CHAPTER SEVEN

Nissaggiya Pacittiya

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

The term //nissaggiya//, used in connection with training rules,

means "entailing forfeiture."  Used in connection with articles, it

means "to be forfeited."  //Pacittiya// is a word of uncertain

etymology.  The Parivara gives a didactic derivation -- that it

means letting skillful qualities fall away (//patati//) with a

deluded mind (//citta//) -- but the term is more likely related to

the verb //pacinati// (pp. //pacita//), which means to discern,

distinguish or know.

Each of the rules in this category involves an object that a

bhikkhu has acquired or used wrongly, and that he must forfeit

before he may "make the offense known" -- confess it -- to a fellow

bhikkhu or group of bhikkhus. Once he has made his confession, he is

absolved from the offense.  In most cases, the forfeiture is

symbolic -- after his confession, he receives the article in return

-- although three of the rules require that the offender give up the

article for good.

There are thirty rules in this category, divided into three

chapters (//vagga//) of ten rules each.

Part One: The Robe-cloth Chapter

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

1. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame

is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance), he is

to keep an extra robe-cloth ten days at most.  Beyond that,

it is to be forfeited and confessed.

The origin story for this rule is retold with more detail in the

Mahavagga (VIII.13.4-8).  Since the added details are what make it

interesting, that is the version translated here.

"(The Buddha addresses the bhikkhus:)  'As I was on the road

from Rajagaha to Vesali, I saw many bhikkhus coming along

buried in robe-cloth, with a mattress of robe-cloth on their

heads and a mattress of robe-cloth on their backs, and a

mattress of robe-cloth on their hips.  Seeing them, I

thought, "All too soon have these foolish men come under the

spell of luxury in terms of robe-cloth.  What if I were to

set a boundary, to lay down a restriction on robe-cloth for

the bhikkhus."

"'Then traveling by stages, I came to Vesali.  There I

stayed at the Gotamaka Shrine.  Now at that time, during the

cold winter middle-eight nights (the four nights on either

side of the full moon in February, the coldest time of the

year in India) when snow was falling, I sat outside wearing

one robe and was not cold.  Towards the end of the first

watch I became cold.  I put on a second robe and was not

cold. Towards the end of the middle watch I became cold.  I

put on a third robe and was not cold.  Towards the end of

the final watch, as dawn arose and the night smiled, I

became cold.  I put on a fourth robe and was not cold.  The

thought occurred to me, "Those in this doctrine and

discipline who are sons of respectable families -- sensitive

to cold and afraid of the cold -- even they are able to get

by with three robes.  Suppose I were to set a boundary, to

lay down a restriction on robes for the bhikkhus and were to

allow three robes."  Bhikkhus, I allow you three robes:  a

double-layer outer robe, a single-layer upper robe and a

single-layer inner robe (thus, four layers of cloth).'

"Now at that time, some group-of-six bhikkhus, thinking,

'The Blessed One allows three robes,' entered the village

wearing one set of robes, stayed in the monastery wearing

another set, and went down to bathe in still another.

Modest bhikkhus... were offended and annoyed and spread it

about, 'How can the group of six bhikkhus keep extra

robe-cloth?'  They told this matter to the Blessed One.

He...addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'Bhikkhus, an extra

robe-cloth is not to be kept.'

"Now at that time an extra robe-cloth accrued to Ven.

Ananda, and he wanted to give it to Ven. Sariputta, but Ven.

Sariputta was at Saketa.  He thought, '...Now what should I

do?'  He told this matter to the Blessed One, who said, 'But

how long is it, Ananda, before Sariputta will come here?'

"'Nine or ten days.'

"Then the Blessed One...addressed the bhikkhus, 'I allow an

extra robe-cloth to be kept at most ten days.'

"Now at that time an extra robe accrued to the bhikkhus.

They thought, 'Now what should we do?'  They told this

matter to the Blessed One, who said, 'I allow you, bhikkhus,

to place an extra robe-cloth under dual ownership.'"

The offense under this rule involves two factors:

1) //Object//:  a piece of extra robe-cloth, i.e., a piece of

cloth suitable to be made into a robe or other cloth requisite,

measuring at least four by eight inches (fingerbreadths), that has

not been formally determined for use or placed under dual ownership.

This category includes finished requisites as well as simple pieces

of cloth, but does not include robe-cloth belonging to the

Community.

2) //Effort//:  One keeps it for more than ten days (except during

the allowed period) without determining it for use, placing it under

dual ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); or

without the cloth's being lost, destroyed, burnt, stolen or taken by

someone else on trust within that time.

Object.  According to the Mahavagga (VIII.3.1), six kinds of cloth

are suitable for making into cloth requisites:  linen, cotton, silk,

wool, hemp or canvas (any of the five preceding types mixed with

jute).  By extension, nylon, rayon and other synthetic fibers would

count as suitable as well.  Unsuitable materials -- such as cloth

made of hair, horse-hair, grass, bark, wood-shavings or antelope

hide (and by extension, leather) -- do not come under this rule.

(For a full list of unsuitable materials, see Mv.VIII.28.)

Mv.VIII.29 gives a list of colors -- such as black, blue and crimson

-- and patterns that are not suitable for robes but that, according

to the Commentary, are suitable for things like handkerchiefs and

bed sheets.  Pieces of cloth dyed these colors or printed with these

patterns //would// come under this rule.

If a bhikkhu receives a piece of suitable cloth measuring four by

eight fingerbreadths or more but does not yet plan to use it, he may

place it under dual ownership (//vikappana//) until he has need for

it.  Once he decides to make use of the cloth, he must rescind the

dual ownership (see Pacittiya 59) before making it into a finished

requisite (if it isn't already).  Once it is finished, he may then

determine it for use (//adhitthana//) or place it under dual

ownership again, depending on the nature of the article:

Each of the three basic robes, handkerchiefs, bed sheets and the

sitting cloth are to be determined, and may not be placed under

dual ownership.

//A rains-bathing cloth// (see NP 24) may be determined for the

four months of the rainy season, and is to be placed under dual

ownership for the remainder of the year.

//A skin-eruption cloth// (see Pacittiya 90) may be determined

when needed and is to be placed under dual ownership when not.

//Other items of cloth// may be determined as "accessory cloths."

(The procedures for determining and placing under dual ownership

are given in Appendices IV & V.)

Any cloth made of any of the suitable materials and of the

requisite size counts as an extra cloth if --

it has not been determined for use or put under dual ownership,

it has been improperly determined or placed under dual ownership,

or

its determination or dual ownership has lapsed.

Many of the cases in which determination and dual ownership lapse

also exempt the cloth from this rule:  e.g., the owner disrobes or

dies, he gives the cloth away, it gets stolen, destroyed (bitten by

things such as termites, says the Commentary), burnt, lost, or

someone else takes it on trust.  There are a few cases, however,

where determination and dual ownership lapse and the cloth //does//

fall under this rule.  They are --

//Under dual ownership//:  The first owner takes the cloth on

trust; or the second owner formally rescinds the dual ownership.

//Under determination//:  The owner rescinds the determination; or

(if the cloth has been determined as one of the three basic robes)

the cloth develops a hole.  This latter case comes in the

Commentary, which gives precise standards for deciding what kind of

hole does and does not make the determination of the robe lapse:

1) //Size//.  The hole has to be a full break (through both

layers of cloth, if in the outer robe) at least the size of the

nail on one's little finger.  If one or more threads remains

across the hole, then the hole makes the determination lapse

only if either of the two "halves" divided by the thread(s) is

the requisite size.

2) //Location//.  On an upper robe or outer robe, the hole has to

be at least one span (25 cm.) from the longer side and eight

fingerbreadths from the shorter; on an under robe, at least one

span from the longer side and four fingerbreadths from the

shorter.  Any hole closer to the edge of the robe than these

measurements does not make the determination lapse.

Because of these stipulations, the Commentary notes that if one is

patching a worn spot -- not a hole as defined above -- the requisite

distance away from the edge of one's robe, the determination lapses

if one cuts out the worn spot before applying the patch, but not if

one applies the patch before cutting out the worn spot.  If the

determination lapses, it is an easy matter to redetermine the robe,

but one must be mindful to do it within the time span allotted by

this rule.

Effort.  According to the Vibhanga, if one keeps a piece of extra

robe-cloth past the eleventh dawn (except when the end-of-vassa and

kathina privileges are in effect), one commits the full offense

under this rule.  The Commentary explains this by saying that the

dawn of the day on which one receives the cloth, or lets its

determination/dual ownership lapse, counts as the first dawn.  Thus

the eleventh dawn would actually be the tenth dawn after one

receives, etc., the cloth.  (The precise definition of dawn is a

controversial point.  See Appendix I.)

Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if one miscounts

the days, or perceives a robe to be determined when it actually is

not, one is not immune from the offense:  The robe is to be

forfeited and the offense confessed.

To use such a robe or piece of robe-cloth before one has forfeited

it and confessed the offense, entails a dukkata.  This point holds

for each of the nissaggiya pacittiya rules.

