四分律比丘含注戒本

Venerable Ones, these are the ninety pācittiya rules, recited once every fortnight, extracted from the Prātimokṣa Sūtra.

1. The Rule Concerning Deliberate Falsehood

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling at Śikṣāśau. At that time, among the Śākya clan there was a young man named Elephant Strength, who was skilled in debate. One day, Elephant Strength debated with non-Buddhists and was defeated, whereupon he contradicted what he had previously said. When questioned within the Sangha, Elephant Strength likewise contradicted what he had previously said. Because of this, he was ridiculed by the brahmins for not practicing the true Dharma. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu knowingly tells a falsehood, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Knowingly: this refers to seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing without seeing; thus there are eight cases in all. Seeing: visual consciousness is capable of seeing, and so forth through mental consciousness, which is capable of knowing. Not seeing: apart from visual consciousness, the other five consciousnesses. Thus, it is like the case of contradicting what was said before.

– Tells a falsehood: if a person has seen, heard, sensed, or known something, but through perception or doubt says that he did not see, did not hear, did not sense, or did not know it, it is a pācittiya offense. The cases of not seeing, not hearing, and so forth are likewise as explained above. If one originally intended to lie and speaks falsely but does not remember that it is a lie, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one does not remember either before or afterward, but while speaking knows whether the statement is true or false, then speaking falsely constitutes a pācittiya offense. Or what one saw may be one thing, what one accepted another, what one desired another, what one sensed another, and what one conceived another; all such cases constitute falsehood. During the recitation of the precepts, when one is questioned as many as three times, if one remembers having committed an offense but does not disclose it, one commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Pācittiya: if the statement is not clearly expressed, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhunī likewise commits the same offense. The three lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: when none of the eight cases applies, such as saying one did not see when one did not see, through saying one knows when one knows, and so forth. If one speaks according to the perception one holds, there is no offense.

2. The Rule Concerning Insulting Speech

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus went before an adjudicator and reviled another bhikkhu by referring to his lineage. That bhikkhu became so ashamed that he forgot what came before and what came afterward and could not utter a word. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha related the story of the ox[62] as an illustration, explaining that even an animal, when disparaged, lacks the strength to advance, and so forth. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu insults another by referring to his lineage, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Lineage: there are many kinds of family lineages. One might say that another was born into a lowly clan or family, that his occupation is lowly, or that his craft or skill is lowly. Or one might say that he has committed an offense, that he still has many fetters, that he is blind, one-eyed, and so forth.

– Insulting: this refers to the six cases of insulting just mentioned above. Furthermore, if a bhikkhu insults another to his face, uses an analogy to insult him, or insults him by comparing him with himself, he commits a pācittiya offense. If the statement is not clearly expressed, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Pācittiya: one may use a wholesome quality to insult another to his face, such as saying, “You are a forest dweller,” through saying, “You are a meditator.” Or one may use an analogy to insult him, such as saying, “You are like a meditator.” Or one may insult him by comparing him with oneself, such as saying, “I am not a forest dweller,” and so forth. Whether expressed clearly or unclearly, it constitutes a dukkaṭa offense. A bhikkhunī commits a pācittiya offense. The three lower assemblies commit a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: when one speaks for the common good; when one speaks for the sake of the Dharma, for the sake of the Vinaya, or for instruction; when one speaks out of great familiarity; or when one speaks in jest, makes a slip of the tongue, or speaks mistakenly—in all such cases there is no offense.

3. The Rule Concerning Divisive Speech

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus carried words back and forth between the parties, causing contention to arise within the assembly that could not be brought to an end. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. The Buddha related the story of the jackal[63] that provoked a quarrel between two animals, saying how much more serious this is when done by one human being to another. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and then established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu engages in divisive speech, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Divisive speech: speaking words that cause the ten assemblies to quarrel with one another, out of a desire to divide one party from another.

– Pācittiya.

– Cases in which there is no offense: separating someone from an evil spiritual companion, from a faction, from his preceptor, from a fellow disciple of the same preceptor, from an acquaintance, from an intimate friend, or from those who speak much that is meaningless and unbeneficial, when one wishes, through skillful means, to prevent what is unbeneficial and meaningless. There is no offense in separating people from such persons.

4. The Rule Concerning Sleeping in the Same Room as a Woman

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, Venerable Anuruddha requested lodging for the night in the house of a courtesan. During the night, the courtesan disrobed and came to disturb the Venerable One. The Venerable One immediately rose into the air. Seeing this, the courtesan became deeply ashamed and repented. The Venerable One then taught her the Dharma, and the courtesan attained the path. When the bhikkhus learned of the matter, they reported it to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu sleeps in the same room as a woman, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– With a woman: one who is capable of understanding and whose life faculty has not ceased.

– The same room: a place enclosed on four sides by walls and roofed above; or one whose front is open and has no wall; or one that is enclosed but not completely; or one that is completely enclosed but has an opening left in it.

– Sleeps: whether the bhikkhu lies down first and the woman arrives later; whether both arrive at the same time; whether he leans back; or whether he lies down—according to the extent to which his hip touches the ground, or whenever he turns over, he commits a pācittiya offense.

– Pācittiya: if the other is a female nonhuman being, a female animal, a paṇḍaka, or a person with both sexual faculties, and he sleeps in the same room, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. During the daytime, if a woman is standing while the bhikkhu is lying down, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: when he does not know that a woman is in that dwelling; when the dwelling has no enclosure; when it is half enclosed and only slightly roofed; when it is fully enclosed; or when it is half enclosed and half roofed. Other cases should be understood according to the explanations above. Allowance is also made when one lies down because of illness, when one has been bound, or when there is danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth.

5. The Rule Concerning Sleeping with a Person Not Fully Ordained Beyond the Permitted Limit

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Āḷavī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus slept together with householders in the preaching hall. One bhikkhu, sleeping with a distracted mind, exposed his private parts and was mocked by those householders. When the bhikkhus learned of the matter, they reported it to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule. Later, while the Buddha was in the country of Kauśāmbī, he allowed bhikkhus to sleep together with such persons for two or three nights and then formulated this rule anew.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu sleeps together with a person who has not received full ordination for more than two nights, extending into the third night, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– If a bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– With a person who has not received full ordination: apart from bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, all others are persons who have not received full ordination.

– Sleeps together: sleeping in the same room, as explained in the preceding rule.

– Beyond two nights, upon the third night: if he has slept in the same place for two or three nights, he should rise and leave before dawn appears. On the fourth night, either he himself should leave or he should have the person who has not received full ordination leave.

– Pacittiya: if he sleeps in the same place with a nonhuman being or a male animal for more than three nights, in every case he commits a dukkata offense.

The permitted cases are all the same as in the preceding rule.

6. The Rule on Reciting Scriptures Together with One Who Has Not Received Full Ordination

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Khuang-da. At that time, the group of six saw bhikkhus gathering with householders in the lecture hall to recite scriptures, speaking and laughing loudly and disturbing those seated in meditation. The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu recites the Dharma together with one who has not received full ordination, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Any bhikkhu: the meaning is as above.

– With one who has not received full ordination: the meaning is as above.

– Reciting together: this means reciting a meaningful sentence, a meaningful phrase, a meaningful syllable, a non-meaningful sentence, a non-meaningful phrase, or a non-meaningful syllable.

A meaningful sentence means reciting together, neither before nor after the other. A non-meaningful sentence is, for example, when one person has not yet finished saying, “Do no evil deeds,” and the first person repeats the same words. A meaningful phrase is, for example, reciting, “The eye is impermanent,” and so forth. A non-meaningful phrase means repeating the phrase just recited previously. A meaningful syllable means reciting the syllable A together. A non-meaningful syllable means repeating the syllable A previously recited.

– Dharma: the true Dharma spoken by the Buddha, sravakas, seers, or devas.

– Pacittiya: whether they recite one expression, two expressions, or three expressions together; whether instruction is imparted orally or in writing; whether the words are indistinct or distinct; and whether he recites together with a nonhuman being or an animal—in all such cases, he commits a dukkata offense. If the teacher does not instruct, “After I have spoken, you should speak,” the teacher commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: saying, “After I have finished speaking, you should speak”; one person reciting while another writes; colleagues reciting together; speaking in jest; speaking to oneself; misspeaking; or intending to speak of one matter but speaking of another—in all such cases, there is no offense.

7. The Rule on Disclosing a Grave Offense

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, a bhikkhu was undergoing parivasa and manatta and therefore had to sit below everyone else. The group of six bhikkhus then disclosed that bhikkhu’s offense to laypeople. The offending bhikkhu and the other bhikkhus were all ashamed. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and then established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has committed a grave and evil offense, discloses it to one who has not received full ordination, except by an act of the Sangha, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Any bhikkhu: the meaning is as above.

– Knowing: allowance is made for one who does not know.

– Another bhikkhu has committed a grave and evil offense: this refers to the four parajika offenses and the thirteen sanghadisesa offenses.

– Discloses it to one who has not received full ordination, except by an act of the Sangha, it is a pacittiya offense: apart from grave offenses, if he discloses other offenses, discloses his own grave offense, or discloses another person’s offense, in every case he commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he does not know; if he has been appointed by the Sangha; if he believes it is not a grave offense; or if laypeople have already heard of it—in all such cases, there is no offense.

8. The Rule on Truthfully Telling Laypeople That One Has Attained the Path

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Vaisali. Because of the preceding incident involving a great falsehood, he convened the Sangha, rebuked the bhikkhus, and then established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu speaks to one who has not received full ordination of a superhuman attainment, saying, “I have seen this; I know this,” and it is true, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

All is the same as in the first chapter above. If he says it, it becomes an act bearing karmic retribution. If he speaks in jest or misspeaks, there is no offense.

9. The Rule on Teaching the Dharma Alone to a Woman

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, in the presence of a mother-in-law, the bhikkhu Kaludayi leaned close to the daughter-in-law’s ear and taught her the Dharma. The mother-in-law criticized him and questioned her daughter-in-law. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha prohibited it. Later, the Buddha permitted the speaking of five or six sentences and, if a knowledgeable man was present, permitted the speaking of more than five or six sentences.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu teaches the Dharma to a woman in more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of a knowledgeable man, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as above.

– With a woman: the meaning is as above.

– Teaching the Dharma in more than five sentences: for example, saying, “Form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are non-self.”

– Six sentences: for example, saying, “The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are impermanent.”

– Except in the presence of a knowledgeable man: one who understands what is grave and evil and what is not grave and evil.

– Pacittiya: if he speaks indistinctly, he commits a dukkata offense. If he speaks more than five or six sentences to a nonhuman being or an animal, he commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if a knowledgeable man is present and he speaks more than five or six sentences; if no knowledgeable man is present but he answers according to questions asked, he may also explain at length; if he transmits the Five Precepts to an upasika, he should teach the Dharma of the Five Precepts; if he teaches one undertaking the Eight Precepts, he should teach the Dharma of the Eight Precepts; if he explains the Noble Eightfold Path or the Ten Unwholesome Actions; or if a woman asks about meanings she does not understand and he explains them fully—in all such cases, there is no offense.

10. The Rule on Digging the Earth

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Khuang-da. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus were repairing the lecture hall for the Buddha and dug the earth around it. The householders then criticized them, saying, “The Sakyan ascetics do not understand the true Dharma; they destroy the life faculties of other beings.” On this occasion, the Buddha established this rule. Later, while repairing the lecture hall, the group of six bhikkhus had others dig the earth, instructing them, “Dig here and dump it there.” Once again, the householders criticized them. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established the rule again.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu digs the earth with his own hands or has someone else dig it, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as above.

– Digs with his own hands: using a hoe, harrow, or pestle to strike it, or even tapping or scratching it with his fingernails; striking or chopping into the earth; or lighting a fire upon earth while perceiving it as earth.

– Earth: either earth that has not been dug or earth that has been dug but has, after four months of rain, become saturated and returned to its former condition.

– Or has someone else dig it: if he does not merely instruct, “Look at this; attend to this!” he commits a dukkata offense.

– Pacittiya: members of the three lower assemblies commit a dukkata offense. The following section is likewise the same as this section.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he says, “Attend to this; look at this”; if he drags a tree or timber; if he raises a fallen fence; if he turns over tiles or stones to collect cow dung; if he takes earth from a collapsed embankment; or if he takes earth from a mouse hole, except for earth on a walking-meditation path or earth inside a room. If it is earth from a frequently used walking-meditation path; if he sweeps the ground; or if he has no intention to dig—in all such cases, there is no offense.

11. The Rule on Destroying Plant Life

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Khuang-da. He convened the Sangha and said, “A bhikkhu has cut down a tree himself while repairing a dwelling. This is not the Dharma of an ascetic.” On this occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If any bhikkhu destroys a village inhabited by spirits, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as above.

– Destroys: cutting plants so that they fall to the ground is called destruction.

– Spirits: these are non-human beings.

– Vegetation: all grasses and trees serve as abodes for spirits and animals. Vegetation is of five kinds: that propagated from roots, branches, joints, phala, and seeds.

– Pacittiya: if one perceives it as living and cuts it oneself; has another cut it; roasts or boils it oneself; or has another roast or boil it, in every case one commits an offense entailing expiation. If one is uncertain whether it is living and cuts it, and so forth, one commits a dukkata. Grasses and trees are of seven colors. If one damages them oneself or has another damage them, one commits an offense entailing expiation. If one is uncertain whether they are living, or perceives them as living, and then damages them, one commits a dukkata. If one drives a stake into living vegetation, or burns it with fire, and so forth, one commits an offense entailing expiation in every case. If one cuts many parts of living vegetation, one commits an offense entailing expiation. If one cuts vegetation that is half withered and half still fresh and living without saying, “Know this; examine this,” one commits a dukkata in every case.

– Cases in which there is no offense: If one says, “Examine this; know this.” If one cuts vegetation that has already withered. If one pulls a tree or bamboo resting upon fresh, living vegetation. If one repairs a fence or clears an obstruction; or turns over a stone to obtain cow dung. If grass covers a path and one uses a staff to push it aside and clear the way. If vegetation is broken or crushed while one uses tiles or stones as supports. If one sweeps the ground used for walking meditation. If one sweeps the walking-meditation path. If one plants a staff upon the ground and thereby breaks fresh, living vegetation, there is no offense in any such case.

12. The Precept Concerning Evasive Speech and Vexing Others

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Kosambi. At that time, the bhikkhu Chanda committed an offense. When the other bhikkhus questioned him, the bhikkhu Chanda answered with irrelevant matters. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. After reproaching him, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to make a formal declaration concerning evasive speech. Later, the bhikkhu Chanda again vexed the Sangha: when summoned, he would not come, and he even said what ought not to be said. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. After reproaching him, the Buddha permitted the formal declaration concerning vexatious conduct to be carried out. On this account, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu speaks evasively and vexes others, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Evasive speech: before the Sangha has made the formal declaration, he speaks irrelevantly, saying such things as: “To whom are you speaking? What are you speaking about? What matter are you discussing? Are you speaking to me or to someone else? I do not see this offense.” In every case, he commits a dukkata. If, after the formal declaration has been made, he says such things, he commits an offense entailing expiation.

– Vexing others: conduct similar to the matters just mentioned above, extending even to saying what ought not to be said, constitutes a dukkata in every case. If, after the Sangha has made the formal declaration, he still speaks in this way, he commits a pacittiya offense.

– Pacittiya: if summoned by a senior bhikkhu and he does not come, he commits a dukkata.

