重治毗尼事義集要

13. PRECEPT AGAINST DISPARAGING AND INSULTING

This is an offense by nature. The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu disparages or insults another, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[1]:

Dabba Mallaputta was responsible for assigning lodging and inviting members of the Sangha to receive meal offerings. The Mettiya bhikkhus, in a place where they could see but not hear, said that he acted out of partiality, anger, fear, and delusion; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition. Later, in a place where they could hear but not see, they again said that he acted out of partiality, anger, fear, and delusion; therefore, the Buddha formulated the rule a second time.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Whether one speaks ill of another to his face or disparages him behind his back, if the words are explicit, one commits a Pacittiya offense; if they are not explicit, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense in the following cases: the person truly has such a fault, and one speaks out of concern that there may later be cause for regret, so as to have him confess and make amends in accordance with the Dharma; or one speaks in jest, speaks to oneself, speaks in a dream, or speaks by mistake.

The Samantapasadika says:

To disparage a person appointed by the Sangha is a Pacittiya offense. To disparage another person is a Dukkata offense.

14. PRECEPT AGAINST FAILING TO PUT AWAY THE SANGHA'S BEDDING

This is a preventive offense. The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu takes a webbed bed, a wooden bed, bedding, or a sitting cushion belonging to the Sangha and sets it out in the open, or has another person set it out, and when departing neither puts it away himself nor has another person put it away, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[2]:

In the city of Sravasti, a householder invited the Sangha to receive a meal offering. The group of seventeen bhikkhus took the Sangha's sitting mats, spread them out in the open, and practiced walking meditation while waiting for the meal. When the time came, they did not put them away but went to attend the meal. The Sangha's sitting mats were damaged and soiled by wind, earth, dust, insects, and birds; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Webbed beds and wooden beds each comprise five kinds: those with turned legs, straight legs, curved legs, mortised legs, and those without legs.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

As soon as one passes through the doorway, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one has one foot inside the doorway and one outside, intends to leave but has not yet left, or changes one's mind, in every case one commits a Dukkata offense. If two people share the same bed, the junior should put it away before leaving.

If the junior thinks that the senior will put it away, but the senior does not, the junior commits a Pacittiya offense and also incurs a Dukkata offense for improper deportment. If the senior tells the junior to put it away, but the junior does not, the senior commits a Pacittiya offense. If neither of the two is senior or junior to the other, both commit a Pacittiya offense.

If one leaves any of the other kinds of furniture—such as a hammock, wooden bed, chair, bathing stool, an inner lining for bedding, a ground covering, or hemp or silk cords—on the ground and departs without putting it away, one commits a Dukkata offense. If one spreads the Sangha's bedding in the open and, without putting it away, enters a room and sits in contemplation, one commits a Dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense.

The three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

Failing to put away another person's private property is a Dukkata offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

An elder samanera who carefully observes the precepts may also be entrusted with this matter.

The Matrka says:

If one neither puts away one's own bedding nor has another person put it away, one commits a Dukkata offense.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

After the bhikkhus have finished eating, if laypeople are still sitting on the Sangha's bedding, they should wait until the laypeople have finished eating. If a sick person cannot wait long, he may leave, and whoever sees the bedding should put it away. If the door bar or lock has been lost, if there is nowhere to put the bedding away, or if one of the eight calamities occurs, there is no offense for failing to put it away.

The Vinaya-sangraha says:

There are five kinds of persons to whom this responsibility should not be entrusted:

1) A person who knows no shame.

2) A person who is hostile.

3) A person who is old and infirm.

4) A person who is himself ill.

5) A person who has not received full ordination.

If one remembers but does not put it away, one incurs the original offense. If one forgets, one commits only a Dukkata offense.

When the Sangha possesses robes, they should not be replaced with other articles, because such a use would be inappropriate. If a substitute is accepted, it should not be a torn or worn-out article. If the Sangha's bedding is damaged in any place, it must be patched. If it is split or torn apart, the pieces should be sewn together. If it cannot be repaired, it should be used as lamp wicks or cleaning cloths, or minced, mixed with paste, and used to plaster walls and fill holes, thereby increasing the donor's merit.

When listening to the Dharma, one should not sit close together with bhikkhunis, laypeople, those seeking ordination^[3], or probationers. If there is a dangerous circumstance, there is no offense. A newly ordained person without a full rains retreat may not share a seat with one of three rains. One of one rains may not share a seat with one of four rains. One of two or more rains may share a seat with someone more than three rains senior. In a layperson's house, where the seating is temporary, there is no offense even if one shares a seat with an upasaka. Two people should not lie on the same bed; if they possess a sense of shame and moral dread, there is no offense. If, while traveling, they receive a cloak that separates them in the middle, there is no offense in lying together.

If a donor spreads robes or cloth on the ground and invites the Sangha to walk upon them, or adorns a lion throne with precious objects and covers it with a layperson's garments as decoration, one should give rise to compassionate mindfulness, contemplate impermanence, and step upon them; there is no offense. If a donor borrows the Sangha's blankets or mats, they should be lent. When the matter is finished, tell the donor to return them promptly, and if they are soiled, wash them.

If a monastery catches fire, first take out personal requisites, robes, and bowls, and afterward remove the permanent property of the monastery, appointing one infirm person to stand guard over it. If the fire is blazing fiercely, one must not rush inside. The same procedure should be followed in a flood.

15. PRECEPT AGAINST FAILING TO PUT AWAY BEDDING IN A SANGHA DWELLING

This is a preventive offense. The Mahayana trains in the same rule.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, within a Sangha dwelling, either personally spreads out or has another person spread out the Sangha's bedding for sitting or lying down, and when departing neither puts it away himself nor has another person put it away, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[4]:

The Buddha was at Jetavana. A visiting bhikkhu said to a resident bhikkhu, “I shall spread bedding on one side of the Sangha dwelling and sleep there.” Afterward, he departed without informing the resident bhikkhu. The Sangha's bedding became rotten and was eaten by insects. After a long time, the resident bhikkhu, not seeing the visiting bhikkhu, went to inspect the room. Seeing what had happened, he disparaged the conduct and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Upon passing beyond the boundary, one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one foot has passed beyond the boundary, and so forth, it is a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if one departs and returns shortly thereafter, or if dangerous circumstances arise, and so forth.

16. PRECEPT AGAINST FORCIBLY TAKING ANOTHER'S SLEEPING PLACE

This is an offense by nature. The Mahayana trains in the same rule.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that a place is occupied by another bhikkhu, arrives later and deliberately squeezes himself in between others to spread out his bedding and sleep, thinking, “If that bhikkhu finds it too cramped, he will leave of his own accord and go elsewhere,” and acts for precisely this reason and no other, and not from any other consideration of proper deportment, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[5]:

The group of six and the group of seventeen were traveling together and arrived at a residence where there were no bhikkhus. The group of seventeen said to the group of six, “Venerable ones, you are our seniors and should seek resting places first.” The group of six replied, “Go and find your own resting places; we have no need to seek any.” The group of seventeen then went to find places, spread out their bedding, and settled down to rest.

The group of six subsequently arrived and said, “You must get up. We must lie down in order of seniority.” The group of seventeen refused. The group of six forcibly spread out their bedding.

The group of seventeen cried aloud, “Venerable ones, do not do this!” The bhikkhus of few desires heard this, disparaged such conduct, and reported it to the Buddha, who then established this precept.

In a case where a bhikkhu did not know whether anyone had previously reserved the place, but later learned that someone had already reserved it, he should confess a pacittiya offense. Someone, being cautious and apprehensive, reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said: “If he did not know, there is no offense.”

EXPLANATION:

The middle section means the area by the head, by the feet, or by the side.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense if the place is spacious and they do not obstruct one another; if an acquaintance tells him to do so; or if he falls because of illness, is restrained, and so forth.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If a dwelling is small and cramped, and a bhikkhu occupies a suitably sized place, spreads out his bed and bedding, covers them with his nisidana, and then goes to his two Teachers either to pay homage and exchange greetings or to receive instruction and recite texts, and afterward another bhikkhu arrives, spreads his own nisidana beside the one already spread by the first bhikkhu, sits down, and recites sutras in a low voice, then when the first bhikkhu returns and sees this, he thinks: “Who has occupied another person’s place like this?” and rolls up his nisidana and moves elsewhere—the bhikkhu who arrived later commits a pacittiya offense.

The same applies to meditation and illness. If one goes to sleep on another person’s bed, and that person is a senior, he should say: “Venerable, do you not know the rule established by the Blessed One?” If the person sleeping there is a junior, he should be reproved: “You behave improperly and do not know the characteristics of the precepts. Why did you arrive later and sleep on another person’s bed?” If a bhikkhu wishes to practice walking meditation in an unfamiliar place and sees that another bhikkhu arrived before him, he should move aside.