End-of-vassa & kathina privileges.  The fourth lunar month of the

rainy season -- beginning the day after the first full moon in

October and lasting to dawn of the day following the next full moon

-- is termed the robe season, a period traditionally given over to

robe-making.  In the early days, when most bhikkhus spent the cold

and hot seasons wandering, and stayed put in one place only during

the Rains, this would have been the ideal period to prepare robes

for their wandering, and would have been the ideal time for lay

people who had come to know the bhikkhus during the Rains to show

their gratitude and respect for them by presenting them with gifts

of cloth for this purpose.

During this robe season, six of the training rules -- NP 1, 2, &

3; Pacittiyas 32, 33, & 46 -- are relaxed as a privilege for

bhikkhus who have observed the three-month rains residence

(//vassa//), to make it more convenient for them to make robes.

Also, any cloth accruing to a particular monastery during this

period may be shared only among the bhikkhus who spent the Rains

there, and not with any incoming visitors.

If the bhikkhus who have spent the Rains in a particular monastery

number five or more, they are also entitled to participate in a

//kathina// ceremony in which they receive a gift of cloth from lay

people, bestow it on one of their members, and then as a group make

it into a robe before dawn of the following day.  (//Kathina// means

frame, and refers to the frame over which the robe-cloth is

stretched, much like the frame used in America to make a quilt.)

After participating in this ceremony, the bhikkhus may take

advantage of the above-mentioned privileges for an additional four

lunar months, up to the dawn after the full-moon day that ends the

cold season in late February or early-to-mid March (called Phagguna

in Pali).  However, a bhikkhu's kathina privileges may be rescinded

earlier than that for either of two reasons:

1)  He participates in a meeting in which all the bhikkhus in the

monastery, as a formal act of the Community, voluntarily

relinquish their kathina privileges.  (This act is discussed

under Bhikkhunis' Pacittiya 30 -- see BD, vol. III, p. 302.)

2)  He comes to the end both of his commitment to the monastery

(//avasa-palibodha//) and of his commitment to making a robe

(//civara-palibodha//).   (See Mv.VII.1.7; Mv.VII.2 & Pv.XIV.6.)

a) Commitment to the monastery ends when either of the following

things happen:

-- One leaves the monastery without intending to return before

the four lunar months are up.

-- One has left the monastery, planning to return, but learns

that the bhikkhus in the monastery have formally decided to

relinquish their kathina privileges.

b) Commitment to making a robe ends when any of the following

occur:

-- One finishes making a robe.

-- One decides not to make a robe,

-- One's robe-cloth gets lost.

-- One expects to obtain robe-cloth, but doesn't obtain it as

expected.

Only if Point 1 happens, or //both// Points 2a and 2b happen, do

one's kathina privileges lapse before the dawn after the full moon

day marking the end of the cold season.

During the period in which one's end-of-vassa privileges or

kathina privileges are in effect, one may keep an extra piece of

robe-cloth for more than ten days without committing an offense

under this rule.  Once  these privileges lapse, though, one must

determine the cloth, place it under dual ownership, or abandon it

within ten days.  If one fails to do so by the 'eleventh dawn' after

the privileges lapse, the cloth is to be forfeited and the offense

confessed.

Forfeiture & confession.  To be absolved of the offense under this

rule, one must first forfeit the robe-cloth kept over ten days, and

then confess the offense.  This may be done in the presence of one

other bhikkhu, a group of two or three, or a Community of four or

more.  After confessing the offense, one receives the robe-cloth in

return.  This is the pattern followed under all the nissaggiya

pacittiya rules, except for the few in which forfeiture and

confession must be done in the presence of a full Community, and in

which the article may not be returned to the offender.  (We will

note these rules as we come to them.)

The Pali formulae to use in forfeiture, confession and return of

the article for this and all the following rules are given in

Appendix VI.  We should note, though, that according to the

Commentary one may conduct these procedures in any language at all.

In this and every other rule under which the article may be

returned to the offender, it //must// be returned to him.  According

to the Vibhanga, a bhikkhu who receives the article being forfeited

without returning it incurs a dukkata.  The Commentary qualifies

this by saying that this penalty applies only to the bhikkhu who

assumes that, in receiving an article being forfeited in this way,

it is his to take as he likes.  For the bhikkhu who knows that it is

not his to take -- and this includes every bhikkhu who has read this

passage and remembered it -- the offense is to be treated under

Parajika 2, and the penalty determined by the value of the article.

Viewed in this light, the act of accepting the forfeited article is

like accepting an object placed in trust.

A bhikkhu who has received the robe-cloth in return after

forfeiting it and confessing the offense may use it again without

penalty, unless he keeps it as a piece of extra robe-cloth for more

than an additional ten days.

Non-offenses.  Aside from extra robe-cloth kept more than ten days

while one's end-of-vassa or kathina privileges are in effect, the

Vibhanga says that there is no offense if within ten days the cloth

is determined, placed under dual ownership, lost, stolen, destroyed,

burnt, taken by someone else on trust, thrown away, or given away.

In connection with this last point, the Commentary discusses

proper and improper ways of giving things away.  The article counts

as having been properly given if one says, "I give this to you," or

"I give this to so-and-so" or "Take this, it's yours," but not if

one says things like, "Make this yours," or "May this be yours."

Apparently, if one simply hands the article over without saying

anything to show that one is transferring ownership, it again does

not count.  As we noted above, perception is not a mitigating factor

under this rule.  If one gives extra robe-cloth away in an improper

manner, then even though one may assume that the cloth has been

given away, it still counts as one's own extra robe-cloth under this

rule.

Current practice.  As the origin story shows, the purpose of this

rule was to prevent bhikkhus from having more than one set of the

three robes at any one time.  With the passage of time, though,

gifts of cloth to the Community became more numerous, and the need

for stringency in this matter became less and less felt.  Exactly

when spare robes became accepted is not recorded, although the

passage on a student's duties to his preceptor (Mv.I.25.9) shows

that the practice of having a spare lower robe was already current

when that part of the Canon was compiled (see Appendix VIII).

Mv.VII.1 also makes mention of a group of forest dwelling monks who

were "wearers of the three robes," as if this were a special

distinguishing characteristic.  The Parivara (V.5) mentions the

practice of using only one set of three robes as special, and the

Visuddhi Magga (5th century A.D.) classes this practice as one of

the thirteen optional //dhutanga// (ascetic) practices.

As we will see below, Pacittiya 92 suggests that in the early days

the under, upper, and outer robes were all nearly the same size, so

there would have been no difficulties in washing one robe and using

the other two while the first one dried.  Later, when the compilers

of the ancient commentaries greatly enlarged the size of the upper

and outer robes after deciding that the Buddha was much larger than

an ordinary human being, getting  by with just one set of three

robes became less convenient.  Thus many teachers at present suggest

that even a frugal bhikkhu, when staying in monasteries, should use

one spare under robe or a spare under and upper robe -- so that he

will have no trouble keeping his robes clean and presenting an

acceptable appearance at all times -- and save the three-robe

dhutanga practice for periods when alone in the wilderness.

At any rate, since only one set of three robes may be determined

as such, spare robes -- once they became generally accepted -- were

determined as "accessory cloths."  This point may be inferred from

the Commentary's explanation of this rule, and the Sub-commentary's

explanation of NP 7.  The Commen-tary even contains a discussion of

the views of various elders as to whether or not a bhikkhu who

wishes to avoid the special rules surrounding the use of the three

robes (such as the following rule) may determine his basic set as

accessory cloths as well.  The majority opinion -- with only one

dissenting voice -- was yes, although at present many Communities do

not agree with this opinion.

The Sub-commentary suggests an alternative way of dealing with

spare robes:  placing them under dual ownership and -- since none of

the three robes may be placed under dual ownership -- calling them

simply "cloth" (//civara//).  This, however, plays havoc with

Pacittiya 59, and the general use of the idea of dual ownership in

the Canon, as a way of keeping cloth that one is not yet using.

Still, both methods of dealing with spare robes -- determining

them as "accessory cloths" and placing them under dual ownership as

"cloths" -- are in practice at present.  And since spare robes have

been accepted, the current effect of this rule is mainly to deter a

bhikkhu from hoarding up robe-cloth in secret and from letting a

hole in any of his basic set of three robes go unmended for more

than ten days.   Nevertheless, the spirit of the rule makes it

incumbent on each bhikkhu to keep his cloth requisites to a minimum.

Summary:  Keeping a piece of robe-cloth for more than ten

days without determining it for use or placing it under dual

ownership -- except when the end-of-vassa or kathina

privileges are in effect -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya

offense.

* * *

2.When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame

is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance):  If

he dwells apart from (any of) his three robes even for one

night -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be

forfeited and confessed.

In the origin story here, a number of bhikkhus went off on tour,

leaving their outer robes with their friends at the monastery.

Eventually the robes became moldy, and the bhikkhus at the monastery

were burdened with having to sun them to get rid of the mold.  The

Buddha thus formulated this rule so that bhikkhus would be

responsible for looking after their own robes.

The offense here consists of two factors:  object and effort.

