The Sub-commentary

here reiterates that the important point is that the rug be no more

than one-half black wool.  There is also no offense if one is making

the felt -- or having it made -- for a canopy, a floor-covering, a

wall screen, a pillow, or a kneeling mat.

Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug that is more than

one-half black wool for one's own use -- or having it made

-- is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

14.When a new felt (blanket/rug) has been made by a bhikkhu,

it is to be kept for (at least) six years.  If after less

than six years he should have another new felt (blanket/rug)

made, regardless of whether or not he has disposed of the

first, then -- unless he has been authorized by the bhikkhus

-- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

"Now at that time bhikkhus were (each) having a new felt

blanket/rug made every year.  They were constantly begging,

constantly hinting, 'Give wool.  We need wool.'  People were

offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can these

Sakyan contemplatives have a new felt blanket/rug made every

year?...The felt blanket/rugs we make for ourselves last

five or six years, even though our children wet them and

soil them, and they get chewed on by rats.  But these Sakyan

contemplatives have a new felt blanket/rug made every year

and are constantly begging, constantly hinting, 'Give wool.

We need wool.'"

There are three factors for an offense here.

1) //Object//:  a new felt blanket/rug for one's own use.

2) //Effort//:  One makes it or has it made less than six

//vassa// after one's last one was made, even though one has not

been formally authorized by the bhikkhus to do so.

3) //Result//:  One acquires the rug when it is finished.

The texts are silent on the factor of perception here, which

suggests that if a bhikkhu miscounts the passage of years -- making

a new rug when six years haven't passed even though he thinks they

have -- he fulfills the factor of effort all the same.

According to the Vibhanga, there is a dukkata in the effort of

making the rug or having it made.  Once it is obtained (or finished,

if one is making it oneself), it is to be forfeited and the

nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed.  The procedures for

forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are

the same as in the preceding rules.  Since the no-offense clauses

allow one under these conditions to use a felt blanket/rug made for

someone else, it would seem that the rug here, unlike those

forbidden by the preceding rules, is not //ipso facto// unusable as

a rug.  Thus a bhikkhu who has forfeited his rug under this rule

should be able to use it as a blanket/rug after receiving it in

return.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense if a bhikkhu makes a new felt

blanket/rug after six or more years have past; if he makes one for

another's use; if he uses one made for someone else; or if he makes

felt to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow,

or a kneeling mat.

Also, as the rule indicates, there is also no offense if within

less than six years he makes a felt blanket/rug for his own use

after being authorized to do so by the bhikkhus.  The Vibhanga

explains this by saying that the Community, if it sees fit, may

formally give this authorization to a bhikkhu who is too ill to do

without a new felt blanket/rug before his six years are up.  The

pattern for this formal act -- one motion and one announcement

(//natti-dutiya-kamma//) -- is in the Vibhanga.

Summary:  Unless one has received authorization to do so

from the Community, making a felt blanket/rug for one's own

use -- or having it made -- less than six years after one's

last one was made is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

15. When a felt sitting rug is being made by a bhikkhu, a

piece of old felt a sugata span (25 cm.) on each side is to

be incorporated for the sake of discoloring it.  If, without

incorporating a piece of old felt a sugata span on each

side, he should have a new felt sitting rug made, it is to

be forfeited and confessed.

A sitting cloth -- for protecting his robes from getting soiled by

any place where he sits down, and for protecting any place where he

sits down from being soiled by him -- is one of the requisites a

bhikkhu is allowed to have (Mv.VII.16.3).  In fact, if he goes

without one for more than four months, he incurs a dukkata

(Cv.V.18).  Pacittiya 89 gives stipulations for its size, and for

the fact that it should have at least one border piece.

There is some question as to whether the felt sitting rug

described in this rule counts as a sitting cloth.  The Commentary to

Pacittiya 89 says yes, the Sub-commentary no, but the Vibhanga's

definition for sitting cloth under that rule states simply that it

"has a border," and since the felt sitting rug also "has a border,"

it would seem to come under that definition, too.

The Commentary to that rule describes the border piece of a felt

sitting rug as follows:  "Having made a felt rug, then on one end in

an area of one sugata span, cutting it at two points, one makes

three border pieces."  Whether these three pieces are to be left

flapping, or are to be sewn back together, it doesn't say.

According to the Vibhanga, when one is making a felt sitting rug,

one should take a piece of old felt -- at least one span in diameter

or one span square -- and then either place it down in one part of

the new felt as is, or else shred it up and scatter the pieces

throughout the new felt.  This, it says, will help to strengthen the

new felt.