If, while sleeping at night, he snores or cries out in his dreams, causing disturbance without any intention to do so, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya in Ten Recitations says:

One who is able to spread out bedding commits a pacittiya offense; one who is unable to do so commits a duskrta offense. If one disturbs another by closing a door, opening a door, closing one door and opening another, lighting a fire, extinguishing a fire, lighting a lamp, extinguishing a lamp, reciting verses, reciting sutras, teaching the Dharma, or raising questions, then according to each act with which the other person is displeased, one commits a separate pacittiya offense.

17. THE PRECEPT AGAINST DRAGGING SOMEONE OUT OF A ROOM

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu, angry and displeased with another bhikkhu, personally drags him out of a Sangha dwelling or causes someone else to drag him out, he commits a pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[6]:

This rule was also established by the Buddha because the Group of Six dragged the Group of Seventeen out of a room.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

According to how much one drags him and how far one drags him through the doorway, each act constitutes a separate pacittiya offense. If one takes another person’s belongings, puts them outside the door, and closes the door, each act constitutes a duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. The latter three assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense if one has no angry intent and people leave in due order; if one tells a person who has not received full ordination to leave after that person has shared the room for three nights; or if the person is one who violates the precepts, holds corrupt views, or even one who must be expelled, and so forth.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya in Five Parts says:

If one directs people who are displeased with one another to stay together in the same room, intending thereby to make them leave of their own accord, whether they leave or do not leave, one commits a duskrta offense. Dragging out members of the other four assemblies constitutes a duskrta offense. If a bhikkhuni drags out a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, she commits a pacittiya offense. If she drags out members of the latter three assemblies, she commits a duskrta offense. If one drags out a person who has no sense of shame or moral dread, or does so to discipline a disciple, there is no offense.

The Vinaya-samgraha says:

If a building is about to collapse, there is no offense in carrying a sick person out. If a bhikkhu delights in quarrels and is wrong in most matters of discipline and regulation, then dragging such a person out in anger, without a wholesome mind, also incurs a wrongdoing. If the place is not a Sangha dwelling, dragging out a pure bhikkhu incurs a wrongdoing.

If the person violates the precepts, the assembly should jointly drive him out. If he leans against the door or embraces a pillar, everyone should cut these away in order to force him out. When the matter is concluded, the Sangha should repair whatever was damaged.

There is no offense if his fellow disciples, wishing him to abandon evil, drag him out of the room. However, they must not force him out of the dwelling place. If his offense does not involve violating the precepts and he is merely unwilling to obey, a forceful method of dragging should be used to subdue him.

A wise person should be asked to admonish him, cause him to put an end to the evil, and then have him repent and apologize for his offense. (The forceful method of dragging is explained under Precept 64.) If a snake suddenly enters the dwelling place, one should snap one’s fingers and say: “Noble one, you should go elsewhere. Do not trouble the bhikkhus.” If, after being addressed, it does not leave, one should tie it with a soft cord so that it is not injured.

Carry it into the forest or grass, wait until it crawls into a hole or burrow, and only then depart. If one disposes of lice or bedbugs, one should place them in soft grass, considering whether the weather is cold or hot and accordingly leaving them in a suitable place. Otherwise, one should place them in a hole in a wall or pillar and allow them to live there freely.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If camels, oxen, or horses are inside a stupa and one fears that they may damage it, there is no offense in driving them out.

18. THE PRECEPT AGAINST SITTING ON A BED WITH DETACHABLE LEGS ON AN UPPER STORY

The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu, in a Sangha dwelling on an upper story, lies or sits upon a bed or seat fitted with detachable legs,

he commits a pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[7]:

A bhikkhu on an upper story sat upon a bed whose leg had become detached. Because the seat was unstable, the bed leg fell to the floor below, struck a bhikkhu, and wounded him so that he bled. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

An upper story is a dwelling elevated above the height of a standing person’s head.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Apart from a bed with a detached fitted leg, if one sits on a single-person bed, a plank platform, or a bathing stool, each case constitutes a duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense when sitting on a bed with turned legs, straight legs, curved legs, or no legs, or when the upper floor is protected by planks, and so forth.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If no one is below the upper story, there is no offense in sitting there.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

In all matters of lying and sitting, one must examine the place carefully. If one does not examine it carefully, injury is certain to occur, and one will also lose proper deportment.

19. THE PRECEPT AGAINST USING WATER CONTAINING LIVING CREATURES TO MIX PLASTER FOR WALLS

This is an offense evil by nature. The Mahayana establishes the same prohibition.

TEXT OF THE PRECEPT:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that water contains living creatures, personally pours it or causes someone else to pour it upon mud or grass, he commits a pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[8]:

Chanda was constructing a large dwelling and used water containing living creatures to mix plaster, also instructing others to mix it. When the householders saw this, they became indignant and criticized him. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a duskrta offense.

There is no offense if one does not know that the water contains living creatures; if the creatures are large and one stirs the water by hand so that they move elsewhere; or if water that has already been strained is sprinkled on the ground.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya in Five Parts says:

Water containing living creatures means water in which creatures can be seen after it is passed through a filtering bag, or can be seen with the naked eye. If the water contains creatures, or one perceives or suspects that it contains creatures, each case constitutes a pacittiya offense. If the water does not contain creatures, but one perceives or suspects that it does, each case constitutes a duskrta offense. There are internal and external uses of water. Internal use means using it for eating and drinking. External use means using it for bathing, sprinkling, laundering, washing, and so forth.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya in Ten Recitations says:

For each creature that dies, one commits a separate pacittiya offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If a bhikkhu engaged in constructing dwellings needs water—whether pond water, river water, or well water—he should strain it into a full jar, examine it, and use it only if it contains no living creatures. If living creatures remain, he should sew a double-layered filter bag and strain it. If living creatures remain after using two layers, he should use a three-layered filter bag.

If living creatures still remain, he should dig a well and examine it carefully as previously explained. If living creatures still remain, he must suspend the work and construct elsewhere. Living creatures arise unpredictably: they may not have been present before but are present now, or may be present now but absent later.

Therefore, a bhikkhu should examine the water carefully every day and use it only when it contains no living creatures.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If water is strained through a filter bag made of three layers of cloth and still contains living creatures, one should not remain in such a place.

20. THE PRECEPT AGAINST THATCHING A DWELLING WITH MORE THAN THREE LAYERS

This is an offense established by prohibition. Practitioners of the Mahayana are likewise subject to it.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built, he may instruct that the door, window frames, and other fittings be covered evenly with two or three layers of thatch. If this is exceeded, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[9]:

Chanda built a large dwelling. When thatching material remained, he instructed that another layer be added. He had additional layers laid three times without stopping, and the dwelling collapsed. When the laypeople saw this, they became displeased and criticized him. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If a fourth layer is laid, whether of thatch, tiles, or boards, each case constitutes a Pacittiya offense. While undertaking and preparing for it, each act constitutes a Duskrta offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If fired tiles, wood, or stone are used, and the donor wishes the work to be completed quickly, there is no offense even if the prescribed number of layers is exceeded.

21. THE PRECEPT AGAINST GOING TO INSTRUCT BHIKKHUNIS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION

This is an offense established by prohibition. Mahayana bhikkhus are likewise subject to it.

With regard to this precept, one should discern the capacities of those concerned. If one sees that great benefit will result, there is no offense. Nevertheless, in the Final Dharma age, one must exercise caution.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, without being appointed by the Sangha, instructs bhikkhunis, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[10]:

The Buddha was at Jetavana when Mahaprajapati Gautami asked him to permit the bhikkhus to admonish and teach the Dharma to the bhikkhunis. The Buddha instructed Venerable Ananda to appoint the elders in turn to teach them. At that time, Venerable Panthaka went to teach them, but he recited only a single verse. After reciting the verse three times, he entered the fourth dhyana three times. The bhikkhunis who were arhats were all greatly delighted. The group of six bhikkhunis mocked and disparaged him. The Venerable manifested spiritual powers and returned.

At that time, the group of six bhikkhus went on their own initiative to instruct the bhikkhunis. They did not teach the True Dharma, but spoke only of worldly matters and even danced, sang, leaped about, and so forth. The group of six bhikkhunis were greatly delighted. Mahaprajapati Gautami reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha established the rule: “The Sangha must perform a motion and second proclamation to appoint a person to instruct the bhikkhunis.” The group of six then went beyond the boundary and appointed one another to teach them. Mahaprajapati Gautami again reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said that one must fulfill ten qualifications before going to teach the bhikkhunis:

1) Be fully endowed with the precepts.