– Cases in which there is no offense: Having heard something but not understood what was previously said because it was confused or unclear, one therefore asks again: “To whom are you speaking? ...” up to “I do not see this offense.” If the formal declaration is contrary to the Dharma; or if the Sangha-kamma brings neither benefit nor harmony, and when summoned at that time one does not come. If the Sangha-kamma is contrary to the Dharma and, wishing to understand the instruction, one comes even though told not to come. If one is observing the one-session meal;[64] or eats without performing the procedure for leftover food; or, being ill, does not stand when told to stand; or, because of danger to one’s life, danger to the holy life, and so forth, stands even though told not to stand. If questioned with malicious intent, one need not answer. If one rebukes a Sangha-kamma that is contrary to the Dharma. If one speaks softly or misspeaks, there is no offense in any such case.

13. The Precept Concerning Disparaging and Insulting an Officer

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, the bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta had been appointed by the Sangha to serve as an officer. The bhikkhu Mettiya then stood within sight of the bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta and disparaged him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. After reproaching him, the Buddha established this precept. Later, from a place where he could be heard, the bhikkhu Mettiya again insulted the bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta. The bhikkhus again reported this fault to the Buddha. The Buddha then supplemented the precept previously established.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu disparages or reviles another, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Disparaging: while in sight of the person, he says without hesitation, “He acts with partiality, hatred, fear, and delusion.”

– Reviling: from a place where he cannot be seen but can be heard, he speaks insultingly.

– Pacittiya: if one not only refuses to heed a senior bhikkhu’s instruction but also reviles him, one commits a dukkata.

– Cases in which there is no offense: If such a matter truly occurred, but because one was afraid, one later regrets it and speaks in accordance with the Dharma in order to disclose the matter, saying, “There was partiality,” and so forth. If one speaks in jest or misspeaks, there is no offense.

14. The Precept Concerning Leaving Sangha Property in the Open

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a householder invited the Sangha to a meal. Since it was not yet mealtime, 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 mealtime arrived, they departed without putting away the sitting mats, which were soiled by wind, dust, insects, and birds. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this account, the Buddha reproached them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu takes a Sangha rope-bed, wooden bed, bedding, or sitting cushion and spreads it out in the open, or has another spread it out, and upon departing neither puts it away himself nor has another put it away, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Taking Sangha property: there are three kinds: property of the Sangha, property intended for the Sangha, and property belonging to the Sangha.

– Rope-bed: there are five kinds: a bed with turned legs, a bed with straight legs, a bed with curved legs, a bed with mortised legs, and a bed without legs.

– Wooden bed: there are likewise five kinds, as stated above.

– Bedding: that which is used either for sitting or for lying down.

– Sitting cushion: understood to be that which is ordinarily used for sitting.

– Spreading it out in the open, or having another spread it out, and upon departing neither putting it away oneself nor having another put it away, is a pacittiya offense: one should take the Sangha property, entrust it to the officer, and say, “I now entrust this to you; please keep it safe.” If no one is present, one must put it away in a sheltered place. If there is no sheltered place, one must choose a location where it will not be damaged and place the inferior articles over the superior ones. If one can go and return immediately, one may depart. According to whether the rain is moderate or heavy, if one can depart and return in time, one may depart. One should proceed successively according to these methods before departing. If one does not do so, one commits an offense entailing expiation as soon as one passes through the doorway. If one prepares to depart but then turns back, or regrets the intention, one commits a dukkata in every case. If two bhikkhus sit together, the junior should put the articles away. If the junior does not put them away, he commits two offenses, while the senior commits one offense entailing expiation. If neither puts them away, both commit an offense entailing expiation.

Furthermore, if rope-beds, beds, chairs, and so forth are not put away, or if the inner or outer layers of bedding or sitting mats are not put away, one commits a dukkata in every case. If one spreads Sangha property in the open and then enters a room, sits, and meditates, one commits a dukkata.

– Cases in which there is no offense: After spreading Sangha property in the open, before departing one informs a long-term resident, a mamati,[65] or an attendant, making known to them the procedures described above; in every such case, there is no offense.

15. The Precept Concerning Spreading Sangha Property in a Sheltered Place

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a visiting bhikkhu spread bedding in an adjoining room and slept there overnight. Afterward, he departed without saying anything. Consequently, the bedding became rotten and torn, was gnawed by insects, and faded. When the bhikkhus learned of this fault, they reported it to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, in a room belonging to the Sangha, spreads Sangha bedding, either spreading it himself or having someone else spread it, and either sits or lies upon it, but upon departing neither puts it away himself nor has someone else put it away, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– In a room belonging to the Sangha, spreads Sangha bedding: a corded bed, wooden bed, bedding, mattress, sitting mat, pillow, floor covering, or even a woolen sleeping rug.

– Either spreading it himself or having someone else spread it, and either sits or lies upon it, but upon departing neither puts it away himself nor has someone else put it away: he should say to a bhikkhu who is staying there for a long time, “Please put this away for me.” If there is no one to whom he can entrust it and there is no fear that it will be lost, he should move the bed beside the wall and raise its legs, place the pillow, mattress, and bedding inside, and then cover them with coarse, inferior articles. If he fears that they may be damaged, he should hang the bedding and other such articles on a clothes rack, stand the bed upright, and then depart. If he does not do so but leaves, he commits a pacittiya offense upon passing beyond the boundary. If, having intended to leave, he turns back, he commits a duskrta offense of regret. If he leaves and immediately returns, or remains beyond the boundary for two nights, but before the sign of dawn appears on the third night neither returns himself nor sends someone to retrieve and put the articles away, he commits a pacittiya offense.

– Pacittiya.

– Cases in which there is no offense: besides circumstances similar to the allowable expedients under the preceding precept, if, while beyond the boundary, he is prevented by blocked roads, or encounters a danger to the holy life, a danger to his life, and so forth, these are all permitted.

16. The Precept on Crowding In and Spreading Bedding

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus and the group of seventeen bhikkhus were traveling together to another village where there was no residence for bhikkhus. The group of seventeen bhikkhus then sought lodging for themselves. Knowing that the group of seventeen bhikkhus had found a place to sleep, the group of six bhikkhus went there, crowded in among them, spread bedding, and lay down to sleep. When the bhikkhus learned of this, they reported it to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, knowing that a resting place belongs to a bhikkhu who arrived earlier, deliberately comes afterward and crowds into the space among them to spread bedding and rest, thinking, ‘If that person finds it too cramped, he will go elsewhere of his own accord,’ acting for precisely this reason and no other, such conduct being improper, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: one who does not know is permitted.

– That a resting place belongs to a bhikkhu who arrived earlier, deliberately comes afterward and crowds into the space among them: whether at the head, at the feet, or on either side.

– Spreads bedding: whether spreading grass, spreading leaves, or even spreading a floor covering or a woolen sleeping rug.

– To rest, thinking, ‘If that person finds it too cramped, he will go elsewhere of his own accord,’ acting for precisely this reason and no other, such conduct being improper, he commits a pacittiya offense: each time he turns over and his hip touches the bed, he commits a pacittiya offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he did not know beforehand; if he speaks to the person already there; if the door was already open; if the place is spacious and they do not obstruct one another; or if the door is closed from outside. Or if an old close friend says, “Spread your bedding; I will speak with the owner.” Or if he falls to the ground; if, due to illness, he turns over and falls upon it; if he is compelled by force; if he is bound and confined; or if there is a danger to his life or a danger to the holy life—in all such cases, there is no offense.

17. The Precept on Expelling Someone from a Room

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus and the group of seventeen bhikkhus were traveling together to a certain small residence. The group of seventeen bhikkhus arrived first, entered the monastery, swept it, and sprinkled it with water until it was clean. When the group of six learned that the group of seventeen bhikkhus had obtained a good place, they expelled them and dragged them outside. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, angry and displeased with another bhikkhu, either drags that bhikkhu out of a Sangha room himself or has another person drag him out, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Angry and displeased with another bhikkhu, either drags that bhikkhu out of a Sangha room himself or has another person drag him out: whether he drags him out himself or orders someone else to drag him out. The offense is determined according to the extent of the dragging and according to each exit from a room. If he drags many people through one doorway, or drags one person through many doorways, he commits multiple pacittiya offenses. If he drags one person through one doorway, he commits one pacittiya offense. If he carries many belongings out through the doorway, throws them outside the doorway, or shuts the door and leaves the person outside, he commits a duskrta offense in each case.

– Pacittiya.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he has no angry or resentful intent and people leave in proper order; if he expels someone who has not received full ordination; or if he expels one who has broken the precepts, holds corrupt views, violates proper deportment, has been formally censured, or has been expelled from the Sangha. If, for reasons such as these, the person could cause a danger to life or a danger to the holy life and is therefore expelled, there is no offense in any such case.

18. The Precept on Sitting upon a Bed with Unsecured Legs

a. Origin

The Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a bhikkhu on an upper story sat upon a bed whose legs had come loose from their joints. A bed leg therefore fell and struck a bhikkhu below, injuring him and causing him to bleed. The bhikkhu below looked upward and angrily cursed and reviled him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, whether in a room or on an upper story, lies or sits upon a corded bed or wooden bed with inserted legs, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Whether in a room: whether a Sangha room or a private room.

– Or on an upper story: a place where one can stand without striking one’s head.

– A corded bed or wooden bed with inserted legs: “inserted” means fitted into mortises.

– Either sits or lies upon it: the offense occurs whenever his hip comes into contact with the bed and whenever he turns over.

– Pacittiya: apart from a bed with inserted legs, if he sits upon a single-seat bed, a bed made from one plank, or a bathing bed,[66] he commits a duskrta offense in every case.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he sits upon a bed with lathe-turned legs, straight legs, curved legs, no legs, or large legs; if the inserted legs have been securely fastened; if boards have been laid on the upper story; if carved woodwork or a thick covering has been installed as protection; if he turns the bed upside down and sits upon it; or if he removes the bed’s legs and then sits upon it—in all such cases, there is no offense.

19. The Precept on Using Water Containing Living Creatures

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Kausambi. At that time, the bhikkhu Chanda undertook the construction of a room and either personally used water containing living creatures to mix mud or had someone else mix it. When the householders saw this, they criticized him, saying, “These Sakyan ascetics do not possess the true Dharma; they destroy the lives of living beings.” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, knowing that water contains living creatures, either pours it himself upon mud or grass or has another person pour it, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know, there is no offense.

– If water containing living creatures is personally poured upon mud or grass, or another is told to pour it; or if grass or earth is thrown into water containing living creatures; or if fruit juice, clear fruit liquid, or vinegar is poured upon mud or grass, in every case a pācittiya offense is committed. Telling another person to do so constitutes the same offense.

– Pācittiya.

– Cases in which there is no offense: one does not know that living creatures are present; one believes that no living creatures are present; the creatures are large; one stirs the water by hand, causing the creatures to move away; or one pours filtered water upon the ground or tells another person to filter it. In all such cases, there is no offense.

20. The Precept Against Thatching a Dwelling Beyond the Limit

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Kosambī. At that time, the bhikkhu Channa was building a dwelling and continued thatching it without stopping, causing the dwelling to collapse. The householders criticized him, saying: “Even if donors make offerings without weariness, the recipient ought to know moderation!” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu has a large dwelling built, he may direct that the roofing around the door, the window frames, and the various decorations be thatched to a depth of two or three layers; if he has more than this laid, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Has a large dwelling built: a dwelling requiring the use of abundant resources and materials.

– The door, window frames, and various decorations: carved ornamental designs.

– Directs that it be thatched: there are two methods of thatching, lengthwise and crosswise.

– To a depth of two or three layers; if he has more than this laid: before the third layer directed by that bhikkhu is completed, he should go to a place where he can neither see nor hear the work. If he does not go to a place where he can neither see nor hear, then when the third layer is completed, he commits a pācittiya offense.

– Pācittiya: if he leaves a place within hearing and goes to a place within sight, or leaves a place within sight and goes to a place within hearing, in every case he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he gives directions as above and then withdraws far away, there is no offense.

21. The Precept Against Instructing Bhikkhunīs on One’s Own Authority

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sāvatthī. At that time, the bhikkhunī Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī came to request instruction. The Buddha told the Venerable Ānanda to have a senior bhikkhu appointed to admonish the bhikkhunīs. The Venerable Ānanda then went before the Sangha and, in due order, appointed the bhikkhu Panthaka to go to the community of bhikkhunīs and teach the Dharma. The group of six bhikkhus likewise went in turn to the bhikkhunīs, but they discussed only worldly matters. Therefore, the bhikkhunī Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī went and reported this to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha instructed that a bhikkhu must be appointed through a formal Sangha act to admonish them, and he established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, without being appointed by the Sangha, admonishes the bhikkhunīs, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Sangha: those sharing the same recitation of the precepts and the same formal Sangha acts.

– Not appointed: he has not been appointed within the Sangha by a motion followed by one proclamation.

– Instruction: the Eight Principles Not to Be Transgressed. These eight principles are set forth in full in the Vinaya text.

– Bhikkhunīs: pācittiya.

At the time of the recitation of the precepts, after the person outside has asked and received a response, the Sangha may appoint a bhikkhu, or the community of bhikkhunīs may make a request. The appointed bhikkhu must arrive at the agreed time. The bhikkhunīs must likewise receive him at the agreed time.

If either party fails to keep the appointment, they commit a dukkaṭa offense. Upon hearing that the bhikkhu is coming, the bhikkhunīs must go out half a yojana to welcome him and provide the requisites he needs; if they fail to do so, they commit a dukkaṭa offense. If a bhikkhu who has not been appointed by the Sangha comes on a day not designated for instruction and teaches the Eight Principles Not to Be Transgressed, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

If, without being appointed by the Sangha, he comes and teaches the Dharma, he commits a pācittiya offense. If the Bhikkhu Sangha is ill, not in harmony, or lacks the required quorum, the bhikkhunīs should send someone to pay respects and inquire after them. If the Bhikkhunī Sangha is ill, the Bhikkhu Sangha should likewise send someone to pay respects and inquire after them.

Failure to do so constitutes a dukkaṭa offense. Bhikkhunīs and members of the two lower assemblies, and so forth, commit a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if the community of bhikkhunīs makes the arrangements described above but roads are cut off or dangers arise, making it impossible to travel back and forth to pay respects and inquire after one another, there is no offense.

22. The Precept Against Teaching the Dharma to Bhikkhunīs Until Evening

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sāvatthī. At that time, the bhikkhu Nanda was appointed by the Sangha to admonish the bhikkhunīs. After instructing them, the bhikkhu Nanda sat in silence. The bhikkhunī Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī then requested him to continue teaching the Dharma. Thus, the bhikkhu Nanda taught the Dharma until evening. When the bhikkhunīs left Jetavana Monastery to return to the city of Sāvatthī, the city gates had already been closed, so they had to spend the night beside the moat within the city. Consequently, they were criticized by worldly people. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, although appointed by the Sangha, instructs the bhikkhunīs until sunset, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Appointed by the Sangha: one appointment for each occasion of instruction, through one formal Sangha act.

– Instruction: appointment within the Sangha by a motion followed by one proclamation.

– Bhikkhunīs until sunset: the bhikkhu appointed by the Sangha to instruct the bhikkhunīs must return before sunset. Apart from formal instruction, if he teaches scripture, leads scriptural recitation, answers questions, or attends to other matters until sunset, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. Apart from bhikkhunīs, if he teaches scripture and so forth to women or other persons until sunset, in every case he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Pācittiya: a bhikkhunī commits a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: he instructs the bhikkhunīs but stops before the sun has set. Apart from women, he teaches other persons; or he teaches the Dharma aboard a ferryboat and bhikkhunīs happen to hear it; or he teaches the Dharma to merchants at night; or he is within a bhikkhunī monastery; or he teaches at another person’s invitation; or bhikkhunīs encounter a Dharma teaching already in progress and listen to it. In all such cases, there is no offense.