//Old felt// the Vibhanga defines as worn wrapped around oneself

at least once:  This is one of the few places indicating that felt

was commonly used as a blanket.  The Commentary rewords the

Vibhanga's definition, saying "sat on or lied down upon at least

once," which -- at least in the days of the commentators -- was the

more common usage.  The Commentary adds that, in addition to wanting

to discolor the new felt sitting rug and make it stronger, one of

the Buddha's purposes in formulating this rule was to teach bhikkhus

how to make good use of old, used requisites, so as to maintain the

good faith of those who donated them.

Offenses.  As with the previous rules, there is a dukkata for the

bhikkhu who makes a sitting rug -- or has one made -- that violates

this rule, whether it is for his own use or for that of another; and

a nissaggiya pacittiya offense when he acquires the rug thus made

for his own use (or finishes it, if he is making it himself).  The

procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the rug in

return are the same as in the preceding rules.  Since the no-offense

clauses here, as under the preceding rule, allow one to use a felt

sitting rug made without old felt for the sake of another, it would

seem that a bhikkhu, having forfeited his rug, should be able to use

it as a sitting rug after receiving it in return.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, being unable to find a

large enough piece of old felt to provide the one-span piece, one

includes a smaller piece of old felt in the sitting rug; if, being

unable to find any old felt at all, one does not include any old

felt in the rug; if one makes use of a felt sitting rug made without

old felt for the sake of another; or if one is making a canopy, a

floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow, or a kneeling mat.  It

seems logical that there would also be no offense for the bhikkhu

making a felt blanket/rug that does not have any border pieces and

that he is not planning to use for sitting, but for some reason none

of the texts mention this point.

Summary:  Making a felt sitting rug for one's own use -- or

having it made -- without incorporating a one-span piece of

old felt is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

16. If wool accrues to a bhikkhu as he is going on a

journey, he may accept it if he so desires.  Once he accepts

it, he may carry it by hand -- there being no one else to

carry it -- three leagues (48 km.=30 miles) at most.  Should

he carry it farther than that, even if there is no one else

to carry it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

"At that time wool accrued to a bhikkhu as he was on the

road in the Kosalan districts, going to Savatthi.  So, tying

the wool into a bundle with his upper robe, he went along

his way.  People who saw him teased him, 'How much did you

pay for it, venerable sir?  How much will the profit be?'"

There are, in essence, three factors for an offense here:  object,

effort, and intention.

Object.  //Wool//, under this rule, refers to wool that has not

been made into goods (%).  The Commentary explains that wool here

thus does not refer to woolen cloth, woolen felt, woolen yarn, or

even raw wool tied up with a thread, although this last point is in

contradiction to the origin story, where the bhikkhu carried his

wool tied up with a robe.

The Commentary goes on to say, though, that wool here //does//

refer to even small quantities of "unmade" wool, such as wool placed

in the ear when one has an earache, or wrapped around scissors in

their sheath to protect them from rusting, so a bhikkhu should be

careful not to travel more than three leagues with such things.

Effort.  This factor includes not only carrying unmade wool more

than three leagues oneself, but also placing it in a bundle or

vehicle belonging to someone else without his/her knowing about it,

and then letting him/her take it more than three leagues.

Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  If one travels more

than three leagues, even if one thinks one hasn't, that fulfills

this factor all the same.

Intention.  The Vibhanga says that there is no offense for the

bhikkhu who, after traveling three leagues, cannot find a proper

place to stay and so carries his wool further until finding a proper

place.  Thus the offense under this rule is only for a bhikkhu who

carries wool past the three-league mark for reasons other than

looking for a place to stay.

Non-offenses.  In addition to the issue of intention just

mentioned, the no-offense clauses say that there is no offense for

the bhikkhu who is retrieving lost or stolen wool; for the bhikkhu

who carries the wool three leagues and then carries it back; or for

the bhikkhu who gets someone else to carry the wool for him.

Summary:  Carrying wool that has not been made into cloth or

yarn for more than three leagues is a nissaggiya pacittiya

offense.

* * *

17.Should any bhikkhu have wool washed, dyed, or carded by a

bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and

confessed.

The reason behind this rule is expressed succinctly in the following

conversation from the origin story:

"Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One, and on

approaching, greeting him, stood to one side.  As she was

standing there, the Blessed One said to her, 'I trust,

Gotami, that the bhikkhunis remain uncomplacent, ardent, and

resolute?'

"'Since when, Lord, is there uncomplacency among the

bhikkhunis?  The masters -- the group-of-six bhikkhus --

keep having the bhikkhunis wash, dye, and card wool.  The

bhikkhunis, washing, dyeing, and carding wool, neglect...the

training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened

mind, and the training in heightened discernment.'"

//Wool//, here, as in under the preceding rule, refers to wool

that has not been made into cloth or yarn.  Thus there is no offense

for a bhikkhu who gets a bhikkhuni unrelated to him to wash woolen

cloth or yarn that has not yet been used.

Otherwise, all the explanations for this training rule are

identical with those for NP 4, except that here "beating" is

replaced by "carding."

