善見律毘婆沙

Sanghadisesa Rule 13 (Sanghādisesa 13)

At that time, the Buddha was staying at Anathapindika’s monastery in the kingdom of Savatthi.

Corrupting families: There were two bhikkhus, one named Assaji and the other Punabbasuka, who lived together at Mount Kitagiri, which was also the name of that village.

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

Bhikkhus who corrupted families: Assaji and Punabbasuka were senior members of the group of six bhikkhus. Both had formerly been farmers who toiled painfully in the fields, so they discussed the matter together: “Farming is exceedingly arduous for us. Let us both go forth, so that we may naturally obtain food and clothing in the Buddha’s dispensation.”

The other replied: “Excellent, that is very true.”

They then considered together: “Under whom should we go forth? We should go and receive ordination under the Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana.”

After discussing this, they went to Sariputta and Moggallana and requested ordination. Sariputta and Moggallana admitted them into the Order, conferred full ordination upon them, and taught them the entire Patimokkha. When they had completed 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 prosperous at times, but at other times it suffers famine. We should not remain gathered perpetually in one place, but should disperse to other countries.”

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

The bhikkhu Panduka replied: “I would like to live in the city of Savatthi. This kingdom has 570,000 households within the city and eighty thousand dependent villages outside it. The land of the entire kingdom measures one hundred yojanas both across and lengthwise. In this kingdom, 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, and then use those flowers and fruits to win over male and female lay devotees. If any lay devotee wishes to go forth, you should ordain that person, thereby increasing the number of our close followers.”

They then asked the bhikkhu Lohitaka: “Where would you like to live?”

He replied: “I would like to live in the city of Rajagaha. Within this city there are eighty koṭis of households, and outside it there are eighty thousand dependent villages. The land of the entire kingdom measures three hundred yojanas both across and lengthwise. In this kingdom, you should plant many flowering and fruit-bearing trees and ordain others, as stated above.”

They then asked Assaji: “Where would you like to live?”

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

They then asked Punabbasuka: “Where would you like to live?”

Punabbasuka replied: “I would like to live together with Assaji. You two should beautify your dwelling place and plant many flowers and fruits with which to win over male and female lay devotees.”

Having divided themselves in this way, the four bhikkhus returned to their respective dwellings and beautified them in order to ordain people. Thereafter, at each residence they had as many as five hundred close disciples, amounting altogether to one thousand five hundred bhikkhus.

All the close disciples of the bhikkhu Panduka-Lohitaka (Padukalohitaka) observed the precepts fully. He led his close disciples in following the Buddha as he journeyed through various countries. They carefully refrained from violating the rules already established by the Buddha, but transgressed rules that had not yet been established. At their own residences, all three of these groups were shameless and heedless, violating every rule, whether already established by the Buddha or not yet established. These wicked bhikkhus did what ought not to be done and practiced what ought not to be practiced. This is explained clearly in the Vinaya text.

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

If a pond is made for the Sangha or for oneself, one may neither dig it oneself nor have another dig it. If, however, one merely makes a permissible indication, there is no offense. (A permissible indication is a statement made by a bhikkhu in accordance with the Vinaya so that an attendant or layperson understands and carries it out within the permitted limits.—Translator)

If one makes a garden for the Sangha or for oneself, or plants trees for shade, one must make a permissible indication.

If one plants flowers or fruits to bribe and win over male and female lay devotees, whether planting them oneself or having another plant them, one commits a dukkata offense. If they are planted for the Buddha or the Sangha, there is no offense; however, one must not dig the earth or destroy seeds. If one plants trees to provide fruit for the Sangha to eat, there is no offense.

If the water contains no living creatures, one is permitted to water the plants oneself or have another water them; there is no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “It is permissible to make a permissible indication instructing someone to plant. What is a permissible indication? One may say, for example: ‘Cause this tree to live; do not let it die.’ On hearing this, the attendant waters and tends the tree at the proper time.”

One must not make flower garlands for laypeople; one must not even scatter flowers, 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, or strike the gong or bell to assemble the community for the Uposatha or other Sangha acts; the bhikkhu may comply.

The other passages in the Vinaya are also easy to understand.