2) Be learned and proficient in reciting both Pratimokshas.

3) Be decisive and free from doubt.

4) Be skilled in teaching the Dharma.

5) Have renounced household life from a respectable family.

6) Have a dignified and handsome appearance.

7) Be pleasing to the assembly of bhikkhunis.

8) Be capable of teaching the Dharma in a way that delights the assembly of bhikkhunis.

9) Not be one who donned the Dharma robe and went forth under the Buddha but then committed a grave offense.

10) Have twenty or more rains retreats.

Only one who fulfills these ten conditions may admonish the bhikkhunis. The Buddha then established this precept.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

The assembly should appoint one who possesses these seven qualities to admonish the bhikkhunis:

1) He observes the precepts.

2) He is learned.

3) He is a venerable elder.

4) He is proficient in the language of the city.

5) He has never personally defiled a bhikkhuni.

6) He can skillfully distinguish the eight offenses of defeat (Parajika).

7) He can explain the eight principles of respect skillfully and clearly.

EXPLANATION:

“Instructing” means teaching the bhikkhunis the eight principles “not to be transgressed”:

1) A bhikkhuni who has been ordained for one hundred rains, upon seeing a newly ordained bhikkhu, must go forth to welcome him, greet him, bow to him, and invite him to sit.

2) She must not revile or disparage a bhikkhu.

3) She must not accuse a bhikkhu of an offense, obstruct the investigation of his offense, prevent the recitation of the precepts, or prevent the Pavarana ceremony.

4) She must go before the great Sangha to request full ordination.

5) If she commits a Sanghavasesa offense, she must practice manatta for half a month before both Sanghas.

6) Every half month, she must go before the Sangha to request an instructor.

7) She should not undertake the rains retreat in a place where there are no bhikkhus.

8) After completing the rains retreat, she must go before the Bhikkhu Sangha to request Pavarana concerning the three matters of what has been seen, heard, or suspected.

These eight matters should be honored, respected, and praised, and must never be transgressed throughout one’s life.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If, on a day not designated for instruction, one goes and teaches the above eight principles “not to be transgressed,” one commits a Duskrta offense. If appointed by the Sangha to go, one should clearly state the appointed time. The assembly of bhikkhunis must remember the time clearly so that they may welcome him. If one agrees to arrive at a certain time but fails to do so, one commits a Duskrta offense.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

From the time the sun grows dim in the evening until the disk of the sun has not yet become clearly visible in the morning, one must not admonish bhikkhunis. One must not teach in a disorderly gathering, in a concealed place, or in an exposed place. One should teach in a place that is neither too exposed nor too secluded, such as a lecture hall or beneath a tree.

One must not go to admonish them on the fourteenth, fifteenth, first, second, or third days, but should go to admonish them from the fourth through the thirteenth day. One must not admonish an assembly of bhikkhunis that is not harmonious. Upon arriving, one should ask whether the assembly of bhikkhunis is harmonious.

Only if they say that it is harmonious should one instruct them to assemble. Anyone unable to attend must send her consent to receive instruction. One must not give partial instruction, nor should one instruct at excessive length.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one goes to instruct bhikkhunis without having been appointed by the Sangha, each utterance constitutes a Pacittiya offense. Instructing the two lower assemblies constitutes a Duskrta offense.

The Samantapasadika says:

If one teaches another Dharma teaching before first expounding the Eight Principles of Respect, one commits a Duskrta offense.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

Bhikkhus should recite the bhikkhunis’ precepts and not allow themselves to forget them. Why is this? The Buddha taught: “Women are prone to forgetfulness, and their wisdom is distracted. After I enter nirvana, the bhikkhunis should go before the great Sangha to inquire about the precepts.”

APPENDIX:

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If a bhikkhu who has not been appointed by the Sangha as an instructor deliberately enters the dwelling place of the bhikkhunis, except when there is a proper reason, he commits a Pacittiya offense. A proper reason is that a bhikkhuni is ill. If one has not been appointed by the Sangha as an instructor but deliberately enters the bhikkhunis’ dwelling place, then, however far or little one proceeds, each step constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If one foot is inside the doorway, it is a Duskrta offense. (The Mahasanghika Vinaya also contains this precept, so it is appended here.)

22. THE PRECEPT AGAINST INSTRUCTING BHIKKHUNIS UNTIL NIGHTFALL

Practitioners of the Mahayana are likewise subject to it.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, though appointed by the Sangha, instructs bhikkhunis until sunset, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[11]:

Nanda had a fine voice (the Sarvastivada Treatise says this was not Nanda, the Buddha’s younger brother). He taught the Dharma to the bhikkhunis, and because the listeners delighted in hearing him, he continued until nightfall. When the bhikkhunis left Jetavana to enter the city, the city gates had already been closed, so they had to sleep outside the city. The next morning, they entered the city earlier than everyone else. The elders slandered them, alleging that they had slept together with the bhikkhus. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Apart from formal instruction, if one receives sutras, recites sutras, or engages in other such activities until evening twilight, one commits a Duskrta offense.

There is no offense in the following cases: teaching the Dharma to bhikkhunis aboard a crowded boat; traveling with a merchant caravan and teaching the Dharma to bhikkhunis at night; going to a bhikkhuni monastery to teach the Dharma; or, on the day of the recitation of the precepts, when bhikkhunis come to invite an instructor and happen to hear the Dharma being taught.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

Even if it is at the proper time, if the bhikshunis are standing rather than sitting, or are busy with unfinished work, or some circumstance prevents them from attending, yet one teaches them the Dharma, this is also called teaching at an improper time. Regarding dusk, or perceiving it to be dusk, and so forth, among the six cases, two incur the grave offense, two incur the lesser offense, and two are not offenses. If one teaches the Dharma throughout the night, or if the monastery gates are near each other, or if the city gates are not closed, or if they dwell within the same city, or if the bhikshuni Sangha is staying in a layperson’s house, there is no offense.

One who has been appointed to instruct the bhikshunis once may instruct them for life without needing to be appointed again.

23. PRECEPT AGAINST DISPARAGINGLY DISCUSSING THE INSTRUCTION OF BHIKSHUNIS

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu speaks to the other bhikshus thus: “Bhikshus instruct bhikshunis for the sake of food and drink,” it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[12]:

When the bhikshunis heard that the instructor was coming, they went half a yojana to welcome him, invited him into a spacious room, and provided prepared food and a place for bathing. The group of six bhikshus, not having been appointed by the Sangha, became jealous and spoke in this way. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one speaks explicitly, one commits a Payattika offense; if one speaks indirectly, one commits a Dukkata offense. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if it is in fact true, or even if one speaks in a dream, misspeaks, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one says that a bhikshu gives instruction for the sake of offerings, members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense. If one says that a bhikshu practices the twelve dhutanga practices, meditates, recites sutras, and performs various meritorious deeds entirely for the sake of offerings, each utterance incurs one Dukkata offense.

24. PRECEPT CONCERNING GIVING ROBES TO AN UNRELATED BHIKSHUNI

This is not the same training in the Mahayana. Nevertheless, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, it should be considered carefully.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu gives a robe to a bhikshuni who is not related to him, except in exchange, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[13]:

In the city of Shravasti, there was a bhikshu who went on almsround with fully dignified deportment. At that time, a bhikshuni saw him and gave rise to a wholesome mind. She invited that bhikshu many times, but he did not accept. Later, when robes and other requisites were distributed among the assembly, that bhikshu carried his share of the robes outside the gate of Jetavana. Upon seeing that bhikshuni, he gave it to her, thinking that she would not accept it; unexpectedly, however, she did accept it. That bhikshu was habitually criticized by others, and so the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If one gives a robe to a bhikshuni who breaks the precepts or holds wrong views, even though she is a relative, one commits a Dukkata offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If one gives a robe to a relative while perceiving her as a relative, or to one who is not a relative while perceiving her as a relative, there is no offense. If she encounters danger and has no robe to wear, one should give her one; or if one gives her a robe on the occasion of her receiving ordination, there is no offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

Giving a robe to women of either of the other two assemblies incurs the same offense.