Summary:  Getting an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, dye, or

card wool that has not been made into cloth or yarn is a

nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

18. Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it

taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is

to be forfeited and confessed.

As mentioned under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to

relieve a bhikkhu of the burden of ownership that comes as the

result of accepting gifts of money or having them accepted in one's

name.  The discourses contain passages, though, indicating other

purposes for this rule as well:

"For whomever gold and silver are suitable, headman, the

five strands of sensuality are also suitable.  And for

whomever the five strands of sensuality are suitable, gold

and silver are suitable.  You may take it for certain that

this is not the way of a contemplative, not the way of a son

of the Sakyan." (S.XLII.10)

"Bhikkhus, there are these four stains because of which the

sun and moon do not glow, do not shine, are not radiant.

What four?  Rain clouds...snow clouds...smoke and dust...an

eclipse.  In the same way, there are these four stains

because of which contemplatives and priests do not glow, do

not shine, are not radiant.  What four?  Drinking alcoholic

beverages...indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting

gold and silver...obtaining requisites through a wrong mode

of livelihood." (A.IV.50)

Bhikkhus, in abandoning the use of money, make real their

abandonment of worldly pursuits and show others by example that the

struggle for wealth is not the true way to find happiness.

The factors for an offense under this rule are two:  object and

effort.

Object. The Vibhanga defines //gold// so that it includes anything

made of gold.  //Silver// it defines to cover coins made of silver,

copper, wood, or lac, or whatever is used as a medium of exchange in

business.  The Commentary adds such examples as bones, pieces of

hide, fruit, seeds of trees used as currency, whether they have been

stamped with a figure or not.  At present, the term would include

coins and paper currency, but not checks, credit cards, bank drafts,

or promissory notes, as these -- on their own and without further

identification of the person carrying them -- do not function as

true currency.

The Commentary, in discussing this training rule, also gathers a

list of items from the Canon carrying a dukkata, rather than a

nissaggiya pacittiya, when accepted by a bhikkhu.  They include

pearls and precious stones, unhusked grain, slaves, fields,

orchards, and livestock.  For convenience's sake, we will refer to

these items from here on as dukkata objects (//dukkata-vatthu//), or

D.O. for short.

Effort.  This factor may be fulfilled by any of three actions:

1)  //Accepting//.  According to the K/Commentary, this includes

receiving gold or money when it is offered as a gift or picking up

gold or money left lying around ownerless.  (As the no-offense

clauses show, this factor does not cover cases where one picks up

money left lying around the monastery or a house where one is

visiting if one's purpose is to keep it in safekeeping for the

owner.  See Pacittiya 84.)  According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu

who accepts money wrapped up in a bolt of cloth would also commit an

offense here, which shows that this act includes receiving or taking

the money not only with one's body, but also with items connected

with the body.  Thus accepting money in an envelope or having it

placed in one's shoulder bag as it hangs from one's shoulder would

fulfill this factor as well.

The Vibhanga states that perception is not a mitigating factor.

Thus a bhikkhu accepting an envelope that unbeknownst to him

contains money would fall under this factor, too.

The K/Commentary adds the stipulation that in the taking there

must be some movement of the money from one place to another.  It

offers no explanation for this point, but it probably refers to

cases where money is forced on a bhikkhu, as when he is on alms

round and a lay donor, against the bhikkhu's protestations, places

money in his bowl.  In this case, the bhikkhu could simply stand

right there until he gets the donor or someone else to remove the

money, and he would be absolved of an offense under this rule.

The commentaries add an extra factor -- the full offense is

entailed only if the bhikkhu is taking the money for his own sake --

but there is no mention of this in the Vibhanga, so the added factor

does not seem warranted.  Thus whether the bhikkhu takes the money

for himself or for others is not an issue here.

2)  //Having money accepted//,  according to the K/Commentary,

includes getting someone else to do any of the actions covered under

accepting, as described above.  Examples from the texts include such

things as telling the donor to give the money to a steward, telling

the donor that so-and-so will take the money for him, telling the

steward to take the money, to put it in a donation box, to "do what

he thinks appropriate," or any similar command.

Anything that falls short of a command, though, would not fulfill

this factor, as we have already seen under NP 10.  Thus simply

telling the donor that X is the bhikkhus' steward -- or that the

monastery's stewards have placed a donation box in such-and-such a

place -- would not be a factor for an offense here.  Also, if the

donor leaves money, say, on a table as a gift for a bhikkhu, then if

the bhikkhu tells his steward what the donor did and said, without

telling the steward to do anything with the money -- letting the

steward figure things out on his/her own -- this too would not

entail a penalty.  The Commentary's discussion of stewards under the

next point shows that while a bhikkhu who tells a volunteer steward

to put such a donation in a donation box would incur a penalty, a

bhikkhu who simply points out the donation box would not.