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

If a bhikkhu obeys the commands of laypeople, he commits a dukkata offense with every step from the moment he sets out. If he receives food and drink, he commits a dukkata offense with every mouthful he swallows. Even when a bhikkhu conveys a message at a layperson’s command, he commits a dukkata offense with each question and answer. There is no offense, however, when he acts at the request of any of the five classes of renunciants.

If his parents, the Sangha, or an attendant is ill, and the bhikkhu must comply with a layperson’s instructions in order to obtain medicine, there is no offense.

The rule concerning the corruption of families has now been explained in detail.

After undergoing parivasa, one must next undergo six nights of manatta. Manatta is rendered in Chinese as “subduing pride” and is also called “humbling oneself.” Humbling oneself means serving the Sangha.

Rehabilitation, abbhana, is performed in the midst of a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus. Abbhana is rendered in Chinese as “calling back in” and is also called “the ending of the offense.” What does it mean to be called back in after the offense has ended? It means that one is called back in and permitted to perform Sangha acts together with the Sangha, such as the Uposatha, recitation of the precepts, and Pavarana. Therefore it is called “calling one back in because the offense has ended.”

The Dharma teacher said:

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

(Kuladusakasikkhapada-vaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā).

The Two Indeterminate Rules (Aniyata)

At that time, the Buddha was staying at Anathapindika’s monastery in Jeta’s Grove, in the kingdom of Savatthi.

“To ask” means that when he sees no one present, he asks a female Buddhist lay follower: “Are you sorrowful, weary, hungry, or thirsty?” … “Does your husband not care for you?” … questioning her with such worldly remarks.

“When he sees someone, he teaches the Dharma in this way” means that when he sees another person arrive, he teaches the Dharma to the woman.

Teaching the Dharma means teaching that woman such matters as the five precepts, the eight precepts, regular meals, meals distributed by drawing lots (Salàbhatta), meals during the half-month, and so forth.

Many children (Bahupattà): this female Buddhist devotee had ten sons and ten daughters, so she was called one with many children.

Many grandchildren (Bahunattà): each son and daughter of this female Buddhist devotee had twenty children. Altogether, her children and grandchildren numbered four hundred and twenty.

Seeing that Mother Visàkhà (Visàkhà-Migàramàtà) had so many children and grandchildren, the people of the country all declared her to be an excellent woman. Therefore, whenever marriages were arranged in their families, they would invite Mother Visàkhà and take her conduct as their standard.

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

Sitting together in a convenient secluded place: either a bhikkhu sits together with a woman, 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? — Being in the presence of someone who cannot see them.

What is being concealed from hearing? — Being in the presence of someone who cannot hear them, 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 (Saddheyyavacasa): this female Buddhist devotee was a disciple of the Śrāvaka lineage. Therefore, the Vinaya says that she had attained the noble fruit; she is called a female Buddhist devotee whose word is trustworthy.

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

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

The Dharma teacher said: — I shall explain this matter. In the Monastery of Mallàràma Grove (Mallàràma-vihàra), 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, a female Buddhist devotee was standing and leaning against another bed. Outside, an ordinary bhikkhu was entering the house for alms. Seeing that bhikkhu facing the woman and supposing that they were sitting together on the same bed, he kept staring at them.

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 alms-going bhikkhu wished to accuse the other of an offense, so he went to the room of the bhikkhu who had extinguished craving and knocked on the door, wishing to enter and speak.

Knowing his 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 admonished and protected me.

The Dharma teacher said: — This was an unclear sight and concerns the offense of entering a layperson’s house alone. Therefore, seeing alone cannot be regarded as entirely trustworthy.

Any bhikkhu who intends to enter a village because he desires to sit with a woman in a secluded place commits an offense of dukkaṭa when putting on his robe and taking up his bowl; after setting out, he commits one offense of dukkaṭa with every step; upon entering the donor’s house and sitting 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 the secluded place and a woman came to pay homage or ask questions, there is no offense. (The nature of the offense under this rule) arises from body and mind.

The explanation of the first indeterminate rule is completed above.

(Pàtha-màniyatavannanànitthità).

The Second Indeterminate Rule (Aniyata)

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

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

One bhikkhu and one woman: there is no man present in that place, and indecent words (Dutthullà vàcà) could be spoken. This excludes the case in which a discerning man is present, for then they may remain in that open place.

The other passages have the same meaning as in the first indeterminate rule above.

Cases in which there is no offense: 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 the offense under this rule arises from body and mind and is associated with pleasant feeling or neutral feeling.

The explanation of the second indeterminate rule is completed above.

(Aniyatavannanà nitthità).

Next are the thirty Nissaggiya rules (Nissaggiya-pàcittiya)

1. The First Rule (Nissaggiyapàcittiya 1)

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

1) The antaravāsaka (Antaravàsaka)

2) The uttarāsaṅga (Uttaràsangha)

3) The saṅghāṭi (Sanghàtì)

The Dharma teacher said: the explanation of the three robes will be given clearly in the Jīvaka section of the Khandhaka (Khandhakajivakavatthu).

Entering a village wearing robes other than the three robes: he enters the room wearing one robe and enters the village wearing another; in this way there may be as many as nine robes.

The Buddha permitted us to keep three robes, but on that basis there came to be three pieces for each kind of robe, resulting in the keeping of nine robes.

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

Therefore, when Ānanda received a kāṣāya robe, he dyed it, smoothed it, and made the proper mark upon it (Bindukappa—making a mark), then offered the fine robe to the Venerable Sāriputta. When he received food allowable at the proper time (Yàvakàlika), if there was any delicious food, Ānanda first offered it to the Venerable Sāriputta. If he received beverages allowable outside the proper time (Yàmakàlika), seven-day medicine (Sattàyàmakàlika), or lifetime medicine (Yàvajivika), Ānanda offered whatever was finest among them to Sāriputta.

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

Thinking, “A householder’s son ought to support his parents. Therefore, I should make offerings to the Blessed One. Ānanda has performed all these duties, and there is nothing left for me to do,” Sāriputta always held Ānanda in esteem. When the Venerable Sāriputta received robes or food, he first gave the finest things to Ānanda. Therefore, the root text of the Vinaya says that he wished to give 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 travel through other countries, he would go to Ānanda and say: “I wish to travel to such-and-such a country and will return at such-and-such a time, on such-and-such a day. Elder, please attend well upon the Blessed One and be careful not to grow negligent. If the Blessed One teaches the Dharma to the four assemblies, devas, nāgas, and others, Elder, please remember it. When I return, you can recount it to me. Whenever the Blessed One seeks 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: “Sariputta inquires whether the venerable one has little illness, is in good health, and dwells at ease.” After making these inquiries, he told Ananda, “On the...day, I shall return.” Thus Ananda knew that Sariputta would return within nine or ten days.

Therefore, the Vinaya text says: The Buddha told the bhikkhus that he permitted an extra robe to be kept for ten days.

The Dharma teacher said: “If Ananda had said that Sariputta would return in one month or half a month, the Tathagata would also 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 based on Ananda’s statement?”

Answer: “This is a prescribed offense, not an offense that is intrinsically wrong; therefore, the Buddha established the rule according to Ananda’s statement.”

The robe has been completed (Nitthitacivara): according to the circumstances, the robe that was to be obtained has been completed; or the awaited robe has been completed; or there is no longer any expectation of receiving a robe (Civarapalibodha).

Making a robe: measuring, cutting the cloth, joining it together, and sewing it into a robe.

Completed: all related matters have come to an end.

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

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

1. departing together; 2. the robe has been completed; 3. deciding to depart and not return; 4. the robe has been damaged 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 Vinaya for Going Forth, pp. 485 and 97.)

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

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

Ten days: this is the period during which the robe may be kept; it may 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 preceding kinds. Each kind of robe cloth must be assigned within ten days. If a piece of robe cloth is two spans long and one span wide, it must be assigned.

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

Translator’s note.)

Nissaggiya is translated into Chinese as “relinquishment.” According to 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 bright sign of sunrise), the offense is incurred.”

If there are many robes and they are tied together and placed in one location, keeping them beyond ten days entails one offense. If the robes are placed separately and not tied together, offenses are counted according to the number of robes. Only after relinquishing them may the offense be confessed.

The Dharma teacher said: “How is the relinquishment made? As the Vinaya text says, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: You should relinquish it in the following manner. Arrange your robes properly, bare your right shoulder, enter the midst of the Sangha, pay homage to the senior bhikkhu, kneel with your palms joined, and say: ‘Venerable Sangha, please take note of me. I, the bhikkhu named..., intentionally kept an extra robe for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing relinquishment and expiation. I now relinquish it to the Sangha.’”

If there is one robe, say “one robe”; if there are two robes, say “two robes”; if there are three or more robes, say “many robes.”

After the assembly has clearly understood, a bhikkhu knowledgeable in the Dharma should make a motion and perform the formal act for accepting that bhikkhu’s confession: “Venerable Sangha, please listen. The bhikkhu named...intentionally kept an extra robe for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing relinquishment and expiation. Having now seen his offense, he has 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, ask that bhikkhu: “Do you see your offense?”

He answers: “Yes, I see it.”

Say: “In the future, do not commit it again.”

He answers: “I shall comply.”

The Sangha then allows him to confess the offense. If relinquishing before one, two, or three persons, he says: “Venerable ones, please take note of me. I, the bhikkhu named..., kept property—namely, an extra robe—for more than ten days and thereby committed an offense entailing relinquishment and expiation. I now relinquish that 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: “Venerable ones, please remember that I accept the confession of the bhikkhu named.... Please remember this.”

The one accepting that bhikkhu’s confession conducts the exchange in the same manner as in the midst of the Sangha. One person in the Sangha should proclaim 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 proclaimed three times. This is the formal procedure of relinquishment. In the Sangha, each person in turn, even down to the last individual, should agree to return the robe to that bhikkhu. If anyone does not return it, that person commits a Dukkata offense.

Anyone who has committed an offense entailing relinquishment and expiation but does not relinquish the robe or confess the offense commits a Dukkata offense each time he wears it. If he puts it on only once, then even if he does not remove it, or even if it becomes torn and damaged, he commits only one Dukkata offense in connection with the robe that incurred the nissaggiya offense.

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

The bhikkhus thought: “The Tathagata has permitted us to retain the three robes. As for other extra requisites, such as the rains-bathing cloth, sitting cloth, cloth for covering sores, bedspread, handkerchief, and wiping cloth (Vassikasatika, nisidana, paccattharana, kandupaticchadin, mukhapunja-nacolaka, parikkharacolaka), we do not know what to do. Must they be 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 are to be formally retained and need not be assigned. The rains-bathing cloth may be formally retained for the four months of the rains; after those four months, it must be assigned. The sitting cloth may be formally retained and need not be assigned. The cloth for covering sores need not be assigned, but after the sores have healed, it must be assigned. The bedspread may be formally retained and need not be assigned. The wiping cloth may be formally retained and need not be assigned. The handkerchief, or face cloth, may be formally retained and need not be 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 dimensions, it is then formally retained.”

Question: “What are the proper dimensions?”

Answer: “For the sanghati and uttarasanga, the largest size must be 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 the length or width is reduced, it may be made accordingly.”

Cula-parikkhara cloth: translated into Chinese as “miscellaneous small cloth,” that is, a wiping cloth.

Formally retaining the three robes. How are they formally retained? If one already has a formally retained sanghati, one must relinquish the old one and formally retain the new one by appearing in person before a venerable bhikkhu and making a verbal declaration. If no venerable bhikkhu is present, one should personally take hold of the sanghati 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: “If one of the three robes has been relinquished and is then formally retained as a wiping cloth, does it not need to be assigned?”

Answer: “It must be assigned.”

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

A bedspread of blue, yellow, red, or white, padded with fibers, whether sparsely or densely, may be used.

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

Two handkerchiefs may be kept.

Any number of wiping cloths may be kept, provided that they are made allowable and then formally determined for use.

Beds, mattresses, mats, covers, felt spreads, and the like 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: When they are given to another, seized, lost, or when the monk returns to lay life, reverts to the status of a novice, dies, undergoes a change of sex, relinquishes them, when they become perforated, or when he sleeps apart from them 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 one thread still runs across 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 is no more than eight fingerbreadths across, the robe is not lost; if it extends farther, it is lost.

If a tear extending inward from the edge is no more than one span in length, the robe is not lost; if it extends farther, it is lost. In the case of the antaravāsaka, if a tear extending inward from the edge is no more than four fingerbreadths across, the robe is not lost, as above; if it is no more than one span in length, the robe is not lost, as above. Apart from the areas measured by the width and length described above, if a robe has a hole larger than the fingernail of the little finger, its determination is lost.

Once the robe has been lost in this way, if it is kept for more than ten days, an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation is committed. After a robe kept for more than ten days has been patched, it must also be formally determined for use again.

A sitting cloth, a cloth for covering sores, a rains-bathing cloth, a bedspread, or a handkerchief does not lose its determination when perforated. If one or two panels of a robe are becoming worn and damaged but have not yet been perforated, one should first patch them with cloth and then cut away the decayed portion; the determination is not lost. If one layer of a double-layered set of three robes 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 underlying parts together; then use those pieces to patch the damaged cloth at the shoulder. After that, use a knife to cut away the damaged cloth and patch the places at the two edges from which the cloth was removed. In this way, the formal determination is not lost.

If a kasaya is too large and is cut down to a smaller size, its formal determination is not lost. If a kasaya is too small and additional cloth is joined to enlarge it, its formal determination is likewise not lost.

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

Answer: It is not lost.

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

There are two methods of making an item allowable (Dvevikappā):

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

2. Making allowable by transfer (Parammukhāvikappa)

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

The bhikkhu handing over the robe is still permitted to keep it, but he may not use it.

Under what circumstances may he use it? If the bhikkhu who receives the donated robe says: “This is my robe; the elder may use it as he wishes,” then the bhikkhu who handed it over may use it without offense. This is called a genuine making-allowable by direct donation.

What is making allowable by transfer? One selects a member of one of the five classes of renunciants as the designated recipient of the robe, then brings the extra robe to another 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 hand it over to the elder.”

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

Answer: “The bhikkhu named ....”

The recipient then says: “Venerable sir, you have handed over this extra robe to me because you wished to make it allowable. I have received it. This is the property of the bhikkhu named .... Venerable sir, you should safeguard it for the bhikkhu named ... and may use it whenever you wish, without needing to ask its owner.”

This is making allowable by transfer through donation.

The Dharma teacher said: If the person receiving the robe knows only how to answer, “Good,” but does not know how to recite the formula given above, the act of making allowable is not accomplished. One must find someone versed in the rule to recite the formula and hand it over to the former person.

What constitutes a valid act, and what does not?

If one says, “I hand it over to the venerable one,” or, “I relinquish it to the venerable one,” then this genuine making-allowable by donation constitutes a valid relinquishment.

What constitutes a valid relinquishment in making allowable by transfer through donation?

If one says, “For the purpose of making it allowable by transfer, I hand it over to the venerable one,” 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 formulas constitutes a valid relinquishment.

What does not constitute a valid relinquishment?

If one says, “May the venerable one receive this robe; may it become the venerable one’s robe,” this is called genuine making-allowable by transfer through donation, but it does not constitute a genuine relinquishment in making allowable.

What constitutes valid acceptance, and what does not?

If one says, “I take it,” or, “I accept it,” this constitutes genuine and valid acceptance in 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 is called genuine making-allowable, but it does not constitute valid acceptance.

If a bhikkhu has been invited to serve as the recipient of the robe—the designated recipient of the donation—he may not refuse to accept it. Whoever refuses to accept it acts contrary to the Vinaya.

The Dharma teacher said: The successive passages are easy to understand. Once one has accepted their robe, one may not refuse 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, yet takes advantage of this donation procedure to contrive to steal it, the offense is determined according to the value of the article.

This rule originates through body, speech, and mind. If one has an extra robe and neither formally determines it for use nor makes it allowable, one commits an offense when more than ten days have passed. If one does not perceive it as relinquished and knows that more than ten days have passed, one commits an offense; even if one does not know that more than ten days have passed, one still commits an offense. This rule includes all three kinds of feeling.

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

(Pathamakathinakkhāpadavannanānitthitā)

2. The Second Rule (Nissaggiyapācittiya 2)

He traveled through various countries carrying the uttarasanga and antaravāsaka: the 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 so that, if he saw anything damaged or unclean, he could repair or sweep it himself. If Ānanda encountered a sick bhikkhu, he would provide offerings and care for him as appropriate. Therefore, Ānanda inspected the dwellings.

A formal act granting permission to remain apart from one’s robe overnight means that, although one sleeps apart from the robe, one does not incur an offense of nissaggiya.

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 sick bhikkhu has received the Sangha’s formal permission 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 is therefore unable to do so, yet constantly maintains the intention to return, then even if his illness ends, he does not lose the robe. If he forms the definite intention not to return, he loses the robe; and if that robe is then kept for more than ten days, he commits the offense concerning an extra robe.

Having gone elsewhere, the bhikkhu recovers from his illness. If, upon returning to the place where the robe is kept, the illness recurs and he again wishes to go elsewhere, he may rely on the previous formal act and need not perform another formal act.

A single robe-boundary of a village: The people in this village belong to one clan and eat and live together. If the robe is left in this village while the bhikkhu stays in the wilderness, and the bhikkhu enters the village boundary before the first light of dawn appears, he does not lose the robe.

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

Within a forearm's length: If the robe is kept within fifteen forearm-lengths, it is not lost.

If the robe is placed on the ground while one with supernormal powers flies up into the air and remains there overnight, the robe is lost.

A village with separate domains: A village having many rulers, such as Vesāli or Kusinārā, is a village with separate domains. If the robe is left in a guesthouse while the bhikkhu stays outside, he does not lose the robe provided he is not separated from it by more than fifteen forearm-lengths.

The Dharma teacher said: “The sequence of the remaining passages 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 consists of 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 live in this building in different quarters, each as a separate household, and the robe is left on an upper story while the bhikkhu stays on a 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 a robe is left on a vehicle, the bhikkhu must follow the vehicle and may not go far away from it. Before the first light of dawn appears, if the bhikkhu is more than fifteen forearm-lengths from the robe, he does not lose it. If dawn appears while the bhikkhu remains separated from it by more than fifteen forearm-lengths, he loses the robe. This is called the boundary belonging to a vehicle.

If a robe has been entrusted for storage in a vehicle and the vehicle overturns or is damaged, so that the goods upon it are scattered into several groups, the bhikkhu must go to wherever the robe lies and may not remain separated from it.

The robe-boundary of trees: This is determined by the area shaded by the trees at midday. If the branches and leaves 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 is beneath the shade of a tree, he loses the robe. If a tree branch extends outward and the robe is placed beneath the branch's shade while the bhikkhu is beneath the trunk of the tree, he does not lose the robe.

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

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

A bhikkhu in the wilderness practices meditation throughout the night. As dawn approaches, fearing that he may become drowsy, he removes his robe, places it on a rocky bank, and enters a pond to bathe. If dawn arrives before he has finished bathing, he has incurred the fault of remaining separated from his robe overnight and commits an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation. If, without first forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he takes and wears it, he commits an offense of wrongdoing. If he goes naked onto the rocky bank, he commits another offense of wrongdoing.

Question: “How can he avoid the offense?”

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

If a bhikkhu has a robe that entails forfeiture and expiation and wishes to take it to another bhikkhu to forfeit it and confess the offense, but on the way encounters bandits who rob him of the robe, he need only confess the pācittiya offense.

If a bhikkhu has a sāmaṇera or a layperson carry the robe and follow him, but that person strays far from the road or oversleeps, and dawn arises, the robe is lost and must be forfeited.

If the sāmaṇera or layperson carrying the robe goes ahead and enters the boundary within which the robe is not lost, and the bhikkhu also enters it without realizing this, thinking instead that he is outside that boundary, then when the first light of dawn appears, because the robe is within the boundary, it is not lost even though he says that it is lost.

The same 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, from delight in hearing the Dharma, remains until the first light of dawn appears, he commits no offense of being separated from his teacher. Why? Because he had no deliberate intention to remain behind. The preceptor, however, commits an offense through being separated from his robe overnight.

This rule applies only to a robe that has been formally determined for use: if one sleeps separated from such a robe overnight, one commits an offense. The remaining passages are as explained above.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning remaining separated from one's robe overnight

(Uddositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).

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

At that time, a bhikkhu obtained robe-cloth outside the robe 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 robe season: The final month of the rains retreat and the four months following the rains constitute the robe season. The remaining seven months are outside the robe season.

An offering outside the robe season: One obtains a robe according to the order of the Sangha, from a group, or individually. Here, “Sangha” means the entire community of monks. A “group” means a group studying the Vinaya together, a group studying the Abhidhamma (Abhidhammikagaṇa), or a group studying the discourses (Suttantikagaṇa).

If it is insufficient: Even if only a very small piece is lacking, one may store that cloth and wait for up to one month to obtain enough. One may hope to receive cloth from the Sangha, from a community, from a group, from friends, from acquaintances, from what has been discarded, or through one's own means. This is called waiting in hope of obtaining cloth.

If there is a source from which one hopes to obtain sufficient cloth, one may store the cloth already received for one month. If one keeps it beyond this period, one commits a nissaggiya offense.

If, within twenty-nine days, one receives the desired robe-cloth in both kinds, the thin kind before the thick kind, then after the cloth received first has been made allowable, the cloth received later may in turn be kept for one month from the day it is received. If one hopes to obtain thick cloth so as to have cloth of matching kinds, one may keep what has already been received for one month. Thus, successively and alternately, one may retain whichever kind of cloth one wishes while seeking matching cloth, but the cloth received on each occasion may not be kept for more than one month without being made allowable.

The Dharma teacher said: “The sequence of the passage is easy to understand. If the desired robe-cloth is obtained on the twenty-ninth day, it must be formally determined for use or made allowable that very day. If it is not formally determined or made allowable on the twenty-ninth day, then when light appears on the following morning, the thirtieth day, an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation is committed. (The preceding section concerns waiting for additional cloth because the cloth is insufficient and retaining it beyond twenty-nine days;

the following section concerns having surplus cloth and continuing to retain it beyond ten days—the translator.) Thus, once sufficient cloth to make a robe has been obtained, if the desired robe-cloth is obtained at any time up to the tenth day, then on that very tenth day it must be formally determined for use or made allowable, including any cloth that had previously incurred an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation—the translator.

If none of that cloth is formally determined or made allowable, then when the sunlight of the eleventh day appears, an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation is committed.”

The circumstance giving rise to this rule is the same as that of the first rule entailing 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 Savatthi. The elder Udayin had his former wife wash a soiled robe.

Seven generations of kin on the father’s and mother’s sides: one’s grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, and so forth, up to seven generations. The seven generations on the mother’s side are likewise.

Relatives on the father’s side: elder and younger paternal uncles, elder and younger brothers, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so forth.

Relatives on the mother’s side: maternal uncles and aunts, down through grandchildren and great-grandchildren for seven generations.

With respect to female descendants who have gone forth, all relatives on the mother’s side are close kin, so they may be asked to wash and dye a robe.

With respect to younger sisters, nieces, and other female descendants who have gone forth and are relatives on the wife’s side, they may not be asked to wash or dye a robe, because they are not blood relatives.

A bhikkhuni is a woman who has received full ordination by a motion and three proclamations before both Sanghas.

A soiled robe: even if it has been worn on the body only once, it is called a soiled robe.

Having this robe washed entails an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation: if a bhikkhu has a bhikkhuni wash a robe for him, and she prepares the hearth, boils water, searches for firewood, and kindles the fire, then for each action the bhikkhu who instructed her incurs an offense of wrongdoing; when the washing is completed, he incurs an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

If she has finished washing it and is about to return it to the bhikkhu, but then says that it is not yet clean and washes it again, the bhikkhu incurs an offense of wrongdoing. The same applies to dyeing. If, after finishing the dyeing, she proceeds to beat, knead, or otherwise work the robe, then for each task she performs, the bhikkhu incurs one offense of wrongdoing.

If she is not a relative, he perceives her as not a relative, and he asks her to wash or dye the robe, the bhikkhu incurs an offense requiring 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, and so forth 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 afterward she goes forth and receives full ordination before washing and dyeing it and returning it to the bhikkhu, that bhikkhu incurs an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

If a bhikkhu asks a samaneri or sikkhamana to wash or dye a robe, but she does not do so, and afterward she receives full ordination and only then performs the task, the bhikkhu incurs an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

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

If he asks another bhikkhu to wash and dye a robe and that bhikkhu undergoes a change of sex, he likewise incurs the offense described above.

If he asks a bhikkhuni to wash and dye a robe, and after the washing and dyeing have been completed the bhikkhu says that the robe is not yet clean and she washes it again, the bhikkhu incurs both an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation and an offense of wrongdoing.

If he asks several unrelated bhikkhunis to wash robes, he incurs several offenses requiring 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 this bhikkhuni to wash and dye a robe, he incurs an offense of wrongdoing.

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

The Dharma teacher said: the sequence of the passages is easy to understand. This rule comprises 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 because one perceives that the robe has been relinquished. This rule is associated with all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the rule concerning the washing of robes.