Object: any one of the robes that a bhikkhu has determined as his

basic set of three -- the //antaravasaka// (under robe),

//uttarasanga// (upper robe) and //sanghati// (outer robe).  This

rule thus does not apply to spare robes or other cloth requisites.

Effort: greeting dawn at a place outside of the zone in which any

of ones robes are located, except when the exemptions mentioned in

the rule are in effect.

//Dawn// is a concept that would seem intuitive enough, but the

lack of a definition for the term in the Vibhanga has given rise to

a variety of later interpretations.  The Khuddasikkha -- a Vinaya

manual written by Ven. Dhammasiri, a Sri Lankan, in the 11th or 12th

century -- states that the sky lightens in four stages before

sunrise:  a slight reddening 2 hours before sunrise; a slight

whitening 1/2 hour later; a second reddening 48 minutes before

sunrise; and a second whitening 24 minutes after that.  Burmese, Sri

Lankan, and some Thai bhikkhus tend to follow this analysis, and

differ among themselves only as to which of the four stages

constitutes dawn, most of them favoring the first reddening.  Other

Thai bhikkhus ignore the Khuddasikkha entirely, and say that dawn

occurs in the half hour before the point when, by natural light, one

can see the lines in one's hand while holding it out at arm's

length.

Appendix I discusses a passage from the Canon -- M. 66 -- that

suggests that the first reddening and whitening is probably not the

dawn meant by the Vibhanga, but as with many other controversial

points of this sort, the wise policy is usually to adhere to the

traditions of one's Community.

//Zones//.  This is the most complex facet of this rule.  The zone

where a bhikkhu must be at dawn depends on the type of location

where his robes are placed, whether or not the property around the

location is enclosed (with a wall, a fence, or a body of water such

as a moat, river, or lake, says the Sub-commentary) and -- if it is

enclosed -- whether it belongs to one or more than one //kula//.

The term //kula// has different meanings for the different types

of locations.  According to the Commentary, a village, town or city

is one-kula if ruled by a single ruler, and multi-kula if ruled by a

council -- as in the case of Vesali and Kusinara during the time of

the Buddha.  At present, cities or towns governed under a social

contract -- such as a town charter -- would count as multi-kula

regardless of whether the highest authority in the government is

invested in a single individual or not.

A building, a vehicle or a piece of land is one-kula if it belongs

to one family, and multi-kula if it belongs to more than one (as in

an apartment house).

According to the Sub-commentary, a monastery is one-kula if the

people who initiated it belong to one kula -- of either type,

apparently -- and multi-kula if they belong to several.

What follows is a synopsis of the specific places listed in the

Vibhanga, together with explanations from the commentaries:

1.  //A village, town, or city//:

a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are in the enclosure, one

may greet dawn anywhere in the enclosure.

b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  If the robes are in a house, greet

dawn anywhere in the house, in the public meeting hall, at the

town gate, or one //hatthapasa// (1.25 meters) around any of

these places (%).  If the robes are in the public meeting hall

or in the area one hatthapasa around it, greet dawn in the

public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one

hatthapasa around either of the two.

c. Unenclosed:  If the robes are in a one-kula dwelling, greet

dawn in the house, or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).

(See 2 & 3 below for further details.)

2.  //A dwelling with a yard//:

a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are within the enclosure,

greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.

b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  Greet dawn in the room where the

robes are located, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the

area one hatthapasa around either of the two (%).

c. Unenclosed:  Greet dawn in the room where the robes are

located, or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).

3.  //A monastic dwelling// (vihara -- //according to the

Sub-commentary, this includes entire monasteries//):

a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are within the enclosure,

greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.

b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  Greet dawn in the dwelling where the

robes are located, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the

area one hatthapasa around either of the two (%).

c. Unenclosed:  Greet dawn in the dwelling where the robes are

located or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).

4.  //A field, orchard garden (park) or threshing floor//:

a. Enclosed and one-kula:   If the robes are within the

enclosure, greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.

b.  Enclosed and multi-kula:  If the robes are within the

enclosure, greet dawn in the area one hatthapasa around the

entrance to the enclosure or in the area one hatthapasa around

the robes.

c.  Unenclosed:  Greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.

5.  //Buildings with no yard (such as a fortress or city apartment

block)//:

a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the building, greet dawn

anywhere within the building.

b.  Multi-kula:  Greet dawn within the room where the robes are

located or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).

6.  //A boat (and by extension, other vehicles)//:

a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the vehicle, greet dawn

anywhere within the vehicle.

b.  Multi-kula (as in a commercial airplane or bus):  If the robe

is within a room, greet dawn in the room or in the area one

hatthapasa around it (%).  (For this reason, a bhikkhu

traveling in an airplane overnight should wear his complete set

of robes or have it with him in his cabin baggage, rather than

in his checked baggage.)

7.  //A caravan (according to the Sub-commentary, this includes

groups traveling by foot as well as by cart; group hiking trips

would thus be included here)//:

a.  One-kula:  If the robes are anywhere in the caravan, greet

dawn anywhere up to seven //abbhantaras// (98 meters) in front

of or behind the robes, or up to one abbhantara (14 meters) to

either side.

b.  Multi-kula:  If the robes are anywhere in the caravan, greet

dawn within one hatthapasa of the caravan.

8.  //At the foot of a tree//:

a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the area shaded by the tree at

noon, greet dawn within that area.  According to the

Commentary, this doesn't include spots where sun leaks through

gaps in the foliage, so be careful.

b.  Multi-kula (as a tree on the boundary between two pieces of

land):  Greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.

9.  //In a wilderness area (where there are no villages)//:

Greet dawn anywhere within a seven-abbhantara (98 meter) radius

of the robes.

10.  //In other areas//:

If the robes are located in a place other than those mentioned

above (e.g., in the unshaded yard of an unenclosed monastery),

greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.

Exemptions. 1)  As in the preceding rule, this rule does not apply

when the end-of-vassa and kathina privileges are in effect.

2)  In the origin story to this rule, the Buddha gives permission

for a Community of bhikkhus to authorize an ill bhikkhu to be

separated from his robes at dawn throughout the course of his

illness without penalty.  This authorization is to be given as a

formal act with one motion and one announcement

(//natti-dutiya-kamma//).

The Commentary discusses how long this authorization is to last,

and concludes that once the bhikkhu has recovered, he should make

every reasonable effort to get back to his robes as soon as possible

without jeopardizing his health.  The authorization then

automatically subsides, with no further formal act being required.

If his illness returns, the authorization is automatically

reinstated.

3) In Mv.II.12.1-3, the Buddha directs the bhikkhus to declare a

//sima// -- or territory in which formal acts of the Community are

enacted -- as a //ticivara-avippavasa//, which means that if a

bhikkhu's robes are anywhere within the territory, he may greet dawn

at any other part of that territory without committing an offense

under this rule.  In the early days, when such a territory might

cover many monasteries (the maximum allowable size is 3x3

//yojanas//, approximately 48x48 kilometers), this was a definite

convenience for bhikkhus who had to leave one monastery to join in

Community meetings at another one in the same territory.  Since it

was possible for such territories to include villages and homes as

well, the Buddha added the extra stipulation that robes left in the

houses of lay people lying in such a territory were not covered by

this exemption.

At present the custom is to designate much smaller areas as simas

-- usually only a fraction of the land in one monastery -- and

although these can also be designated as ticivara-avippavasa, this

arrangement in such cases is not the great convenience it is in the

larger simas.

Forfeiture & confession.  If a bhikkhu greets dawn outside of the

zone where any one of his three determined robes is placed -- except

when the exemptions are in effect -- the robe is to be forfeited and

the offense confessed.  Perception and intention are not mitigating

factors here.  If he thinks that he is in the same zone when he

actually isn't, if he thinks the robe is not determined when it

actually is, or if he means to be in the same zone when

circumstances prevent him, he incurs the penalty all the same.  If

he then uses the robe before forfeiting it and confessing the

offense, he incurs a dukkata.

The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe

are the same as in the preceding rule.  For the Pali formula to use

in forfeiture, see Appendix VI.  Once the robe has been forfeited,

its determination lapses, so when the bhikkhu receives it in return

he must re-determine it for use or give it away within ten days so

as not to commit an offense under the preceding rule.

Non-offenses.  In addition to the above-mentioned exemptions,

there is no offense if, before dawn, the robe is lost, destroyed,

burnt or stolen; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the

bhikkhu gives it away or rescinds its determination.  Because of

this last allowance, the Commentary recommends that if a bhikkhu

realizes that he will not be able to get back to his robe before

dawn, he should verbally rescind the robe's determination before

dawn arrives so as to avoid an offense, and then redetermine the

robe after dawn has passed.