3)  //Consenting to money being deposited//.  The Vibhanga defines

this action as follows:  "He (the donor), saying, 'This is for the

master,' places it, and the bhikkhu consents." (%)  According to the

K/Commentary, //placing// covers two sorts of situations:

(1) The donor places money anywhere in the bhikkhu's presence, and

says, "This is for the master;" OR

(2) The donor tells him, "I have some money placed in

such-and-such a location.  It's yours."  (One of the implications

of this second case is that any monastery with a donation box

should make clear that money left in the box is being placed with

the steward.)

//Consenting// in either of these cases, says the Commentary,

means that one does not refuse either in thought, word, or deed.

Refusing in thought means thinking, "This is not proper for me."

Refusing in word means telling the donor that such a gift is not

allowable.  Refusing in deed means making a gesture to the same

effect.  If one refuses in any of these ways -- e.g., one wants to

accept the money, but tells the donor that it is not allowable; or

one says nothing, but simply reminds oneself that such gifts are not

proper to accept -- one avoids the penalty here.

The question of whether or not it is best to express one's refusal

outwardly lies beyond the scope of the Vinaya, and often depends on

the situation.  Ideally, one should inform the donor so that he/she

will know enough not to present such gifts in the future, but there

are also cases where the donor is still new to the idea of rules and

will simply be offended if the bhikkhu objects to what he/she means

as a well-intentioned gesture.  This is thus a matter where a

bhikkhu should use his discretion.

The Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu should

do if, after he refuses such a donation, the donor goes off leaving

it there anyway:  If someone else comes along and asks the bhikkhu,

"What is this?", the bhikkhu may tell him/her what he and the donor

said, but may not ask him/her to do anything about it.  If the

person volunteers to put the money into safekeeping, the bhikkhu may

point out a safe place but may not tell him/her to put it there.

Once the money is in a safe place, one may point it out to other

people -- one's steward, for instance -- but may not tell anyone to

take it.  The Commentary gives directions for how to arrange an

exchange with such money so as not to violate NP 19 & 20, but I will

save this part of the discussion until we come to those rules.

The Vibhanga's definition of the action of "placing" money for a

bhikkhu indicates that in this case the question of who the money is

for //does// make a difference, since the nature of the donor's

action is defined by what he or she says.  If the donor means the

money for the bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu accepts, that fulfills the

factor here.  This covers cases where the donor says, "This is for

you," or "This is for you to give to X."

If the donor simply says, "This is for the Community," or "This is

for Bhikkhu Y," and Bhikkhu X consents to its being placed down near

him, then according to the Commentary, X incurs a dukkata.  It does

not say, though, what should be done with the money, aside from the

fact that any bhikkhu who uses anything bought with it also incurs a

dukkata.  Its discussion of the following rule, though, would seem

to imply that it should be returned to the original donor.

If money for Bhikkhu Y is placed near Bhikkhu X in this way, and Y

in turn accepts the donation for himself, then of course Y would

incur the full penalty under this rule.  The Commentary's discussion

under NP 10 indicates that if money for the Community is placed near

Bhikkhu X, the Community is said to have accepted it only when all

members of the Community unanimously agree to it.  If one member

disagrees, he saves all the other members from committing an offense

-- except for X, who still has his dukkata.

The Commentary here also says that a bhikkhu who accepts monetary

donations "placed nearby" him for monastery buildings incurs a

dukkata as well.  This refers to cases where the donor says, "This

is for the Community to use in building such-and-such," and places

the money down next to the bhikkhu.  As the Commentary itself says

under NP 10,  if the donor does not mention the name of the bhikkhu

or the Community as custodians or recipients of the funds, the

donations are not to be refused.  Rather, they are to be left there

and the steward told of what the donor said.

Forfeiture & confession.  A bhikkhu who accepts money or gold, has

it accepted, or consents to its being placed down for him must

forfeit the money and confess the offense in the midst of a formal

meeting of the Community.  The formula for forfeiture is given in

Appendix VI.  This is one of the few rules where the offender may

not confess the offense to an individual bhikkhu or to a group of

less than four.  Once he has forfeited the money, the Community is

not to return it to him, as there is no way a bhikkhu is allowed to

possess money.

If a lay person then comes along, the bhikkhus should tell him,

"Look at this."  If he asks, "What should be bought with this?", the

bhikkhus are not to tell him to buy anything, although they may tell

him what in general is allowable for bhikkhus, such as the five

tonics, as under NP 23 below.  If he takes the money and purchases

any proper items, all the bhikkhus except for the one who originally

accepted the money may make use of them.  If it so happens that one

of the bhikkhus tells him explicitly to buy something, then the

Commentary says that the item(s) bought this way may be used by all

the bhikkhus except for the original offender and the bhikkhu who

gave the order to buy.  If the lay person does not volunteer to buy

anything with the money, the bhikkhus should tell him to get rid of

it.