25. PRECEPT CONCERNING MAKING A ROBE FOR AN UNRELATED BHIKSHUNI

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu makes a robe for a bhikshuni who is not related to him, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[14]:

Kaludayi made a robe for a bhikshuni and fashioned upon it an image of a man and woman engaged in sexual intercourse. When he had finished sewing it, he folded the robe and gave it to the bhikshuni, instructing her: “Do not unfold it to look at it, nor show it to anyone. When the time comes, wear this robe and walk behind the bhikshuni Sangha.” That bhikshuni followed his instructions.... When the lay devotees saw it, they criticized and ridiculed her. Mahaprajapati learned what had happened. The bhikshunis reported it to the bhikshus and asked them to report it to the Blessed One, who then established this precept.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

Upon taking the robe, one commits a Dukkata offense. When cutting it and when dyeing it, one commits a Payattika offense in each case.

26. PRECEPT AGAINST SITTING WITH A BHIKSHUNI IN A SECLUDED PLACE

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu sits alone with a bhikshuni in a concealed and secluded place, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[15]:

Kaludayi went to the dwelling of Sthulananda and sat together with her in a place outside the door. The lay devotees criticized them, and so the Buddha established this precept.

EXPLANATION:

A concealed and secluded place is as explained under the rules concerning indefinite offenses.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If a person present is blind but not deaf, or deaf but not blind, one commits a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if there was an appointment to meet, or if, while unexpectedly passing by, one

falls down, and so forth.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

Sitting in a secluded place with women of either of the other two assemblies also incurs a Payattika offense.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

Even when assuming other bodily postures, the same offense is incurred in every case.

27. PRECEPT AGAINST TRAVELING TOGETHER WITH A BHIKSHUNI

This is a prohibitive offense; the same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu arranges with a bhikshuni to travel together along the same road from one village to another, except under special circumstances, it is a Payattika offense. The special circumstances are: traveling together with a merchant caravan, or when there is apprehension or fear. These are called special circumstances.

ORIGIN^[16]:

The group of six bhikshus traveled through the countryside together with the group of six bhikshunis. The lay devotees criticized them, and so the Buddha prohibited it. When they later happened to meet along the road, they were so cautious and fearful that they did not dare travel together. The Buddha taught: “If there was no prior arrangement, there is no offense.” Furthermore, when groups of bhikshus and bhikshunis traveled from Shravasti to Vaishali, because they were not permitted to travel together, the bhikshunis had to walk behind them and were robbed of their requisites by bandits. The Buddha therefore again made an allowance for special circumstances.

EXPLANATION:

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

There are two kinds of apprehension:

– Apprehension that one may lose one’s robes and bowl.

– Apprehension that one may lose one’s provisions.

If there is apprehension that a bhikshuni may lose her robes and bowl, a bhikshu should carry them for her while traveling. Upon reaching a safe place, he should return them and say: “You may proceed as you wish; we cannot travel together.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one arranges to travel with a bhikshuni for as far as the distance between one village and another, then according to the number of persons in the group and the number of village boundaries crossed, each instance incurs a Payattika offense. In an uninhabited area, every ten miles^[17] traveled incurs one Payattika offense. If the distance is less than that between two villages or less than ten miles, or if one merely prepares with the intention of going, one commits a Dukkata offense. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if one is compelled to travel by force, and so forth.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

If one is traveling in a vehicle with companions and the vehicle stops, when it starts moving again one should call to the bhikshuni. If one allows her to fall behind and be unable to keep up, one commits a Payattika offense. In such a case, if one calls out, “Come along, lest you be late,” there is no offense. The same applies even when asking directions or inquiring about the house of a donor.

The Vinaya Compendium says:

If they invite one another to travel by land and later proceed by relying on an uninhabited route, or if they make the arrangement while visibly present and then travel while concealing their appearance, each case incurs an offense of wrongdoing. The same applies to traveling by boat.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If there was no prior arrangement and they happen to meet and travel together, they should be instructed to remain apart but within speaking distance. If they travel close together within hearing distance, one commits a Dukkata offense. Arranging to travel with women of either of the other two assemblies incurs the same offense.

The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says:

If a royal lady is traveling with them, there is no offense.

APPENDIX:

The Vinaya Compendium says:

Bhikshus who harbor resentment toward one another should not travel together. If circumstances require them to travel together, they should confess and reconcile before setting out. While traveling together, they should discuss wholesome Dharma and should not give free rein to harsh words.

Alternatively, they should remain silent like noble ones and not allow their minds to become distracted. If they come to a shrine dedicated to a heavenly deity, they should recite a gatha^[18] of the Buddha, snap their fingers, and pass by. Bhikshus should not make offerings to heavenly deities.

If along the road they encounter a place where they may temporarily rest, or a pond or spring from which they need to draw water, they should recite a gatha in each case. At a place where they must stay overnight, they should recite it three times. They should also carry a rope for drawing water.

If circumstances require them to travel together with bhikshunis, the bhikshus should carry the bhikshunis’ food and hand it to them at mealtime. If a bhikshu becomes ill, they should carry him together; if there are too few people, the bhikshunis may also help carry him. Upon reaching a village, they should seek medicine and treatment.

When going on almsround, they should ask the bhikshunis to watch the belongings. After returning from almsround, they should share a portion with them. The same principles should be understood when a bhikshuni is ill.

28. PRECEPT AGAINST TRAVELING IN THE SAME BOAT WITH A BHIKSHUNI

The same training applies in the Mahayana.

PRECEPT TEXT:

Any bhikkhu who makes an arrangement with a bhikkhuni and travels together with her in the same boat, whether upstream or downstream, except when crossing directly to the other bank, commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[19]:

The circumstances giving rise to this rule were the same as for the preceding rule. The exception for crossing directly to the other bank was made because a group of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis needed to cross the Ganges. The bhikkhunis had to take the later ferry; the waters were high, evening had already fallen, and the ferry had not yet arrived, so they were robbed by bandits. Therefore, the Buddha permitted it.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one arranges to travel together in the same boat, whether upstream or downstream, upon stepping into the boat one commits a Pacittiya offense. If one has placed one foot in the boat and is about to step in, and so forth, one commits a Dukkata offense. Members of the other four assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if there was no prior arrangement, or if one was compelled, and so forth.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If, while crossing directly by ferry, the boat is swept downstream, there is no offense.

29. THE RULE CONCERNING EATING FOOD OBTAINED THROUGH A BHIKKHUNI'S PRAISE

Those studying the Mahayana are subject to the same rule; this pertains to wrong livelihood.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

Any bhikkhu who eats food that he knows was obtained through a bhikkhuni's solicitation, except when the donor had already intended to give it, commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[20]:

A householder in the city of Sravasti invited Venerable Sariputra and Maudgalyayana to receive a meal. Thullananda disparaged them, calling the two venerable ones lowly persons, and praised Devadatta as the king among the naga kind. Shortly afterward, when the two venerable ones arrived, Thullananda reversed her words and said, “The kings among the nagas have arrived.” The lay devotee criticized Thullananda. After the two venerable ones had taken their meal, they returned and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha then reproached Devadatta and established this rule. Later, bhikkhus did not know whether food had or had not been obtained through a bhikkhuni's solicitation. The Buddha said, “If one does not know, there is no offense.”

On another occasion, in the city of Rajagrha, a great householder wished to wait until Risidatta arrived before making an offering to the Sangha. Later, when Risidatta arrived in Rajagrha, a bhikkhuni went and informed the householder. The householder immediately prepared a meal and made an offering. Risidatta, fearing that he would violate the rule, did not accept the food. Therefore, the further exception was made for a donor who had already intended to extend the invitation.

EXPLANATION:

Solicitation means saying that a certain venerable one practices the twelve dhutanga austerities, or that he is learned, a Dharma teacher, a Vinaya holder, or a practitioner of meditation, and so forth.

Food means what is permitted to be eaten from the appearance of dawn until midday.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If one knows that food was obtained through a bhikkhuni's praise and eats it, each mouthful constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If one receives other articles, such as robes, lamp oil, and so forth, one commits a Dukkata offense. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Five-Part Vinaya says:

If food is obtained through the praise of members of the other four assemblies, eating it constitutes a Dukkata offense.

The Sarvastivada Treatise says:

If one does not offer praise indirectly, but merely says, “Giving alms to a sramana produces very great merit,” then eating the food entails no offense.

30. THE RULE CONCERNING TRAVELING TOGETHER WITH A WOMAN

Those studying the Mahayana are subject to the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

Any bhikkhu who makes an arrangement with a woman and travels together with her along the same road, even for only the distance between two villages, commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[21]:

A young woman from Vaisali had married a man from Sravasti. After quarreling with her mother-in-law, she became angry and set out to return to her own country. At that time, Venerable Anuruddha was traveling from Sravasti to Vaisali.

The woman asked to travel with him, and the venerable one consented. Her husband went searching for his wife, caught up with them, and beat the venerable one nearly to death. The venerable one found a quiet place beside the road, sat in the lotus posture, and entered the fire-radiance samadhi.