A note on Thai practice.  The author of the Vinaya Mukha missed

the Sub-commentary's discussion of monastic residences under this

rule, and so came to the conclusion that none of the texts discuss

the question of zones in a monastery.  As a result, he formulated

his own system, treating each separate monastic dwelling as a lay

dwelling with a yard.  Furthermore, he neglected to discuss the

question of what counts as single-kula and multi-kula in such a

dwelling.  In the absence of any other standard, Thai bhikkhus have

come to view a dwelling of two or more bhikkhus, in which the

bhikkhus come from different families, as a multi-kula dwelling.  If

the bhikkhus live in separate rooms, then the room where the robes

are placed, plus a radius of one hatthapasa around it, is the

bhikkhu's zone.  If two or more bhikkhus are spending the night in a

single room, each bhikkhu must greet dawn within one hatthapasa of

his robes.

Although there is no basis in the Canon or commentaries for this

practice, it is so widely accepted in Thailand that the wise policy

for anyone spending the night in the same dwelling or the same room

with a Thai bhikkhu is to be aware of it and abide by it, to avoid

the useless controversies that can arise over minor matters like

this.

Summary:  Being in a separate zone from any of one's three

robes at dawn -- except when the end-of-vassa or kathina

privileges are in effect, or one has received formal

authorization from the Community -- is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

3. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the

kathina privileges are in abeyance:  If out-of-season

robe-cloth accrues to him, he may accept it if he so

desires.  Once he accepts it, he is to make it up

immediately (into a cloth requisite).  If it should not be

enough, he may lay it aside for a month at most if he has an

expectation for filling the lack.  Should he keep it beyond

that, even when there is an expectation (for further cloth),

it is to be forfeited and confessed.

There are two factors for an offense here:

1)  //Object//:  (a) out-of-season robe-cloth, made of any of the

proper six kinds of material, in pieces measuring at least four by

eight fingerbreadths;

(b) the cloth is not enough to make the cloth requisite one has in

mind, but one expects to receive more.

2)  //Effort//:  One keeps the cloth for more than 30 days, except

when the privileges are in effect.

Object.  Any gift of robe-cloth presented to the Community when

the end-of-vassa or kathina privileges are in effect is an in-season

robe-cloth.  Thus, out-of-season robe-cloth includes any gift of

robe-cloth:

1)  presented to the Community at any other time,

2) presented at any time to a bhikkhu or group of bhikkhus (except

for in-season cloth allotted to him/them by the Community); or

3) presented to the Community when the privileges are in effect,

with the stipulation that it be treated as out-of-season cloth.

The reason why a donor would present cloth under category (3) is

because, according to Mv.VIII.24-25, in-season cloth may be shared

among only the bhikkhus who spent the vassa in that particular

Community, and not among any visiting bhikkhus.  The Bhikkhunis' NP

2 tells of a case where well-behaved but shabbily dressed bhikkhunis

visited a Community of bhikkhunis when the end-of-vassa privileges

were in effect; lay donors, wishing to help them out, gave cloth to

the Community with the stipulation that it be treated as

out-of-season robe-cloth so that the visiting bhikkhunis would also

have a share.

Out-of-season cloth, if it is enough to make the cloth requisite

one has in mind, is treated as extra robe-cloth under NP 1.  If,

however, it is not enough, and one expects to get further cloth from

any source -- lay donors, the Community, cast-off cloth, or one's

own resources -- it may be kept for up to 30 days with no need to be

determined or placed under dual ownership.

The further cloth, when one receives it, has a life span of ten

days, as under NP 1, and one must finish making one's requisite

within the time period determined by whichever cloth has the shorter

life span.  Thus, if one obtains the expected cloth during the first

20 days, the requisite must be made within ten days, this being the

life span of the second cloth.  If one obtains it after the 21st

day, the requisite must be made before the original 30 days are up.

If the second cloth turns out to be of different quality from the

first, one is under no compulsion to put the two cloths together to

make up the requisite if one does not want to, and may continue

waiting for further cloth as long as the life span of the first

cloth allows.  The Commentary recommends that if the second cloth is

of poorer quality than the first, one may determine it as accessory

cloth; if the second cloth is of better quality, one may determine

the first cloth as accessory cloth, and start a new 30-day countdown

from the day of receiving the second cloth.

Effort.  Days are counted by dawns.  If, by the 30th dawn after

one receives the original cloth, one has not determined it, placed

it under dual ownership or abandoned it, it is to be forfeited and

the offense confessed.  The Sub-commentary adds that if at any time

after the first ten days have elapsed one abandons any expectation

for further cloth, one must determine the original cloth, place it

under dual ownership, or abandon it before the following dawn.

Otherwise, one commits an offense under NP 1.

As in the preceding rules, perception is not a mitigating factor

here.  If one miscounts the dawns, or thinks the cloth is properly

determined, etc., when in fact it isn't, there is an offense all the

same.

As for the question of out-of-season cloth that crosses the

boundary between times when the privileges are and are not in effect

-- i.e., cloth received less than a month before the privileges

start, or less than a month before they end:  The K/Commentary to NP

24 indicates that if cloth received when the privileges are still in

effect is not enough to make a robe, the one-month grace period

allowed in this rule begins the day after the privileges are

rescinded.  And the Commentary to NP 28 indicates that if the cloth

covered in this rule comes toward the end of the Rains Retreat, and

the day when the robe has to be finished falls in the robe season,

one  is allowed the entire robe season to finish it.

Still, these questions rarely come up in practice, as it is a

simple enough matter to determine the original cloth as accessory

cloth or place it under dual ownership until one has enough cloth to

make one's requisite, remove it from those arrangements to make the

requisite, and so avoid having to worry about this rule at all.

Forfeiture & confession.  The procedures for forfeiture,

confession, and return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding

rules.  For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see

Appendix VI.  Once the cloth is received in return, and it is now

enough for the requisite one has in mind, it is classed as extra

robe-cloth under NP 1.  If not, the 30-day countdown starts all over

again.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, before the 30 days are up,

the original cloth is stolen, lost, destroyed, burnt; if someone

else takes it on trust; or if the owner determines it for use,

places it under dual ownership or abandons it.  And, as stated

above, this rule does not apply when the end-of-vassa and kathina

privileges are in effect.

Summary: Keeping out-of-season cloth for more than 30 days

when it is not enough to make a requisite and one has

expectation for more -- except when the end-of-vassa and

kathina privileges are in effect -- is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

4. Should any bhikkhu have a used robe washed, dyed, or

beaten by a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be

forfeited and confessed.

The origin story here is one of the classics of Vinaya literature,

although it is hard to say which is more memorable -- the dry,

matter-of-fact style with which the narrative relates the improbable

events, or the reaction of the bhikkhunis when they hear what has

happened.

"Now at that time Ven. Udayin's wife had gone forth among

the bhikkhunis.  She often went to his dwelling, and he

often went to hers.  One day he went to her dwelling for a

meal.  Arising early in the morning, carrying his robe and

bowl, he went to where she was staying and on arrival sat

down in front of her, exposing his male organ.  She sat down

in front of him, exposing her female organ.  He, full of

lust, stared at her organ.  His organ emitted semen.  He

said to her, 'Go and fetch some water, sister.  I'll wash my

under robe.'

"'Give it to me.  //I'll// wash it.'

"Then she took some of the semen in her mouth and inserted

some of it in her female organ.  With that, she conceived a

child.

"The bhikkhunis said, 'This bhikkhuni has been practicing

unchastity.  She's pregnant.'

"'It's not that I've been practicing unchastity.'  And she

told them what had happened.  The bhikkhunis were offended

and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can this Master Udayin

get a bhikkhuni to wash his used robe?'"

There are three factors for an offense here:  object, effort and

result.

Object:  a used robe.  //Robe//, here, according to the

Commentary, means any robe that has been dyed and properly marked

(see Pacittiya 58).  This is its way of saying that the robe must be

a finished cloth requisite of the type suitable for wearing, but

need not be determined as one of one's basic three robes.  In other

words, it could also be as yet undetermined, or a spare robe

determined as an accessory cloth.

//Used//, according to the Vibhanga, means worn around the body at

least once.  According to the Commentary, it can mean used in other

ways -- e.g., rolled up as a pillow or worn draped over the shoulder

or head -- as well.

Other cloth requisites, such as sitting cloths and bed sheets, are

grounds for a dukkata.  Non-cloth requisites are not grounds for an

offense.

Effort.  One tells an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, dye, or beat

the robe.

A //bhikkhuni//, here, means one who has received the double

ordination, first in the Bhikkhuni Sangha and secondly in the

Bhikkhu Sangha.  A bhikkhuni who has received only her first

ordination is grounds for a dukkata.  Female probationers and

novices and not grounds for an offense.

//Unrelated// is explained by the Vibhanga as meaning unrelated

back through seven grandfathers, either on the father's or the

mother's side.  The Commentary explains further that this means

seven generations counted back starting from one's grandfather.

Thus all descendants of one's

great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers are counted

as one's relatives.  In-laws, though, are not counted.  This

definition of unrelated applies wherever the Vibhanga mentions the

word.  At the time of the Buddha, perceived ties of kinship extended

more widely than they do today, and a bhikkhu at present would be

well-advised to regard as his relatives only those blood-relations

with whom ties of kinship are actually felt.

Perception is not an issue here.  If a bhikkhu perceives a

bhikkhuni as related when in fact she isn't, he is subject to the

penalty all the same.