If he does not get rid of it, they are to choose one of their

number as the "money-remover," by means of the formal act -- one

motion and one announcement (//natti-dutiya-kamma//) -- given in the

Vibhanga.  The money-remover's duty is to throw the money away

without taking note of where it falls.  If he does take note, he

incurs a dukkata.  The Commentary recommends that, "Closing his

eyes, he should throw it into a river, over a cliff, or into a

jungle thicket without paying attention to where it falls,

disinterested as if it were excrement."

None of the texts mention what a bhikkhu is to do with dukkata

objects he has received, but as we shall see under the following

rule, the Commentary would seem to suggest that he return them to

their donors.

Non-offenses.  As mentioned above, there is no offense for the

bhikkhu who, finding money lying around the monastery or in a house

he is visiting, puts it away in safe keeping for the owner.  This

point is discussed in detail under Pacittiya 84.

Summary:  Taking gold or money, having someone else take it,

or consenting to its being placed down as a gift for oneself

is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

19. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of monetary

exchange, it (the income) is to be forfeited and confessed.

There are two factors for an offense here:  object and effort.

Object.  The Vibhanga defines //money// in the same terms it uses

to define gold and silver in the preceding rule:  any type of gold,

whether shaped into an ornament or not; and any coins or currency

used in business exchange.

Effort.  The Vibhanga's description of the kind of exchange

covered by this rule differs from that given in the Commentary, so

it is best to discuss them separately.

//The Vibhanga's interpretation//.  Monetary exchange refers

primarily to the type of business and speculation a gold dealer

would engage in -- exchanging currency, trading gold ore for gold

shaped into ornaments or vice versa, trading gold ore for gold ore,

or gold ornaments for gold ornaments -- but the Vibhanga's

discussion of the factor of perception shows that the factor of

effort here includes any exchange in which the bhikkhu ends up with

gold or money as the result of the exchange.  Thus it would cover

cases where a bhikkhu sells any kind of item -- allowable or

unallowable -- for money.

At first glance, this would seem redundant with the preceding rule

against receiving money, and the following rule against engaging in

trade, but actually it closes a number of loopholes in those rules.

In the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may point out a steward to a person

who brings money intended for him; and in the following rule he can,

if he words it right, propose a trade or tell a steward to arrange a

trade for him.  Thus, given just those two rules, it would be

possible for a bhikkhu using "proper" procedures to have his steward

engage in currency speculation and other money-making activities

without committing an offense.

This rule, though, includes no such exceptions for "wording things

right (//kappiya-vohara//)," and so closes those loopholes as far as

this type of trading is concerned.  As a result, a bhikkhu may not

express a desire to his steward that he/she sell something belonging

to him or take funds dedicated for his use and invest them for

monetary return.  And if the bhikkhu is going abroad, he must leave

it up to his steward to figure out that his funds may have to be

exchanged for foreign currency if they are going to be of any use.

//The Commentary's interpretation//.  According to the Commentary,

monetary exchange refers to any trade in which money is involved --

whether as the item the bhikkhu brings into the trade, gets out of

the trade, or both.  Buddhaghosa states that this interpretation is

based on a passage that is not in the Vibhanga but logically should

be.  The Sub-commentary supports him, explaining that if monetary

exchange covers trades in which money forms one side of the trade,

it shouldn't matter which side of the trade it is on.

This, however, contradicts a number of points in the Vibhanga. (1)

Its table of the possible actions covered by this rule includes only

cases where the outcome of the trade for the bhikkhu is money.  As

we noted in the Introduction, we have to trust that the Vibhanga

arrangers knew what was and was not an offense under a certain rule,

and that if they had meant the rule to cover more than the

alternatives listed in the table, they would have included them.

(2) In the Vibhanga's discussion of how the forfeiture is to be

conducted, it consistently refers to the offender as the "one who

purchased money" and to the bhikkhu who throws the forfeited object

away as the "one who removes the money."  (3) If //monetary

exchange// covers cases where the bhikkhu uses money to buy

allowable things, then the discussion of how a bhikkhu could get his

steward to use money rightfully placed with the steward to buy such

things would have been included under this rule; instead, it is

included under the following rule.  All of this seems to indicate

that the Commentary is on shaky ground when it tries to force its

interpretation on the Vibhanga here.

Still, the Commentary's interpretation is widely followed and

fairly complex, so it will be good to discuss it in some detail.

As under the preceding rule, the Commentary divides articles into

three sorts:

//nissaggiya objects// (N.O.), i.e., articles such as gold and

money, which entail a nissaggiya pacittiya when they are

accepted,

//dukkata objects// (D.O.), articles such as pearls, precious

stones, unhusked grain, fields, orchards, slaves and livestock,

which entail a dukkata when they are accepted;

//allowable objects// (A.O.), articles that a bhikkhu may

rightfully accept and possess.