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

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

Question: A bhikkhuni is not permitted to travel alone, so why did Uppalavanna enter the Andhaka Forest alone?

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

“Had acted” means that he had performed the deeds of a robber. What constitutes the deeds of a robber? It means climbing over walls and breaking through partitions to steal and plunder the property of others, and living by such an occupation; therefore, one is called a robber.

The leader of the band of robbers: the chief of the robbers. This robber chief had formerly been acquainted with the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna.

“Went ahead”: he went at the front to lead the way. When he saw the bhikkhuni Uppalavanna, the robber chief feared that his companions might violate her, so he told them, “You must leave this path.” Obeying their leader, the robbers departed.

Emerging from absorption: when beginning her meditative absorption, this bhikkhuni made the determination, “At such-and-such a time, I shall emerge from absorption.”

After emerging from absorption, she heard the robbers say, “If any ascetic or brahmin needs this, we shall give it to them.” The bhikkhuni thought, “There is no one else in this forest apart from me. They must surely be giving it to me.” Therefore, she was permitted to take that object.

“At the monastery” refers to Udayin.

Question: Why was Udayin alone at the monastery?

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

“If you wish to give something to me, then give me your finely and beautifully made antaravasa.”

The Dharma teacher said: Udayin was not attached to the antaravasa, the lower robe, but asked for it solely because he wished to see the bhikkhuni’s body.

“Having given it, she departed”: after hearing Udayin make his request three times, the bhikkhuni removed the robe, gave it to him, and returned to her own dwelling place.

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

What does it mean to follow the same Dharma? Those who have the same teacher, discipline, and view, and live according to the same practice, are said to follow the same Dharma.

When he is about to accept the robe, he incurs an offense of wrongdoing. When the robe comes into his hands, he incurs an offense requiring forfeiture. The only exception is when the bhikkhuni is a relative, in which case there is no offense. There is likewise no offense in accepting one from an unrelated sikkhamana, samaneri, or female Buddhist lay 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 a robe belonging to an unrelated bhikkhuni has been discarded and is a refuse-rag robe, a bhikkhu who takes it commits no offense.

3. If he accepts a robe from an unrelated bhikkhuni who received full ordination from only one Sangha, he incurs an offense of wrongdoing.

4. If he accepts a robe from an unrelated bhikkhuni who received full ordination from both Sanghas, he incurs an offense requiring forfeiture and expiation.

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

The remaining passages are easy to understand and therefore require no explanation. This rule comprises all six factors for establishing an offense and is associated with all three kinds of feeling, as above.

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

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

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

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

“Traveling a long distance on foot”: the bhikkhus were traveling from Saketa, a city, to the country of Savatthi. Along the way, robbers stole all their robes and clothing.

Upon questioning them, someone said: “You naked ascetics of another sect have kind hearts,” and paid homage to the bhikkhus.

They replied: “We are Sakyan ascetics, not members of another sect.”

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

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

After questioning them, Upali learned that they were bhikkhus... they were permitted to ask for robes from donors who were neither relatives nor close friends. If there was nowhere they could obtain robes, they should cover their bodies with leaves before entering the monastery; they must not enter the monastery naked.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain this in sequence. If bhikkhus traveling on a road encounter bandits, they should give their robes and bowls to the youngest bhikkhu and tell him to run away. If the bandits pursue that young bhikkhu and the robes are lost, then the senior or junior bhikkhus, as appropriate, should gather grass or leaves and give them to one another to cover their bodies before entering the monastery.

“If laypeople see that bhikkhus have been robbed of their robes and are consequently naked, and 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 incur no offense.

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

Answer: “These are bhikkhus whose robes have been stolen 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 committing an offense, but they must not alter their understanding and adopt the wrong views of those ascetics.

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

When bhikkhus who have lost their robes enter a monastery, if the Sangha has no robes, they are permitted to ask for robes from laypeople who are not relatives. Bhikkhus who have lost their robes may ask for themselves or on behalf of others without committing an offense, but they may not ask for gold or silver.

The Dharma teacher said: “The remaining passages are readily understood in their sequence and need not be explained at length.”

This precept originates from body and mind and encompasses all three kinds of feeling.

Here ends the explanation of the precept concerning asking for robes from persons who are not relatives.

Commentary on the Vinaya: The Dispeller of Doubts

— Volume 14 —