//Telling//, according to the Commentary, includes gesturing as

well.  Thus if a bhikkhuni is washing her robes, and a bhikkhu

throws his robe down next to her, that would fulfill the factor

here.

Result.  The bhikkhuni washes, dyes or beats the robe as

requested.

Offenses.  A bhikkhu who tells an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash,

etc., his used robe incurs a dukkata in the telling.  For every

effort she then makes towards washing it, he incurs an extra

dukkata.  When she actually starts washing it, the robe is to be

forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed.  He incurs

a nissaggiya pacittiya and a dukkata if he gets her to do two of the

three actions mentioned in the rule -- e.g., washing and dyeing the

robe; and a nissaggiya pacittiya and two dukkatas if he gets her to

do all three.

The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe

are the same as in the preceding rules.  Once the robe is returned,

it counts as an extra robe-cloth under NP 1.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense if the bhikkhuni is related to

the bhikkhu, if an unrelated bhikkhuni washes the robe unasked, if

an unrelated bhikkhuni helps a related bhikkhuni wash it, if the

robe has not yet been used, if one gets an unrelated bhikkhuni to

wash a non-cloth requisite, or if one gets an unrelated female

probationer or female novice to wash a used robe.

The Commentary discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives a used

robe to a female probationer to wash:  She takes it, becomes

ordained as a bhikkhuni in the meantime, and then washes it.  The

verdict:  He incurs the full penalty under this rule.  For the fun

of it, the Commentary then goes on to discuss the case of a bhikkhu

who gives his used robe to a lay man to wash.  The lay man undergoes

a spontaneous sex change and becomes a bhikkhuni before washing the

robe, and again, the bhikkhu incurs the full penalty.  What lesson

is intended here is hard to say.

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

beat a robe that has been used at least once is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

5. Should any bhikkhu accept robe-cloth from a bhikkhuni

unrelated to him -- unless it is in exchange -- it is to be

forfeited and confessed.

The reason behind this rule is expressed by a single sentence in the

origin story:  'It's hard for a woman to come by things.'  In the

original version of the rule, the Buddha made no allowance for

accepting robe-cloth in exchange, but this point was later changed

at the request of the bhikkhunis.  They had tried to exchange

robe-cloth with the bhikkhus, who refused because of the rule as it

stood at that time, and this upset the bhikkhunis.  As the

Commentary explains, their poverty was what made them complain, "If

the Masters are not on familiar terms with us even to this extent,

how are we supposed to keep going?"

The offense under this rule 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 receives such cloth from an unrelated

bhikkhuni and does not give her anything in exchange.

//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 here is not a mitigating factor:  According to the

Vibhanga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhuni as

related, he is still subject to the penalty.  The Commentary adds

that even if one does not know that the robe comes from a bhikkhuni

-- as when many donors place robes in a pile for a bhikkhu, and one

of the donors, unbeknownst to the bhikkhu, is a bhikkhuni -- this

factor is fulfilled all the same.  If a bhikkhuni gives robe-cloth

to someone else to present to a bhikkhu, though, the bhikkhu commits

no offense in accepting it.

The Commentary also states that receiving need not be

hand-to-hand.  If a bhikkhuni simply places robe-cloth near a

bhikkhu as her way of giving it to him, and he 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 bhikkhu gives

the bhikkhuni a piece of yellow myrobalan -- a medicinal fruit, one

of the cheapest things imaginable in India -- he escapes the penalty

under this rule.

Offenses.  If all three factors of the offense here are fulfilled,

the bhikkhu incurs a dukkata in accepting the cloth.  He then must

forfeit the cloth and confess the additional nissaggiya pacittiya

offense.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of

the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules.

Non-offenses.  There is no offense:

if the bhikkhuni is a relation;

if the bhikkhuni is not related, but the bhikkhu gives her

something in exchange;

if the bhikkhu takes the cloth on trust;

if he borrows the cloth;

if he accepts a non-cloth requisite;

if he accepts robe-cloth from a female probationer or female

novice.

Exchange.  The origin story to this rule is where the Buddha

explicitly gives permission for bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, female

probationers, male novices and female novices to trade items with

one another.  NP 20 forbids bhikkhus from trading items with lay

people and people ordained in other religions.

Summary:   Accepting robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhuni

without giving her anything in exchange is a nissaggiya

pacittiya offense.

* * *

6. Should any bhikkhu ask for robe-cloth from a man or woman

householder unrelated to him, except at the proper occasion,

it is to be forfeited and confessed.  Here the proper

occasion is this:  The bhikkhu's robe has been stolen or

destroyed.  This is the proper occasion in this case.

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

skilled in giving Dhamma talks.  A certain millionaire's son

went to where he was, and on arrival bowed down and sat to

one side.  As he was sitting there, Ven. Upananda the Sakyan

instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a Dhamma

talk.  Then the millionaire's son...said to him, 'Tell me,

Ven. sir, what would be in my power to give you for your

welfare:  Robe-cloth?  Alms-food?  Lodgings?  Medicines for

the sick?'

"'If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one

of those cloths (you are wearing).'

"'I'm the son of a good family, Ven. sir.  How can I go

about wearing one cloth?  Wait until I've returned home.

After going home, I will send you one of these cloths, or a

finer one.'

"A second time...A third time, Ven. Upananda said to him,

'If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one

of those cloths.'

"'I'm the son of a good family, Ven. sir.  How can I go

about wearing one cloth?  Wait until I've returned home.

After going home, I will send you one of these cloths, or a

finer one.'

"'Are you making an offer when you don't want to give me

anything, in that having made the offer you don't give?'

"So the millionaire's son, being pressured by Ven. Upananda,

left having given him one cloth.  People seeing him said to

him, 'Why is it, master, that you go around wearing only one

cloth?'

"He told them what had happened.  So the people were

offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'They're

insatiable, these Sakyan contemplatives, and not easily

contented.  It's no simple matter to make a reasonable

request of them.  How can they, after being made a

reasonable request by the millionaire's son, take his

cloth?'"

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

result.

Object:  a piece of any of the six suitable kinds of robe-cloth,

measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.

Effort.  One asks, except at the proper time, for such cloth from

a lay person who is not related back through one's great x 7

grandfathers.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if

one perceives the lay person to be related when in fact he/she

isn't, that fulfills the factor here.

Result.  One receives the cloth.

The proper occasions.  //Stolen//, according to the Vibhanga,

refers to a robe stolen by anyone at all. //Destroyed// means burnt,

carried away by water, eaten by such things as rats or termites, or

worn out by use -- although the Sub-commentary adds here that worn

out by use means worn to the point where the robe can no longer

cover the body.

If all of a bhikkhu's robes are stolen or destroyed, he is not to

go about naked.  To do so incurs a dukkata (as opposed to the

thullaccaya Mv.VIII.28.1 imposes on a bhikkhu who chooses to go

about naked when he has robes to wear).  A bhikkhu with no cloth to

cover his body should make a covering of grass and leaves.  If he

happens on an unoccupied Sangha residence, he is permitted to take

any cloth he finds there -- robes, sheets, mats, pillow cases, or

whatever -- to wear as a makeshift robe as long as he has the

intention of returning it when he obtains a proper robe.

The Commentary adds several points here:

If one picks leaves or cuts grass to make a covering for oneself

under these circumstances, one is exempt from the penalty for

damaging plant life under Pacittiya 11.

If, after getting one's makeshift robe, one has to go a great

distance before getting a proper robe, one may leave the

makeshift robe with any convenient monastery as property of the

Sangha.

If, under these circumstances, one asks lay people for cloth and

receives cloth of a type or color that normally is not allowed,

there is no offense in wearing it until one can obtain suitable

cloth.

The following rule adds extra stipulations on how much cloth one

may ask for in circumstances like this.

Offenses.  The act of asking for robe-cloth from an unrelated lay

person not at the proper time entails a dukkata.  The cloth, when

one receives it, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya

offense confessed.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and

return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules.  The

Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI.

Non-offenses.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if

--

one asks at the right time,

one asks from one's relations,

one asks from people who have invited one to ask for cloth,

one obtains cloth through one's own resources, or

one asks for the sake of another bhikkhu.

The Commentary explains that this last point means two things:

One may ask for cloth for the sake of another bhikkhu (1) from one's

own relations or from people who have invited one to ask for cloth

//or// (2) from the relatives of that bhikkhu or from people who

have invited //him// to ask.  This point applies for all rules where

one is allowed to ask for the sake of another.

As for obtaining cloth through one's own resources, the

Sub-commentary notes that one should be careful to do it in such a

way as not to commit an offense under NP 20.  Again, this applies to

all rules that contain this exemption.

Summary:  Asking for and receiving robe-cloth from an

unrelated lay person, except when one's robes have been

stolen or destroyed, is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

7. If that unrelated man or woman householder presents the

bhikkhu with many robes (pieces of robe-cloth), he is to

accept at most (enough for) an upper and an under robe.  If

he accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and

confessed.