It then works out the following scheme to cover all possible sorts

of trade involving these objects:

Using  to buy  results in

~~~~~  ~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~

N.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya

N.O. >   D.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya

N.O. >   A.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya

D.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya

D.O. >   D.O.   a dukkata*

D.O. >   A.O.   a dukkata*

A.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya

A.O. >   D.O.   a dukkata*

A.O. >   A.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya under NP 20

The trades marked with asterisks point out one of the anomalies of

the Commentary's interpretation:  Why trades involving D.O. should

entail only a dukkata, while A.O. > A.O. trades should entail a

nissaggiya pacittiya is hard to fathom.

At any rate, to continue with the Commentary's explanations: N.O.

> A.O. trades cover two possible cases, depending on whether the

money was obtained properly or improperly under the preceding rule.

If improperly, the object bought with the money is unallowable for

all bhikkhus.  This holds whether the bhikkhu makes the purchase

himself or a steward makes it for him.  The only way the item can be

made allowable is to have an equal sum of money returned to the

original donor and the item returned to the person who sold it, and

then arrange for a proper exchange as allowed under the following

rule.  (At first glance, it may seem strange for the Commentary to

insist that the price of the A.O. be returned to the original donor

of the N.O., since the bhikkhus are in no way in his/her debt; this

is probably the Commentary's way of ensuring that if the seller

returns the purchase price of the A.O. to the  bhikkhus' steward, it

is not used to repurchase the A.O.)

If, however, a bhikkhu engages in a N.O. > A.O. trade using money

obtained properly under the preceding rule, the item bought is

unallowable only for him, but allowable for other bhikkhus once he

has forfeited it.  If N.O. > A.O. exchanges really were covered by

this rule, though, this would contradict the Vibhanga, which insists

that the item obtained as a result of this rule either has to be

given to a lay person or thrown away.  Thus it seems better to

follow the Vibhanga in treating cases of this sort under the

following rule.

The Commentary makes no mention of what should be done with items

resulting from trades that carry a dukkata here, but its discussion

of how to "undo" a trade so as to make the item allowable suggests

the following scheme:

For a D.O > D.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person

who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess

the offense.

For a D.O. > A.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person

who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess

the offense.  If one wants to, one may then approach the person

who sold the allowable object and arrange a proper trade in

accordance with the following rule.

For an A.O. > D.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person

who sold it and confess the offense.

As an intellectual exercise, the Commentary considers the question

of a trade that results in an A.O. that can never be made allowable,

and comes up with the following scenario:  A bhikkhu takes money

improperly obtained under the preceding rule, uses it to get iron

mined, smelted and made into a bowl.  Since there is no way to undo

these transactions -- the iron can never be returned to its state as

ore -- there is no way any bhikkhu may ever properly make use of the

iron no matter what is done with it.

As mentioned above, the Commentary's explanations here contradict

the Vibhanga on a number of points, and contain several anomalies as

well.  It seems preferable to treat a number of cases it mentions

here -- N.O. > D.O., N.O. > A.O., D.O. > D.O., D.O. > A.O., A.O. >

D.O., or in other words, any trade resulting in an allowable or a

dukkata object -- under the following rule instead.

Forfeiture & confession.  When a bhikkhu has obtained gold or

money in violation of this rule he is to forfeit it in the midst of

a formal meeting of the Community, following the procedures

explained under the preceding rule.  The Pali formula for forfeiture

is in Appendix VI.

Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga's no-offense clauses contain nothing

but the blanket exemptions mentioned under Parajika 1.

Summary:  Obtaining gold or money through trade is a

nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

20. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of trade,

(the article obtained) is to be forfeited and confessed.

"Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had become

skilled at robe making.  Having made an outer robe of old

rags, having dyed it well and stitched it nicely, he wore

it.  A certain wanderer, wearing a very expensive cloak,

went to where he was staying and on arrival said to him,

'Your outer robe is beautiful, my friend.  Give it to me in

exchange for this cloak.'

"'Do you know (what you are doing), my friend?'

"'Yes, I know.'

"'Very well, then.' And he gave him the robe.

"Then the wanderer went to the wanderers' park wearing the

outer robe.  The other wanderers said to him, 'Your outer

robe is beautiful, friend.  Where did you get it?'

"'I got it in exchange for my cloak.'

"'But how long will this outer robe last you?  That cloak of

yours was better.'

"So the wanderer, thinking, 'It's true what the wanderers

said.  How long will this outer robe last me?  That cloak of

mine was better,' went to where Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was