23. The Precept Against Disparaging an Instructor

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sāvatthī. At that time, when the bhikkhunīs heard that the instructor was coming, they went out to welcome him and provided the requisites he needed. The group of six bhikkhus then became jealous and said: “Those bhikkhus are insincere; they instruct the bhikkhunīs only for the sake of food.” The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On this occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu says to other bhikkhus, “The bhikkhu instructs the bhikkhunīs for the sake of food and drink,” it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

If he speaks ambiguously, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. Bhikkhunīs and others commit a dukkaṭa offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: the matter is truly so—that is, the bhikkhu instructs the bhikkhunīs for the sake of food, drink, and offerings. If he teaches them to recite scripture, study scripture, or answer questions for the sake of food and drink; or if he speaks in jest or by mistake, in all such cases there is no offense.

24. The Precept Against Giving Robes to an Unrelated Bhikkhunī

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, there was a bhikkhu who went on almsround with fully dignified conduct. A bhikkhuni saw him, developed a favorable regard for him, and invited him many times, but he did not accept.

Later, he gave the bhikkhuni his allotted share of robe-cloth. The bhikkhuni immediately accepted it. Therefore, the bhikkhu reproached that bhikkhuni, saying: “I have repeatedly told others: ‘This bhikkhuni has invited me many times.

She set aside her portion of food for me, but I did not accept it.’ Therefore, I thought: This bhikkhuni has invited me many times and set aside her portion of food for me, yet I did not accept it; now I shall give this share of robe-cloth to this bhikkhuni, thinking that she likewise will not accept it, and thus we shall be even with one another. But you accepted it.” The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu gives robe-cloth to a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, except in exchange, it is a pacittiya offense.

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Gives to a bhikkhuni who is not a relative: as explained above.

– Robe-cloth: the ten kinds of robe-cloth stated above.

– Except in exchange: exchanging robe-cloth for robe-cloth, exchanging it for something other than robe-cloth, for a needle, for a knife, or for sewing thread, even down to a pound of medicinal herbs.

– Pacittiya: the bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: there is no offense in giving robe-cloth to a bhikkhuni who is a relative, in exchanging with one another, or in giving it to a stupa, to the Buddha, or to the Sangha.

25. The Precept against Sewing a Robe for a Bhikkhuni Who Is Not a Relative

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Kaludayin sewed an outer robe for a bhikkhuni. He fashioned upon the robe an image of a man and a woman engaged in sexual intercourse. When he had finished sewing it, he gave it to the bhikkhuni and instructed her: “When you wear it, you must walk behind the assembly of the Bhikkhuni Sangha.” The laypeople who saw it became offended and critical. The bhikkhuni reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu sews a robe for a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

That bhikkhu commits an offense entailing forfeiture with every cut made by the knife, whether many or few, and with every act of sewing and every stitch of the needle. If he tries it on to inspect it, stretches it out and irons it flat, smooths it with his hand, pulls its corners straight, folds it, binds its border, ties the thread, or joins the thread, in every case he commits a dukkata offense. The bhikkhuni also commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: there is no offense in sewing for a bhikkhuni who is a relative, sewing for the Sangha, sewing for a stupa, or borrowing a robe to wear and then washing and dyeing it before returning it to its owner.

26. The Precept against Sitting with a Bhikkhuni

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Kaludayin and the bhikkhuni Thullananda were both attractive, and each harbored lustful intentions toward the other. One day, the two arranged to sit together in one place outside the gate. When the laypeople saw them, they criticized them, saying: “Everyone, look at them; they resemble a pair of mandarin ducks.” The bhikkhus heard this and reported it to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu sits alone with a bhikkhuni in a secluded, screened place, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Together with a bhikkhuni: a place where there is only one bhikkhu and one bhikkhuni.

– A secluded place: there are two kinds. A place concealed from sight is one where dust, mist, smoke, clouds, or darkness prevents one from being seen. A place obstructed from hearing is one where even ordinary sounds cannot be heard.

– A screened place: one concealed by trees, walls, fences, cloth, or other objects.

– Sitting: if the third person is blind but not deaf, deaf but not blind, or if they are standing together, in every case a dukkata offense is committed.

– Pacittiya: the bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: there is no offense if that bhikkhu has a companion or a discerning person present, who must meet one of two conditions: blind but not deaf, or deaf but not blind. Nor is there an offense if, while passing along the road, he faints, falls because of illness, is seized by force, or faces danger to the holy life, danger to life, and so forth.

27. The Precept against Traveling on the Same Road with a Bhikkhuni

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus and the group of six bhikkhunis traveled together through the countryside. Because of this, the laypeople ridiculed them. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu makes an arrangement with a bhikkhuni and travels together with her along the same road from one village to another, except on a proper occasion, it is a pacittiya offense. A proper occasion is when traveling together with a caravan, or when there is cause for suspicion or fear. This is called a proper occasion.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu and bhikkhuni: the meaning is as explained above.

– Makes an arrangement: saying that they will go together to such a village, such a city, such a country, and so forth.

– Travels together along the same road: the distance between two villages, with boundaries and a road.

– From one village to another: according to the number of settlements and the number of boundaries crossed, an offense entailing forfeiture is committed for each one. If it is not a village, or if they travel through wilderness, an offense entailing forfeiture is committed upon traveling as far as ten miles. If they have not yet reached a village or traveled ten miles, or if they travel among many villages within a single common boundary, a dukkata offense is committed. In making preparations to go and arranging to travel together, they commit a dukkata offense in every case.

– Except on a proper occasion, it is a pacittiya offense. A proper occasion is when traveling together with a caravan or when there is cause for suspicion: suspicion that bandits or robbers are present.

– There is fear: fear that bandits or robbers are present.

– This is called a proper occasion: the bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: there is no offense if they have made no arrangement, if many companions travel together, if the place gives cause for suspicion or fear, if reaching that place will bring safety, if they are seized by force, or if there is danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth.

28. The Precept against Traveling in the Same Boat with a Bhikkhuni

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus and six bhikkhunis traveled in the same boat, going upstream and downstream. When the laypeople saw this, they became offended and discussed it among themselves. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu makes an arrangement with a bhikkhuni and travels in the same boat with her, whether upstream or downstream, except when crossing directly to the opposite bank, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

– Makes an arrangement with a bhikkhuni and travels in the same boat with her, whether upstream or downstream: if he enters the boat, he commits an offense entailing forfeiture; preparatory acts constitute dukkata offenses.

– Except when crossing directly to the opposite bank, it is a pacittiya offense: the bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: there is no offense if they have made no arrangement; if they cross directly to the opposite bank; if, after they enter the boat, the boatman loses his way and must travel upstream or downstream; if reaching the opposite bank will bring safety; if they are seized by force; or if there is danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth. 71

29. The Precept against Accepting Food Procured through a Bhikkhuni's Exhortation

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a householder invited the Venerable Sariputra and others to receive a meal. The elder prepared food and arranged fine seats. The bhiksuni Sthulananda learned of this and said to the householder, “The bhiksus you have invited are all lowly men.” The bhiksuni Sthulananda continued, “If I were inviting them, I would invite Devadatta and the other bhiksus, for they are dragons among dragons.” After receiving the meal and returning, the Venerable Sariputra related the matter fully to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked this conduct and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhiksu eats food that he knows was obtained through the praise and solicitation of a bhiksuni, except when the donor had already formed the intention to give, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhiksu: as explained above.

– Knows: if he does not know, there is no offense.

– Praise and solicitation by a bhiksuni: for example, saying, “He is a forest-dweller who lives by the practice of alms-round,” and so forth, up to saying, “He keeps the three robes, recites verses of praise, is a learned Dharma teacher, upholds the Vinaya, and practices meditation.”

– Eats the food obtained: food received from dawn until noon.

– Except when the donor had already formed the intention to give, it is a pacittiya offense: with each morsel swallowed, a pacittiya offense is committed. Apart from food, if he receives other things such as an undergarment, a lamp, or oil, he commits a duskrta offense. The bhiksuni and others commit a duskrta offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he did not know; if the donor had already formed the intention to give; if he merely supposed that solicitation had occurred; if the bhiksuni prepared it herself; if the donor asked the bhiksuni to prepare it; or if, without deliberately soliciting, she obtained it on alms-round and then gave it to someone—all such cases entail no offense.

30. Precept on Traveling Together with a Woman

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a daughter-in-law in the city quarreled with her mother-in-law and left to return to the country of Vaisali. The Venerable Aniruddha was also intending to go to Vaisali, so the two traveled together. Later, her husband caught up with them. Seeing the two traveling together, he beat the Venerable Aniruddha nearly to death. When the bhiksus learned of the matter, they reported it to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked this conduct and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhiksu makes an arrangement with a woman and travels together with her, even as far as the distance between two villages, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

If they travel together within the bounds of a single village, he commits a duskrta offense. A bhiksuni and members of the other four assemblies likewise all commit a duskrta offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he did not know beforehand; if they made no prior arrangement; if it was necessary to go there in order to reach safety; if he was compelled by force; or if they encountered dangers—all such cases entail no offense.

31. Precept on a Lodging That Provides One Meal

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, there was a village in the country of Kosala that had no lodging place. A householder built a lodging and regularly offered one meal to bhiksus. The group of six bhiksus accepted the offering repeatedly, so the householder said, “Our original vow was only to provide for those who stay temporarily for a single night.” The bhiksus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked this conduct and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

At a lodging that provides one meal, a bhiksu who is not ill should accept only one meal. If he accepts more than one meal, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhiksu: as explained above.

– A lodging that provides one meal: he stays there for one night. The food extends up to the proper mealtime.

– A bhiksu who is not ill: one is considered ill if leaving that village would aggravate the illness.

– Should accept only one meal; if he accepts more than one meal: with each morsel eaten, he commits an offense entailing downfall. Apart from food, if he receives other things such as an undergarment, a lamp, or oil, he commits a duskrta offense in each case.

– Pacittiya: a bhiksuni commits the same offense as a bhiksu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he stays only one night and accepts only one meal; if he is ill, he may accept more than one meal. If the householder invites him to remain, saying, “We have prepared this food for the Sakyaputra ascetics”; if donors invite him to receive meals in succession; if uncles, aunts, elder sisters, or grandmothers invite him in succession; if he accepts food from one person today and from another person tomorrow; or if the road is cut off and he encounters dangers, and so forth—all such cases entail no offense.

32. Precept on Eating Repeatedly

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was journeying among the people from the city of Rajagrha to the country of Anapinda. At that time, a man named Sanu offered gruel. The Buddha permitted the consumption of gruel. From then on, the bhiksus were permitted to eat thick gruel. Later, during a festival, donors presented food, which the bhiksus accepted and consumed. Afterward, they accepted invitations from other people as well. Because of this, they were ridiculed by the people of the world. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked this conduct and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhiksu eats repeatedly, except under special circumstances, it is a pacittiya offense. The special circumstances are a time of illness and a time when robes are being offered. These are called the special circumstances.

c. Explanation

– Bhiksu: as explained above.

– Eats repeatedly: this refers to invitations. There are two kinds of invitation: invitations made according to order and individual invitations.

– Food: cooked rice, provisions, dried rice, and so forth.

– Except under special circumstances, it is a pacittiya offense. The special circumstances are a time of illness: when one cannot become sufficiently full from a single meal.

– A time when robes are being offered: after the Pravarana, the period is one month if there is no kathina robe and five months if there is a kathina robe. It also applies when invitations to receive meals and offerings of robes are made in many places.

– These are called the special circumstances: if he does not decline the earlier invitation but accepts a later invitation, he commits an offense entailing downfall with every morsel eaten. If he does not decline the later invitation but accepts the earlier invitation, he commits a duskrta offense with every morsel eaten.

– Cases in which there is no offense: during illness or when robes are being offered. If invitations are received from many places in a single day, he may accept only one and transfer the others to other bhiksus, saying, “Venerable sir, I ought to go to that place, but I offer it to you instead.” If he is given things that are not food; if he has not eaten enough; if there was no one who invited him; if he receives food again after eating; or if a single lodging provides an earlier meal and a later meal—all such cases entail no offense.

33. Precept on Eating in a Separate Group

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Rajagrha. At that time, Devadatta had sent someone to harm the Buddha and had also incited King Ajatasatru to kill his father. Consequently, his ill repute spread far and wide, and he lost all offerings and support. Devadatta then went separately on alms-round with five bhiksus. The bhiksus reported this transgression to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked this conduct and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhiksu eats in a separate group,[67] except under other circumstances, it is a pacittiya offense. The other circumstances are a time of illness, a time of making robes, a time when robes are being offered, a time of traveling by road, a time of traveling by boat, a time when a large assembly gathers, and a time when ascetics offer food. These are the other circumstances.

c. Explanation

– Bhiksu: as explained above.

– Eating in a separate group: a group of four persons or more than four persons.

– Food: this includes such foods as cooked rice, provisions, dried rice, and so forth.

– Except under other circumstances, it is a pacittiya offense. The other circumstances are a time of illness: even to the extent of having a sprained heel.

– A time of making robes: after the day of Pravarana, the period is one month if there is no kathina robe and five months if there is a kathina robe. It applies even if only a single seam as large as a horse’s tooth remains to be sewn on the upper robe.

– A time when robes are being offered: the same as in the preceding precept.

– A time of traveling by road: even if one travels only half a yojana, counting both the outward and return journeys.

– When traveling by boat: this applies to traveling by boat either downstream or upstream within half a yojana.

– When the assembly gathers: if there is enough food for four people but one additional person remains, the situation is difficult to manage. If there are five people, ten people, or even one hundred people, with one additional person remaining, the situation is distressing.

– When ascetics offer food: here, this refers only to renunciants other than the ascetic sons of the Sakyan, and to those who have gone forth among non-Buddhist sectarians.

– These are the other circumstances: if there is no reason for eating in a separate group, that bhikkhu should say, “I have no valid circumstance for taking part in this separate-group meal. I ask to leave the group.” The Buddha also permitted those without a valid circumstance to leave the group. If there are only two or three people, they may eat as they wish. If there are four or more, they should divide into two groups and enter to eat in turn. If a bhikkhu who has a valid circumstance for eating in a separate group wishes to enter, he must say, “I have a valid circumstance for eating in a separate group. I wish to enter.” The Buddha taught, “They should take their seats in order of seniority, beginning with the senior elder.” If one has a valid circumstance but does not declare it, one commits a dukkata. In accordance with eating in a separate group, one commits a pacittiya with every mouthful eaten. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases involving no offense: those stated above; or when there are two or three people; when they enter to eat in turn; when one declares that there is a valid circumstance; or when one leaves the group—in all such cases, there is no offense.

34. The Rule on Accepting Food Beyond the Permitted Amount

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a woman was preparing to return to her husband’s home, but because she repeatedly had to cook food as an offering for the bhikkhus, the appointed time passed and she was unable to return. By the time that woman reached her husband’s home, her husband had taken another wife.

On another occasion, a merchant repeatedly offered his own share of food to the bhikkhus, and consequently his caravan departed ahead of him. Because he left late, he was robbed by bandits. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that account, the Buddha rebuked them and established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu goes to the home of a layperson who invites him to accept food such as cakes or provisions, the bhikkhu, if he needs them, should accept two or three bowls. Having accepted two or three bowls and returned to the Sangha monastery, he should distribute them among the other bhikkhus for their use. If a bhikkhu who is not ill accepts more than two or three bowls and, after returning to the Sangha monastery, does not share them with the other bhikkhus for their use, he commits a pacittiya.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Goes to the home of a layperson: a household where there is a man or a woman.

– A layperson invites him to accept food such as cakes or provisions; if the bhikkhu needs them, he should accept two or three bowls; having accepted two or three bowls and returned to the Sangha monastery, he should distribute them among the other bhikkhus for their use: if he does not bring the food back, he must inform the bhikkhus that the household has food prepared by a woman to take to her husband’s home or traveling provisions belonging to a merchant. If he wishes to eat, he may eat and then bring back approximately two or three bowls. If one bowl or two bowls have already been brought back, each must be reported to the bhikkhus. If he himself is the one carrying away the third bowl, he should not bring back any more.