This rule is a continuation of the preceding one, dealing with the

protocol in asking for robe-cloth when one's robes have been stolen

or destroyed.  The origin story is as follows:

"At that time some group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached

bhikkhus whose robes had been stolen, said, 'Friends, the

Blessed One has allowed those whose robes are stolen or

destroyed to ask an unrelated man or woman householder for

robe-cloth.  Ask for robe-cloth, friends.'

"'Never mind, friends.  We have already received (enough)

robe-cloth.'

"'We are asking in your name, friends.'

"'Then go ahead and ask.'

"So the group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached unrelated

householders, said, 'Bhikkhus have come whose robes were

stolen.  Give us robe-cloth for them.' And they asked for a

lot of robe-cloth.  Then a certain man, sitting in a meeting

hall, said to another man, 'Master, bhikkhus have come whose

robes were stolen.  I gave robe-cloth for them.'

"And he said, 'I gave, too.'

"And another said, 'I gave, too.'

"They were offended and annoyed and spread it about:  'How

can these Sakyan contemplatives, not knowing moderation, ask

for a lot of robe-cloth?  Will the Sakyan contemplatives

deal in the cloth business?  Or will they set up a shop?'"

Protocol.  The Vibhanga states that when a bhikkhu's robes are

stolen or destroyed, the amount of cloth he may ask for and accept

from an unrelated householder who has not previously invited him to

ask for cloth depends on the number of robes stolen or destroyed.

If three, he may ask for and accept only enough for two.  If two, he

may ask for and accept only enough for one.  If one, he should not

ask for any cloth at all.

The K/Commentary mentions that these stipulations apply only when

robes from one's determined set of three are stolen or destroyed.

The way it phrases this suggests that if one's spare robes are

stolen or destroyed, one has no right to ask for robe-cloth at all.

The Sub-commentary, though, interprets this as opening a loophole so

that if one loses any of one's spare robes, one may ask for as much

cloth as one likes.  It then accuses the K/Commentary of

contradicting the Canon and Commentary, and of ignoring the purpose

of the rule, which is to teach moderation and fewness of wants.  Its

conclusion:  The protocol applies when any of one's robes are stolen

or destroyed -- whether determined as the basic set of three,

undetermined or determined as accessory cloths.

If, however, we recall that originally each bhikkhu had only one

set of three robes, and that the allowance in the preceding rule was

to relieve the hardship of having little or nothing to wear, we can

agree with the K/Commentary's interpretation:  that the allowance in

the preceding rule applies //only// when robes from one's basic set

of three are stolen and destroyed, and that this is the case we are

concerned with here.  If one's spare robes get stolen or destroyed,

one may not make use of the allowance to ask for robe-cloth at all.

The Vibhanga states further that if the householder presents one

with a great deal of cloth, with the invitation to take as much as

one likes, one should take only enough cloth to make the allowable

number of robes.  The no-offense clauses add that one may take

excess cloth if one promises to return the excess when one has

finished making one's robe(s).  And if the donor tells one to keep

the excess, one may do so without penalty.

The factors of the offense for overstepping the bounds of this

protocol are three:

1) //Object//:  any piece of the six kinds of suitable robe-cloth,

measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.

2) //Effort//:  One asks for more than the allowable amount of

robe-cloth from an unrelated householder who has not previously made

an invitation to ask.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here:

Even if one perceives the householder to be related when in fact

he/she isn't -- or feels that he/she would be happy to offer the

excess cloth even though he/she has given no previous invitation to

ask -- this factor is fulfilled all the same.

3) //Result//:  One gets the excess robe-cloth.

The offenses here are as follows:  a dukkata for asking in the way

that fulfills the factor of effort, and a nissaggiya pacittiya when

all three factors are fulfilled.  The procedures to follow in

forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the

same as in the preceding rules.  For the Pali formula to use in

forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI.

Non-offenses.  In addition to the two cases mentioned above -- one

takes excess cloth with the promise to return the excess when one

has finished one's robe(s), and the donors tell one to keep the

excess -- there is no offense in taking excess cloth if:

the donors are offering cloth for reasons other than that one's

robes were stolen or destroyed (e.g., they are impressed with

one's learning, says the Commentary);

one is asking from one's relatives or people who have previously

made one an invitation to ask for cloth (//before// one's robes

were stolen or destroyed, says the Sub-commentary);

or one gets the cloth by means of one's own property.

The Commentary calls attention to the fact that the Vibhanga's

no-offense clauses make no mention of asking for the sake of

another.  It then draws the conclusion, based on the fact that the

rule was formulated in response to bhikkhus' requesting excess cloth

for the sake of others, that in the circumstances mentioned in this

rule, one may not ask for excess cloth for the sake of others.  The

Sub-commentary takes issue with this, and presents three arguments

for its case:

1)  There is no requirement that the working out of a training

rule has to follow from the origin story.  (It gives no examples,

but Parajikas 3 & 4, Sanghadisesas 8 & 9, NP 4 and Pacittiyas 8 &

58 are all cases in point.)

2)  The Ganthipadas state that since this training rule deals with

what to do when presented with offerings for one's own sake,

there is no need for the Vibhanga to mention the case of asking

for another's sake.

3)  If asking for another's sake is not allowable here, it should

also not be allowable in the preceding rule.

Thus it concludes that here, as under the preceding rule, there is

no offense in asking for excess cloth for Bhikkhu X from one's own

relatives or people who have invited one to ask, or from Bhikkhu X's

relatives or people who have invited X to ask.

Summary:  Asking for and receiving excess robe-cloth from

unrelated lay people when one's robes have been stolen or

destroyed is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

8. In case a man or woman householder prepares a robe fund

for the sake of an unrelated bhikkhu, thinking. "Having

purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will supply the

bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe:" If the bhikkhu, not

previously invited, approaching (the householder) should

make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, "It

would be good indeed, sir, if you supplied me (with a robe),

having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with this

robe fund" -- out of a desire for something fine -- it is to

be forfeited and confessed.

"Now at that time a certain householder said to his wife, 'I

will supply Master Upananda with a robe.'  A certain bhikkhu

on his almsround overhead the man saying this, went to where

Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was staying and on arrival said to

him, 'You have a lot of merit, friend Upananda.  A certain

man over there said to his wife, 'I will supply Master

Upananda with a robe.'

"'He's my supporter, my friend.'

"So Ven. Upananda the Sakyan went to where the man was

staying and on arrival said to him, 'My friend, is it true

that you want to supply me with a robe?'

"'Now, wasn't I just thinking, 'I will supply Master

Upananda with a robe'?

"'Well, if you want to supply me with a robe, supply me with

a robe like this.  What use is it to me to be supplied with

a robe I won't use?'

"So the man was offended, annoyed and spread it about,

'They're insatiable, these Sakyan contemplatives, and not

easily contented.  It's no simple matter to supply them with

a robe.  How can this Master Upananda, without having first

been invited by me, make stipulations concerning a robe?'"

The situation covered by this rule is this:  An unrelated lay

person has put aside resources to purchase a robe to present to a

bhikkhu, but without yet asking the bhikkhu what kind of robe he

wants.  The factors for the offense here are four:

Object.  The texts mention only that this rule concerns funds for

a robe (civara), but without specifying whether this means funds

only for finished robes or pieces of robe-cloth suitable for making

into robes as well.  They also do not mention whether funds for

other requisites would be grounds for a lesser offense or no

offense, although given the spirit of the rule, it would be a wise

policy for a bhikkhu not to make stipulations, when uninvited, to a

lay person who has prepared funds for purchasing any kind of

requisite for his use.

Intention.  One wants to get a better robe than the lay person is

planning to buy.

Effort.  One makes a request to the unrelated lay person that

would involve raising the cost of the robe.  As in the previous

rules, perception is not a factor here.  Even if one perceives the

lay person to be related when he/she actually isn't, that would

fulfill the factor here all the same.

Result.  One gets the robe.  The way the texts define this factor

suggests that whether or not the lay person actually spends more on

the robe than he/she actually planned is not an issue here.

Offenses.  In the act of making a request that would fulfill the

factors of intention and effort, the penalty is a dukkata.  When one

receives the robe it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya

offense confessed.  The procedures to follow in forfeiture,

confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the

preceding rules.  For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the

cloth, see Appendix VI.

Non-offenses.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if:

the lay person is a relative or has invited one to ask for cloth;

one asks for another's sake;

one is getting the robe with one's own resources; or

one asks the lay person to get a robe less expensive than the one

he/she is planning to get.  The Commentary adds here that there

is also no offense if one's request would result in a robe equal

in price to the one the lay person has in mind.

Summary:  When a lay person who is not a relative is

planning to get a robe for one, but has yet to ask one what

kind of robe one wants:  Receiving the robe after making a

request that would raise its cost is a nissaggiya pacittiya

offense.