staying, and on arrival said, 'Here is your outer robe, my

friend.  Give me my cloak.'

"'But didn't I ask you, "Do you know what you are doing?"  I

won't give it to you.'

"So the wanderer was offended and annoyed and spread it

about, 'Even a householder will give another householder the

item he regrets (trading).  How can one who has gone forth

not give (extend the same courtesy) to one who has gone

forth?'"

As we noted under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to

relieve bhikkhus of the responsibilities that come with making

trades -- the responsibility of having to get a fair price for one's

goods and at the same time offering a fair deal to the person making

the trade.

The factors for an offense here are two:  object and effort.

Object.  The Vibhanga defines //various types of trade// as

covering deals involving the four requisites, "even a lump of

powder, a tooth-cleaner or unwoven thread" -- these being its

standard examples of objects with the least possible material value.

The Commentary interprets this as limiting this rule to deals

involving nothing but allowable objects (A.O. > A.O.), but there is

nothing in the Vibhanga to suggest that this is necessarily so.  The

emphasis in the Vibhanga seems to be that this rule covers even

allowable objects of the least possible value, and all the more so

more valuable and restricted objects.  In fact, since the Vibhanga

explicitly limits the preceding rule to trades that result in money

for the bhikkhu (N.O. > N.O.; D.O. > N.O.; A.O. > N.O.), it seems

best to interpret this rule as covering all types of trade not

covered in that rule:

N.O. > D.O.; N.O. > A.O.;

D.O. > D.O.; D.O. > A.O.;

A.O. > D.O.; and A.O. > A.O.

The Vibhanga and commentaries also mention that the goods one

offers in trade are one's own goods, but they do not mention

explicitly whether or not this also includes goods belonging to

someone else that have been placed on trust in one's keeping (such

as monastery funds placed under the supervision of a monastery

official).  Since the no-offense clauses make no exemptions for a

bhikkhu who trades using goods received on trust from someone else,

though, it would seem that such cases do fall under this rule as

well.

Effort.  //Engaging in trading//, according to the Vibhanga,

involves two steps:

(1) The bhikkhu proposes an exchange, saying, "Give this for

that," or "Take this for that," or "Exchange this for that," or

"Purchase this with that."

(2)  The goods exchange hands, the bhikkhu's goods ending up with

the other person, and the other person's goods ending up with the

bhikkhu.

The first step entails a dukkata; both steps together, a

nissaggiya pacittiya.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here:

If a bhikkhu manages an exchange in a way that he thinks avoids a

penalty under this rule but in fact doesn't (see below), he commits

the full offense all the same.

Forfeiture & confession.  Once a bhikkhu has received an article

from trading, he is to forfeit it either to an individual bhikkhu,

to a group of two or three, or to a full Community of four or more.

Only then may he confess the offense.  The procedures for

forfeiture, confession, and the return of the article are the same

as under NP 1.  The Pali formula for forfeiture is in Appendix VI.

The Vibhanga makes no mention of what the bhikkhu may and may not do

with after receiving it in return, but we may borrow a page from the

Commentary's discussion of the preceding rule and say that:

//If the exchange was N.O. > D.O.//, he should return the D.O. to

its seller.  If the N.O. was properly obtained under NP 18, there

is nothing further to be done.  If not, the bhikkhu should

confess the offense for violating that rule.  (If he accepts the

purchase price in return, he must forfeit it in the midst of the

Community.  If not, he should simply confess the pacittiya

offense.)

//If the exchange was N.O. > A.O.//, then if the N.O. was obtained

in violation of NP 18, no bhikkhu may make use of the A.O. unless

it is returned to the seller, the price of the article is turned

over to the original donor of the money, and the A.O. is then

repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.  (Again, if

the seller refunds the purchase price, the offender should

forfeit it in the midst of the Community.  If not, he should

simply confess the pacittiya offense.)

//If the N.O. in this case was properly obtained//, then the

purchased article is allowable for other bhikkhus, but not for

the offender.  (Some might object that if the N.O. was properly

obtained it should be treated as A.O., but we must remember that

a bhikkhu who orders his steward to use money to buy an object is

assuming ownership of the money, which goes against the spirit of

NP 18 and the protocol of having a steward in the first place.)

//If the exchange was D.O. > D.O.//, the bhikkhu should return the

purchased article to the seller and the original article (if the

seller returns it to him) to the original donor.

//If the exchange was D.O. > A.O.//, the purchased article is not

allowable for any bhikkhu unless it is returned to the seller,

the D.O. is returned to the original donor, and the A.O. is then

repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.

//If the exchange was A.O. > D.O.//, the bhikkhu should return the

purchased article to the seller.

//If the exchange was A.O. > A.O.//, the bhikkhu may make use of

the article as he likes.

//If the exchange was wages in payment for services rendered//,

the Commentary notes that there is no way the bhikkhu can

rightfully get the payment back, so he should simply confess a

pacittiya offense.