– If a bhikkhu who is not ill: one who is unable to satisfy himself with a single meal because the fine food has been exhausted.

– Accepts more than two or three bowls and returns to the Sangha monastery: upon passing beyond the door of that house, he commits a pacittiya. In the preliminary actions, he commits a dukkata.

– Does not share them with the other bhikkhus for their use: if he eats alone, he commits a dukkata.

– Pacittiya: if he neither inquires whether it is food a woman is taking to her husband’s home or traveling provisions belonging to a merchant, nor informs the other bhikkhus, in every such case he commits a dukkata.

– Cases involving no offense: accepting two or three bowls; accepting more because of illness; having made the inquiry; sharing the food; informing others of the village where it may be found; accepting it when the donors themselves bring it to the Sangha in the monastery; or accepting it when they themselves bring it to a bhikkhuni monastery—in all such cases, there is no offense.

35. The Rule Concerning One Who Has Eaten His Fill

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Buddha taught the practice of eating once. Having heard the Buddha’s teaching, the bhikkhus ate only the five kinds of staple food until they were satisfied. Later, because they ate only once, the bhikkhus became thin and haggard. The Buddha therefore permitted an attendant caring for the sick to eat food left over by the sick person. He also allowed the formal procedure for making food allowable as leftovers. However, some people craved leftover food but did not understand the formal procedure for leftovers. On that account, the Buddha rebuked them and established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu, having eaten his fill or having accepted an invitation to a meal, eats again without performing the formal procedure for leftovers, he commits a pacittiya.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Or having accepted an invitation to a meal: regarding food, if he has eaten any one of the five kinds of staple food—rice, provisions, dried rice, and so forth—and has eaten his fill.

– Without performing the formal procedure for leftovers: that bhikkhu brings the food and performs the procedure, saying, “Venerable sir, I have eaten my fill. Please acknowledge it and inspect it.” This is the formal procedure for leftovers. The other bhikkhu should take a little and eat it. Having eaten, he should say to the bhikkhu performing the procedure, “I have completed the procedure; you may take it and eat.” That bhikkhu cannot perform the formal procedure for leftovers by himself.

– Eats again without performing the formal procedure for leftovers—a pacittiya: in this connection, actions such as walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all set forth in complete formulations, and the cases constituting offenses are fully described as in the Vinaya.[68] There are five kinds of khadaniya food, including roots, leaves, flowers, fruits, oil, sesame, dark sugar, and finely ground foods. If that bhikkhu, having eaten his fill and without performing the formal procedure for leftovers, obtains food and eats it, he commits a pacittiya with every mouthful. If, after eating, he performs the formal procedure for leftovers on behalf of another; if, knowing that another has already eaten his fill, he performs the formal procedure for leftovers; if he holds the food in his own hand while performing the procedure; places the food on the ground while performing it; instructs an attendant to perform the formal procedure for leftovers; uses food upon which an attendant had already previously performed the procedure; covers it with unpalatable food and then performs the procedure; or carries it away—in all such cases, although it becomes food formally made allowable as leftovers, he commits a dukkata. Bhikkhunis and the other four assemblies all commit a dukkata.

– Cases involving no offense: food that one perceives not to be food; not accepting food upon which the formal procedure for leftovers has been performed; and cases contrary to the prohibitions above. If one is ill and does not perform the formal procedure for leftovers; if the food is another person’s leftovers and one does not perform the procedure; or if the formal procedure for leftovers has already been performed—in all such cases, there is no offense.

36. The Rule Against Encouraging Another to Violate the Rule of Sufficient Food

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, two brothers were both bhikkhus. One of them delighted in food and drink and did not understand what constituted having eaten sufficient food or not having eaten sufficient food, or what constituted food formally made allowable as leftovers or food not so made; whenever he obtained food, he ate it. Because of this, one bhikkhu criticized him for his fault, and he harbored resentment. One day, this bhikkhu, knowing that the other bhikkhu had already eaten, compelled him to eat more and then turned around and criticized him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that account, the Buddha rebuked him and established this rule.

b. Text of the Rule

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has eaten sufficient food or has accepted an invitation to a meal, and that he has not performed the formal procedure for leftovers, persistently invites him to eat, saying, “Elder, please partake of this food!” solely for the purpose of causing the other to violate a rule and for no other reason, he commits a pacittiya.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know, there is no offense.

– Another bhikkhu has eaten sufficient food: there are five kinds of food, as stated above.

– Or has accepted an invitation to a meal: there are likewise five cases, as stated above.

– Without performing the procedure for leftover food, he earnestly invites another to eat, saying, “Elder, please partake of this food!” solely for the purpose of… and for no other reason: if he did not previously know, thought that the other had not eaten enough, gave it to be discarded, gave it so that the procedure for leftover food might be performed, sent someone to take it to another person, had not yet performed the procedure for leftover food and told the other to perform it, gave food left over by a sick person, or had performed the procedure for leftover food without intending to cause another person to commit an offense.

– Intending to cause another person to commit an offense: if the bhikkhu accepts and eats it, with every mouthful both incur a pācittiya offense. If food is given to him but that bhikkhu discards it, accepts and stores it, or accepts and gives it to someone else; if that bhikkhu accepts it and then performs the procedure for leftover food; if one takes food belonging to a sick person with the intention of causing another to commit an offense, gives another person food left over by a sick person, or performs the procedure for leftover food and then gives it with the intention of causing another to commit an offense—as in the cases above—the giver incurs a duṣkṛta offense in every case.

– Pācittiya: bhikkhunīs, the four assemblies, and so forth, all incur a duṣkṛta offense.

37. The Precept against Eating at an Improper Time

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rājagṛha. At that time, the people of the city were holding a festival. The Śākyan sons Nanda and Upananda went together to watch the music and entertainment and accepted food and drink, returning to the mountain only in the evening. One day, likewise at twilight, the bhikkhu Kāludāyin entered the city to seek alms. In a flash of lightning amid the thunder, a woman saw the bhikkhu Kāludāyin and, terrified, cried aloud, “A ghost! A ghost!” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu accepts food at an improper time and eats it, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Improper time: the proper time extends from sunrise until midday. This is the time in accordance with the Dharma for eating. The inhabitants of the four continents also eat in this manner. The improper time extends from midday until the signs of dawn have not yet appeared.

– Accepts food: there are two kinds of food, khādanīya and bhojanīya, each of which has five types, as stated above.

– And eats it, he commits a pācittiya offense: if any bhikkhu accepts food at an improper time and eats it, he commits a pācittiya offense with every mouthful. If he accepts and consumes food kept beyond the proper time, medicine allowable for seven days, or medicine kept beyond seven days, he commits a pācittiya offense in each case. If it is medicine allowable for life and he uses it without a valid reason, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: when making dark sugar, the procedure must be carried out in this manner. If a sick person has taken a purgative and more than one day has passed, barley may be cooked without allowing the husks to burst, and the liquid may be strained and drunk. If food rises into the throat through vomiting and is swallowed again, there is no offense in any of these cases.

38. The Precept against Eating Food Kept Overnight

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rājagṛha. At that time, Venerable Kāla practiced meditation, yet each day he also had to carry his alms bowl into the city to seek food. One day, the Venerable thought, “Why should I trouble myself by seeking alms every day?

It would be better for me to eat the food obtained previously and bring back whatever food I obtain now.” At the times of the morning meal and the main meal, the bhikkhus did not see Venerable Kāla, so they divided into groups to search for him. Venerable Kāla then explained the reason in full. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha.

The Buddha rebuked him, saying, “Although your intention is to have few desires, sentient beings in later generations will imitate your conduct.” Thereupon, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu eats food kept overnight, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Food kept overnight: food accepted today and retained until the following day. For any Śākyan renunciant who has received full ordination to eat such food is impure.

– Food: there are two kinds, namely secondary food and staple food. Secondary food includes roots and the other kinds through finely ground food. Staple food includes rice, dried provisions, meat, and so forth.

– Eats: if one eats food that has passed one night, one commits a pācittiya offense with every mouthful swallowed. If one consumes food at an improper time, medicine allowable for seven days, or medicine kept beyond its permitted period, one also commits a pācittiya offense. If one takes medicine allowable for life when not ill, one commits a duṣkṛta offense.

– Pācittiya.

– Cases in which there is no offense: food received at night may be given to one’s parents or to a person working on a stupa, its value being reckoned as equal to the labor performed. Thereafter, the bhikkhu may obtain food by seeking alms from that worker. If an alms bowl is cracked and food becomes lodged in the crack, it must be washed in accordance with the Dharma. If some food remains and cannot be removed, there is no offense. If oil or ghee is received at night for use as nasal drops, and when administered it flows down into the mouth, it should all be spat out. If some residue remains, there is no offense.

39. The Precept against Eating Food That Has Not Been Offered

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Śrāvastī. At that time, people in the city whose parents or others had died prepared food and drink and arranged sacrificial offerings at crossroads and even within shrines. A bhikkhu wearing rag robes went out to seek alms. He took this food on his own initiative and ate it. Consequently, the laypeople ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu places in his mouth food or medicine that has not been formally given and received, except water and a tooth-cleaning stick, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Has not been formally given and received: if food has not been offered, it may not be accepted. There are five ways of receiving: it is given by hand and received by hand; given by hand and received with an implement; given with an implement and received by hand; given with an implement and received with an implement; or conveyed from a distance by means of an implement, while both giver and receiver know that there is no obstruction across that distance and the object can fall into the receiver’s hand. These are called the five ways of receiving.

There are also five other ways of receiving: giving by means of the body and receiving by means of the body; giving by means of the robe and receiving by means of the robe; giving with a bent arm and receiving with a bent arm; giving with a container and receiving with a container; or, when there is a valid reason, placing it on the ground as an offering. These are called the five ways of receiving.

– Food: khādanīya food includes the various kinds from roots through finely ground food. There are also other kinds of food, such as rice, dried provisions, dried rice, and so forth.

– Or medicine: sāyanīya substances include ghee, oil, fresh butter, honey, and rock sugar.

– Places in his mouth: if food has not been offered and one takes it oneself and places it in one’s mouth, one commits a pācittiya offense with every mouthful. If one consumes food at an improper time, medicine allowable for seven days, or medicine kept beyond its permitted period, one also commits a pācittiya offense. If it is medicine allowable for life and one accepts and takes it without a valid reason, one commits a duṣkṛta offense.

– Except water and a tooth-cleaning stick, he commits a pācittiya offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: one may take clean water and a tooth-cleaning stick. If milk or oil that has not been formally given and received is administered through the nose and then completely spat out, any residue that remains entails no offense. If, while a bhikkhu is seeking alms, a bird flies overhead carrying food in its beak, or the wind blows food into his bowl, and he wishes to remove that food—even if he uses only one fingernail to remove it—any residue that remains entails no offense.

40. The Precept against Requesting Fine Food

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda had a merchant guild-master as his donor. One day, the bhikkhu Upananda went on almsround and then came to the guild-master’s house, saying, “I wish to have food possessing all the flavors.” The guild-master asked, “Venerable sir, what illness do you have that you require such food?” The bhikkhu Upananda replied, “I have no illness; I merely desire such food.” Because of this, the guild-master ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, being without illness, asks for his own sake such fine foods as milk, butter, fish, or meat, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Illness: even to the extent of lacking sufficient strength to finish a single meal.

– Asks for his own sake, it is a pacittiya offense: a bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: an ill person asks for himself, or one asks on behalf of an ill person, obtains the food, and eats it. Or one asks for another person, another person asks on one’s behalf, or one receives it without asking; in all such cases there is no offense.

41. Precept on Giving Food to Non-Buddhist Ascetics

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was traveling with his community of disciples from the country of Kosala to the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Buddha and the Sangha received many cakes and other foods. The Buddha then instructed the Venerable Ananda to distribute them among the beggars. The Venerable Ananda gave a woman two cakes that were stuck together. A non-Buddhist ascetic also received food. Someone asked that ascetic where he had obtained the food, and he replied, “I begged it from a bald-headed householder.” The Buddha then assembled the Sangha and related clearly what had been heard. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu personally gives food into the hand of a male or female non-Buddhist ascetic, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Male or female non-Buddhist ascetic: a naked ascetic belonging to another school. Parivrajaka: one who has gone forth among those non-Buddhist ascetics.

– Personally: if one wishes to give something, one should either place it on the ground for the recipient or have another person give it.

– Food that is given: khadaniya food consists of roots and tubers, extending to foods that have been finely ground. The five kinds of food are as explained above.

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni and others commit a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: one places the food on the ground and gives it, or has another person give it; or one offers it to one’s parents or to those who build stupas. In the case of those who build dwellings or perform other work, one should calculate their labor and give them food of corresponding value. Or if the food is forcibly seized and taken away by those exercising their power, there is no offense in any such case.

42. Precept on Going to Another House Before or After a Meal

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a householder in the city offered a meal to the Sangha on behalf of the bhikkhu Upananda. They arrived at the house to receive the meal only when the mealtime was nearly over, so although the bhikkhus finished eating, they were still not satisfied. On another occasion, a minister in the city of Rajagriha obtained some fruit and gave it to the bhikkhu Upananda to distribute to the Sangha. At that time, after the meal, the bhikkhu Upananda went to another person’s house. The bhikkhus reported both offenses to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another house before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu, except on a special occasion, it is a pacittiya offense. The special occasions are a time of illness, the robe-making period, and the robe-giving period. These are the special occasions.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Before the meal: from the appearance of dawn until one eats.

– After the meal: from the time one eats until midday.

– House: a place where a man and a woman reside.

– Without informing another bhikkhu: if one resides alone in a room, one should inform a nearby bhikkhu who lives within the same boundary.

– Except on a special occasion, it is a pacittiya offense. The special occasion of illness: as explained above.

– The robe-making period: as above.

– The robe-giving period: after the day of the Invitation Ceremony, if the kathina robe has not been accepted, this period lasts one month; if the kathina robe has been accepted, it lasts five months. Outside this period, any other time when people are encouraged to offer food or robes is also considered a robe-giving period.

– These are the special occasions: if that bhikkhu has previously accepted an invitation and, without informing another bhikkhu, goes to another person’s house before or after the meal, he commits the offense entailing forfeiture upon reaching the doorway. In other cases, he commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: the permitted cases are as stated above—one informs another bhikkhu; or there is no bhikkhu present, so one does not inform anyone; one goes to a storeroom, a village, or an adjoining room; one goes to a bhikkhuni monastery or to give instructions at a layperson’s house; or, where there are many houses, one spreads out a sitting cloth and invites a bhikkhu. Permission is also granted when one encounters a dangerous circumstance.

43. Precept on Deliberately Remaining Seated in a House After Eating

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, before the Venerable Kaludayin had gone forth, he had been acquainted with the wife of a certain man. That wife was named the laywoman Trai. Both were attractive, and each had feelings for the other. Later, the Venerable Kaludayin went to their house. At that time, the man’s wife had adorned herself and was greatly cherished by her husband. The bhikkhu Kaludayin had finished eating but continued sitting there for a long time and would not leave. Because of this, the husband angrily departed. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu deliberately remains seated in a house where there is food and a precious object, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Food: a man regards a woman as food, and a woman regards a man as food.

– House: as above.

– A precious object: such things as mother-of-pearl, agate, pearls, amber, gold, and silver.

– Deliberately remains seated: one may sit where, by extending one’s arm, one can touch the door.

– Pacittiya: if one is blind but not deaf, or deaf but not blind, one commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: in a house where there is food and a precious object, one sits in a place from which one can touch the door by extending one’s arm; two bhikkhus are present as companions; an acquaintance is present; a visitor is present somewhere nearby; one is neither blind nor deaf; one merely passes through without stopping; one falls to the ground because of an illness; one is detained by force; one is bound; or there is danger to one’s life or danger to one’s celibate conduct. In all such cases there is no offense.