* * *

9. In case two householders -- men or women -- prepare

separate robe funds for the sake of a bhikkhu unrelated to

them, thinking, "Having purchased separate robes with these

separate robe funds of ours, we will supply the bhikkhu

named so-and-so with robes": If the bhikkhu, not previously

invited, approaching (them) should make a stipulation with

regard to the robe, saying, "It would be good indeed, sirs,

if you supplied me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of

such-and-such a sort with these separate robe funds, the two

(funds) together for one (robe)" -- out of a desire for

something fine -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

Explanations for this training rule are the same as those for the

preceding one, the only difference being in the factor of effort:

One asks the two donors to put their funds together to purchase one

robe.  Whether or not the request would raise the amount of money

they would have to spend is not an issue here, although the Vibhanga

says that if one makes a request that would //reduce// the amount of

money they would spend, there is no offense.

The Commentary adds that, under the conditions mentioned here,

making requests of three or more people to combine their robe funds

into one is also covered by this rule.

Summary: When two or more lay people who are not one's

relatives are planning to get separate robes for one, but

have yet to ask one what kind of robe one wants:  Receiving

a robe from them after asking them to pool their funds to

get one robe -- out of a desire for something fine -- is a

nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * *

10.In case a king, a royal official, a brahmin or a

householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via

a messenger (saying), "Having purchased a robe with this

robe fund, supply the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe":

If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, "This

is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable

one.  May the venerable one accept this robe fund," then the

bhikkhu is to tell the messenger:  "We do not accept robe

funds, my friend.  We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are

proper according to season."

If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, "Does the

venerable one have a steward?" then, bhikkhus, if the

bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward -- either

a monastery attendant or a lay follower -- (saying), "That,

my friend, is the bhikkhus' steward."

If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to

the bhikkhu, should say, "I have instructed the steward the

venerable one indicated.  May the venerable one go (to him)

and he will supply you with a robe in season," then the

bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may

prompt and remind him two or three times, "I have need of a

robe."  Should (the steward) produce the robe after being

prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.

If he does not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand

in silence four times, five times, six times at most for

that purpose.  Should (the steward) produce the robe after

(the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for the purpose four,

five, six times at most, that is good.

If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he

then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored

further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu

himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was

brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), "The robe

fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the

bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all.  May the

you be united with what is yours.  May what is yours not be

lost."  This is the proper course here.

The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are

quite complex -- much more complex than even this long training rule

would indicate -- and require a detailed explanation.  What follows

is an attempt to make them clear.  If it seems long and involved,

remember that the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from

the even more bothersome worries and complexities that come with

participating in buying, selling, and monetary matters in general.

This rule is one of four nissaggiya pacittiya rules covering a

bhikkhu's proper relationship to money.  The others are # 18, 19 &

20.  Although they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus

precisely on the two acts involving money that are most burdensome

to a sensitive mind:  In the act of accepting money, or having it

accepted in one's name, one is accepting all the cares,

responsibilities, and dangers that come with its ownership; in the

act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility for the

fairness of the trade:  that it undervalues neither the generosity

of the person who donated the money, nor the goods or services of

the person receiving the money in exchange.

Thus to protect a bhikkhu from these mental burdens, this rule

sets up protocols so that lay donors may have the convenience of

dedicating amounts of money and other valuables to provide for a

bhikkhu's needs, and so that the bhikkhu may benefit from such gifts

without having to bear the responsibilities of ownership or of

having to arrange fair trades.

If a bhikkhu follows the protocols recommended here, the money

placed with the steward still belongs to the donor, and the

responsibility for making a fair trade lies with the steward.  The

bhikkhu's only responsibility is to inform the original donor if,

after a reasonable number of promptings, the steward entrusted with

the money does not provide him with the requisite the donor had in

mind, and then let the donor look after the matter if he/she cares

to.

Although the rule itself mentions only funds for robe-cloth

intended for individual bhikkhus, we should note from the outset

that the Commentary extends it to cover all funds -- composed of

money, jewels, commodities, land, livestock or other valuables that

bhikkhus are not allowed to accept -- not only for individual

bhikkhus, but also for Communities, groups of bhikkhus and buildings

in a monastery.

The money rules & allowances:  an overview.  NP 18 forbids a

bhikkhu from accepting gifts of money, from getting others to accept

them, and from consenting to gifts of money meant for him being

placed down next to him.  NP 19 & 20 forbid him from engaging in

buying, selling, or bartering, regardless of whether or not it

involves money.  In the Mahavagga, however, the Buddha makes the

following allowance, called the Mendaka Allowance, after the donor

who inspired it:

"There are people of conviction and confidence, bhikkhus,

who place gold and silver in the hand of stewards, saying

'Give the master whatever is allowable.'  I allow you,

bhikkhus, to accept whatever is allowable coming from that.

But in no way at all do I say that money is to be accepted

or sought for."

(Mv.VI.34.21)

Even given this allowance, though, it is important that the

bhikkhu, in his dealings with the steward, does not say or do

anything that would transgress NP 18-20.  At the same time, it is

important that he does not abuse the steward's services.  Otherwise

the steward will never want to perform this service for bhikkhus

again.  This is the main point of the origin story to this rule:

"Then Ven. Upananda the Sakyan approached the lay follower

(his steward) and on arrival said, 'My friend, I have need

of a robe.'

"'Wait just today, sir.  Today there is a town meeting, and

the town has made a rule that whoever comes late is fined 50

(kahapana).'

"'Friend, give me the robe this very day!'  (Saying this,)

he grabbed hold of him by the belt.  So the lay follower,

being pressured by Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, purchased a

robe for him and arrived late.  The people said to the lay

follower, 'Why, master, have you come late?  You have lost

50.'  So he told them what had happened.  They were offended

and annoyed and spread it about, 'They're insatiable, these

Sakyan contemplatives, and not easily contented.  It's no

simple matter even to render them a service.  How can

Upananda the Sakyan, being told by a layman, "Wait just

today, sir," not wait?'"

Stewards.  According to the Commentary, there are three ways money

may be placed with a steward:  the steward is either indicated by

the bhikkhu, indicated by the donor or his/her messenger, or else

indicated by neither.

1) //Indicated by the bhikkhu// covers two sorts of cases:

a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu

points him/her out, as mentioned in the training rule.

b) The donor, knowing that a particular lay person has volunteered

to act as a steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu,

gives the money to the lay person and informs the bhikkhu -- or

has someone else inform him -- either before or after the fact.

2) //Indicated by the donor// covers cases where the donor chooses

one of his/her own friends or employees to act as the steward for

that particular gift, and informs the bhikkhu -- or has someone else

inform him -- either before or after the fact.

3) //Indicated by neither// covers two separate cases:

a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu

says that he has none.  Another person happens to overhear the

conversation and volunteers to act as the steward for that

particular gift.

b) The donor gives the gift to the lay person who is normally the

bhikkhu's steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, but

does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed of the fact.

According to the Commentary, this training rule covers only cases

of the first sort:  the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu.  I will

discuss this case in detail first before going on to discuss the

protocol in the other two.

The protocol in accepting.  The Vibhanga gives the following

guidelines:

If donors offer money, they are to be told that bhikkhus do not

accept money.

If they ask who the bhikkhus' steward is, one may point out any

lay person at all, saying, "That's the steward."  One is //not//

to say, "Give it to him/her" or "He/she will keep (the money),"

for that would be to accept ownership and responsibility for the

money, and thus be an infraction of the rule against accepting

money.  Also, one is not to say, "He/she will buy (the

requisite)" or "He/she will get it in exchange," for even this

much would be an infraction of the rules against trading.

The K/Commentary adds that if the donor asks, "To whom should I

give this?" or "Who will keep this?" one is not to point anyone out.

It doesn't say what one //may// do in such a situation, although a

wise policy would be to broach the topic of stewards so that the

donor will ask a question to which one may give a allowable answer.

The protocol in obtaining requisites from the fund.  The rule

states that a bhikkhu may give his steward up to three verbal and

six silent promptings in order to get a requisite from the fund.

The Vibhanga works out an arrangement whereby he may exchange two

silent promptings for one verbal prompting, which leads the

Commentary to lay out the following scheme:  A bhikkhu may make up

to --

6 verbal &  0 silent promptings

5 verbal &  2 silent promptings

4 verbal &  4 silent promptings

3 verbal &  6 silent promptings

2 verbal &  8 silent promptings

1 verbal & 10 silent promptings, or

0 verbal & 12 silent promptings.

When giving a verbal prompting, one may say only, "I need a robe

(or whatever the requisite may be)" or statements to that effect.

One may not say, "Give me a robe," "Get me a robe," "Buy me a robe,"

or "Get a robe in exchange or me," for these statements would be

violations of the rules against trading.

According to the Commentary, promptings are counted not by the

number of visits to the steward, but by the number of times the

bhikkhu states his need/desire for the requisite.  Thus if, in one

visit, he states his need for a robe three times, that counts as

three verbal promptings.

As for silent promptings -- or "standings" -- the bhikkhu merely

stands in the steward's presence.  If he/she asks, "What have you

come for?' the bhikkhu should say, "You know," or "You should know."