Non-offenses.  In the origin story to NP 5, the Buddha allows

bhikkhus to trade allowable articles with other bhikkhus,

bhikkhunis, female probationers, and male or female novices.  The

present rule thus covers trades made only with people who are not

one's co-religionists.

As for trades with people who are not one's co-religionists, the

Vibhanga here adds that a bhikkhu commits no offense --

if he asks the price of an object;

if he tells a steward (wording the request properly, as under NP

10);

or if he tells the seller, "I have this.  I have need of

such-and-such," and then lets the seller arrange the exchange as

he/she sees fit.

This last point may seem like a lot of hair splitting, but we must

remember that if a trade is arranged in this way, the bhikkhu is

absolved from any responsibility for the fairness of the deal, which

seems to be the whole point of the rule.

The Commentary, in discussing these exemptions, raises the

following points:

1)  A bhikkhu who tries to avoid the technicalities of what is

defined as engaging in trading by saying simply, "Give this.

Take that," may do so only with his close relatives.  Otherwise,

telling a lay person to take one's belongings as his/her own is a

"theft of faith" (//saddha-deyya//) -- i.e., a misuse of the

donations that lay supporters have sacrificed for the bhikkhu's

use.  (See Mv.VIII.22.1)  On the other hand, telling an unrelated

lay person to give something is a form of begging, which carries

a dukkata unless the lay person is related or has invited one to

ask in the first place.  (From this we may deduce that bhikkhus

should not bargain after having asked the price of goods or

services -- e.g., a taxi fare -- even in situations where

bargaining is the norm.)

2)  A bhikkhu desiring to get an article may tell his steward,

"Having taken that, give (the seller) this."  This, however,

contradicts other passages in the Commentary itself, in which

this form of speech is said to violate this rule when spoken

directly to the seller.  Since the Vibhanga includes orders to X

to purchase an item as coming under this rule, it would seem that

only the forms of speech allowed under NP 10 -- "I have need of

such-and-such;" "I want such-and-such" -- would be allowed under

the no-offense clauses here as well.

3)  Under the previous rule, the Commentary mentioned that a

bhikkhu engaging in an otherwise allowable trade for profit

incurs a dukkata.  Here it says that if a bhikkhu, proposing a

trade by wording it right (//kappiya-vohara//), deceives the

seller as to the value of his goods, he is to be treated under

Parajika 2.

4)  If a bhikkhu goes with his steward to a store and sees that

the steward is getting a bad deal, he may simply tell the

steward, "Don't take it."

5)  The Commentary to NP 10 describes how a bhikkhu may make a

purchase when his steward has left funds in safe-keeping on the

bhikkhu's premises but is not around to arrange a trade when,

say, a bowl-seller comes along.  The bhikkhu may tell the seller,

"I want this bowl, and there are funds of equal value here, but

there is no steward to make them allowable."  If the  seller

volunteers to make them allowable, the bhikkhu may show him where

they are but may not tell him how much to take.  If the seller

takes too much, the bhikkhu may cancel the sale by saying, "I

don't want your bowl after all."

In general it is not a wise policy to have funds left for

safe-keeping on one's premises -- a Community allowing this exposes

itself to the dangers of robbery and assault -- but the Commentary

here seems less interested in describing ideal behavior than in

simply drawing the line between what is and is not an offense.

Special cases.  1) The Bhikkhunis' Nissaggiya Pacittiya rules 4-10

show that if a lay donor gives money to a store owner to pay for

whatever a bhikkhuni will request from the store, the bhikkhuni may

avail herself of the arrangement.  If the donor stipulates that this

arrangement applies only to certain things, or to things worth a

certain amount, she may request only what falls under the

stipulation:  This is the point of the rules.  In effect, what this

is doing is making the storeowner her steward.  Such an arrangement

would thus also seem allowable for bhikkhus, as long as they word

their requests to the store owner properly, as advised under NP 10.

2)  As mentioned under NP 18, checks, credit cards, bank drafts,

and traveler's checks do not count as gold or money, but any trade

arranged with them would come under this rule.  With checks, the

point where the full offense is committed is when the bhikkhu hands

the check over to the seller -- or tells his steward to hand it over

-- in exchange for goods or services.  Simply signing a check does

not come under this rule.  Thus a bhikkhu responsible for monastery

building funds of the sort discussed in the Commentary to NP 10 --

where the donor makes the bhikkhu(s) responsible for saying who

money should go to -- may sign checks drawing on the fund without

committing an offense here, unless he hands the check over to the

seller or tells the steward, "Use this to buy X."

Similarly with credit cards:  The offense is committed when the

bhikkhu hands the signed credit card receipt -- or has it handed --

to the seller.  The receipt is an acknowledgement of goods purchased

or services rendered, which in the context of the card holder's

agreement with the credit card company is his promise to repay the

loan he is making on the company.  This promise is what he is

trading with the seller.

Summary:  Engaging in trade with anyone except one's

co-religionists is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * * * * * * *