善見律毘婆沙

Sanghadisesa 13

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anathapindika's monastery in the country of Savatthi.

Bringing a household into disrepute: there were two bhikkhus, one named Assaji and the other Punabbasuka, who lived together at Mount Kitagiri, which was also the name of the village there.

These two bhikkhus regularly repaired and arranged their dwelling in the monastery belonging to Kitagiri village. Because of this work, they frequently associated and conversed with laypeople, without any sense of restraint, shame, or compunction.

Bhikkhus who brought households into disrepute: Assaji and Punabbasuka were senior members of the group of six bhikkhus. Both had formerly been farmers who endured the hardships of tilling the fields. They therefore discussed the matter together, saying, “Farming is exceedingly arduous for us. Let us both go forth so that we may naturally obtain food and clothing within the Buddha's Dharma.”

The other replied, “Excellent; that is indeed right.”

They further considered together, “Under whom should we go forth? We should approach the Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana and go forth under them.”

Having deliberated, they went to Sariputta and Moggallana and requested ordination. Sariputta and Moggallana admitted them into the homeless life, conferred full ordination upon them, and taught them the entire Patimokkha code. After completing five rains retreats, they were joined by the bhikkhu Panduka and the bhikkhu Lohitaka.

The four discussed the matter together: “The city of Savatthi is sometimes prosperous, but at other times it suffers famine. We should not continue gathering in a single place, but should disperse to other countries.”

The other three asked the bhikkhu Panduka, “Venerable sir, where would you like to dwell?”

The bhikkhu Panduka replied, “I would like to dwell in the city of Savatthi. This country has 570,000 households within the city and eighty thousand dependent villages outside it. The land of the entire country measures one hundred yojanas both across and lengthwise. In this country, you should plant many flowering and fruit-bearing trees, such as mangoes (Amba), jackfruit (Panasa), and coconuts (Nalikera), as well as many kinds of flowers, such as campaka, jati, and jasmine. Then use those flowers and fruits to entice male and female lay devotees. If any lay devotee wishes to go forth, you should ordain that person, thereby increasing the number of those closely associated with us.”

They then asked the bhikkhu Lohitaka, “Where would you like to dwell?”

He replied, “I would like to dwell in the city of Rajagaha. Within this city there are eight hundred million households, and outside it there are eighty thousand dependent villages. The land of the entire country measures three hundred yojanas both across and lengthwise. In this country, you should plant many flowering and fruit-bearing trees and admit others into the homeless life, as described above.”

They then asked Assaji, “Where would you like to dwell?”

Assaji replied, “I would like to dwell in the village of Black Mountain. This village has abundant food and drink, and as many as three harvests each year.”

They then asked Punabbasuka, “Where would you like to dwell?”

Punabbasuka replied, “I would like to dwell together with Assaji. You two should beautify and properly arrange your dwellings, plant many flowers and fruits, and use them to entice male and female lay devotees.”

Having divided themselves in this way, those four bhikkhus returned to their respective dwellings and beautified them in order to admit people into the homeless life. Thereafter, at each residence the number of disciples closely associated with them reached five hundred, making a total of one thousand five hundred bhikkhus.

The disciples closely associated with the bhikkhu Pandukalohitaka all observed the precepts fully. He led his close disciples and followed the Buddha as the Buddha journeyed through various countries. They carefully observed and did not violate the rules established by the Buddha, but they transgressed rules that had not yet been established. At their own residences, however, all three groups were without moral shame or compunction and violated every rule, whether already established by the Buddha or not yet established. These evil bhikkhus did what ought not to be done and practiced what ought not to be practiced. This matter is explained clearly in the Vinaya text.

“Planting flowers” means planting them oneself or instructing another to plant them, whether one kind of flower or many kinds; watering the plants oneself or instructing another to water them; or digging the earth oneself to make a pond, or instructing another to dig a pond to store water for bathing, washing, or watering flowers. All these are unwholesome acts.

Whether a pond is made for the Sangha or for oneself, one may neither dig it oneself nor instruct another to dig it. If, however, one merely speaks words of authorization, there is no offense. (Words of authorization are words spoken by a bhikkhu in accordance with the Vinaya so that an attendant or layperson understands and acts within the permitted limits.—Translator)

If a garden is made for the Sangha or for oneself, or if trees are planted to provide shade, words of authorization must be used.

If one plants flowers or fruit to win over and entice male and female lay devotees, whether planting them oneself or instructing another to plant them, one commits a dukkata offense. If they are planted for the Buddha or the Sangha, there is no offense, but one must not dig the soil and thereby destroy seeds. If trees are planted so that the Sangha may eat their fruit, there is no offense.

If the water contains no living creatures, one may water the plants oneself or instruct another to do so, and there is no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: It is permissible to use words of authorization to have someone plant them. What are words of authorization? One may say, for example, “Cause this tree to live; do not let it die.” On hearing this, the attendant may water and tend the tree as appropriate.

One must not make flower garlands for laypeople; one must not even scatter flowers or arrange bouquets evenly, and so forth, except as offerings to the Three Jewels.

“One must not dance” means that one must not move the body, even the hands. There is no offense if laypeople ask a bhikkhu to pay homage to the Buddha, recite sutras, chant blessings, strike the chime or bell to assemble the community for the Uposatha, or perform other Dharma ceremonies; the bhikkhu may comply.

The other passages in the Vinaya are also readily understandable.

If a bhikkhu is ill and has no medicine, and gives surplus flowers, fruit, food, or drink to laypeople in exchange for medicine, there is no offense.

If a bhikkhu obeys the commands of laypeople, then from the moment he begins walking, he commits a dukkata offense with every step. If he receives food or drink, he commits a dukkata offense with every morsel swallowed. Even if, at the bidding of laypeople, a bhikkhu merely conveys a message, he commits a dukkata offense with each question and reply. There is no offense, however, when he acts according to the instructions of any of the five classes of renunciants.

If one's parents, members of the Sangha, or an attendant are ill, and a bhikkhu must obey the directions of laypeople in order to seek medicine for them, there is no offense.

The rule concerning bringing households into disrepute has now been explained in detail.

After undergoing parivasa, the bhikkhu next undergoes six nights of manatta. Manatta is translated into Chinese as “the subduing of pride” and is also called “humbling oneself.” Humbling oneself means serving the Sangha.

Abbhana is performed before a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus. Abbhana is translated into Chinese as “calling back in” and is also called “the ending of the offense.” What does “calling back in upon the ending of the offense” mean? It means that the bhikkhu is called back in and permitted to perform Sangha observances together with the Sangha, such as the Uposatha, recitation of the precepts, and Pavarana. Therefore, it is called “calling back in” because the offense has ended.

The Dharma teacher said:

“The explanation of the thirteen Sanghadisesa rules is now complete.”

(Kuladusakasikkhapada-vannana nitthita.)

The Two Indeterminate Rules (Aniyata)

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anathapindika's monastery in Jeta's Grove, in the country of Savatthi.

“To ask” means that, upon seeing that no one else is present, one asks a female Buddhist devotee, “Are you sorrowful, weary, hungry, or thirsty?”… “Does your husband not think of you?”… and asks such worldly questions.

“To teach the Dharma when one sees someone” means that when one sees another person approaching, one then teaches the Dharma to that woman.

Teaching the Dharma means teaching the five precepts, the eight precepts, regular meals, meals distributed by drawing lots (Salābhatta), meals provided during each half-month, and so forth—teaching such practices to that woman.

Many children (Bahupattā): this female Buddhist disciple had ten sons and ten daughters, and therefore she was called “Many Children.”

Many grandchildren (Bahunattā): each of this female Buddhist disciple’s sons and daughters had twenty children. Altogether, her children and grandchildren numbered four hundred and twenty.

Seeing that Mother Visākhā (Visākhā-Migāramātā) had so many children and grandchildren, the people of the country all declared that she was an excellent woman. Therefore, whenever weddings were held in their families, they would invite Mother Visākhā and take her conduct as their model.

The phrase “this place” means a place where sexual intercourse could be performed.

Sitting in a suitable secluded place: either a bhikkhu and a woman sit together, or the woman lies down while the bhikkhu sits, or the bhikkhu lies down while the woman sits, or both lie down or both sit. Therefore, the Vinaya speaks of being concealed from sight and concealed from hearing.

What is being concealed from sight? It is being in the presence of someone who cannot see.

What is being concealed from hearing? It is being in the presence of someone who cannot hear, or in the presence of a blind person, or in the presence of a woman while another person is asleep.

One whose word is trustworthy (Saddheyyavacasā): this female Buddhist disciple was a disciple of the Śrāvaka lineage. Therefore, the Vinaya says that she had attained a noble fruition; she is called a female Buddhist disciple whose word is trustworthy.

If the bhikkhu says, “I sat together with the female Buddhist disciple,” he is to be penalized for each offense according to the bhikkhu’s own statement, not according to the statement of the female Buddhist disciple.

Why? Because what was seen or heard may not have been clear.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain this matter. In the monastery at Mango Grove (Mallārāma-vihāra), there was a bhikkhu who had extinguished craving. One day, he went to a donor’s house and sat in a room. In front of this bhikkhu stood a female Buddhist disciple, leaning against another bed. Outside, an ordinary bhikkhu was entering the house on almsround. Seeing that bhikkhu facing the woman, he supposed that they were sitting together on the same bed and therefore continued watching them intently.

“The bhikkhu who had extinguished craving thought: ‘This bhikkhu will say that I sat together with the woman on the same bed.’

“After both had returned to their dwelling, the almsgoing bhikkhu wished to accuse the other of an offense. He therefore went to the room of the bhikkhu who had extinguished craving and knocked on the door, wishing to enter and speak.

“Knowing the other’s intention, the bhikkhu who had extinguished craving used his supernormal power to leave the room through the ridgepole and sat suspended in the air.

“The bhikkhu entered the room and searched everywhere but could not find him. Seeing the bhikkhu who had extinguished craving sitting in the air, he said: ‘Venerable Sir! Since you possess such supernormal power, why did you enter a layperson’s house and sit privately with a woman on the same bed?’

“The bhikkhu who had extinguished craving replied: ‘Elder! This is the offense of entering a layperson’s house alone. It is excellent that the Elder has safeguarded me.’”

The Dharma teacher said: “This was a case of unclear seeing and pertains to the offense of entering a layperson’s house alone. Therefore, mere seeing cannot be regarded as entirely trustworthy.”

If a bhikkhu wishes to enter a village in order to sit with a woman in a secluded place, he commits an offense of dukkaṭa while putting on his robe and carrying his bowl; once he sets out, he commits an offense of dukkaṭa with every step. If he enters a donor’s house and sits in a secluded place, he commits an offense of pācittiya. If he leaves and then returns to sit again, each occasion of sitting constitutes one offense of pācittiya. If many women sit together with him, he commits many offenses of pācittiya. If the bhikkhu was already sitting in a secluded place and a woman comes to pay homage or ask questions, there is no offense. The nature of this offense arises from body and mind.

The explanation of the first undetermined rule is completed above.

(Paṭhamāniyatavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā).

The Second Undetermined Rule (Aniyata)

At that time, the Buddha was staying at Anāthapiṇḍika’s Monastery in Jeta’s Grove, in the country of Sāvatthī.

An open place (Raha paṭicchanna) means a place that is not privately concealed.

One bhikkhu and one woman: there is no man present in that place, and lewd words (Duṭṭhullā vācā) could be spoken there. An exception is made when a discerning man is present, in which case they may remain in that open place.

The meaning of the other passages is the same as in the first undetermined rule above.

Cases in which there is no offense are: the first offender before the rule was established, one who is insane, one whose mind is deranged, and one oppressed by pain. The nature of this offense arises from body and mind and is associated with pleasant feeling or neutral feeling.

The explanation of the second undetermined rule is completed above.

(Aniyatavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā).

Next are the Thirty Nissaggiya Rules (Nissaggiya-pācittiya)

1. The First Rule (Nissaggiya-pācittiya 1)

At that time, at the Gotamaka Shrine (Gotamakacetiya) in the country of Vesālī, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to possess the three robes (Ticīvara). The three robes are:

1) The lower robe (Antaravāsaka)

2) The upper robe (Uttarāsaṅga)

3) The outer robe (Saṅghāṭi)

The Dharma teacher said: an explanation of the three robes will be given in detail in the Jīvaka narrative of the Khandhaka (Khandhaka-Jīvakavatthu).

Using robes other than the three robes when entering a village: one robe was worn in the room and another when entering the village; in this way there came to be as many as nine robes.

The Buddha permitted us to keep three robes. On that basis, they kept three pieces of each kind of robe, and thus came to possess nine robes.

Wishing to give it to the Elder Sāriputta: at that time, the Elder Ānanda said that, apart from the Blessed Buddha, none of the other śrāvaka disciples was equal to Sāriputta.

Therefore, whenever Ānanda received a kāṣāya robe, he dyed it, smoothed it, and marked it to make it allowable (Bindukappa), and then presented the fine robe to the Venerable Sāriputta. Whenever he received food allowable at the proper time (Yāvakālika), if there was something delicious, Ānanda first presented it to the Venerable Sāriputta. If he received a drink allowable outside the proper time (Yāmakālika), seven-day medicine (Sattāhakālika), or lifelong medicine (Yāvajīvika), Ānanda presented whatever was excellent among them to Sāriputta.

If the sons of wealthy householders wished to go forth and came to request ordination from Ānanda, Ānanda instructed them to approach Sāriputta and ask him to serve as their preceptor or ācārya.

Thinking, “A wealthy householder’s son should support his parents; in the same way, I should make offerings to the Blessed One. Ānanda has performed all those duties, leaving nothing for me to do,” Sāriputta always held Ānanda in esteem. Whenever the Venerable Sāriputta received robes or food, he first gave the finest and most delicious things to Ānanda. Therefore, the root text of the Vinaya says that Ānanda wished to present it to Sāriputta.

The Buddha asked Ānanda: “When will Sāriputta return?”

Ānanda replied: “Perhaps in nine or ten days.”

Question: “How did the Elder Ānanda know that the Venerable Sāriputta would return in nine or ten days?”

Answer: He knew because whenever the Elder Sāriputta wished to journey through other countries, he would go to Ānanda and say: “I intend to travel to such-and-such a country and shall return at such-and-such a time, on such-and-such a day. Elder, please attend well upon the Blessed One and take care not to be negligent. If the Blessed One teaches the Dharma to the four assemblies, devas, nāgas, and others, please remember it. When I return, the Elder may recount it to me. If the Blessed One asks for me, Elder, please send someone to inform me.”

When staying in other countries, Sariputta sent someone to convey his respects to the Blessed One, and afterward to meet Ananda and say that Sariputta inquired whether the venerable one had little illness, was in good health, and was living at ease. After making these inquiries, he told Ananda, “On the...day I shall return.” Therefore, Ananda knew that Sariputta would return within nine or ten days.

Thus, the Vinaya text says: The Buddha told the bhikkhus that he permitted them to keep an extra robe for ten days.

The Dharma teacher said: “If Ananda had said that Sariputta would return in a month or half a month, the Tathagata would likewise have established the rule according to that number of days. Because Ananda said that Sariputta would return within ten days, the Tathagata permitted an extra robe to be kept for ten days without an offense (Atireka-Civara).”

Question: Why did the Tathagata establish the rule on account of Ananda’s statement?

Answer: This is a prescribed offense, not an offense by its very nature; therefore, the Buddha established the rule in accordance with Ananda’s statement.

The robe is finished (Nitthitacivara): according to the circumstances, the robe has been obtained and completed; or the anticipated robe has been completed; or there is no longer any expectation of obtaining a robe (Civarapalibodha).

Making a robe: measuring and cutting the cloth, joining the pieces, and sewing them into a robe.

Finished: all the work has come to an end.

Loss of the robe privilege (Ubbhata kathina): the robe has been taken away, lost, burned, swept away by water, or damaged; there is no longer any expectation of obtaining a robe; the month of Kattika has ended; or the kathina robe privilege has been relinquished. In such cases, the work is said to have come to an end.

The Buddha taught the bhikkhus that there are eight grounds for terminating the kathina robe privilege. They are:

1. departing together; 2. having finished making the robe; 3. resolving to depart and not return; 4. the robe being ruined or lost; 5. hearing that it has been relinquished; 6. no longer expecting to receive it; 7. going beyond the boundary; 8. relinquishing it together. (See Venerable Ho Tong’s Luật Xuất Gia, pages 485 and 97.)

The Dharma teacher said: “These eight matters will be explained again in the Khandhaka section (Kathina-Kkhandhaka).”

The Sangha relinquishes it together: a formal motion and act of the Sangha are performed to relinquish it.

Ten days: this robe is permitted to be kept for ten days, but no longer.

Each of the six kinds of robe cloth: the six kinds are: 1. Khoma—hemp fiber; 2. Kappasika—cotton; 3.

Koseyya—silk; 4. Kambala—animal hair; 5. Sana—bark fiber; 6.

Bhanga—a mixture of all five kinds above. Each kind of robe cloth must be formally assigned within ten days. If a piece of robe cloth is two spans long and one span wide, it must be formally assigned.

If it is not formally assigned and is kept for more than ten days, an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation is committed. Therefore, the Vinaya text says: “I, the Buddha, permit the bhikkhus to formally assign a piece of robe cloth eight fingerbreadths long.” These are Sugata fingerbreadths (Sugatangula: its length is measured according to the finger of the Well-Gone One). Four fingerbreadths wide is the smallest piece of robe cloth. (“Robe” here means cloth used for making a robe.

Translator’s note.)

Nissaggiya is translated into Chinese as “forfeiture.” This is the Vinaya rule; the Pacittiya offense must be confessed.

The Dharma teacher said: “When does the nissaggiya offense arise? When the dawn light appears (Arunuggamana—translated into Chinese as the appearance of the bright sign at sunrise), the offense arises.”

If there are many robes and they are tied together and kept in one place for more than ten days, one offense is committed. If the robes are kept separately and are not tied together, the offenses are determined according to the number of robes. Only after forfeiting them should the offense be confessed.

The Dharma teacher said: “How is forfeiture performed? As stated in the Vinaya text, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: You should forfeit it according to the prescribed procedure. Dress properly, bare the right shoulder, enter the midst of the Sangha, pay homage to the senior bhikkhu, kneel with palms joined, and say: ‘Venerable Sangha, please acknowledge this. I, the bhikkhu named..., knowingly kept an extra robe for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation. I now forfeit it to the Sangha.’”

If there is one robe, this is said once; if there are two robes, it is said twice; if there are three or more robes, one says that there are many.

After the assembly has clearly understood the matter, a bhikkhu versed in the Dharma should make a formal motion and act of the Sangha to accept that bhikkhu’s confession: “Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu named...knowingly kept an extra robe for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation. Having recognized his offense, he has now come before the Sangha to disclose and confess it. If it is the proper time for the Sangha, and the Sangha agrees, I shall accept the confession of the bhikkhu named.... This is the motion.”

After the formal act, that bhikkhu is asked: “Do you recognize the offense?”

He replies: “Yes, I recognize it.”

One says: “Do not commit it again in the future.”

He replies: “Yes, I shall comply.”

The Sangha then allows him to confess the offense. If the forfeiture is made before one, two, or three persons, he says: “Venerable ones, please acknowledge this. I, the bhikkhu named..., kept an article belonging to me—an extra robe—for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation. I now forfeit this robe to the venerable ones and confess the Pacittiya offense.”

If this is done before three persons, one of them says to the other two: “Elders, please remember that I accept the confession of the bhikkhu named.... Please bear this in mind.”

The one accepting that bhikkhu’s confession conducts the questions and answers in the same manner as before the Sangha. In the Sangha, one person should announce three times that the robe is being returned to that bhikkhu, using these words: “This is a nissaggiya robe; the Sangha now gives it to the elder.”

This is announced three times. This is the formal procedure for forfeiture. Within the Sangha, even if the robe passes successively down to the last individual, it should be returned to that bhikkhu. If anyone fails to return it, that person commits a Dukkata offense.

If someone commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation but neither forfeits the robe nor confesses the offense, he commits a Dukkata offense each time he wears it. If he puts it on only once, even if he does not take it off and even if it becomes torn or damaged, he still commits one Dukkata offense in relation to the robe subject to nissaggiya.

Cases in which there is no offense: within the ten-day period, the robe is formally assigned or is lost.

The bhikkhus thought: “The Tathagata has permitted us to retain the three robes. As for other additional cloth articles, such as the rains-bathing cloth, sitting cloth, cloth for covering sores, bedspread, face towel, and wiping cloth (Vassikasatika, nisidana, paccattharana, kandupaticchadin, mukhapunja-nacolaka, parikkharacolaka), we do not know what to do. Must they be formally assigned, or may they simply be formally retained?”

Having thought thus, they went and reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “The three robes may be formally retained and need not be formally assigned. The rains-bathing cloth may be formally retained for the four months of the rains; after those four months, it must be formally assigned. The sitting cloth may be formally retained and need not be formally assigned. The cloth for covering sores need not be formally assigned, but after the sores have healed, it must be formally assigned. The bedspread may be formally retained and need not be formally assigned. The wiping cloth may be formally retained and need not be formally assigned. The face towel may be formally retained and need not be formally assigned.”

Question: How are the three robes formally retained?

Answer: After a robe has been sewn, dyed, marked to make it allowable, and made to the proper size, it is then formally retained.

Question: What is the proper size?

Answer: For the sanghati and uttarasanga, the largest size is smaller than that of the Well-Gone One; the smallest size is four and a half cubits long and two and a half cubits wide. The antaravasaka is four and a half cubits long and two cubits wide. If either its length or width is less, it may be made accordingly.

Cula-parikkhara cloth: translated into Chinese as “miscellaneous small cloth” (wiping cloth).

Formally retaining the three robes. How are they formally retained? If one already has a formally retained sanghati, one relinquishes the old one and formally retains the new one by appearing in person before a venerable bhikkhu and making the declaration orally. If no venerable bhikkhu is present, one should take hold of the sanghati with one’s own hand and make the declaration oneself. If one does not take hold of the robe, the declaration is not valid. One should clearly state one’s own name.

The Dharma teacher asked: “After the three robes have been relinquished, if they are formally retained as wiping cloths, is it unnecessary to formally assign them?”

Answer: “They must be formally assigned.”

With regard to a sitting cloth, only one may be formally determined for use; two are not permitted.

A blue, yellow, red, or white sleeping spread padded with hair or wool may be used, whether it contains little or much.

Only one cloth for covering sores may be kept; more than one is not permitted.

Two hand towels may be kept.

Any number of wiping cloths may be kept after they have been made allowable and formally determined for use.

Beds, mattresses, mats, coverings, and felt spreads all belong to the furnishings of a dwelling and need not be made allowable.

Question: In what circumstances is the formal determination of the three robes lost?

Answer: If a robe is given away, seized, lost, or if the monk returns to lay life, reverts to the status of a novice, dies, undergoes a change of sex, relinquishes the robe, the robe becomes perforated, or he sleeps apart from it overnight.

Question: What constitutes a perforation?

Answer: A hole as large as a fingernail.

Question: Which fingernail?

Answer: The fingernail of the little finger. If even a single thread still crosses the hole, the robe has not yet lost its determination. In the case of the sanghati and the uttarasanga, if a tear extending inward from the edge across the width is no more than eight fingerbreadths, the robe is not lost; if it is longer, it is lost.

If a tear extending inward from the edge along the length is no more than one span, the robe is not lost; if it is longer, it is lost. In the case of the antaravāsaka, if a tear extending inward from the edge across the width is no more than four fingerbreadths, the robe is not lost, as above; if a tear extending inward from the edge along the length is no more than one span, the robe is not lost, as above. Outside the limits of width and length described above, if the robe has a hole larger than the fingernail of the little finger, its determination is lost.

Once the robe has lost its determination, keeping it for more than ten days entails an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation. After a robe kept for more than ten days has been mended, it must also be formally determined for use again.

A sitting cloth, cloth for covering sores, rains-bathing cloth, spread, or hand towel does not lose its determination when perforated. If one or two panels of a robe are becoming worn and torn but have not yet been perforated, first sew a patch over them and then cut away the decayed portion; the determination is not lost. If, in a double-layered set of three robes, one layer is perforated but the other is not, the determination is not lost.

Question: If the part of the kasaya resting on the shoulder is about to tear and one wishes to move cloth from the middle to the two sides, how may it be transferred without losing the formal determination?

Answer: First remove the pieces of cloth sewn over the two edges and sew the edges together. Then patch the damaged cloth at the shoulder with those pieces. Afterward, cut away the damaged cloth with a knife and use it to patch the places on the two edges from which the cloth was removed. In this way, the formal determination is not lost.

If a kasaya is too large, cutting it smaller does not cause the formal determination to be lost. If a kasaya is too small, adding cloth to enlarge it likewise does not cause the formal determination to be lost.

Question: If a kasaya fades when washed, is its formal determination lost?

Answer: It is not lost.

If cloth of the minimum size—one foot and six inches long and eight inches wide, measured by the Chinese foot—is used to patch a robe, it must be made allowable. If a smaller piece of cloth is used for the patch, it need not be made allowable.

Making an item allowable (Dvevikappā) is of two kinds:

1. Making allowable in the presence of another (Sammukhāvikappa)

2. Making allowable by transfer (Parammukhāvikappa)

Making allowable in the presence of another means taking that entire robe, or those pieces of cloth, before a bhikkhu, kneeling, and saying: “I have this extra robe. In order that it may be made allowable, I entrust it to the elder.”

The bhikkhu who entrusts the robe may continue to keep it but may not use it.

Under what circumstances may he use it? If the recipient of the gift says, “This is my robe; the elder may use it as he wishes,” then the bhikkhu who entrusted the robe may use it without offense. This is called genuine making allowable in the presence of another by way of gift.

What is making allowable by transfer? One chooses a member of one of the five classes of renunciants to be the owner who receives the robe, then takes the extra robe to a bhikkhu and says: “I, the bhikkhu named ..., have this extra robe, which has not yet been made allowable. Wishing to make it allowable by transfer, I entrust it to the elder.”

The recipient says: “Venerable sir, you have this extra robe, which has not yet been made allowable. Wishing to make it allowable by transfer, you have entrusted it to me. I have received it. Who is to be the owner receiving the robe?”

Answer: “The bhikkhu named ....”

The recipient then says: “Venerable sir, wishing to make this extra robe allowable, you have entrusted it to me. I have received it. This is the property of the bhikkhu named .... The venerable sir should safeguard it for the bhikkhu named ... and may use it at any time without asking the owner.”

This is making allowable by transfer through gift.

The Dharma teacher said: If the recipient merely knows how to reply, “Good,” but does not know how to recite the statement given above, the act of making allowable is not accomplished. One must find someone who knows the procedure and have him recite it before the first person.

What constitutes a valid act, and what does not?

If one says, “I entrust it to the venerable sir,” or, “I relinquish it to the venerable sir,” this genuine gift by way of making allowable constitutes a valid relinquishment.

How does making allowable by transfer through gift constitute relinquishment?

If one says, “For the purpose of making it allowable by transfer, I entrust it to the venerable sir,” or, “For the purpose of making it allowable by transfer, I relinquish it to the elder,” or, “For the purpose of making it allowable by transfer, I give it to the elder,” any one of these statements constitutes a valid relinquishment.

What does not constitute relinquishment?

If one says, “May the venerable sir accept this robe; may it become the venerable sir’s robe,” this is called a genuine gift made allowable by transfer, but it does not constitute a genuine relinquishment by way of making allowable.

What constitutes valid acceptance, and what does not?

If one says, “I take it,” or, “I accept it,” this constitutes valid acceptance in a genuine act of making allowable.

What does not constitute valid acceptance?

If one says, “I shall take it,” “I wish to take it,” “Let it be my property,” or, “May it become my property,” this does not constitute valid acceptance in a genuine act of making allowable.

If a bhikkhu has been invited to serve as the recipient of the robe, the owner receiving the gift, he may not refuse to accept it. Whoever refuses to accept it acts contrary to the Vinaya.

The Dharma teacher said: The sentences that follow in sequence are easy to understand. Having accepted another’s robe, one may not fail to return it. If one does not return it, one commits an offense of dukkata.

If, after accepting it, one clearly knows that it is not one’s own property but takes advantage of this gift arrangement to contrive to steal it, the offense is determined according to the value of the article.

This rule arises through body, speech, and mind. If one has an extra robe but neither formally determines it for use nor makes it allowable, keeping it for more than ten days entails an offense. If one does not perceive it as relinquished, one incurs an offense whether one knows or does not know that it has been kept for more than ten days. This rule encompasses all three kinds of feeling.

The explanation of the rule concerning the keeping of an extra robe is concluded here.

(Pathamakathinakkhāpadavannanānitthitā)

2. The Second Rule (Nissaggiyapācittiya 2)

He traveled through various countries carrying the uttarasanga and antaravāsaka: this sanghati had been stored in one place for a long time and had therefore deteriorated. At that time, while inspecting the dwellings, the elder Ānanda saw that the robe had decayed.

The Dharma teacher said: Why did Ānanda see this robe, and for what purpose was Ānanda inspecting the dwellings when he saw it?

Answer: The elder Ānanda inspected the dwellings because, if he saw anything damaged or unclean, he would repair or sweep it himself. If Ānanda encountered a sick bhikkhu, he would provide offerings and care for him as circumstances required. Therefore, Ānanda inspected the dwellings.

A formal act granting exemption from the offense of staying apart from one’s robe overnight means that, although one sleeps apart from the robe, one does not commit a nissaggiya offense.

Question: For how long is one permitted to remain apart from the robe?

Answer: As long as the illness has not ended, one may continue to sleep apart from the robe. If a bhikkhu is ill and the Sangha, through a formal act, permits him to sleep apart from his robe, he may go and sleep elsewhere. If the sick bhikkhu wishes to return but encounters danger on the road and therefore cannot do so, yet constantly retains the intention to return, then even if his illness has ended, he still does not lose the robe. If he forms the definite intention not to return, the robe loses its determination; and if it is then kept for more than ten days, he commits the offense concerning an extra robe.

Having gone elsewhere, the bhikkhu recovered from his illness. When he returned to the place where the robe was kept, the illness recurred, and he wished to go elsewhere again. He is permitted to rely upon the previous formal act and need not perform another formal act.

A single robe-boundary of a village: In this village, the members of one family eat and live together. If the robe is left in this village while the bhikkhu stays in the wilderness, and the bhikkhu enters the boundary of the village before the first light appears, he does not lose the robe.

A separate robe-boundary within a village: When people live separately, if the robe is left in one house while the bhikkhu sleeps in another, the robe is lost.

Within the distance of a cubit: If the robe is kept within fifteen cubits, it is not lost.

If the robe is left on the ground and one uses supernatural power to fly into the sky and remains there overnight, the robe is lost.

A divided village: A village having many rulers, such as Vesāli or Kusinārā, is a divided village. If the robe is left in a guesthouse while the bhikkhu stays outside, it is not lost so long as he is not separated from it by more than fifteen cubits.

The Dharma teacher said: “The meaning of the remaining passages, taken in sequence, is easy to understand.”

A multistoried building is a house of five or seven stories. In some cases it constitutes a single boundary; in other cases it comprises separate boundaries.

What constitutes a single boundary? If both the upper and lower stories belong to one owner, a robe left anywhere in that building is not lost. This is called a single boundary.

What constitutes separate boundaries? If many people occupy separate quarters in the building, and the robe is left on the upper story while the bhikkhu stays on the lower story, the bhikkhu must go to the place where the robe is kept. If he does not go there, he loses the robe.

The robe-boundary of a vehicle: If the robe is placed on a vehicle, the bhikkhu must follow that vehicle and may not go far away. Before the first light appears, if the bhikkhu is separated from the robe by more than fifteen cubits, he does not lose the robe. If the first light appears while the bhikkhu is separated from it by more than fifteen cubits, the robe is lost. This is called the boundary belonging to a vehicle.

If a robe has been entrusted for storage on a vehicle and the vehicle overturns or breaks down, causing its contents to be scattered into several groups, the bhikkhu must go to wherever the robe lies and must not remain separated from it.

The robe-boundary of trees: At midday, the boundary is the area covered by the trees’ shade. If the branches and foliage of the trees are sparse, so that their shadows do not join together continuously, and the robe is in an open space without shade while the bhikkhu remains beneath the shade of a tree, the robe is lost. If a branch extends outward and the robe is placed beneath its shade while the bhikkhu remains at the foot of the tree, the robe is not lost.

The robe-boundary in the wilderness: This is like the forest of Vijjhātavi, translated into Chinese as “the great forest,” or like an island—a place that people do not approach.

The robe-boundary in a forest: In a forest, if the robe is within fourteen cubits, it is not lost. The same applies to a robe on an island: if it is within fourteen cubits, it is not lost. If people frequent that forest, however, the allowance of fourteen cubits does not apply, and the robe must always be kept with oneself. If it is not kept with oneself, it is lost.

A bhikkhu in the wilderness practiced meditation throughout the night. As dawn approached, fearing that he might become drowsy, he removed his robe and placed it on a rocky bank, then descended into a pond to bathe. Before he finished bathing, daylight appeared. The robe thereby incurred the fault of overnight separation, and he committed an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation. If, without forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he took and wore it, he committed an offense of dukkaṭa. If he went naked up onto the rocky bank, he committed another offense of dukkaṭa.

Question: “How can he avoid an offense?”

Answer: “If there is no bhikkhu before whom he can confess, he may put on the robe without offense. If he encounters a bhikkhu but continues to wear the robe without forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he commits one offense of dukkaṭa each time he puts it on.”

If a bhikkhu possesses a robe that is subject to forfeiture and expiation and wishes to take it to another bhikkhu in order to forfeit it and confess the offense, but robbers accost him on the way and steal the robe, he need only confess the Pācittiya offense.

If a bhikkhu has a novice or layperson carry his robe and follow him, but that person strays far from the road or oversleeps, and daylight appears, the bhikkhu loses the robe and must forfeit it.

If the novice or layperson carrying the robe goes ahead and enters a boundary within which the robe is not lost, and the bhikkhu also enters it without knowing this, believing instead that he is outside that boundary, then when the first light appears while the robe is within the boundary, even though he believes that the robe has been lost, it is not lost.

The same principle applies to dependence. If a disciple who has not yet completed five rains carries his preceptor’s robe and follows him, but on the way encounters someone teaching the Dharma and, because he delights in hearing the Dharma, remains until the first light appears, he does not commit an offense through separation from his teacher. Why? Because he had no deliberate intention to remain behind. The preceptor, however, commits the offense of being separated from his robe overnight.

This rule applies only to a robe that has been formally determined: an offense is committed if one sleeps separated from it overnight. The meaning of the other passages is as explained above.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning overnight separation from one’s robe

(Uddositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).

3. The Third Rule (N.P. 3)

At that time, a bhikkhu received robe-cloth outside the proper season. He wished to make a robe, but there was insufficient cloth, so he sprinkled water upon it, spread it in the sun, and stretched it to make it longer.

While inspecting the dwellings, the Blessed One saw this and asked: “Bhikkhu, what are you doing?”

The bhikkhu replied: “This cloth is too short. I wish to stretch it and make it longer.”

Outside the proper robe season: The final month of the rains retreat and the four months following the retreat constitute the robe season. The remaining seven months are outside the proper season.

Receiving cloth outside the proper season: A robe may be received according to an allocation by the Sangha, by a group, or for oneself individually. Here, “Sangha” means the entire community of monks. A “group” means a group studying the Vinaya together, a group studying the Abhidhamma (Abhidhamikagaṇa), or a group studying the discourses (Suttantikagaṇa).

If the cloth is insufficient: Even if only a very small piece is lacking, the existing cloth may be kept for up to one month while awaiting enough cloth. One may hope to receive cloth from the Sangha, from a community, from a group, from friends, from acquaintances, from cloth discarded and found, or through one’s own means. This is called waiting in expectation of obtaining cloth.

If there is a source from which one expects to obtain enough cloth, the cloth already possessed may be kept for one month. If it is retained beyond that period, an offense of nissaggiya is committed.

If, within twenty-nine days, the desired robe-cloth is received in both kinds, the thin cloth having been received before the thick cloth, then if the cloth received first has been assigned to another by a formal declaration, the cloth received afterward may again be kept for one month from the day it is received. If one desires matching cloth and expects to obtain thick cloth, the cloth already received may be kept for one month. Thus, as different kinds of cloth are received successively, each may be kept as desired while one seeks matching cloth, but cloth received on any occasion may not be kept for more than one month without being formally assigned.

The Dharma teacher said: “The sequence and meaning of the passage are easy to understand. If the desired robe-cloth is obtained on the twenty-ninth day, it must be formally determined or assigned to another on that very day. If it is not formally determined or assigned on the twenty-ninth day, when the light appears on the following morning, the thirtieth day, an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation is committed. (The preceding portion concerns waiting for more cloth because the amount was insufficient and retaining it beyond twenty-nine days;

the following portion concerns possessing surplus cloth and continuing to keep it beyond ten days.—Translator.) Thus, once enough cloth has been obtained to make a robe, desired robe-cloth may continue to be received in succession for up to ten days, but on that tenth day it must be formally determined or assigned to another, including the cloth that had previously become subject to forfeiture and expiation.—Translator.

If all the cloth is not formally determined or assigned, when the light of the eleventh day appears, an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation is committed.”

The occasion giving rise to this rule is the same as that of the first rule requiring forfeiture and expiation.

Here ends the explanation.

(Tatiyakathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā).

4. The Fourth Rule (N.P. 4)

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anathapindika's Monastery in Jeta's Grove, in the country of Sravasti. The elder Udayin had his former wife wash a soiled robe.

Relatives through the father and mother for seven generations include one's grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, and so forth, up to seven generations. The same applies to seven generations on the mother's side.

Relatives on the father's side include elder and younger paternal uncles, elder and younger brothers, nephews, grandnephews, and so forth.

Relatives on the mother's side include maternal uncles and aunts, extending to nephews, grandnephews, and so forth, through seven generations.

With respect to female descendants who have gone forth, all those who are relatives on the mother's side are considered relatives, and one may ask them to wash or dye a robe.

With respect to younger sisters or nieces who have gone forth and are relatives through one's wife, one may not ask them to wash or dye a robe, because they are not blood relatives.

Bhikkhuni: a woman who has received full ordination through a formal act consisting of a motion and three proclamations before both Sanghas.

A soiled robe: even a robe worn on the body only once is called a soiled robe.

Having it washed entails forfeiture and expiation: if a bhikkhu asks a bhikkhuni to wash a robe for him, then for each act she performs—preparing the stove, heating water, gathering firewood, and kindling the fire—the bhikkhu who instructed her commits one offense of dukkata. When the washing is completed, he commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

If, after washing it and preparing to return it to the bhikkhu, the bhikkhuni says that it is not yet clean and washes it again, the bhikkhu commits an offense of dukkata. The same applies to dyeing. If, after dyeing it, she then beats, kneads, or otherwise works the robe, the bhikkhu commits one offense of dukkata for each act she performs.

If she is not a relative, he knows that she is not a relative, and he asks her to wash or dye the robe, the bhikkhu commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

Cases in which there is no offense:

If a bhikkhuni takes a bhikkhu's robe on her own initiative and washes it, there is no offense.

If he asks a sikkhamana, samaneri, samanera, male lay devotee, female lay devotee, or another such person to wash or dye it, there is no offense.

If he asks a female lay devotee to wash it, but she does not do so and subsequently goes forth, receives full ordination, and only then washes and dyes it and returns it to the bhikkhu, that bhikkhu commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

If a bhikkhu asks a samaneri or sikkhamana to wash or dye a robe, but she does not do so and subsequently receives full ordination before carrying out the task, the bhikkhu commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

If a bhikkhu asks a male Buddhist devotee or samanera to wash and dye a robe, but he does not do so and subsequently goes forth, receives full ordination, undergoes a change of sex and becomes a bhikkhuni, and only then washes and dyes that robe, the bhikkhu commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

If he asks another bhikkhu to wash and dye a robe and that bhikkhu undergoes a change of sex, the same offense is incurred.

If he asks a bhikkhuni to wash and dye a robe and, after it has been washed and dyed, the bhikkhu says that it is still not clean and she washes it again, the bhikkhu commits both an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation and an offense of dukkata.

If he asks several unrelated bhikkhunis to wash a robe, he commits multiple offenses entailing forfeiture and expiation.

If a bhikkhuni obtained full ordination from the Bhikkhuni Sangha but not from the Bhikkhu Sangha, as in the case of the five hundred Sakyan women, and a bhikkhu asks that bhikkhuni to wash and dye a robe, he commits an offense of dukkata.

Cases in which there is no offense include washing a bag for footwear, a bowl bag, a bag for personal articles, a belt, and so forth.

The Dhamma teacher said: the sequence of the passages is easy to understand. This rule possesses all six factors giving rise to an offense: 1. body; 2. speech; 3. body and speech; 4. body, mind, and speech; 5. action; 6. not acting under the perception that the robe has been relinquished. This rule includes all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning having a robe washed.

5. The Fifth Rule (N.P. 5)

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling at the Bamboo Grove Monastery in Rajagriha. The bhikkhuni Uppalavanna was then staying in the country of Sravasti. Early in the morning, this bhikkhuni dressed, took her robe and bowl, and entered the city of Sravasti for alms. After collecting alms, she entered the Andhaka Grove and sat in meditative absorption during the day.

Question: A bhikkhuni was not permitted to travel alone, so why did Uppalavanna enter the Andhaka Grove by herself?