The husband waited until the venerable one emerged from samadhi, then bowed and repented. The venerable one taught him the Dharma and then departed. Upon returning to the monastery, he informed the assembly.

The matter was reported to the Buddha, who established this rule.

If there was no prior arrangement, there is no offense. The circumstances are as in the preceding rule.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

The degrees of grave and minor offenses are as in the preceding rule. Members of the four lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If another person asks a woman to lead the way, or if one does not know the road and asks a woman to point it out, there is no offense.

31. THE RULE CONCERNING ACCEPTING MORE THAN ONE MEAL

Those studying the Mahayana are subject to the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

Any bhikkhu staying at a residence where one meal is offered should, if not ill, partake of only one meal. If he accepts more than one meal, he commits a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[22]:

There was a village without a residence for monastics, so the lay devotees built a residence^[23] for the bhikkhus and regularly supplied food and drink, limiting each bhikkhu's stay to one meal. The group of six bhikkhus obtained fine food and remained there for a second night, or repeatedly returned to eat. The lay devotees criticized them, and therefore the Buddha established this prohibition. Later, Venerable Sariputra fell ill there. Fearing that he would violate this rule, he had to be assisted elsewhere, and consequently his illness became severe. Therefore, the words “if not ill” were added.

EXPLANATION:

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

Even an injury caused by a bamboo leaf is considered an illness.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if someone invites one to remain, or if one encounters dangers, and so forth.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If one stays for more than one night but does not eat a second time, one commits a Dukkata offense. If one sleeps elsewhere but eats there, one commits a Pacittiya offense.

32. THE RULE CONCERNING EATING ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS

This is a prohibition offense. Mahayana bhikkhus are subject to the same rule.

TEXT OF THE RULE:

Any bhikkhu who eats on multiple occasions, except under special circumstances, commits a Pacittiya offense. The special circumstances are: a time of illness and a time when robes are being offered^[24]. These are called special circumstances.

(The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says: The special circumstances are a time of illness, a time of work, a time of travel, and a time when robes are being offered.)

ORIGIN^[25]:

The brahmin Sanu followed the Blessed One with five hundred carts filled with provisions. He continued from the end of winter through the summer, waiting for a day on which no one would make an offering so that he could do so, but every day someone made an offering. Ananda saw this and reported it to the Buddha.

The Buddha permitted the provisions to be made into cakes and porridge and offered to the Sangha. At that time, when the lay devotees heard that the Buddha had permitted the Sangha to consume porridge and cakes, they were all greatly delighted. A certain minister who had recently developed faith in the Buddha saw that the Buddha and the Sangha received many offerings.

Regarding them as a field of merit, he prepared rich and delicious food and invited the Sangha to receive his offering. The Sangha had already consumed thick porridge and thus could not eat much, so the minister criticized them. At that same time, in the city of Rajagrha, a musician who had recently developed faith in the Buddha invited the Sangha and made an offering.

The same thing occurred, and therefore the Buddha established this rule.

When ill bhikkhus went to places where meals had been offered, they said nothing if there was no suitable food or medicine for the sick. Even when suitable food and medicine for the sick were available, however, the bhikkhus were cautious and afraid to consume them. The Buddha therefore permitted ill bhikkhus to eat on multiple occasions. Again, one lay devotee had invited the Buddha and the Sangha. Later, another lay devotee also invited the Buddha and the Sangha and offered food and robes. The bhikkhus were cautious and fearful, and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha permitted them to eat on multiple occasions when robes were being offered.

EXPLANATION:

Thick porridge is porridge that, when a blade of grass is drawn across it, does not flow back together. Eating on multiple occasions means accepting multiple invitations to meals. There are two kinds of invitation: an invitation according to the order of the Sangha and an individual invitation. A time when robes are being offered is explained in the section on Nissaggiya Pacittiya.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If, in a single day, one receives invitations to meals at several places, one should accept one and transfer the other invitations to other venerable ones. The invitation should be transferred by saying, “Venerable sir, I ought to go to that place, but now I offer it to you.” If one does not transfer the earlier invitation and accepts the later invitation, each mouthful constitutes a Pacittiya offense. If one does not transfer the later invitation and accepts the earlier invitation, each mouthful constitutes a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense if the invitation is for an offering of something other than food, if the food is insufficient, if one was not invited to eat, if one receives food after having already eaten, or if at one place there is both an earlier meal and a later meal.

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

If an ill bhikkhu is not satiated by an invitation to one place, he should accept an invitation to a second place. If he is still not satiated, he may accept an invitation to a third place. If the food at the third place is insufficient, he should accept his entire portion and consume it gradually until midday; he should not accept an invitation to a fourth place. On festival days, eating several times is permitted.

The Vinaya itself states:

The Venerable Ananda had previously accepted another person’s invitation, but because he forgot, he accepted King Prasenajit’s invitation together with the Blessed One. Just as the food entered his mouth, the Venerable remembered that he had accepted two invitations without relinquishing one of them in favor of another monk. Out of reverence for the Buddha, he dared not spit out the food; yet because he upheld the precepts, he dared not swallow it. The Buddha knew that the Venerable Ananda was feeling remorse, so he instructed him mentally to offer a portion to another and then eat it.... The Venerable Upali asked the Buddha, “May others also do likewise?” The Buddha taught that this was permitted except for five kinds of persons:

1) One who practices meditation (because he is single-mindedly devoted to the Path).

2) One who dwells alone (because there is no second person to whom he can speak).

3) One traveling afar (because, preoccupied with the journey, he may forget; or, according to the Mulasarvastivada school, because he is permitted to eat regularly).

4) One who has been ill for a long time.

5) One who, during a famine, lives in dependence upon relatives.

Apart from these cases, it is not permitted.

The Matrka states:

Someone may say to a bhikkhu, “Come there, and I shall seek robes and food for you.” Eating in this way is not an offense. Or someone may say, “This is an unhurried meal; eat wherever you please.” Eating in this way is not an offense.

The Vinaya-samgraha states:

Whether in a house, a monastery, or an aranya, if one continually eats out of a desire to become plump or to gratify the palate, one commits a duskrta. If, with a contemptuous attitude, one refuses to eat out of deceptive apprehension, one also commits a duskrta.

33. THE PRECEPT AGAINST EATING APART FROM THE COMMUNITY

This is a prohibitive offense. Mahayana bhikkhus study it in common.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu eats apart from the community, except under other circumstances, it is a Payattika. The other circumstances are: when ill, during the time for making robes, during the time for offering robes, when traveling by road, when traveling by boat, when a large assembly has gathered, and when a sramana offers food. These are the other circumstances.

ORIGIN^[26]:

Because Devadatta’s material support had been cut off, he formed a group with five bhikkhus and went from house to house seeking alms; therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

Eating apart from the community means a group of four or more persons. “Eating” refers specifically to rice, noodles, dry cakes, fish, and meat. Illness means, for example, having to walk with a limp because of an injured foot. The time for making robes and the time for offering robes are as explained in the preceding precept. Traveling by road means traveling a distance of half a yojana or more. Traveling by boat is likewise. “When a sramana offers food”: apart from sramanas who are disciples of the Sakyan, this also refers to members of non-Buddhist renunciant orders.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya states:

A large assembly consists of at least eight persons: four resident bhikkhus and four visiting bhikkhus.

The Mahisasaka Vinaya states:

If, within the boundary, four or more persons are invited separately, this is called eating apart from the community. If they are invited according to seniority, there is no offense.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya states:

Eating apart from the community means each person eating separately.

The Vinaya-samgraha states:

“Separate from the community” means not eating together in one place. If four bhikkhus are within the same boundary and even one of them does not eat together with the others, all are said to be separate from the community. Here, “food” refers specifically to staple food; in the case of non-staple food, there is no offense.

CLARIFICATION:

The matter of separation from the community has two meanings:

1) Establishing a separate community, as clearly explained in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya and other texts.

2) Being separate in relation to the community, as explained in the Vinaya-samgraha. Moreover, when going for alms, four persons may not travel together. When accepting an invitation, one must go as assigned by the Sangha. When receiving pure food in the Sangha, the wooden gong must be struck. Inviting people to eat separately in their rooms is not permitted without an appropriate reason. The Buddha taught that one should not transgress these limits.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If, without an appropriate cause, one eats apart from the community, each mouthful constitutes a Payattika. If there is an appropriate cause but one does not declare it, it is a Duskrta. A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya states:

Eating apart from the community is prohibited for two beneficial reasons:

– Out of compassion, to safeguard the donor’s resources.