44. Precept on Sitting in a Concealed Place in a House Where There Is Food

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Venerable Kaludayin thought, “In the preceding precept, the Buddha permitted one to sit where one can touch the door by extending one’s arm.” He therefore sat behind the door conversing with the laywoman Trai. When the bhikkhus heard them conversing, they criticized him and reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu sits in a concealed place within a house where there is food and a precious object, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– In a house where there is food and a precious object: all are as in the preceding precept.

– Concealed place: a place screened by a tree, wall, partition, fence, upper story, robe, or another object.

– Pacittiya: in a house where there is food, one may sit in a place from which one can touch the door by extending one’s arm and where bhikkhus on almsround can see one. Apart from this, the other permitted cases are all the same as in the preceding precept.

45. Precept on Sitting Alone with a Woman in an Open Place

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, Venerable Kaludayin sat alone with a female lay follower in an open place. A bhikkhu who was passing by on his alms round saw this and reproached Kaludayin. After returning to the monastery, that bhikkhu related the entire matter to the other bhikkhus. The bhikkhus reported the offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the precept

If a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in an open place, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Alone: one woman and one bhikkhu.

– With a woman: a living woman capable of understanding.

– Sitting in an open place: a place where they can be seen and their speech can be heard.

– Pacittiya: the cases of offense and non-offense are the same as in the preceding precept.

46. Precept on Sending Another Person Away from the Village

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda had quarreled with another bhikkhu and harbored resentment toward him. One day, Upananda led that bhikkhu into the city and brought him to an area where there was no food. Upananda then calculated: “By the time this bhikkhu returns to the Jetavana Monastery, it will already be past noon.” Having thought thus, Upananda berated that bhikkhu: “You are a thoroughly wicked person. Because of you, I have obtained no food. You should leave here at once!” Consequently, when that bhikkhu returned to Jetavana, he could obtain no food and had to go hungry. The bhikkhus reported the offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the precept

If a bhikkhu says to another bhikkhu: “Venerable sir, come with me to the village, and I shall give you food,” but in the end does not give that bhikkhu food and instead says: “Elder, go elsewhere at once! If you and I remain together in one place, whether sitting or talking together, I am not at ease. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease,” and, solely for that purpose and no other, contrives to send the other person away, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Village: the four kinds of villages, as explained above.

– Food: food that may be eaten at the proper time.

– But in the end does not give that bhikkhu food and instead says: “Elder, go elsewhere at once! If you and I remain together in one place, whether sitting or talking together, I am not at ease. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease,” and solely for that purpose: if he contrives to make the other go from a place where he can be seen to a place where he can only be heard, he commits a dukkata offense; if the other reaches a place where he cannot be heard but can still be seen, he also commits a dukkata offense; only when the other has left both the range of sight and hearing does he commit the offense entailing forfeiture.

– And, for no other reason, contrives to send the other person away: it is a pacittiya offense.

– Cases of non-offense: after giving him food, he tells him to leave; or the other is ill; or the other lacks proper deportment and displeases those who see him, so he says: “Go, Venerable! I shall personally bring food to you”; or the other has broken the precepts, and so forth; or, because of danger to life or danger to the holy life, he contrives to send him away without acting from resentment or anger. In all such cases, there is no offense.

47. Precept on Requesting Medicine Beyond the Permitted Period

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of the Sakyans. At that time, Mahanama invited the Sangha to receive a supply of medicine. The group of six bhikkhus disparaged the medicines already available. They then went together to Mahanama’s house and asked for a rare kind of medicine. Mahanama went to the market to buy it for them, but it was unavailable. Because he could not obtain it, he was insulted by the group of six bhikkhus. Having been insulted, Mahanama vowed never again to supply medicine to the Sangha. The bhikkhus reported the offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the precept

A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept medicine offered by invitation for four months and should accept it only for that period. If he accepts it beyond that period, it is a pacittiya offense, except in the cases of a standing invitation, a renewed invitation, an invitation to receive an allotted share, or a lifelong invitation.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Four months: the four months of the rainy season.

– Offering medicine: a pledge made to supply medicine.

– Not ill: a bhikkhu is considered ill when a physician prescribes that he take those medicines.

– Should accept it only for that period; if he accepts it beyond that period: if it is medicine that may be kept overnight and is to be distributed equally, it should be accepted during the four months of the rainy season. If medicine that may be kept overnight is not to be distributed equally, it should be accepted according to the occasion on which it is offered. Medicine that has already been allotted is not included.

– Except in the case of a standing invitation: the donor says, “I vow to offer medicine regularly.”

– A renewed invitation: the donor had said that medicine would no longer be offered, but later asks to renew the vow to offer medicine.

– An invitation to receive an allotted share: the donor brings medicine to the sangharama, offers it, and then distributes it.

– A lifelong invitation: the donor says, “I undertake to offer medicine for the rest of my life.”

– It is a pacittiya offense.

– Cases of non-offense: the allowances are the same as above.

48. Precept on Viewing an Army in Battle Array

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the people of a certain region in the country rebelled, and the king personally had to command the six divisions of the army to suppress them. The group of six bhikkhus went there to view the army in battle array. King Prasenajit saw them and was displeased. King Prasenajit then sent the group of six bhikkhus a bag of rock sugar to present to the Buddha, asking them to pay homage to the Buddha in his name. When the group of six bhikkhus came to the Buddha, they related everything that had happened. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the precept

If a bhikkhu goes to view an army in battle array, except on a suitable occasion, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Goes to view an army in battle array: “Battle” means either warfare or combat. “Army” includes even a single cavalry unit, a single chariot unit, or a single infantry unit.

– Except on a suitable occasion: if his presence is required, he should report it; or if he has been invited.

– Pacittiya: if he does not move aside to the roadside, he commits a dukkata offense. If he goes from a lower place to a higher place, or from the road to a place that is not a road, but does not see the army, he commits a dukkata offense. The same applies if, despite making the effort, he does not see it. If he sees it, he commits the offense entailing forfeiture.

– Cases of non-offense: he has some necessary business there; he has been invited there; he is compelled and taken there by force; he is traveling ahead and the army in battle array comes behind him; he moves aside to the roadside; travel by water or land has been cut off; there is danger from savage beasts, robbers, or flooding; he is seized and bound by force; or there is danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth. If, under such circumstances, he does not move aside to the roadside, there is no offense.

49. Precept on Sleeping in an Army Camp

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus had an appropriate reason to enter an army camp and stayed there overnight. The laypeople said: “We spend the night here because of sensual desire. But for what purpose do these ascetics remain here?” The bhikkhus reported the offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the precept

If a bhikkhu has an appropriate reason and is permitted to enter an army camp, he may stay there for two or three nights. If he remains beyond that, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Cases of non-offense: he may sleep there for two nights, and by the end of the third night, before dawn appears, he leaves the army camp and goes beyond the range of sight and hearing. Or travel by water or land has been cut off; or because of danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth, he cannot leave the army camp. In such cases, there is no offense.

50. Precept on Viewing an Army Engaged in Combat

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus had occasion to remain in a military encampment and watch the opposing sides display their fighting strength. One of the six was struck by an arrow. His companions bandaged him with a robe and carried him back. When the laypeople saw this, they considered it strange. The bhikkhus learned of the matter and reported it to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, while staying in a military encampment for two or three nights, watches the army engage in battle, or watches a display of the strength of the infantry, elephant corps, or cavalry, it is a pacittiya offense.

The provisions concerning offenses, non-offenses, and exceptions are the same as in the preceding precept.

51. The Precept against Drinking Alcohol

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Cita. At that time, Sagata was serving as the Buddha’s attendant. One day, Sagata went to sleep in the chamber of a matted-hair brahmin ascetic. A venomous naga dwelt in that chamber. That night, Sagata subdued the venomous naga. The following morning, someone reported the matter to the king of Kosambi. Later, Sagata traveled to that country teaching and was offered fine food and dark liquor by the king. Sagata ate and drank his fill, became intoxicated, and lay down in the middle of the road. When the Buddha learned of the matter, he explained ten faults and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu drinks alcohol, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Drinking alcohol: liquor brewed from trees, liquor brewed from ordinary grain, liquor brewed from rice, liquor brewed from barley, or liquor made by any other method of fermentation—all are called alcohol.

– Pacittiya: even substances that are not alcohol but have the color, aroma, or taste of alcohol must not be consumed. Whether one brews alcohol, mixes alcohol, eats it, or drinks it, in every case one commits an offense entailing downfall. If one drinks the sweet essence of alcohol or the sour essence of alcohol, or eats brewer’s yeast or fermented dregs, in every case one commits a dukkata offense. If it is alcohol and one perceives it as alcohol; if it is alcohol and one is uncertain whether it is alcohol; or if it is alcohol but one does not perceive it as alcohol, in every case one commits an offense entailing downfall.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one is ill and other medicines cannot cure the illness, one may use alcohol as medicine; or one may apply alcohol to a wound. In all such cases, there is no offense.

52. The Precept against Playing in Water

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of seventeen bhikkhus were playing in the Aciravati River, splashing water at one another. King Prasenajit and Queen Mallika were then on a high terrace and saw them. The king said to Queen Mallika, “Look at those whom you venerate!” The queen replied, “They are young men who have only recently gone forth, or else they are older men who are foolish and know nothing.” She then tactfully sent someone to offer the Buddha a packet of rock sugar and relate everything that had happened. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu plays in water, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Playing in water: indulging oneself at will by swimming from one bank to the other, swimming with or against the current, diving under at one place and emerging at another, tracing figures on the water with one’s hands, or splashing water back and forth with others. This extends even to filling an alms bowl with water for play.

– Pacittiya: apart from water, if one places milk, bitter liquor, or rice-washing water in a vessel and plays with it, in every case one commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one must wade across a river while traveling; if one needs to go from one bank to the other; if one pulls bamboo, timber, or a basket with or against the current, upstream or downstream; if one retrieves stones or sand; if one has lost an object and must dive to the bottom to search for it; if one dives at one place and emerges at another; or if one is learning to swim and must extend one’s arms to stroke the water—in all such cases, there is no offense.

53. The Precept against Tickling

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Sravasti. At that time, one of the group of six bhikkhus tickled one of the group of seventeen bhikkhus, causing him to die. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu tickles another with his fingers, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Fingers: the hands and feet have ten digits.

– Tickling another, pacittiya: apart from the fingers and toes, if one uses a staff, fly whisk, door bolt, or any other object to tickle another, one commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one does so unintentionally; if one needs to touch someone who is sleeping in order to wake him; if one makes contact while entering, leaving, or moving back and forth; if one accidentally touches someone while sweeping the ground; or if the end of one’s staff touches another person—in all such cases, there is no offense.

54. The Precept against Refusing Admonition

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Kosambi. At that time, Chanda was about to violate a precept. The bhikkhus admonished him, saying, “Venerable sir, do not entertain such a thought. You should not act in this way.” Nevertheless, Chanda did not heed the bhikkhus’ admonition and consequently committed offenses. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu refuses to accept admonition, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Refusing to accept admonition, pacittiya: if another person admonishes him and tells him not to do what ought not to be done, yet he deliberately does it, he incurs the underlying offense. For failing to heed the admonition, he commits a dukkata offense. If he himself knows that acting in such a way is wrong but deliberately does it, he incurs the underlying offense. For failing to heed the admonition, he commits a pacittiya offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if an ignorant person comes to admonish him, he should say to that person, “You should ask your preceptor, study further, and recite the scriptures more, so that you may understand the Dharma of admonition.” If he is properly admonished, he should heed it. If words are spoken in jest, to oneself, in a dream, or when one intends to speak of one matter but mistakenly speaks of another, in all such cases there is no offense.

55. The Precept against Frightening a Bhikkhu

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Pataliputra. At that time, Nagapala stood in attendance beside the Buddha. According to the customary practice of all Buddhas, when a Buddha is engaged in walking meditation, the attendant stands at the end of the walking path. On that occasion, the bhikkhu Nagapala, knowing that the first, middle, and last watches of the night had passed, invited the Buddha to return. The Buddha, however, remained silent. Seeing this, Nagapala turned his kusha robe backward and pulled it over his head to frighten the Buddha. The following morning, the Buddha assembled the Sangha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu frightens another bhikkhu, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Frightening another bhikkhu, pacittiya: if one uses a sight, sound, smell, taste, tangible object, or mental object to frighten someone, one commits an offense entailing downfall whether or not that person becomes afraid. If that person is unaware of it, one commits a dukkata offense. If one speaks of sights, sounds, and so forth—the six sense objects—in order to frighten someone, clearly expressed speech constitutes a pacittiya offense, while unclear speech constitutes a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one is sitting in a dark place without a lamp, or is at a latrine, and another mistakes one for a wild beast and becomes afraid; if another becomes frightened upon hearing the sound of someone walking, coughing, or striking against something; if one points out a sight or the like to someone without intending to frighten that person; if such an omen truly exists; if one dreams that the other person will die, abandon the path, lose an article, or that his preceptor or parents will become gravely ill or die, and then informs him of it; or if one speaks in jest or by mistake—in all such cases, there is no offense.

56. The Precept against Bathing More than Once Every Half-Month

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagriha. There was a bamboo grove there, and within the grove was a pond. At that time, King Bimbisara permitted the bhikkhus to go regularly to that pond to bathe. One day, although the latter part of the night had already passed, the group of six bhikkhus still went to bathe in the pond. At the same time, the king and the women of his palace also came to the pond to bathe and encountered them. Consequently, the king was unable to bathe. The ministers therefore criticized them and became angry. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

A bhikkhu should bathe once every half-month. A bhikkhu who is not ill must observe this; if he bathes more frequently, except on special occasions, it is a pacittiya offense. The special occasions are a time of hot weather, illness, work, wind and rain, or travel. These are the special occasions.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Should bathe once every half-month: bathing before half a month has elapsed is called bathing too frequently.

– A bhikkhu who is not ill must observe this; if he exceeds the limit, except on special occasions, it is a pacittiya offense. The special occasion of hot weather: the last forty-five days of spring and the first month of summer constitute the time of hot weather.

– When ill: even bodily foulness and uncleanliness are considered illness.

– When working: even merely sweeping the area in front of one’s room is considered work.

– When there is wind and rain: even a single whirlwind or a single raindrop touching the body is sufficient.

– When traveling: even traveling half a yojana, whether going or returning, is sufficient.

– These are the special occasions: if that person bathes too frequently, even if he bathes only his entire body or half his body, he commits an offense entailing downfall. If he makes preparations and then regrets it, he commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if any of the permitted circumstances stated above applies, one may bathe repeatedly; or if one is compelled by force to bathe, there is no offense in any such case.

57. Kindling a Fire in the Open

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Alavi. The group of six bhikkhus discussed among themselves: “In the presence of the senior monks, we are unable to speak as we please.” They then went out into the open, gathered firewood and grass, and kindled a fire upwind of the senior monks. At that time, a venomous snake dwelling in the hollow of a tree was heated by the smoke and flames and crawled out. When the group of six bhikkhus saw the snake crawling toward them, they became frightened and flung the fire about, setting the Buddha’s assembly hall ablaze. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu who is not ill kindles a fire for himself in the open, or has someone else kindle it, it is a pacittiya offense, except when there is a valid reason.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Not ill: an ill person may require a fire to warm his body.