Answer: At that time, the Tathagata had not yet established the rule against traveling alone, so Uppalavanna was permitted to go by herself.

Had committed deeds: this means that they had performed the deeds of robbers. What are the deeds of robbers? They climb over walls and break through partitions to steal and plunder other people's property, and they live by that occupation; therefore, they are called robbers.

The leader of the band of robbers: the one who headed the robbers. This robber chief had previously been acquainted with the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna.

Went ahead: he went in front to lead the way. Upon seeing the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna, the robber chief feared that his companions might assault her, so he told them, “You must leave this road.” Obeying their leader, the robbers departed.

Emerged from absorption: when entering meditative absorption, this bhikkhuni had made the determination, “At such-and-such a time, I shall emerge from absorption.”

After emerging from absorption, she heard the robbers say, “Whichever ascetic or brahmin needs this, we shall give it to them.” The bhikkhuni thought, “Apart from me, there is no one else in this grove. They must be giving it to me.” Therefore, she was permitted to take the article.

At the monastery: this refers to Udayin.

Question: Why was Udayin alone at the monastery?

Answer: All the bhikkhus had accompanied the Tathagata into the village for alms, leaving Udayin behind at the monastery to guard the dwelling place.

“If you wish to give it to me, then give me the finely and beautifully sewn antaravasa.”

The Dhamma teacher said: Udayin was not attached to the antaravasa, the inner robe, but asked for it only because he wished to see the bhikkhuni's body.

Having given it, she departed: after hearing Udayin ask three times, the bhikkhuni removed the robe, gave it to him, and returned to her dwelling place.

Exchange: the text of the Vinaya states that the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “The five communities that share the same Dharma are permitted to exchange articles with one another.”

What does “sharing the same Dharma” mean? Having the same teacher, discipline, and understanding, and living in the same manner, is called sharing the same Dharma.

When a bhikkhu is about to accept the robe, he commits an offense of dukkata. Once the robe has come into his hands, he commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation. There is no offense only if the bhikkhuni is a relative. There is likewise no offense in accepting a robe from an unrelated sikkhamana, samaneri, or female Buddhist devotee.

Cases in which there is no offense:

1. If a bhikkhu teaches the Dharma to the four assemblies and, being delighted, they make an offering to him, there is no offense.

2. If an unrelated bhikkhuni has discarded a robe and it has become a rag robe, a bhikkhu who takes it commits no offense.

3. If a bhikkhu receives a robe from an unrelated bhikkhuni who received full ordination from only one Sangha, he commits an offense of dukkata.

4. If a bhikkhu receives a robe from an unrelated bhikkhuni who received full ordination from both Sanghas, he commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation.

5. If he exchanges a smaller portion for a larger portion, there is no offense.

The remaining passages are easy to understand and therefore require no explanation. As before, this rule possesses all six factors for establishing an offense and includes all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning receiving a robe.

6. The Sixth Rule (N.P. 6)

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling at Anathapindika's Monastery in Jeta's Grove, in the country of Sravasti.

Upananda Sakyaputta belonged to the Sakyan clan. As many as eighty thousand people of the Sakyan clan went forth. Upananda was the least circumspect among them, yet he was intelligent and possessed a marvelous voice.

Traveling a long distance on foot: the bhikkhus were traveling from Saketa City to the country of Sravasti. Along the road, robbers stole all their robes and clothing.

Upon examining them, people said, “You naked ascetics must be non-Buddhist practitioners,” and, acting with goodwill, they paid homage to the bhikkhus.

They replied, “We are Sakyan ascetics, not non-Buddhist practitioners.”

Hearing them declare themselves to be ascetics, the bhikkhus went and said to Upali, “Venerable sir, please come and examine them.”

Upali immediately went to question them: “How many rains have you completed? When were you ordained? Who is your teacher? How do you observe the practice concerning the three robes?”

After questioning them, Upali knew that they were bhikkhus... They were permitted to ask for robes from donors who were neither relatives nor close friends. If there was no place where robes could be obtained, they should cover their bodies with leaves and enter the monastery; they must not enter the monastery naked.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain this in sequence. If bhikkhus traveling along a road encounter bandits, they should give their robes and bowls to a junior bhikkhu and tell him to flee. If the bandits pursue that junior bhikkhu and the robes are lost, then the senior or junior bhikkhu, as appropriate, should break off grass or leaves and give them to the other so that he may cover his body and enter the monastery.

“If laypeople see that bhikkhus have been stripped naked because bandits robbed them of their robes, they should give them the white garments of laypeople or garments in the five primary colors. The bhikkhus are permitted to wear them at that time and commit no offense.

“Therefore, the Vinaya states that there are bhikkhus who wear white garments, garments of superior colors, or uncut robes without committing an offense. What kind of persons are these? Those who possess wisdom should reflect upon the meaning of this.

“Answer: These are bhikkhus whose robes have been taken by bandits; they are permitted to wear the garments of non-Buddhist ascetics.

“The garments of non-Buddhist ascetics are garments woven from feathers or made from wooden boards. Bhikkhus who have met with such misfortune may wear these garments without offense, but they must not alter their understanding and accept the wrong views of those ascetics.

“When a bhikkhu who has lost his robes enters a monastery, if there are robes belonging to the Sangha, they should be given to him. If a robe belongs to a particular lodging, the bhikkhu should enter that lodging. If he does not enter the lodging, that robe may still be given to him. If there is no robe, a coverlet or a bag may be brought and torn apart for the bhikkhu to wear. If those articles become damaged or torn, that bhikkhu is not required to compensate for them. If a donor later offers him robes, he should return the Sangha’s robe to the Sangha.

“When a bhikkhu who has lost his robes enters a monastery and there are no robes belonging to the Sangha, he is permitted to ask for robes from an unrelated layperson. A bhikkhu who has lost his robes may ask either for himself or on behalf of another without committing an offense, but he may not ask for gold or silver.”

The Dharma teacher said: “The remaining passages, taken in sequence, are easy to understand and need not be explained at length.”

This rule originates from body and mind and is associated with all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning asking an unrelated person for robes.

Commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapasadika

— Fascicle 14 —