– To thwart bhikkhus of evil desires who wield influence.

If three bhikkhus eat in one place while a fourth takes his portion and eats separately, there is no offense. When traveling by road or boat, if one arrived yesterday and eats today, or will arrive tomorrow but eats today, each case is a Payattika.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya states:

If three persons eat and one does not eat, or if three are fully ordained and one is not fully ordained, there is no offense in either case. If food is taken to that dwelling place, even if merely a toothful of salt is given for that community to use, there is no offense. Or if the donor says, “Whoever enters, I shall make an offering to him”; or if the donor provides offerings separately to each room and says, “I make offerings to everyone who stays in my rooms,” in all these cases there is no offense.

The Sutra on the Causes and Conditions of the Precepts states:

If no announcement is made within the community of bhikkhus and one goes separately to attend a prepared meal, one commits an offense entailing downfall. The origin was that Lady Visakha Migaramata separately invited five hundred members of the Sangha, and therefore the Buddha established this prohibition. If one wishes to invite particular venerable monks and others separately, one must also invite the Sangha, even if only one member of the community is present. Accepting invitations according to seniority is not called separation from the community.

APPENDIX:

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya states:

There are five circumstances in which one may be invited to eat early and to eat in one’s room:

– One has newly arrived as a guest.

– One is about to depart somewhere.

– One is physically ill.

– One is caring for the sick.

– One serves in an administrative office.

The Muktaka states:

There is no fault if a person overseeing work receives his portion of the meal beforehand.

34. THE PRECEPT AGAINST ACCEPTING MORE THAN THREE BOWLS OF FOOD

This is a prohibitive offense. Mahayana practitioners study it in common.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu goes to the home of a layperson and is invited to accept food, whether cakes or flour, he may, if he needs it, accept two or three bowls. Upon returning to the sangharama, he should share it with the other bhikkhus. If a bhikkhu who is not ill accepts more than two or three bowls, carries them back to the sangharama, and does not share them with the other bhikkhus, it is a Payattika.

ORIGIN^[27]:

In the country of Sravasti, a village woman had married a man in the country of Udyana. When she returned to her parents’ home, they offered food to the bhikkhus. Her husband summoned her to return, but because the bhikkhus accepted all the provisions, she had to prepare them again.

Her husband waited in vain and therefore married another wife. Furthermore, outside the city of Varanasi, merchants and their caravan companions camped together for the night. A bhikkhu approached a deeply faithful merchant and received food, then successively told other bhikkhus to go and receive food as well, until all the provisions were exhausted and the merchant had to go to the market to purchase more.

His caravan companions had to depart ahead of him, and consequently, while traveling along the road, he was completely plundered by bandits. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni commits a Payattika. Members of the three lower assemblies commit a Duskrta.

There is no offense when one is ill and therefore accepts the food, or when the other person brings it of his own accord.

The Sarvastivada Vinaya states:

Taking more than the prescribed quantity constitutes a Payattika. If, after going outside, one encounters another bhikkhu and does not share it with him, one commits a Duskrta.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya states:

When accepting food from another person, if the quantity exceeds the cooked rice made from four and a half sheng of uncooked rice, one commits an offense entailing downfall. If the donor gives according to his own wishes, whether little or much, there is no offense.

The Vinaya-samgraha states:

There are five places where one should not go to seek alms:

1) The house of performers who sing proclamations.

2) The house of a prostitute.

3) A house where liquor is brewed.

4) The royal palace.

5) The house of a candala.

It should be understood that women are by nature often defiled by lustful thoughts; therefore, one should not go to them to seek almsfood, lest trouble arise. If one receives more than three bowls from nonhuman beings or from the households of non-Buddhists, one commits an offense of wrong-doing. If, while eating together in one place, one receives more than three bowls; or if, excluding cakes and noodles, only the other foods are counted; or if the donor gladly invites one to accept as much as one wishes, there is no offense. There are three ways of causing the offerings of the faithful to be wasted:

1) A donor, out of faith, makes an offering to one who maintains the precepts, but after accepting it, that person gives it to one who violates the precepts.

2) Out of faith, an offering is made to one who holds right view, but after accepting it, that person gives it to one who holds wrong views.

3) One accepts more than one can consume and stores the excess, even as little as a single handful, except when the donor has previously invited one to take as much as one wishes.

These three are all called wasting the offerings of the faithful, and one will receive an unfortunate karmic result.

35. THE PRECEPT CONCERNING EATING WITHOUT PERFORMING THE PROCEDURE FOR LEFTOVER FOOD

This is a prohibitory offense. Mahayana bhikshus study it in common.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikshu, having eaten his fill or while attending an invited meal, eats again without performing the procedure for leftover food, it is a Payattika offense.

ORIGIN^[28]:

The Blessed One praised the practice of eating once a day. The bhikshus observed it strictly, so their bodies appeared withered and emaciated. The Buddha then permitted them, once seated for a meal, to eat until satisfied. He further permitted them to eat rice noodles and the five kinds of staple food so that they might be satisfied. He also permitted sick bhikshus to eat several times. Because they ate only once, they discarded leftover food, and crows and other birds fought over it. He therefore permitted those tending the sick to eat the leftovers and allowed food to be made into ritually designated leftover food. He further permitted bhikshus to bring food back from another place, perform the procedure for leftover food, and then eat it.

The declaration for the procedure of leftover food is as follows: “Venerable sir, I have eaten my fill. Please acknowledge it and examine it!” (Esoteric phrase). When the procedure for leftover food is performed in this way, the other bhikshu should take a little and eat it, then say: “I have finished; you may take it and consume it.” This is called the procedure for leftover food.

At that time, in the country of Shravasti, there was a bhikshu who was greedy for food. He ate without knowing satisfaction and kept eating continually. He did not recognize leftover food and did not perform the procedure for leftover food; whenever he received food, he immediately ate it. Therefore, the Buddha established this prohibition.

EXPLANATION:

There are five factors constituting a full meal:

1) Knowing that it is rice (that is, one of the five staple foods; other foods do not constitute a full meal).

2) Knowing that it has been brought (that is, received from another person).

3) Knowing that one has refused it (that is, saying that one will take no more).

4) Knowing the bodily posture (food may be received in any of the four postures: walking, standing, sitting, or lying down).

5) Knowing that one has relinquished that posture (while walking, stopping constitutes relinquishing it; while standing, beginning to walk constitutes relinquishing it; while sitting, leaving one’s seat constitutes relinquishing it; while lying down, turning over and sitting up constitutes relinquishing it. These are called changes of bodily posture).

The Ten Recitations Vinaya says:

Because there are two benefits, the Buddha permitted the eating of leftover food (that is, food for which the procedure for leftover food has been performed):

1) For the sake of a bhikshu tending the sick.

2) For a bhikshu who, owing to certain circumstances, has not eaten enough.

CHARACTERISTICS AND CATEGORIES OF THE OFFENSE

If, having eaten one’s fill and relinquished one’s posture, one eats without performing the procedure for leftover food, one commits one Payattika offense with each mouthful. The procedure for leftover food is invalid, and one commits a Dushkrita offense, if one has already eaten one’s fill and performs the procedure for another person; if one knows that another person has already eaten his fill yet approaches him to perform the procedure for leftover food; if one personally holds the food in one’s own hand while performing the procedure; if one places it on the ground while doing so; if one covers fine food with inferior food in order to perform the procedure; or if, after receiving food on another’s behalf for the procedure for leftover food, one carries all of it away.

The Mahasanghika Vinaya says:

When performing the procedure for remnant food, the food must be transferred from a large bowl into a small bowl for the procedure. Only what is in the small bowl is called remnant food; what remains in the large bowl is not called remnant food. If liquid from the small bowl flows into the large bowl, all of it is called remnant food.

If both bowls are large and the procedure for remnant food is requested, the other bhikshu need eat from only one bowl. That one large bowl is then called remnant food. If cakes or vegetables adhere across and cover both bowls, both are called remnant food.

The same applies to other kinds of vessels. If a bhikshu who has eaten his fill is brought various foods by a donor, he should ask the person in charge of the month^[29], the karmadana, a steward, or someone who has not yet eaten his fill, and go to that person to perform the procedure for remnant food. If that person has also eaten his fill, he should approach a senior monk who has not eaten his fill and request him to perform the procedure.

If the senior monk feels embarrassed and cannot perform it before the assembly, they should fold up their seats and go to a secluded place to perform it. If the senior monk has eaten his fill and a visiting bhikshu arrives, they should ask him; if he has not eaten his fill, they should approach him and request that the procedure for remnant food be performed. If the visiting bhikshu has also eaten his fill, the Sangha should devise an expedient means so as not to impair the donor’s wholesome intention.