– Kindles a fire for himself in the open, or has someone else kindle it, it is a pacittiya offense, except when there is a valid reason: if, in the open, that person uses grass, tree leaves, branches, foliage, hemp fibers, soma, cow dung, bran, rice husks, or the like to kindle a fire, he commits a pacittiya offense. If he places fire upon grass, wood, rice husks, or the like, he also commits an offense entailing downfall. If he takes fuel that has already been half-charred and throws it into the fire, or burns charcoal, he commits a dukkata offense. If he does not tell a person nearby, “Please watch this; please be aware of it!” he also commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he tells a person nearby, “Please be aware of this; please watch it!”; if an ill person kindles the fire himself or has someone else kindle it; if there is a valid reason, such as caring for an ill person, cooking gruel, preparing soup, or cooking rice; if it is done in a kitchen or bathhouse; if it is done to fumigate a bowl, prepare dye for robes, light a lamp, or burn incense—in all such cases there is no offense.

58. Precept Against Concealing Another Person’s Robes or Belongings

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. A lay devotee had invited the Sangha to receive a meal the following morning. At that time, the group of seventeen bhikkhus placed their robes, bowls, sitting cloths, and needle cases to one side and walked leisurely in meditation while awaiting the mealtime. The group of six bhikkhus then crept up behind them, took their robes and belongings, and hid them. The bhikkhus investigated and learned what had happened, then reported the offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu hides another bhikkhu’s robe, bowl, sitting cloth, or needle case, whether he hides it himself or has someone else hide it, even merely as a joke, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one recognizes the characteristics and nature of the other person’s belongings and, because they are acquainted, takes them and puts them away; if the belongings were left in the open and one puts them away; if one puts them away out of fear that the wind will blow them away or rain will soak them; if the owner has scattered robes and belongings carelessly and one puts them away in order to admonish him; if someone has borrowed another person’s robe and fails to put it away, and one puts it away out of fear that it will be lost; or if the robe, bowl, or other belongings could lead to danger to life, danger to the holy life, and so forth, and one therefore puts them away—in all such cases there is no offense.

59. Precept Against Using a Robe Without Asking Its Owner

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. The group of six bhikkhus had sincerely given robes to bhikkhus with whom they were acquainted. Later, without telling the owners, they took the robes back and wore them. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, having given a robe to a bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, sikshamana, novice monk, or novice nun, later takes it back and wears it without informing the owner, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one sincerely gave the robe and then informs the owner; if it is given onward in succession; or if one has permission to take and wear it at will—in all such cases there is no offense.

60. Precept Concerning the Wearing of a New Robe

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. The group of six bhikkhus wore white robes while traveling. Lay devotees therefore criticized them, saying that they did not possess the true Dharma and dressed like kings and ministers. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, he should use one of three colors—blue, black, or magnolia—to discolor it as he chooses. If he does not discolor it with one of these three colors—blue, black, or magnolia—but wears the new robe in its original state, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Receives a new robe: either the robe is new in itself, or it has newly been received from someone.

– He should use one of three colors—blue, black, or magnolia—to discolor it as he chooses: the Vinaya commentary states, “Here, ‘making allowable’ means that dyeing it a color is called making it allowable. If the robe has already been dyed an allowable color, one should take some other substance of a different color and press it onto one spot as an identifying mark; this is also called making it allowable. From this point onward, whether it is a robe or a non-robe item, if it is an article not permissible for immediate use, an identifying mark must first be made before it may be kept. The term ‘double-layered’ refers to a woolen rug or cushion. It forms an inner layer beneath the robe.”

– If he does not discolor it with one of the three colors—blue, black, or magnolia—but wears the new robe in its original state, it is a pacittiya offense: if that bhikkhu receives a robe and keeps it without dyeing it one of the three colors stated above, he commits an offense entailing downfall. If he receives a double-layered robe and keeps it without performing the rite of marking it to make it allowable, he commits a dukkata offense. If a non-robe item—such as a bowl bag, shoe bag, needle-and-thread case, meditation strap, belt, head covering, socks, sweat cloth, or cloth for wrapping footwear—is kept without performing the rite of making it allowable, he commits a dukkata offense. If he leaves a robe that has not undergone the rite of marking it to make it allowable in the home of a layperson, he commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: If one receives white cloth, dyes it to make one of the three prescribed colors, and only then keeps it; or if one receives a double-layered robe, a single-layered robe, or any kind of cloth, and makes it allowable before keeping it, there is no offense.

61. The Precept Against Intentionally Killing an Animal

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, Venerable Kāludāyin disliked seeing crows, so he made a bamboo bow and shot them, until the carcasses of the crows formed a great heap in the saṅghārāma. When laypeople came to the saṅghārāma to pay homage and saw this, they all criticized him. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu intentionally takes the life of an animal, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Intentionally: At that time, after rising from seated meditation, bhikkhus walked about and stepped on small insects, killing them. Some therefore performed the act of confession for a pācittiya offense, while others feared that they had violated the precept. The Buddha taught: “If one was unaware, there is no offense.”

– Takes: Whether one takes life with one’s own hand or tells another person to take it.

– The life of an animal: This means a creature without the ability to transform itself.

– Pācittiya: A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. The exemptions are the same as in the precept against killing a human being.

62. The Precept Against Drinking Water Containing Living Creatures

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus drank and used water containing various living creatures. When laypeople saw this, they criticized them. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu knowingly drinks or uses water containing various living creatures, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowingly: If one does not know that living creatures are present, there is no offense.

– Water: In addition to water, if one drinks or uses any liquid, vinegar, whey, or barley water containing various living creatures, it is a pācittiya offense.

– Drinking or using it when various living creatures are present is a pācittiya offense: A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: If one was previously unaware; if one believed that no living creatures were present; if the creatures are large and move away when the water is stirred; or if one filters the water before drinking or using it, there is no offense in any of these cases.

63. The Precept Against Causing a Bhikkhu Doubt and Distress

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of seventeen bhikkhus asked the group of six bhikkhus: “What does it mean to enter the first dhyāna?” And so forth, up to: “How does one attain the fruit of arhatship?” The group of six bhikkhus replied: “By asking what you have just asked, you have already committed a pārājika offense.” Afterward, the group of seventeen bhikkhus went to ask another bhikkhu about the matter, and that bhikkhu reproached the group of sixteen bhikkhus. On that occasion, the Buddha established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu intentionally instills doubt and confusion in another person, causing that person uneasiness even for a moment, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Intentionally: At that time, many bhikkhus frequently gathered in one place to discuss the Dharma together. One bhikkhu among them departed. After leaving, he gave rise to doubt and thought: “Those bhikkhus have caused me to doubt.” The Buddha taught: “If they did not act intentionally, there is no offense.”

– Instills doubt and confusion in another person: Doubt means doubt concerning birth, age, ordination, a Sangha act, an offense, or a Dharma attainment.

– Causing that person uneasiness even for a moment is a pācittiya offense: A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: The matter is truly as stated, and one does not speak with malicious intent. That person was not born during the period he claims. Fearing that he might later become doubtful and remorseful, and might without justification accept offerings from others or receive the homage of senior bhikkhus, one says: “You were not born during that period. By comparing the time of your birth with that of others, it can be known that you were not born during that period.”

The matter is truly as stated. That person has not reached the age he claims. Fearing that he might later become doubtful and remorseful, and might without justification accept material benefits and respectful service from others, one says: “You have not yet reached that age. By comparison with other bhikkhus, it can be known that you have not yet reached that age.”

The matter is truly as stated. If a person under twenty years of age received ordination within the boundary from a separate group, then, fearing that he might later become doubtful and remorseful, and might without justification accept offerings and homage from others, one must inform him so that he returns to his former status and receives ordination again.

The matter is truly as stated. The motion was invalid, the Sangha act was invalid, or it was an unlawful act performed by a separate group. Fearing that the person might later become doubtful and remorseful, and might without justification accept offerings and homage from others, one tells him so that he may return to his former status and receive ordination again.

The matter is truly as stated. That person has committed a pārājika offense, or any offense down to an offense of wrong speech. Fearing that he might later become doubtful and remorseful, and might without justification accept offerings from others or receive the homage of bhikkhus who observe the precepts, one informs him that he has committed a pārājika offense, or any offense down to an offense of wrong speech, so that he may understand and make amends in accordance with the Dharma.

Or, because a person is shallow in understanding and does not know how to express himself, one says: “To speak in that way is to claim for oneself the attainment of a superhuman state.” If one speaks mistakenly or in jest, there is no offense in any such case.

64. The Precept Against Concealing a Bhikkhu’s Offense

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikkhu Upananda was close friends with another bhikkhu. Because Upananda repeatedly violated the precepts, he went to that bhikkhu and said: “Do not tell anyone else!” Later, Upananda came into conflict with that bhikkhu. Therefore, the other bhikkhu went and told the bhikkhus that Upananda had committed an offense. The bhikkhus asked: “Why do you speak of it only now?” That bhikkhu replied: “I speak of it because I can no longer endure it.” The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense, conceals it, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: If one does not know, there is no offense.

– Another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense: This refers to any of the four pārājika offenses or a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense.

– Conceals it: If a bhikkhu knows that another bhikkhu has committed a grave offense and, having known it at the time of the morning meal, does not speak of it until the meal has ended; or, having learned of it after the meal, does not speak of it until the beginning of the night; or, having known it at the beginning of the night, does not speak of it until the middle of the night, in every such case he commits a duṣkṛta offense. Or, if he knows of it in the middle of the night and intends to speak of it by the end of the night but does not do so, then when the first light appears, he commits a pācittiya offense. Apart from grave offenses, concealing other offenses; concealing one’s own offense; or, apart from a bhikkhunī, concealing the offenses of other persons—all such cases constitute a duṣkṛta offense.

– Pācittiya: A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: If one was previously unaware; if one believed that it was not a grave offense; if one reported it to someone; if no one was available to whom it could be reported; or if there was danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life, there is no offense in any such case.

65. The Precept Against Conferring Full Ordination on a Person Who Has Not Reached the Required Age

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Rājagṛha. At that time, there were seventeen youths in the city. The eldest was seventeen years old, and the youngest was eleven; out of faith, they went forth into homelessness.

The bhikkhus allowed them to go forth and conferred full ordination upon them. But because they were still young and could not endure eating only one meal a day, they became hungry at midnight and cried out loudly. The Buddha awoke and, upon inquiry, learned what had happened.

When the night had passed, the Buddha assembled the Sangha and established this rule: “Only one who has reached twenty years of age may receive full ordination.” The Buddha taught: “One who has not yet reached twenty years of age cannot endure cold and heat, hunger and thirst, wind and rain, mosquitoes and gnats, venomous creatures, or harsh words. When bodily pains arise, he cannot endure them. Moreover, he cannot uphold the precepts or eat only one meal a day.

Only at twenty years of age does one have sufficient strength to endure such hardships.”

b. Rule Text

If a bhikkhu confers full ordination upon a person who has not yet reached twenty years of age, knowing that person to be under twenty, that person does not obtain the precepts, while that bhikkhu is to be reproved as a foolish person and commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know, there is no offense.

– If a bhikkhu confers full ordination upon a person who has not yet reached twenty years of age, that person does not obtain the precepts, while that bhikkhu is to be reproved as a foolish person and commits a pācittiya offense: the person receiving ordination knows that he has not yet reached twenty years of age. The preceptor and the Sangha also know this. But when he is asked before the assembly, “Have you reached twenty years of age?” he replies, “Perhaps I have, perhaps I have not, I am uncertain, or I do not know”; or he remains silent; or the Sangha does not ask him. In these cases, whether the preceptor knows or is uncertain, and so forth, the preceptor commits a pācittiya offense, while the members of the Sangha commit a dukkaṭa offense. If they say they did not know, none commits an offense. If the three proclamations of the formal act have been completed, the preceptor commits the offense entailing expiation. If the motion is being made, the motion has not yet been completed, only the preliminary preparations have been undertaken, the person’s head has only just been shaved, or the Sangha has only just been assembled, the preceptor commits a dukkaṭa offense in every case. The members of the Sangha likewise commit the same offense. A bhikkhunī commits a pācittiya offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one did not know beforehand and trusted what the person receiving ordination said, what someone nearby said, or what his faithful parents said; or if doubt arose only after the ordination had been conferred. The Buddha taught: “One should count the years and months spent in the womb, the intercalary months, or count every observance day falling on the fourteenth as contributing to the number of years. If the required age is thereby reached, there is no offense.”

66. Rule Against Reviving One of the Four Kinds of Disputes

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus had engaged in a dispute, which had already been settled in accordance with the Dharma. Afterward, they revived it. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproved them and established this rule.

b. Rule Text

If a bhikkhu, knowing that a dispute has already been lawfully settled, afterward revives it, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know that it has already been lawfully settled, there is no offense.

– Dispute: there are four kinds: disputes concerning arguments, disputes concerning accusations, disputes concerning offenses, and disputes concerning formal proceedings.

– Already lawfully settled: in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.

– Afterward revives it, he commits a pācittiya offense: if he speaks ambiguously, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. Apart from this dispute, if he revives other quarrels or abusive exchanges; if he revives a quarrel of his own; or, apart from the two communities, if he quarrels with others and revives the matter, he commits a dukkaṭa offense in every case. A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he did not know beforehand; if, after investigating, he thought it had not been investigated; if the facts were indeed as he stated; if the statement resulted from an unskillful investigation, and so forth; if he spoke in jest; or if he misspoke, there is no offense in any such case.

67. Rule Against Arranging to Travel with Robbers

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, a large number of bhikkhus traveled from Śrāvastī to Vaiśālī. There was then a caravan of merchants who wished to slip secretly through a customs checkpoint to evade paying taxes to the king. They befriended the bhikkhus and traveled together with them. However, the customs officials arrested them and brought them before the king. Traveling with such persons was an offense punishable by death. Consequently, the bhikkhus were censured by the king and by the people. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha established this rule.

b. Rule Text

If a bhikkhu, knowing persons to be a band of robbers, arranges to travel along the same road with them, even as far as the distance between two villages, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know or has made no arrangement with them, there is no offense.

– Band of robbers: those who are returning after committing robbery or are just preparing to go and commit robbery.

– Arranges to travel along the same road with them: “arranges” means agreeing together to go to a certain city or village. “Road” means any road lying between two villages.

– Even as far as the distance between two villages, he commits a pācittiya offense: if he travels with them through the places between two villages, along several roads or along a single road; or, where there are no villages, through an open wilderness without boundaries, if he travels with them for ten li, he commits a pācittiya offense. If he travels halfway between two villages, travels less than ten li, travels within the bounds of a single village, makes preparations to travel with them, or ultimately does not go, he commits a dukkaṭa offense in every case. A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if traveling with them is the only way to reach the required destination safely; if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life; or if one is compelled by force, there is no offense in any such case.

68. Rule Concerning the Claim That Sensual Conduct Does Not Obstruct the Path and Resistance to the Sangha’s Admonition

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha gave rise to the pernicious view and said, “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, engaging in sexual conduct does not obstruct the Path.” The bhikkhus admonished and exhorted Ariṭṭha, but he would not relinquish this view. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha questioned Ariṭṭha about it, and Ariṭṭha acknowledged that he had indeed said this. The Buddha then had the Sangha assemble and perform a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations to admonish him. After reproving him, the Buddha established this rule.

b. Rule Text

If a bhikkhu speaks thus: “As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, engaging in sexual conduct is not a practice that obstructs the Path,” the other bhikkhus should admonish that bhikkhu, saying: “Venerable sir, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not speak thus. By innumerable means, the Blessed One has said that engaging in sexual conduct is a practice that obstructs the Path.” When the other bhikkhus admonish that bhikkhu, if he obstinately persists and refuses to relinquish this view, they should admonish him up to three times so that he will relinquish it. If, after being admonished three times, he relinquishes it, that is good. If he does not relinquish it, he commits a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

A bhikkhunī commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. The other cases are the same as in the preceding rule concerning admonition; only the classifications of the offenses as more or less serious differ.