The Vibhanga also notes that during the period when a bhikkhu has

yet to receive the requisite, he should not accept an invitation to

sit down at the steward's place, to accept alms, or to teach Dhamma

there.  If he does any of these things, that cuts back his number of

allowed standings.  The Sub-commentary contains a long discussion of

what precisely this means, and finally sides with the decision in

the Three Ganthipadas:  that each time a bhikkhu sits, receives alms

or teaches one sentence of Dhamma (see Pacittiya 7) under these

circumstances, he cuts down his allowed number of standings by one.

If one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of

verbal and silent promptings -- or less -- there is no offense.  If

one does not obtain the requisite after the maximum allowable number

of promptings, one should inform the original donor, and then leave

the issue up to him/her.  Not to inform the donor here, the

Commentary says, entails a dukkata.  If the donor, being informed,

then makes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there

is no offense.

The factors of an offense here are three:

1) //Object//:  a fund left with a steward pointed out by a

bhikkhu.

2) //Effort//:  One makes an excessive number of promptings.

3) //Result//:  One obtains the requested requisite.

There is a dukkata for the excessive promptings, and the

requisite, when obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya

pacittiya offense confessed.  The procedures for forfeiture,

confession, and receiving the requisite in return are the same as in

the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see

Appendix VI.

Cases where this rule does not apply.  According to the

Commentary, if the steward has been indicated by the donor, one may

make any number of promptings at all without committing an offense.

If the article is not forthcoming, one may get another lay person to

handle the issue (although one should be careful to phrase one's

request to this lay person so as not to transgress the rules against

accepting money, trading, and buying).  If the article is not

forthcoming, one is not duty-bound to inform the original donor.

There is nothing in the Canon to contradict any of these points,

but simple etiquette would suggest that one not harass the steward

excessively, and that one should inform the donor if the article is

not forthcoming, so as to let the donor handle the matter from there

on in if he/she sees fit.

As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated

either by the donor or by a bhikkhu, the Commentary says that, as

far as that fund is concerned, the steward should be treated as a

person who is not related and has not made an invitation to ask.  In

other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all,

unless he/she happens to invite one to make a request.  We can

qualify this by saying that if the article is not forthcoming after

a reasonable amount of time, one may inform the original donor.

Other funds.  The Commentary includes a long discussion of how

this rule applies to funds other than those intended for an

individual bhikkhu's requisites. A few of the more relevant cases:

//Monetary funds for Sangha or group requisites//.  If a donor

comes with a gift of money and says that it is being offered to the

Sangha or to a group for whatever purpose, one should follow the

protocol for accepting as under this rule. For instance, if the

donor says, "I'm giving this to the Sangha for you to make use of

the four requisites," one may not accept it in any of the three ways

covered by NP 18. As we will see under NP 18, there is a dukkata for

the bhikkhu who consents to money's being placed next to him under

these circumstances.  There is also a dukkata, says the

Sub-commentary, for every bhikkhu who uses any article bought with

the money.

If, however, the donor says, "The money will be with your steward"

or "with my people" or "with me:  All you need to do is make use of

the four requisites," then there is no offense in accepting and

making use of this arrangement.  The etiquette to follow in

obtaining requisites depends on who the money is left with:  if the

bhikkhus' steward, follow the protocol under this rule; if the

donor's workers, one may make any number of promptings; if the

donor, follow the guidelines under Pacittiya 47.

//Non-monetary funds for Sangha or group requisites//.  There are

a number of other articles that may not be owned by bhikkhus, and

that carry a dukkata penalty if they are.  They include land,

fields, and orchards; jewels; slaves; commodities (e.g., unhusked

grain); and animals.  If a donor wants to make a gift of such things

to the Sangha, the Commentary says, the question of whether or not

they may be accepted depends on how the donation is phrased.  If the

donor says, "I'm giving this to the Sangha" for whatever the

purpose, the gift may not be accepted.  As in the previous case,

there is a dukkata for whoever receives it, and also for whoever

uses an article obtained from proceeds coming from the gift.

If the donor says, "This is for the purpose of the four

requisites," or "Accept whatever is allowable coming from this,"

without mentioning the Sangha or any bhikkhu as custodians or

recipients of the unallowable object, the arrangement may be

accepted without penalty.  For instance, if a donor wants to present

a herd of cows, saying, "These are for the purpose of milk products

for the Sangha" (perhaps this sounds less stilted in Pali than it

does in English), this is an acceptable arrangement.  But if he/she

says, "I am giving these cows to the Sangha to provide milk products

for the Sangha," then it is not.

If a donor proposes to give pigs, chickens or other animals used

only for their meat to the Sangha, the bhikkhus are to say, "We

can't accept gifts like this, but we will be glad to set them free

for you."

If, after setting up an allowable arrangement, the donor asks the

bhikkhus to appoint a steward to look after it, they may.  If not,

they are to do nothing about the arrangement at all.

How the proceeds from such arrangements are to be used depends on

what they are:  If money, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this

money to buy such-and-such," no bhikkhu may make use of what is

bought with the money.  If the proceeds are commodities, such as

unhusked rice, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this rice to

trade for such-and-such," the bhikkhu who makes the order may not

use whatever is obtained from the trade, but other bhikkhus may

without incurring a penalty.  If the proceeds are allowable goods,

such as fruit, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this fruit to

trade for such-and-such," the Commentary says that any bhikkhu may

use what is obtained from the trade, but this would seem to

contradict NP 20.

//Building funds//.  If a donor comes with money or other

unallowable gift, and says, "I am giving this to the Sangha for the

meditation hall (or any other building)," the gift may not be

accepted.  But if the donor says, "I am giving this to (or for) the

meditation hall," without mentioning any individual bhikkhu, group

of bhikkhus or the Sangha as custodians or recipients of the gift at

all, then this arrangement is not to be refused, and the monastery

steward is to be informed of what the donor said.

In the context of NP 18, this means that the bhikkhus are not to

take the money directly, or to get anyone else to take it, but may

consent to its being placed next to them, since it is not meant as a

gift for them.

Many monasteries have donation boxes, and there is a question as

to whether or not the bhikkhus may tell a donor in this case to put

the money in the box.  The Commentary to NP 18 states that when a

donation has been placed down for a bhikkhu -- over his protests --

and someone besides the donor offers to put it in a safe place, the

bhikkhu may point out a safe place to put money, but may not tell

him/her to put it there, as that would imply that he is accepting

responsibility for the money.  If this also applies to funds given

"to a building," then the bhikkhus should be able to say to the

donor of such funds, "The donation box is over there," but they are

not to say, "Put it there."

At any rate, after the money has been placed by the donor, the

bhikkhus may then tell the monastery steward what the donor said,

but are not to tell him/her to take the money, as this would violate

NP 18.  Since the steward in this case would be classed as

"indicated by the bhikkhus," they are to follow the protocol in this

rule when they tell the steward of their need for building

materials, wages for the workers, and other necessities that come up

in the course of the of the building's construction or maintenance.

The Commentary mentions two other acceptable arrangements:

(1) The donor places the money with the workmen, and tells the

bhikkhus that their only responsibility is to check on whether

the work is being done poorly or well.

(2) The donor says that the money will be kept with him/her or

with his/her employees, and that the bhikkhus' only

responsibility is to inform them of whom the money is to be given

to.  At present such a donor would be able to set up a checking

account for the construction and upkeep of monastery buildings.

In this case, the bank would be the steward "indicated by the

donor," and the authorized bhikkhu signing a check drawing on the

fund would be informing the steward of where the money should go.

He should not, however, be the one who hands the check over to

the payee or payee's representative.  This point will be

discussed in more detail under NP 20.

Since the steward in both of these cases is indicated by the

donor, the bhikkhus may make as many requests as they like -- i.e.,

in the first case, telling the workers what to do; in the second

case, telling the steward or donor who is to be paid -- but here

again in this second case they should be careful to phrase their

requests so as not to violate the rules against trading and buying.

In addition to building funds, it would seem that any charitable

fund for schools, hospitals, etc. -- such as some wealthy

monasteries have -- would come under this category, as long as the

fund is not for requisites for the Sangha, either as a group or

individually.

Fund management.  The Commentary states that if a Sangha fund has

been set up for a particular requisite, it should as a general rule

be used to buy only that requisite.  If, however, the Sangha has

enough of one kind of //lahubhanda// -- goods that may be shared

among the bhikkhus -- but not enough for another, the fund for the

first kind may be diverted to the second kind by an

//apalokana-kamma//:  a formal meeting of the Community in which the

motion is phrased in one's own words and unanimously accepted.

Funds for lodgings and furniture, though, since they are

//garubhanda// (goods that may not be shared among the bhikkhus),

may not be diverted to lahubhanda at all.  But if there is Sangha

furniture that is going unused and is in danger of deteriorating

before it gets used, the Community may arrange to have it exchanged

-- using the procedure allowed under NP 20, and making sure not to

let it go for less than its full value -- and then use the proceeds

for lahubhanda.  The Commentary adds that proceeds of this sort

should be used 'frugally, just enough to keep life going.'  In other

words, don't use them to splurge on anything excessive.

Summary:  When a fund has been set up with a steward

indicated by a bhikkhu:  Obtaining an article from the fund

as a result of having prompted the steward more than the

allowable number of times is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.

* * * * * * * *