If there is an elderly novice in the assembly, they should bring him to the ordination boundary, confer full ordination upon him, and instruct him to perform the procedure for remnant food; only afterward should they eat.” (The Five-Part Vinaya also maintains this position.)

The Vinaya Compendium says:

There are five kinds of “Bhojaniya” that may be eaten: rice, beans, flour, meat, and cakes.

There are also five kinds of “Khadaniya” that may be chewed with the teeth: roots, stalks, leaves, flowers, and fruits.

If one first eats the five kinds of chewable food, milk, ghee, vegetables, and so forth, and afterward eats the five kinds of Bhojaniya, there is no offense. If one first eats the five kinds of Bhojaniya and afterward eats the five kinds of chewable food, milk, ghee, vegetables, and so forth, it is called an offense.

It should be understood that there are five expressions indicating that one has not yet eaten one’s fill, when food is offered but one does not yet require it:

1) When it is brought, say: “Please wait.”

2) Please go elsewhere.

3) Please accept it.

4) Please wait until I partake of it.

5) Please wait until I finish eating.

If the word “please” is used, it means that one has not yet eaten one’s fill. If the word “please” is absent, it constitutes refusal because one has eaten enough. If inwardly one is not yet full but says that one is full, this also does not constitute a full meal; one commits an offense of wrong-doing because one’s words do not accord with the Dharma.

If one obtains leftover food and performs the procedure for leftover food, one sustains oneself in well-being, and the donor gains merit. When wishing to perform the procedure, one should wash one’s hands, receive the food, and carry it to a bhikshu who has not yet eaten his fill, or who has eaten his fill but has not left his seat, and request him to perform the procedure. If that bhikshu has not yet refused further food because he is full, he should eat two or three mouthfuls.

If he then perceives that he has had enough, he should eat no more, but should press the food with his hand and say: “This is my property; use it as you wish.”

There are five circumstances in which the procedure for leftover food is invalid:

1) One’s body is within the boundary while the other person is outside the boundary.

2) The place offered cannot be reached by the hand.

3) One stands to one side.

4) One stands behind the other person.

5) That person has already left his seat.

Conversely, when the opposite of these five conditions is present, the procedure for leftover food is valid. If one person performs the procedure, no matter how many others eat the food, there is no offense. If one has refused further food because one has eaten enough, or perceives that one has refused because one has eaten enough, or is doubtful, and eats without performing the procedure for leftover food, then upon swallowing it one commits an offense entailing downfall.

Even if one has not refused further food because one is full, but imagines that one has done so or is doubtful, in either case one commits an offense of wrong-doing. In the latter two cases there is no offense if the food consists of fruit from the northern region, lotus root belonging to a heavenly spirit, or other rare objects; or if there is a famine and almsfood is difficult to obtain. In such cases, eating without performing the procedure for leftover food does not constitute an offense.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE:

The Vinaya-matrika Sutra says:

If a bhikshu accepts improperly given offerings, he falls on account of those offerings.

There are two kinds of falling:

1) One eats the food of a person who does not practice in accordance with the Dharma, allowing the mind to become heedless and unrestrained, and does nothing that may be called wholesome.

2) One gives away offerings, transfers offerings, or makes gifts improperly. Because of these two circumstances, one must fall into the three evil destinies.

A proper recipient of gifts is, for example, one’s impoverished parents. One should first impart to them the Three Refuges, the Five Precepts, and the Ten Wholesome Actions, and only afterward make gifts to them and support them. If they are not impoverished, then even if they have received the refuges and precepts, giving to them is still improper.

There are also other proper cases for giving: those who protect stupas, serve the Sangha, or repair the Sangha’s dwellings should be compensated according to their labor. If one gives them more than the prescribed amount, one also falls on that account.

When giving food to the sick, one should arouse compassion and give them whatever they need. If one gives food repeatedly, one will thereby also incur a downfall offense. Toward children, prisoners, those in bonds, and pregnant women, one should arouse compassion and give to them, without expecting repayment. If someone comes to the Sangha quarters to beg and one has something of one’s own, one may give it without using donated property. If one has nothing of one’s own and uses donated property to give, there is no offense.

If a bhikkhu does not practice meditation, recite sutras, or perform duties for the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, yet accepts donors’ offerings, he thereby incurs a downfall offense. If one knows that a person does not engage in these three practices but nevertheless transfers donated goods to him, both the giver and the recipient thereby incur a downfall offense. One should rather swallow a red-hot iron ball and die than, being without moral discipline—that is, not observing the precepts—accept the food of donors.

If one has already eaten one’s fill but deliberately eats more, it adds nothing to one’s health and only increases illness. Therefore, one should not eat or drink immoderately.

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:

All phenomena are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. Why, for the sake of a morsel of food, create the three evil karmas of body, speech, and mind?! If, for the sake of food, one creates these three evil karmas and receives material goods, the entire assembly should say: “When you later receive the fruit of suffering, we shall not share in it.”

Furthermore, contemplate how all sentient beings undergo suffering in body and mind because of food and drink. Why, then, should I give rise to greed for food? Furthermore, because of food and drink, this body grows.

I have now gone forth, received the precepts, and cultivated the Path because I wish to relinquish this body. If I now crave and cling to food, how can I relinquish this body?!” Having contemplated in this way, although one receives food, one regards it as the wilderness spirit ate the flesh of his own child; one’s mind is filled with revulsion—how could one relish it! Contemplating in this way, one clearly sees that “food taken in morsels” is the cause of many transgressions.

Furthermore, contemplate “contact as nutriment” as an ox that has been flayed, with countless insects boring into it. Contemplate “volition as nutriment” as a great mass of fire, and “consciousness as nutriment” as three hundred spears piercing the body. If a bhikkhu goes on almsround thinking, “May I obtain fine food; may I obtain much; may I obtain it quickly,” this is not called cultivating disenchantment toward food.

The wholesome dharmas cultivated each day diminish, while unwholesome dharmas increase.

If one wishes to go on almsround, one should first make this aspiration: “May all who beg be fully satisfied, and may those who give obtain abundant merit. If I obtain food, may it serve to cure illness, cultivate wholesome dharmas, and benefit sentient beings.” When one makes such an aspiration, the wholesome dharmas one cultivates increase day by day, while unwholesome dharmas gradually disappear.

36. PRECEPT AGAINST CAUSING ANOTHER TO VIOLATE THE RULE CONCERNING LEFTOVER FOOD

This is also to be studied by Mahayana bhikkhus.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has eaten his fill or, when accepting an invitation, has not performed the procedure for leftover food, nevertheless earnestly urges him to eat, saying, “Venerable one, please partake of this food,” with no purpose other than this—namely, wishing to cause the other person to violate the precept—it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[30]:

A gluttonous bhikkhu was criticized by others. Harboring anger in his heart, he wished to cause another bhikkhu to commit an offense as well; therefore, this precept was established.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

If the other person accepts and eats the food, with each mouthful both incur a Pacittiya offense. If the other person does not eat, the one who offered it incurs a Dukkata offense. Perception, doubt, and so forth are the same as in the preceding precept.

There is no offense if one does not know that the other has eaten his fill, or if one does not intend to cause the other person to commit an offense.

37. PRECEPT AGAINST EATING AT AN IMPROPER TIME

This is also to be studied by Mahayana practitioners.

PRECEPT TEXT:

If a bhikkhu eats at an improper time, it is a Pacittiya offense.

ORIGIN^[31]:

Kaludayi went on almsround at dusk. A pregnant woman brought food out to the entrance. Just then, thunder sounded and lightning flashed; dimly seeing Kaludayi’s face, she screamed that he was a ghost and then miscarried. Angrily, she said: “These Sakyan ascetics would do better to cut open their own bellies than go begging for food at night.” Because of this, the Buddha established the prohibition.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

The group of seventeen entered the city to beg for food. Hearing a woman speak shameful words, they endured hunger and ceased going on almsround. In the evening, some lay friends returned from a banquet and brought them ample food. Upananda raised the matter, and they replied: “Before noon we received nothing; at noon and after noon we are forbidden to eat. Are we then supposed to endure hunger until we die?” When the Buddha heard this, he reprimanded them and established this training rule.

EXPLANATION:

The proper time for eating extends from sunrise until midday. The improper time for eating extends from midday until before the next sunrise.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE

A bhikkhuni who violates this rule incurs a Pacittiya offense. Members of the three lower assemblies incur a Dukkata offense.