69. Rule Against Supporting a Bhikkhu Who Has Been Suspended

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha had given rise to a pernicious view. Although the Sangha admonished him, he refused to relinquish it. The Buddha instructed the Sangha to perform a formal act consisting of one motion and three proclamations to suspend Ariṭṭha. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus provided Ariṭṭha with necessities and participated in formal acts together with him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproved them and then established this rule.

b. Rule Text

If any bhikkhu, knowing that a person who has spoken such words, who has not yet undergone the prescribed formal act, and who holds such a wrong view without having relinquished it, nevertheless provides him with necessities, participates in the same Sangha acts with him, sleeps together with him, or converses with him, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he did not know at first and only learned later, there is no offense.

– A person who has spoken such words: one who says: “I have heard the Blessed One teach that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the path.”

– Who has not yet undergone the prescribed formal act: either he has been subjected to an act of suspension but has not yet been released from it.

– Who holds such a wrong view: one who states his understanding thus: “I understand that the practice taught by the Blessed One is not an impediment to the path.”

– Without having relinquished it: although the Sangha has reproved and admonished him, he does not relinquish the pernicious view.

– Nevertheless provides him with necessities: these are of two kinds: Dharma or material goods. Dharma means instructing him in the training of higher virtue, higher mind, and higher wisdom, as well as in learning and reciting the sutras. Material goods mean providing robes, food and drink, beds, cushions, and medicines.

– Participates in the same Sangha acts with him: reciting the precepts together, and so forth.

– Sleeps together with him: in a room with four walls that is entirely roofed and entirely enclosed; or entirely roofed but not entirely enclosed; or entirely enclosed but not entirely roofed; or neither fully roofed nor fully enclosed.

– Converses with him: whether the bhikkhu enters the room first and the other person enters afterward; whether the other person enters first; or whether both enter together, each time his side touches the ground he commits an offense entailing forfeiture.

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he does not know; if the room is completely roofed but is not enclosed on its four sides; if it is half enclosed or only slightly enclosed; if it is completely enclosed but unroofed, half roofed, or only slightly roofed; if it is half roofed and half enclosed; if it is slightly roofed and slightly enclosed; if it is in the open air; if he is ill; if he is bound; or if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life—in all such cases there is no offense.

70. The Precept Concerning Assisting an Expelled Sramanera

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, two sramaneras of the bhikkhu Upananda committed an impure act together. Moreover, the two sramaneras said to each other: “We have heard the Buddha teach that engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the path.” The bhikkhus reported this transgression to the Buddha.

The Buddha authorized them to perform a formal Sangha act with one motion and three proclamations to admonish the sramaneras so that they would relinquish this view. Because they did not relinquish it, they were expelled. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus enticed them away, brought them back, and supported them.

The bhikkhus reported this transgression to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproved them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu knows that a sramanera has said: “I have heard the Buddha teach: ‘Engaging in sexual intercourse is not an impediment to the path,’” those bhikkhus should admonish that sramanera thus: “Do not malign the Blessed One. It is not good to malign the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this.

Sramanera, the Blessed One has in countless ways declared that engaging in sexual intercourse is an impediment to the path.” If, when those bhikkhus admonish that sramanera, he persists and refuses to relinquish this view, the bhikkhus should admonish him as many as three times to make him relinquish it. If he relinquishes it after being admonished as many as three times, that is good. If he does not relinquish it, those bhikkhus should say to that sramanera: “From now on, you may no longer say: ‘The Buddha is my Blessed One.’ You may not accompany other bhikkhus.

Other sramaneras are permitted to sleep with a bhikkhu for two or three nights, but you are not granted that permission. You must leave this place and may no longer remain here.” If a bhikkhu knows that a sramanera has thus been expelled from the community, yet entices him away, brings him back, supports him, or sleeps together with him, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Knowing: if he does not know, there is no offense.

– Expelled: expelled by the Sangha through a formal act with one motion and three proclamations.

– Entices him away, brings him back, and supports him: supporting means either supporting him oneself or having another person support him. Enticing means either enticing him oneself or instructing another person to entice him.

– Sleeps together with him: as explained above.

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu. The allowances are the same as those given above.

71. The Precept Against Resisting Exhortation to Train

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Kausambi. At that time, the bhikkhus admonished the bhikkhu Chanda in accordance with the Dharma, but Chanda did not listen and instead replied: “I will not train in this precept now. I shall first question other wise bhikkhus who are knowledgeable in the Vinaya.” The bhikkhus reported this transgression to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproved him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, when admonished in accordance with the Dharma by other bhikkhus, says: “I will not train in this precept now. I shall first question other wise bhikkhus who are learned in the Vinaya,” he commits a pacittiya offense. He should question them only if he wishes to understand or wishes to learn.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– In accordance with the Dharma: in accordance with the Dharma, in accordance with the Vinaya, and in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.

– Pacittiya: if he speaks unclearly, he commits a duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if the bhikkhu giving the admonition is foolish and does not understand the admonition, this bhikkhu should say: “You should first return and ask your upadhyaya or acarya. You should study further and recite the sutras more.” Or if the matter truly is as stated, there is no offense in any such case.

72. The Precept Against Disparaging the Training Precepts

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhus gathered together to recite the Vinaya. The group of six bhikkhus then discussed among themselves: “If the bhikkhus gather together and become thoroughly versed in reciting the Vinaya, they will surely bring charges against us frequently.” They then went to the bhikkhus and said: “Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting these minor precepts? The venerable ones should recite the four rules through the thirteen rules.” The bhikkhus knew that the group of six bhikkhus wished to destroy the Dharma, so they reported this transgression to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproved them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, during the recitation of the precepts, says: “Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting such minor precepts? Reciting these precepts only causes people to become doubtful, distressed, and ashamed,” and thus disparages the precepts, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– During the recitation of the precepts: whether he himself is reciting the precepts, another person is reciting the precepts, or the precepts are being chanted.

– Says: “Venerable ones, what is the use of reciting such minor precepts?”: he says: “Venerable ones, if you wish to recite, you should recite the four rules. If you wish to recite more, you should recite the four rules through the thirteen rules; the other precepts need not be recited. Why is that?”

– “Reciting these precepts only causes people to become doubtful, distressed, and ashamed,” and thus disparages the precepts, he commits a pacittiya offense: if he speaks clearly, he commits a duskrta offense. If he disparages the Vinaya, he commits a pacittiya offense. If he disparages the Abhidharma or other sutras, he commits a duskrta offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he says that the Abhidharma should be recited first and the Vinaya afterward; or that the sutras should be recited first and the Vinaya afterward; or that an ill person is present and they should wait until that person recovers before reciting the Vinaya; or that, within the Buddha’s teaching, one should first be encouraged to seek skillful means for attaining the four fruits of the sramana and recite the Vinaya afterward; or if he does not intend to destroy the Dharma; or if he speaks by mistake—in all such cases there is no offense.

73. The Precept Concerning Speaking in Advance for Fear of Being Charged

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, one of the group of six bhikkhus, while the introduction to the Pratimoksha was being recited, knew that he had committed an obstructive offense. Fearing that it would be discovered and that he would be formally charged, he first went to a pure bhikkhu and said: “Only now have I learned of this rule. This rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha, recited once every half month, and taken from the Pratimoksha.” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If, while the precepts are being recited, a bhikkhu says: “Only now have I learned that this rule is recorded in the Pratimoksha, recited once every half month, and taken from the Pratimoksha,” and the other bhikkhus know that this bhikkhu has sat at the recitation of the precepts not merely two or three times but many times, that bhikkhu is not absolved on the grounds that he did not know or understand. If he has committed an offense, he should be dealt with according to the Dharma, and the offense of ignorance should also be imposed upon him, with the admonition: “Venerable sir, it is truly of no benefit and brings you no good attainment that, when the precepts are recited, you do not apply your mind and reflect,

nor single-mindedly gather your mindfulness to listen to the Dharma.” For that bhikkhu’s ignorance, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– While the precepts are being recited: whether he himself recites them, another person recites them, or during the recitation of the precepts.

– Also imposed: if the formal procedure for imposing the additional offense is carried out, he commits a pacittiya offense; if the formal procedure for imposing the additional offense is not carried out, he commits a dukkata offense.

– Does not apply his mind and reflect: he should apply his mind and reflect.

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he has never before heard the rule explained in full and only now hears it; or if he speaks in jest or speaks mistakenly, in all such cases there is no offense.

74. The Precept Concerning Regretting After Having Participated in a Sanghakamma

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagriha. At that time, the bhikkhu Dabba Mallaputta served as an administrator for the Sangha. For that reason, he was unable to attend any of the assemblies where offerings were made outside the monastery. Consequently, his robes became old and torn. Later, when the Sangha received a valuable robe, the Sangha performed a motion and second proclamation to give that robe to Dabba Mallaputta. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus was also present but said nothing, only to regret it afterward. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached them and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If, after participating together in a Sanghakamma, a bhikkhu subsequently says: “The bhikkhus give the Sangha’s property according to favoritism,” it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– The bhikkhus according to favoritism: having the same preceptor, having the same acariya, sitting together, rising together, and speaking intimately with one another.

– The Sangha’s property: the Sangha’s property consists of the items mentioned above, including robes, bowls, needle cases, nisidanas, and even water vessels.

– Give, pacittiya: if he makes the statement clearly, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if the matter is truly so and the Sangha’s property was given according to personal familiarity; or if he speaks in jest or speaks mistakenly, in all such cases there is no offense.

75. The Precept Concerning Departing Without Giving Consent

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, many bhikkhus gathered in one place to discuss the Vinaya. The group of six bhikkhus then said to one another: “Look! It seems that the bhikkhus are about to perform a Sanghakamma against us.” They then rose and departed. The bhikkhus called upon them to remain, but they nevertheless insisted on leaving. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If, while the Sangha has not yet finished deciding a matter, a bhikkhu rises and departs without giving his consent, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Sangha: those who share the same recitation of the precepts and the same Sanghakamma.

– The matter has not yet been decided: there are eighteen matters that cause a schism in the Sangha, comprising Dharma and non-Dharma, and so forth, through what was spoken and what was not spoken.

– Without giving his consent: if he is occupied with the Sangha’s affairs, affairs concerning a stupa or monastery, or caring for the sick, he is permitted to give his consent by proxy.

– Rises and departs, pacittiya: if, before the matter has been decided, he rises and steps outside the door, he commits a pacittiya offense. If his foot remains inside the doorway, or if he makes preparations intending to leave but does not leave, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a pacittiya offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he has given his consent; if he is mute; if the Sanghakamma is contrary to the Dharma; or if harm is being caused to the Sangha, a stupa, a monastery, his preceptor, his acariya, or a fellow student, then there is no offense if he departs without giving his consent.

76. The Precept Concerning Regretting After Giving Consent

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus, fearing that they would be formally charged, always traveled together as a group of six. Consequently, the bhikkhus did not know how they could perform a Sanghakamma. Later, while the group of six bhikkhus was sewing robes, the bhikkhus summoned them to give their consent. At that very time, the bhikkhus performed a Sanghakamma to formally charge one bhikkhu from the group of six. Afterward, the group of six bhikkhus said: “We gave our consent for that matter.” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If, after giving his consent, a bhikkhu subsequently regrets it, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– After giving his consent, subsequently regrets it: he says: “You performed a Sanghakamma contrary to the Dharma; the Sanghakamma is invalid. We gave our consent for that matter, not for this matter.”

– Pacittiya: if he does not make the statement clearly, he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if the matter is truly so; if a Sanghakamma contrary to the Dharma was performed; or if, through a slip of the tongue, he speaks of this matter when he meant that matter, in all such cases there is no offense.

77. The Precept Concerning Hiding in a Concealed Place to Listen to the Four Kinds of Disputes

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus listened to bhikkhus quarreling and then went and repeated what they had heard to the other party, making the dispute impossible to settle. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha reproached them and then established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If, after bhikkhus have quarreled with one another, a bhikkhu listens to the words of one party and carries them to the other party, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Quarreling: there are four kinds of disputes: disputes concerning arguments, disputes concerning accusations, disputes concerning offenses, and disputes concerning proceedings.

– Listens to the words of one party and carries them to the other party: “listens” means secretly listening to the words spoken by others. Whether, after hearing that person’s words, he approaches and listens by going from a path to a place that is not a path, from a high place to a low place, from a place that is not a path to a path, or from a low place to a high place.

– Pacittiya: if he does not hear anything, he commits a dukkata offense. If he makes preparations intending to go but does not go, or arranges with another to go but does not go, in all such cases he commits a dukkata offense. If two people converse together in a dark place or in a concealed place; if he speaks with a person walking ahead; or if he does not snap his fingers or clear his throat to alert the person, in all such cases he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if he listens because they are about to perform an unbeneficial Sanghakamma or a Sanghakamma contrary to the Dharma; or if, wishing to know what is happening, he deliberately listens attentively.

78. The Precept Concerning Striking a Bhikkhu

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, one of the group of six bhikkhus, out of anger, struck one of the group of seventeen bhikkhus. The bhikkhu who had been struck cried out loudly. A bhikkhu in the adjoining room heard the cry and asked what had happened, whereupon the bhikkhu who had been struck recounted the whole matter. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, strikes another bhikkhu, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Being angry and displeased, strikes another bhikkhu: whether striking with the hand, a stone, a stick, and so forth.

– Pacittiya: apart from a stick, the hand, or a stone, if he strikes with a door key, a hook, the handle of a fly whisk, the handle of an incense holder, or a foot shackle, in every case he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if someone is ill and needs his back to be pounded; if food is lodged in someone’s throat and he needs to be stroked so that it will go down; if, while speaking together, the other person does not hear and must be touched to gain his attention; if, while sleeping, one rests a limb upon another person’s body; if people touch one another while passing back and forth; or if, while sweeping the ground, one accidentally touches someone with the broom handle—in all such cases there is no offense.

79. The Precept Against Threatening to Strike Another Bhikkhu

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus raised their hands to strike the group of seventeen bhikkhus. The bhikkhus who were threatened cried out loudly. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, raises his hand against another bhikkhu, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Being angry and displeased, raises his hand against another bhikkhu, it is a pacittiya offense: if he raises both hands against that person, he commits an offense entailing forfeiture. If he uses a door key, a foot shackle, and so forth, in every case he commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if, on account of some circumstance, it is necessary to extend one’s hand to support or retrieve something and one thereby touches another, there is no offense.

80. The Precept Against Making a Baseless Accusation of a Sanghadisesa Offense

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus, being angry, slandered the group of seventeen bhikkhus by baselessly accusing them of sanghadisesa offenses. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu, out of anger and resentment, deliberately slanders another bhikkhu with a baseless accusation of a sanghadisesa offense, it is a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Baseless: as explained above.

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if there is one of the three grounds—seeing, hearing, or suspicion; if one speaks truthfully, wishing the other person to feel remorse, without slandering him; if one speaks in jest; or if one speaks by mistake—in all such cases there is no offense.

81. The Precept Concerning Entering the King’s Palace

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, Queen Mallika made offerings to the Buddha and possessed profound reverence and faith. She also encouraged King Prasenajit to have faith and devotion. Therefore, the king permitted the bhikkhus to enter the palace freely without obstruction. At that time, when the proper hour arrived, the bhikkhu Kaludayin entered the king’s palace. While the queen was wiping the seat and inviting the bhikkhu Kaludayin to sit, her robe inadvertently slipped off and exposed her body. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu enters while a consecrated Ksatriya king has not yet withdrawn and the precious objects have not yet been put away, then upon crossing the threshold of the palace he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– A consecrated Ksatriya king: for the sprinkling water, water is taken from the great ocean; all kinds of seeds are gathered and placed inside the right horn of a white ox until it is full; it is then placed upon the king’s chariot, and the lesser kings are ordered to carry it. At that time, the great brahmins sprinkle the water upon the king’s head. This is the Ksatriya lineage. Because a king is installed in this manner, he is called a consecrated Ksatriya. If a person of the brahmin, vaisya, or sudra caste is installed in this manner, it is likewise called consecration.

– Has not yet withdrawn: the king has not yet departed, and the woman has not yet returned to her former place.

– The precious objects have not yet been put away: gold, silver, pearls, mother-of-pearl, agate, crystal, beryl, conch, and various kinds of precious necklaces and the like have not yet been put away.

– Enters; then upon crossing the threshold of the palace he commits a pacittiya offense: if one foot has stepped outside while one foot remains inside, and he forms the intention to proceed, in every case he commits a dukkata offense. Apart from the king, if one crosses the threshold of the residences of minor tributary kings,[69] eminent householders, or nobles, in every case one commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one has made a formal announcement, has been summoned, or enters because of danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life, in all such cases there is no offense.

82. Handling Precious Objects

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a non-Buddhist ascetic stopped to rest while traveling along the road. When he departed, he left behind one thousand measures of gold. The bhikkhus saw the bag of gold and took it with them, intending to return it to the person who had forgotten it. But when that person received the bag of gold back, he claimed that some was missing. The matter came to the king’s attention, and the king adjudicated the dispute. As a result, that person was reprimanded and punished, and all the gold was confiscated for the royal treasury. The bhikkhus reported this offense to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu personally handles a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or causes another person to handle it, it is a pacittiya offense. Except within a sangharama or at a place of temporary lodging, if he personally handles a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or causes another person to handle it, he should think: “If the owner recognizes it, he shall recover it.” This is permitted only under such circumstances and no others.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Precious objects: gold, silver, pearls, amber, mother-of-pearl, agate, beryl, conch, impure gold, and impure silver.

– Ornaments made of precious materials: copper, iron, lead, tin, and pewter fashioned into ornaments using precious materials.

– Personally handles, or causes another person to handle; except within a sangharama: at that time, Mother Visakha removed her precious robe and went to the Blessed One’s dwelling to hear the Dharma. Because she remained absorbed in the Dharma, she departed without remembering the precious robe. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha permitted them to put it away to prevent its loss. Later, some bhikkhus who were traveling spent the night in a silversmith’s house. At that time, near where the bhikkhus slept, there was much gold, both finished and unfinished. The bhikkhus therefore remained awake all night guarding it and did not dare to sleep. The bhikkhus reported the matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha said: “To prevent its loss, I permit you to take it and put it away.”

– Pacittiya: a bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Except within a sangharama or at a place of temporary lodging, if he personally handles a precious object or an ornament made of precious materials, or causes another person to handle it, he should think: “If the owner recognizes it, he shall recover it”: if a precious object is found in either of these two places—within a sangharama or in a house—one should take charge of it and must know the characteristics of its container and the amount it contains. If someone comes to inquire about it and describes it correctly, it should be returned to that person. If the description is incorrect, one should say: “I have not seen it.” If one does not ascertain the appearance of the container or how it was tied, and does not examine whether it is square or round, new or old, in every case one commits a dukkata offense.

– This is permitted only under such circumstances and no others.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if it is within the sangharama, or at a lodging place; if one handles it or employs any of the means described above; if the articles are offerings used to adorn a monastery or stupa; or if, fearing their loss, one takes and stores them away—in all such cases there is no offense.

83. Entering a Village at an Improper Time

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the bhikkhu Bhaddananda entered a village at an improper time, played a board game with a layman, and won. Because he had lost, the layman became resentful and ridiculed him. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked him and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu enters a village at an improper time without informing another bhikkhu, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Improper time: The proper time is from the appearance of dawn until midday. The improper time is from after midday until before dawn appears on the following day.

– Entering a village settlement: There are four kinds of village settlements, as explained above.

– Without informing another bhikkhu: When there is business concerning the Sangha, a stupa, or a monastery, or when attending to the sick, the Buddha taught: “One should inform another bhikkhu.” If one lives alone in a separate room, one should inform the bhikkhu in the adjoining room.

– Pacittiya: Upon first stepping through the village gate, one commits a pacittiya offense. If one foot has entered through the village gate, if one makes preparations with the intention of entering, or if people arrange to enter together, each case entails a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if one is attending to business concerning the Sangha or a stupa; if one is attending to the sick; if one has informed another bhikkhu; if one is passing through the village while traveling; if there is a matter that must be reported; if one has been summoned; if one has been invited; or if there is danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life—in all such cases there is no offense.

84. The Precept Concerning an Oversized Bed

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the Venerable Kaludayin, anticipating that the Buddha would come by that road, placed a beautiful high bed in the middle of the road. When the Buddha arrived, the Venerable Kaludayin said: “Blessed One, please look at my seat and bed!” The Buddha said: “You should know that this is a foolish person whose heart is filled with evil.” Thereupon, the Buddha assembled the Sangha, rebuked him, and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu makes a corded bed or a wooden bed, its legs may be only eight fingerbreadths of the Tathagata in height, excluding the portion above the mortises into which the bed frame is fitted. If they exceed this, he commits a pacittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Making a corded bed or a wooden bed: There are five kinds, as explained above.

– Its legs may be only eight fingerbreadths of the Tathagata in height, excluding the portion above the mortises into which the bed frame is fitted. If they exceed this, he commits a pacittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off: Whether one makes it oneself or directs another to make it, if it is completed and exceeds the prescribed measurement, one commits a pacittiya offense. If one begins making it but does not complete it, or makes it for another, each case entails a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if the bed legs are made exactly eight fingerbreadths of the Buddha in height; if they are made shorter; if the bed is offered by another and one cuts the legs shorter before using it; or if one removes the bed legs—in all such cases there is no offense.

85. The Precept Concerning Cotton-Stuffed Cushions

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus made cotton-stuffed cushions. The laypeople ridiculed them for taking the lives of living beings and lacking loving-kindness. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu uses tula cotton to stuff a large cushion, a small cushion, a corded bed, or a wooden bed, and the stuffing is completed, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Tula cotton: This refers to the following kinds of flowers: white poplar-tree flowers, willow flowers, and cattail flowers.

– Stuffing a corded bed or a wooden bed: Each is of the five kinds described above.

– Large cushion and small cushion: articles used for sitting and lying down.

– If it is completed, a pacittiya offense: Whether one makes it oneself or directs another to make it, the cases are the same as explained above. A bhikkhuni commits the same offense as a bhikkhu.

– Cases in which there is no offense: These are all the same as those explained in the preceding precept.

86. The Precept Concerning Making a Needle Case from Bone, Tooth, or Horn

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rajagrha. At that time, there was a craftsman who had faith in the Buddha’s Dharma. Because he made needle cases from bone, tooth, and horn, he neglected his livelihood and consequently lacked sufficient food and clothing. Therefore, people ridiculed him, saying: “This man hoped to gain merit but instead met with misfortune.” The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu uses bone, tooth, or horn to make a needle case, boring and carving it, and completes it, he commits a pacittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Whether one makes it oneself or asks another to make it, if it is completed, one commits the offense described above. A bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: There is no offense if one makes a needle case from such materials as iron, copper, lead, tin, pewter, bamboo, wood, reeds, or saraka grass. Nor is there an offense if one makes a finial for the end of a staff; a parasol or a finial for the end of a measuring vessel; a binding around a parasol or measuring vessel; a hook; a scraper for removing dirt; a ruyi; a button ring, spoon, robe hook, container for eye medicine, comb, tongue scraper, toothpick, ear pick, meditation weight,[70] or nasal fumigation tube. If one makes any such implements, there is no offense.

87. The Precept Concerning an Oversized Nisidana[71]

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the country of Sravasti. According to the customary practice of all Buddhas, on any day when the Buddha did not receive an invitation to a meal, he would ordinarily visit all the dwelling places. One day, while making such a visit, he saw the Sangha’s bedding spread out in the open and soiled by impure matter.

Seeing this, the Buddha summoned the bhikkhus and taught them: “Even non-Buddhist renunciants and seers who have abandoned sensual desire do not behave in this way.” At the same time, the Buddha permitted them to make a nisidana in order to protect their robes and bedding. When the group of six bhikkhus heard that the Buddha had permitted nisidanas to be sewn, they immediately sewed exceedingly large ones. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha.

Thereupon, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If any bhikkhu makes a nisidana, it must be made according to the prescribed measurement. The prescribed measurement here is two spans of the Buddha in length and one and a half spans of the Buddha in width, with an additional half-span added along one side as a border. If it exceeds this, he commits a pacittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Nisidana: a mat spread out for sitting.

– It must be made according to the prescribed measurement. The prescribed measurement here is two spans of the Buddha in length and one and a half spans of the Buddha in width: At that time, the Venerable Kaludayin was large in stature, while his nisidana was small, so he went and reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha then permitted a larger nisidana to be sewn.

– With an additional half-span added along one side as a border. If it exceeds this, he commits a pacittiya offense, and the excess must be cut off: If the width does not exceed the measurement but the length does; if the width exceeds the measurement but the length does not; or if both exceed it—whether one makes it oneself or directs another to make it, if it is completed, one commits a pacittiya offense. If it is not completed, one commits a dukkata offense. If one makes it for another, whether completed or not, one commits a dukkata offense. A bhikkhuni commits a dukkata offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: if it is made smaller than the prescribed measurement; if it is made with multiple layers; if it was made and given by another person; or if one cuts away the excess—in all such cases there is no offense.

88. The Precept Concerning Sewing an Oversized Cloth for Covering Sores

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of Sravasti. At that time, a bhikkhu was suffering from boils, and blood and pus flowed from them, soiling the Sangha’s bedding. The Buddha permitted the use of fine cloth to cover the boils before putting on the nivāsana[72]. When going to the home of a layperson, he had to say, “I have boils.” He then had to pull the nivāsana over the boils before sitting down. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus made oversized cloths for covering boils. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu makes a cloth for covering boils, it must be made according to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are four handspans in length and two handspans in width, measured by the Buddha’s handspan. After it has been cut, if it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Cloth for covering boils: a kind of cloth used to cover the body when afflicted by various kinds of boils.

– It must be made according to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions are four handspans in length and two handspans in width, measured by the Buddha’s handspan. After it has been cut, if it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense: whether both its length and width exceed the prescribed dimensions, or its length does not exceed them but its width does, or vice versa, if one makes it oneself or has someone else make it, upon its completion one commits a pācittiya offense; if it is not completed, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. If one makes it for another, whether it is completed or not, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. A bhikkhuni and others commit a duṣkṛta offense.

– Cases in which there is no offense: making it according to the prescribed dimensions or smaller than the prescribed dimensions; receiving one already made; cutting it down to the prescribed dimensions; or folding and sewing it into several layers—in all such cases, there is no offense.

89. Precept Concerning an Oversized Rain-Bathing Cloth

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the city of Vaisali. At that time, Visakha Migaramata sent someone to offer rain-bathing cloths to the Sangha. The Buddha said, “They must not be divided up, but should be distributed according to seniority. If there are not enough, cloth belonging to the Sangha should be taken and distributed in order until everyone has received one.” At that time, when the group of six bhikkhus heard that the Buddha had permitted the making of rain-bathing cloths, they made extremely large ones. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu makes a rain-bathing cloth, it must be made according to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions, after it has been cut, are six handspans in length and two and a half handspans in width, measured by the Buddha’s handspan. If it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

– Rain-bathing cloth: a cloth worn for bathing when it rains.

– It must be made according to the prescribed dimensions. Here, the prescribed dimensions, after it has been cut, are six handspans in length and two and a half handspans in width, measured by the Buddha’s handspan. If it exceeds these dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense: whether one makes it oneself or has someone else make it; whether both its length and width exceed the prescribed dimensions; or its length exceeds the prescribed dimensions but its width does not, or vice versa. The offenses for a bhikkhuni and others, as well as the cases of exemption, are all the same as in the preceding precept.

90. Precept Concerning the Three Robes Exceeding the Prescribed Dimensions

a. Origin

At one time, the Buddha was in the country of the Sakyans. At that time, the bhikkhu Nanda was only four fingerbreadths shorter than the Buddha. When bhikkhus saw him from afar, they mistakenly thought he was the Buddha and rose to welcome him. Only when he came near did they realize that it was not the Buddha, and they all felt ashamed. Therefore, the Buddha prescribed, “From now on, Nanda must wear a black robe.” At that time, the group of six bhikkhus frequently made robes equal in size to or larger than the Buddha’s robe. The bhikkhus reported this fault to the Buddha. On that occasion, the Buddha rebuked them and established this precept.

b. Text of the Precept

If a bhikkhu makes a robe equal in size to the Tathagata’s robe or exceeding those dimensions, it is a pācittiya offense. Here, the dimensions of the Tathagata’s robe are ten handspans in length and six handspans in width, measured by the Buddha’s handspan. These are called the dimensions of the Tathagata’s robe.

c. Explanation

– Bhikkhu: as explained above.

If both the width and length equal the prescribed dimensions, or the width equals the prescribed dimensions but the length does not, or vice versa, each case constitutes an offense. Furthermore, whether one makes it oneself or has someone else make it, or a bhikkhuni makes it, the offenses are all as stated above.

– Cases in which there is no offense: receiving a robe already made by another person; cutting it down to the prescribed dimensions; or folding and sewing it into two layers—in all such cases, there is no offense.

Venerable Ones, I have recited the ninety pācittiya rules. I now ask the Venerable Ones: Are you pure in this regard? (Three times.) The Venerable Ones are pure in this regard, for they remain silent. Thus do I understand this matter.

Notes:

[62] The story of the ox 牯牛: after the group of six bhikkhus insulted a person who adjudicated a matter by comparing him to an animal species, the Buddha related the story of a contest between the ox of a brahmin and the ox of a householder to elucidate this matter.

[63] The story of the jackal 野干: the story of a jackal that caused discord between the lion Good Tusk and the tiger Good Broad. The Buddha recounted this story in the account of the origin preceding the establishment of this precept.

[64] The practice of eating at one sitting 一坐食 (S: Ekāsanika): eating only once each day and remaining seated in one place while eating. Once one has risen, one does not sit down to eat again. This is one of the twelve dhutanga practices. Since eating several times in a single day creates many impediments to cultivation, one who wishes to practice eats only one meal at midday.

[65] Ma-ma-de 摩摩帝 (S: Vihāra-svāmin): the person who oversees affairs within a monastery; that is, the monastery administrator.

[66] Bathing seat 浴牀: probably a small stool used for sitting while bathing.

[67] Eating separately from the assembly 別眾食: separating into a group of four or more bhikkhus to go for alms separately and eat separately.

[68] 是中。行住坐臥。各作句數。犯足如律: the account in this Annotated Text is extremely concise and very difficult to understand. We have consulted the extensive Vinaya, in which the Buddha said to the Venerable Upali: “There are five circumstances in which one is considered to have finished eating. What are the five?

Upali, a bhikkhu knows that he is walking, knows that the food is a meal, knows that it has been brought, knows that he has refused it, knows the posture, and knows that he has relinquished the posture. Knowing that he has finished eating, having relinquished the posture and without performing the procedure for leftover food, if he receives food and eats it, he commits one pācittiya offense with every mouthful.” Thus, the Buddha taught concerning each action, and it ought properly to be recorded in detail, as with the action of “walking.” However, because the carved text here is too concise, it is very difficult to understand what is intended.

[69] Minor kings scattered like millet grains 粟散小王: minor kings as numerous as scattered millet grains. Those below a Wheel-Turning King who rule a continent or a country are all called kings scattered like millet grains.

[70] Meditation-restraint device 禪鎮: a practice implement placed on the head during seated meditation to awaken one when drowsiness causes the head to nod.

[71] Nisidana 尼師壇: a sitting cloth.

[72] Nirvana-sangha 涅槃僧 (S: Nivāsana): a lower garment, one of the thirteen articles of clothing used by members of the Sangha.