There is no offense when sucking black rock sugar^[32]; when, due to illness, one drinks medicine and vomits it; when barley is cooked without allowing the husks to split and the liquid is strained off and drunk; or when food vomited up into the throat is swallowed again.

The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya says:

If it is an improper time and one perceives it as an improper time, or is doubtful, one incurs a downfall offense in either case. If it is the proper time but one perceives it as an improper time, or is doubtful, one incurs an offense of wrongdoing in either case. If it is the proper time and one perceives it as the proper time, or if it is an improper time but one perceives it as the proper time, there is no offense.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE:

The Sutra of Sariputra’s Questions says:

The Venerable Sariputra again addressed the Buddha: “World-Honored One, some donors establish Sangharamas and provide them with complete provisions for the Sangha, including those of future generations. If persons who merely resemble renunciants go to the steward of food at an improper time and demand food, what offenses do the giver and the eater commit? What merit does the donor obtain?”

The Buddha said: “One who eats at an improper time is a precept-breaker and one guilty of theft. One who gives at an improper time is likewise a precept-breaker and one guilty of theft. They steal from the donor, for this was not the donor’s original intention. The donor gains no merit, because the goods have been lost. The donor merely formed the aspiration to perform a wholesome deed.” The Venerable Sariputra said: “Suppose food is received at the proper time and eaten at the proper time, but what remains uneaten is consumed at an improper time. Or suppose it is received at the proper time but not eaten until an improper time. Is merit gained or not?”

The Buddha said: “Eating and drinking at the proper time is pure, creates a field of merit, accords with the life of renunciation and the Sangha, and makes one a good friend and guiding teacher of devas and humans. Eating at an improper time, however, is impure and thievish; it belongs to hungry ghosts and is a repository of transgressions. If one demands food at an improper time, then whether the goods are allowable at the proper time or at an improper time, when the steward of food gives them at an improper time, that steward is called a degenerate evil Mara, one destined for the three evil realms, a discarded object, a diseased person, and a destroyer of wholesome fruits.

Even brahmins do not eat at an improper time, nor do non-Buddhist brahmacarins eat improperly. How much less should disciples of Mine, who know the Dharma and practice the Dharma, behave in this way? Such persons are not disciples of Mine.

Those who unlawfully steal in order to give and steal by accepting—even a single lump, a single handful, a grain of salt, or a slice of lemon given in exchange—will at death fall into the Intestine-Scorching Hell and swallow red-hot iron balls. After emerging from hell, they will be born among pigs and dogs and eat impure things. They will then be born as fierce birds whose cries frighten people.

Afterward, they will be born as hungry ghosts and return to the Sangharama, dwelling in the latrine and devouring excrement for hundreds of thousands of myriads of years. When later born among humans, they will be poor and lowly, and no one will believe their words. This is unlike stealing the property of a single person, for that offense is still comparatively light.

To plunder the field of merit belonging to many people is to sever the supramundane Path.”

APPENDIX:

The Mulasarvastivada Nidana says:

A bhikkhu was ill, and a physician instructed him to drink water mixed with flour. He was permitted to take it at an improper time.

The Buddha said: “There is a kind of toothless ox that eats grain and passes it whole in its dung. This grain may be made into flour and consumed at an improper time. If taking it does not cure the illness, then use flour made from uncooked grain, stir it with plenty of water, strain it, and consume it.” When drinking this still did not cure the illness, the Buddha said: “If a physician instructs one to drink rice flour, whether thick or formed into lumps, it may be consumed as appropriate. Whatever I have allowed the sick to consume at an improper time must no longer be consumed after they have recovered from illness.”

The One Hundred and One Karmans states:

There are five kinds of fruit that may be consumed at the proper time or outside the proper time, whether one is ill or not ill:

1) Harītakī fruit^[33], translated into Chinese as “Brought by the Lord of Heaven.”

2) Vibhītaka fruit^[34].

3) Āmalaka fruit^[35], namely the emblic fruit found in Lĩnh Nam, whose tree resembles the areca palm. Eating it dispels wind ailments.

4) Mạt-túc fruit, namely pepper.

5) Pippalī fruit, namely the fruit of the betel plant (pungent betel).

The Supplementary Karman states:

When there is the condition of an illness involving thirst, one is permitted to receive fruit juice outside the proper time. This means juice from fruit, honeyed juice, and so forth; allow the liquid to settle, then drink the clear portion. When there is the condition of an illness involving wind or heat, one is permitted to use the five kinds of seven-day medicine. When there is the condition of any illness, one is permitted to use medicines that may be kept for life, namely all salty, bitter, sour, and similar substances. These may not be eaten casually, but such things as ginger and pepper, as well as medicinal extracts, elixirs, pills, powders, and the like, may all be used.

Fruit juice received outside the proper time must not be kept until the following morning. Seven-day medicine must not be kept until the eighth day.

The Record of the Dharma Sent Home from the Southern Seas states:

If rice still adheres between the teeth and fatty substances remain upon the tongue, and one has not yet rinsed the mouth again with clean water, then any saliva that flows must be spat outside; if it is past midday, one thereby commits an offense of eating outside the proper time. A Vinaya master is one who observes the water and observes the time.

ESSENTIAL COMPENDIUM OF THE MEANINGS OF VINAYA MATTERS, REVISED AND EDITED

END OF THE SEVENTH FASCICLE

1 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 643a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

2 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 643c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

3 In citing this passage, Master Zhixu omitted part of it (Essential Compendium of the Meanings of Vinaya Matters, Revised and Edited 7, p. 398a05, Manji 40, no. 719). Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Saṅgraha 9, p. 579a, Taishō 24, no. 1458: “When bhikṣus listen to the Dharma at night, they should not sit close together upon the same felt mat with bhikṣuṇīs, laypeople, or śrāmaṇeras; nor should they share a seat with probationary trainees.” (諸T苾芻僣夜聽法時不應與尼及俗人求筰寂同 一氈籙席相近而坐.授學之人亦不同座à).

4 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 644b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

5 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 645a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

6 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 645c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

7 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 646a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

8 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 646b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

9 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 647a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

10 Four-Part Vinaya 12, p. 647b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

11 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 649c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

12 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 650a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

13 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 650c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

14 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 651a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

15 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 651c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

16 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 652a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

17 Mile: The Sino-Vietnamese reading is “lǐ 里,” and there are many ways of calculating a mile. An English mile is 1,609 meters; in Western European countries it is 4,000 meters; and in China it is 500 meters. In ancient Vietnam, a mile measured by road was 1,350 traditional wooden feet.

18 Gāthā 伽陀I: Skt. Gāthā, translated as “independent verse,” “chant,” and so forth. It is one of the nine or twelve divisions of scripture.

19 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 652c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

20 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 653a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

21 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 654a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

22 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 654c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

23 Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya 12: “House of Merit” 福德舍 (charitable lodging), with the annotation (Taishō 23, no. 1435, p. 89c25): “More precisely, it is called a ‘place for one night’s lodging’ 一宿處.” Pāli: āvasathapiṇḍa, a lodging house where food is given in charity. (Translator’s note to the Four-Part Vinaya, translated by Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

24 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 657a23, Taishō 22, no. 1428: After the robe offering and the Pavāraṇā, the period is one month if the kaṭhina robe is not accepted, and five months if the kaṭhina robe is accepted.

25 Four-Part Vinaya 13, p. 655b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

26 Four-Part Vinaya 14, p. 657b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

27 Four-Part Vinaya 14, p. 659a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

28 Four-Part Vinaya 14, p. 660a, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

29 Monthly steward 直月甭: a person entrusted by the Sangha with responsibility for all work in the monastery for one month, one year, or one day.

30 Four-Part Vinaya 14, p. 661c, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

31 Four-Part Vinaya 14, p. 662b, Taishō 22, no. 1428.

32 Black rock sugar 黑石蜜: a type of unrefined granulated sugar. (Translator’s note to the Four-Part Vinaya, translated by Venerable Thích Đỗng Minh.)

33 Harītakī 訶X梨?勒: Skt. haritakỵ, Pāli. harỵtaka. Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary 17, p. 795a20, Taishō 24, no. 1462: Harītakī is as large as a large jujube, has a sour and bitter taste, and is conveniently used as medicine.

34 Vibhītaka 毘醯勒: Pāli. Vibhỵtaka. Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary 17: Vibhītaka is shaped like a jujube, has a sweet taste, and, when used as medicine, can treat coughs.

35 Āmalaka 菴摩勒: Pāli. Āmalaka. Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary 17: Āmalaka (A-ma-lặc) is the emblic fruit. This fruit is found in the region of Guangzhou and resembles a large nhuy fruit (the fruit of a small tree; its flesh is edible and its seed is used medicinally).